I've heard (on podcasts) a lot of people are saying this card is bad - why? If my gf gets it into play she will always beat me as this tends to ping for 2 most turns.

The card is not bad, what they were more likely saying is it's hard to consistently pull it off as it is a) expensive non-loyal (can't be reduced by Fealty)  c) it's hard not to lose any unopposed challenges.

That said when you have it out and balls are rolling it is a game winner. Veteran Builder lets you trigger it even if you lose an unopposed challenge, If somehow you can trigger Mormont's ability without it already in play you can put it in to play with him, and NW are getting more cards in this cycle that will make this card better (such as the NW plot, Will for stealth, and things that will make NW Fealty more viable which will make the +1 STR bonus of the Wall more useful)

It's because they view it as too conditional and too hard to oppose all three challenges, especially with Bara, Greyjoy and Targ, the three most dominant factions right now, have ways to get unopposed pretty easily; Bara can kneel a character if you ever have less than 2 icons of a certain type. Greyjoy can stealth around your characters and Targ can attack and Dracarys! your opposing character, making the attack unopposed.

Targ, Lannister and Tyrell also have ways of getting 4 challenges per turn (Drogo, Casterly Rock and Olenna's Informant, respectively), which can be challenged to oppose.

It is definitely not a top tier deck type due to all these limitations.

All that said: I still think it is way better than most people give it credit for. And at 2 power per turn, you don't need to proc it every single turn in order to win with it. 3 or 4 procs of it in a game is often more than enough to win a game, especially if you are maintaining board presence.

I am a big supporter of the Night's Watch and believe they are close to a tier 2 deck, but they aren't quite there yet.

The 65% that the Wall received in the CardgameDB.com core sets was ridiculous, however.

I've heard (on podcasts) a lot of people are saying this card is bad - why? If my gf gets it into play she will always beat me as this tends to ping for 2 most turns.

It's not that bad - the str boost is potent, the power a real force. Aside from We do Not Sow, it's also very safe once it hits the board. The catch is several fold - it's a huge tempo play to play it out - 4 gold that isn't going to a character that can win you challenges. Worse, the NW lacks any in-house reducers that can affect it, so you're invariably paying the full price for it. Lastly, cards like Balon can do a great job of kneeling it every turn, with little to no support.

The reason the podcasts pan it isn't because it can't win you games (it can) or is a force to be reckoned with (it is) - but because it's inefficient. I won't say it's too costly for what it does, but I do think it's borderline too costly for what the NW can afford. The same can be said for both Old Bear Mormont and Jon Snow.

It's worth keeping in mind that we (the podcasts) tend to be looking at the game from a 1st edition mentality. For us, cards like Greenblood Trader, Messenger Raven, and the Hound are the 'efficient' ones - the 5 star cards, while a high cost card has to really earn its keep. We may be just fossils, stuck in an old mentality, and someone will prove us wrong with a stellar NW deck!

can you sacrifice veteran builder at the end of the challenge phase to stand the wall and then kneel it to gain 2 power after you have lost an unopposed challenge or does it have to kneel again because of the forced reaction

can you sacrifice veteran builder at the end of the challenge phase to stand the wall and then kneel it to gain 2 power after you have lost an unopposed challenge or does it have to kneel again because of the forced reaction

The forced reaction only happens immediately after you lose the unopposed challenge. You could sacrifice a Veteran builder during an action window to stand the Wall, and (provided you don't lose another UO challenge), it'll stand standing and allow you to get your 2 power. 

I know it was somewhat covered along Tears of Lys timing. But i would like  to have an answer to key question.

Is the event Nightmares,the ultimate Wall protection mechanic?

I know it was somewhat covered along Tears of Lys timing. But i would like  to have an answer to key question.

Is the event Nightmares,the ultimate Wall protection mechanic?

Not a very specific question (protect your own wall? Protect you from losing to your opponent's?)

Nightmares' effect lasts until the end of the phase. The Wall interrupts the end of the phase, and, like all interrupts, precedes its triggering condition. That means that at the time you'd trigger The Wall's 2 power gain, it's still under the effect of Nightmares.

So while Nightmares will stop your wall from kneeling when you lose an UO, it'll also stop you from gaining your power.

Shame :/ that would be such a sweet combo.

Guess not every faction can be Lannisters or Martells (spilling INT icons everywhere) to have mechanics tricks at their disposal (I am lookong at you Tears).

Yeah, the Wall/Nightmares combo inspired me to build a Night's Watch deck. Then I looked deeper into the timing mechanics and realised that it wouldn't work. So I ALMOST had my first ever Night's Watch deck. I guess I'll have to wait until Thoren Smallwood and the upcoming choke location comes out to revisit the faction. But then again, Thoren isn't loyal, so we'll see.

This brings me to a conclussion either Tears or Wall are bad design decisions. If Tears can cheat "end of the phase" then Wall/Nightmares should also. Otherwise it should not be possible for both of effects.

Remember that slightly different wordings can mean different things. "When the phase ends", "Until the end of the phase", and "At the end of the phase" all have their own timing, as explained in the rulebook. Don't just assume they are the same.

Only because I know and understand the difference (plus influence on the meta) I can state it is bad design decision. 

The very idea of something happening in beetween phases is non-intiuitive and sign something went wrong at design phase.

Who acknowledged Eyrie knowing that most common kill effect would go around it. So whose fault it is designer of Eyrie or Tears? Because it clearly iis a mistake, not a desired effect. No matter what.

The very idea of something happening in beetween phases is non-intiuitive and sign something went wrong at design phase.

With that, I agree.

However, it has nothing to do with the timing of the above mentioned effects. Even if "At the end of the phase" delayed efefcts took place within the phase, they would still happen after "Until the end of the phase" lasting effects wore off, and after "When the phase ends" Interrupts could be triggered.

Who acknowledged Eyrie knowing that most common kill effect would go around it. So whose fault it is designer of Eyrie or Tears? Because it clearly iis a mistake, not a desired effect. No matter what.

You cannot know for sure that it was a mistake and not a desired effect. Perhaps the game designers actually wanted Tears to bypass most kill-protection effects (The Eyrie, Drowned God's Blessing, etc.), because it's a subtle poison.

The mistake was not explicitly informing the players about it in the rulebook or in official preview.

As you put it Tears seems like a Nedly card. However game is not only about Nedliness, it is also about balance and Tears messing lot's of cards is not a good sign. 

Hello,

In order to verify what I understand this card I will try to explain down below

If the person who is playing with Night's Watch didn't have at least an unopposed challenge in the Challenge Phase (so the card would trigger "Forced Reaction") after the Challenge Phase ends, he will be able to kneel the "The Wall" card in order to gain 2 Power Icons for his faction.

Am I right?

For me I think I can say that is somehow a powerful card.

Thanks!

BlackS0ull

Indeed, the player will gain 2 power Tokens* (on his faction card)

*Power Icons are the blue symbols on the characters.

Don't forget that even if he lost a unopposed challenge (and therefor had to kneel The Wall) he can still stand it with another effect to still claim 2 power tokes at the end of the challenges phase.

It is indeed a powerful card, even more so it's something that defines a deck.

 
It is indeed a powerful card, even more so it's something that defines a deck.