I don't really get why people keep jamming this in their decks, I think you need an explicit benefit of winning dominance to justify it otherwise it just ends up being a sub-par card you don't want to commit gold to that takes up a slot in your hand. Thoughts?

I think in control decks this card might have a slot because it increases the number of cards you can have in hand (which control decks like) and it lets you get power without having to win challenges (which control decks like). That being said I think there are very few actually viable control decks at this point in time.

You are looking at it from wrong angle. Do not think what it can do for you, think what it does against your opponent. Nullifying Damphair or Painted table - this is the real purpose of having it

Yes, which to me means it's more of a meta call. Probably only 1 in 10-20 games I wish I had the Iron Throne to try to nullify the Painted Table or Damphair. To me this isn't enough to warrant a space in my deck. I agree with the OP that, at this stage, it is only worth putting in your deck if you have some kind of synergy with it. In time though, there will likely be more effects that trigger from winning dominance, so more and more decks will include it.

It's not a meta call at all, it's an outrageously good card in every deck.
Nearly every time you win dominance instead of your opponent, that's a change of 2 power, +1 for you and -1 your opponent didn't gain by having it go to him/her.
If this happens just twice because of the +8 from Iron Throne, it has already paid 2g off in ANY deck.

If you are keeping even the bare minimum unreliable 1 gold back to try and win dominance, then in just 2 turns doing that you've already wasted the equivalent of an iron throne that can win 7+ dominances in a row.

If you're leaving any characters unused to win dominance, then you're handicapping your own combats and having a throne down would have done the job better and cheaper.

If you could make a 60 card deck with 50 sources of renown, iron throne wouldn't be amazing.
You can't do anything like that, so a cheap source of constant power that costs 1 single card is mind-blowingly efficient.

I've never once had a non-greyjoy opponent cheer when I play iron throne. Against anyone but greyjoy "Boo, he's getting an extra unstoppable source of renown every turn that I can't put to the sword or tears of lys or dracarys!"

I'm hoping the people ridiculously thinking it's a bad card are just new and haven't actually played a handful of matches with it.

I guess I'm wrong then.

I gotta agree with Chem on this one. It's definitely a solid card but it isn't for every deck. Firstly, neutral slots are very tight in fealty at the moment. With 6 slots being taken up by resources nine cards is not a lot when you want kill effects, characters, milk, etc. Secondly, although your right it will very often win you dominance it is also generally possible to win dominance without it by carefully planning your challenges if that is something that you feel like you need to do. While it's true that the swing of power can be very beneficial, if you're top-decking mid to late game (as many decks are at this point in the game) drawing the iron throne instead of a character can definitely kill your buzz. Sure its gonna get you a power every turn but its not going to do anything to protect your big character from dying to military claim. 

Is it a good card? Absolutely. But it is far from an auto include in every deck. It's one of those cards that I will always grab for certain decks (control ones like I mentioned) and will keep handy for others so that if I get to the end of my deck building and I have 58 cards in my deck I can say "Yeah why not, Iron throne would be solid". 

@Vanzig - What about those games where you want your opponent to win dominance so that they have a power for you to steal in the following challenges phase (or Marshaling phase with Vanguard Lancer)?  The Iron Throne could actually hurt your game.

Probably not a huge amount, but if that was the way that game was going, I really wouldn't want to draw The Iron Throne.  It's a great card, but it's definitely not for every deck.  Most games, I would rather throw in another Milk of The Poppy.

Lancer does not steal it discards power. 

I miss the point where loosing Dominance is a good thing. No matter what. Even when you have 13P on Renown character and one on Faction card and your opponent all it has to do is to win one POW. You take Calm Over Westeros then and finish the game in your turn.

You don't want your opponent winning dominance, period.
You cannot win the game by staying at 0 power. The game is a sprint towards 15 when played correctly. You're going to be gaining power for the enemy to be stolen even if you don't win dominance, unless you simply join the race and sit at the starting line watching opponent zip off to 15 - at which point you lost nothing at all if you'd gone the throne route. Throne doesn't give any power on turn 1 challenge phase to be stolen, so unless you go through turn 2 challenges with 0 power, there's none of your scenario.
At most, in weird theorycrafted scenarios of it being a drawback, it gave opponent 1 stolen power one time. But over the next 8 turns it prevented the opponent getting 8 power more in dominance and instead gave you that 8 power. But no... somehow the 1 power stolen was a big deal? That early 1 power didn't affect the board state (it's not a kill or a discard.)

You can't call winning dominance every turn, which is beneficial basically every single battle, a "niche meta" card then describe the only situation where for one single turn it's not good, but for the other 10 turns of the game it'd have been greatly beneficial towards giving a win. (And these niche power-is-bad scenarios pretend you're running a deck which isn't getting any unopposed challenges in any icons... while also not having enough characters to simply defend a pow challenge.)
Not to mention, if opponent over-commits on POW on early (the only time this additional steal is relevant) then they're likely exerting less of their resources on military or intrigue to be able to do it, the challenges that are far more influential in early game towards winning. Let them steal 1 pow as you kill an additional character that requires an extra card draw and extra gold to replace, whereas with them never winning any dominances because of throne, you're in very much less danger of them sprinting to 15 with +1 extra power gained every turn through dom.

I've never seen a deck that wasn't improved by having x1 Iron Throne in it. By itself, 1 copy of it arriving is never a dead draw, whereas dupes of it are dead draws if opponent has zero location destruction in their deck, hence including a 2nd or 3rd copy is actually very dependent on a specific type of deck (like a heavy Chamber of Painted Table or Damphair deck, both winning when they can dominate dominance)

I meant discard.  Paying 2 gold for a 1 str card that does nothing else is expensive, so you'd want to take advantage of it's ability, which, if your deck is winning the challenges, the only option is to let your opponent win dominance.  it was a silly example, but it was just making a point.

Even without my flawed example, if I'm on top of the game, then I don't mind my opponent winning dominance so that they have power for me to steal.  

One power a turn will not win them the game if I get to keep it instead of them.

I could run the Iron Throne to guarantee I get that power myself straight away, or I could include a card like Milk of the Poppy in it's place (especially in Fealty given the limit on neutrals) that can affect an opponents power character and ensure I win the challenges I need to (and therefore steal the power they got for dominance).  

I'm almost always happy to see Milk of the Poppy.  The Iron Throne I can take or leave, even in a Bara deck that likes dominance.

That's a pure fallacy. I run 3x Milk in every deck even with x1 Throne, why? Because milk is amazing.

You have 12 other neutrals at least that are less good than milk and that you aren't always happy to see every single game.

It is no more of a fallacy than the assumption that The Iron Throne is a must include in every deck.  It's good, but in most games is completely unnecessary.

 The game is a sprint towards 15 when played correctly. 

I think a more apt analogy is that the game is a race to 15 power. Every deck goes about that race differently. Rush do decks do indeed attempt to sprint to 15, some decks choose to take the starting gun from the race official and shoot their opponent in the head allowing them to casually walk to the 15 power goal. Other decks cripple their opponent so that they can then have a casual jog. Decks that need to close fast, need a non-character method to close, or have other benefits to winning dominance should probably run the Iron throne (unless they are fealty and can't find the neutral slot). Other decks that don't need it but could benefit from it should definitely consider it but if their are better cards, not having it is usually not a travesty.

@Vanzig - What about those games where you want your opponent to win dominance so that they have a power for you to steal in the following challenges phase

Then you let them go unopposed on a challenge you were going to lose anyway. Far more reliable than purposely trying to throw dominance in favor of your opponent, anyway.

If you're leaving any characters unused to win dominance, then you're handicapping your own combats and having a throne down would have done the job better and cheaper.

The flip side of that argument, and part of the meta argument against, is that if you have The Iron Throne out and I'm not going to win Dominance with anything less that 9 standing STR, I'm not going to be holding back during challenges, where I might have before in the hopes of winning dominance. You might end up losing more challenges depending on the character mix because I have no reason not to kneel everything I have during challenges.

It is not a sub-par card, but it is not an auto-include, either. I think its inclusion depends more on your deck, strategy and play style than it does on "meta call," though. It's a strategic choice for you, but its impact on your opponent will be almost entirely tactical.

Yeah, the "meta call" I just meant if you play against a lot of Greyjoy and/or Table & Chair combos.

Something that is worth noting is that let say a Greyjoy deck that runs two Iron Thrones, can both use it for Damphair and for reserve, if you have two Iron Thrones in your deck a card such as A Feast for Crows or basicly any other 4 reserve plot becomes less harmful especially when combined with the fact that Feast and the Iron Throne combo quite nicely.

Why would running 2 Iron Thrones be much more of a help than 1?

I suppose it could help draw the card or protect from We Do Not Sow and Put to the Torch, but if that's purpose, why not 3 copies?

Yeah, i generally look at it like this: 2 copies if I want to see the card but it's not crucial to my success, 3 copies if it's a killer card I can use more for each copy (e.g. Ghaston Grey) or if it's just such a crucial card to the deck (e.g. Tyrion, Dany).

I know that x3 of cards is required a bit more at the moment with a small card pool, but I think that often x2 is much more efficient for uniques because going from 1 to 2 copies you are doubling your chances of drawing the card, whereas going from 2 to 3 copies you are only increasing the odds by 50%. And once there are more deck search effects available, x3 will be even more redundant unless you are wanting the dupes for protecting a key card.

A question regarding this card came up in an OCTGN game I was playing. Does kneeling this card cancel the dominance effect? It doesn't mention kneeling or standing on the text, so I assume not, but would like a definitive answer.

No. Kneeling the Iron Throne has no impact on its effect. If it did the text would say something like "Kneel the Iron Throne to have it contribute 8 str towards dominance" or "While the Iron Throne is standing, it counts 8 str towards dominance".

Having bought this game and hoping myself and my GF would be able to buy into it, we played last night with the decks in the box and now she officially hates the game.  I was Bara/Nights watch and had this plus the wall. Netting me at least 3 power a turn and few ways for her to win.  She now refuses to play and says the game is unbalanced. Sad times. 

However, it did get me thinking.  How is this beatable?  I'm very new to this game and don't know ways around it. It seems almightily strong if you want to actually do some counter attacking. Plus, the chars in baratheon/nights watch seem very powerful also.  

I realise this is technically a 'non legal' deck, but for casual play this sort of ruined it for her.  She'll still play netrunner though so i guess it's not all a loss.