Really like that this card is back. Thinking about slipping at least 2 into my Stark Decks.

Not sure about finding 2 slots for this, at the moment...

I'll probably add one, but I'm unsure about adding two since it is still very situational, unless Greyjoy is very popular in your local meta.

I don't understand those "I'll add 1 to my deck". What the hell would adding 1 card accomplish? With only 1 copy of a given card in your deck, chances are you're not even going to see it many games. Hell, there are games when Targ player cannot draw Daeneris with 3 copies of her in his deck, and you intend to put just 1 Frozen Solid into yours and expect something out of it? Good luck with that one, pal.

Well, you could argue that it gives your deck flexibility. If you won't include a card unless you put at least 2 copies in, then for a 60-card deck (which is optimal) you would only have a maximum of 30 different cards by title. As the card pool expands, it is going to get harder and harder to limit the number of different cards by title to under 30.

I think most players include singletons of a few cards in their decks, especially characters and attachments. Some examples would be: Bodyguard, Seal of the Hand, Widow's Wail, Littlefinger, The Tickler, Obara Sand, Ser Davos Seaworth, Selyse Baratheon, Shireen Baratheon, Paxter Redwyne, Ser Waymar Royce, and I'm sure there are plenty of others.

I never do that unlless two cases:

1. It's "Limit 1 per deck",

2. It's a non-essential unique with similar stats to other uniques and non-uniques within that price range. Example: The Tickler. He's 2 gold, 2 str, military and intrigue. Solid stat box, for the price, I couln't care less for his ability, but for now, until Red Cloaks arrive, for his solid stat's I'll be running 1 copy of him in every Lannister deck (no point in duping him, neither there is a point to rely on him, just a solid and cheap body if I draw him).

This kind of approach won't work with Frozen Solid. Frozen Solid is a direct counter to set amount of locations. You're either including consistent amount of it, or don't at all, if you want it to work. If you include 1 copy of it and face someone with a location you'd want to blank - chances are great that you won't be blanking that location simply because of the odds you'll never see that one Frozen Solid out of your 60 cards deck, as simple as that.

There is virtually no point in including those counter cards into your deck in quantity of 1. Why? It's a huge gamble. When you include 2-3 copies of Frozen Solid into your deck, your only gamble is "is my enemy going to play a location I could blank?"... and chances are - he will, because there are plenty useful non-limited locations within the price range of 3-. When you include only 1 copy of Frozen Solid, you add a second gamble "will I draw Frozen Solid in time or at all if my opponent actually uses blankable location?". 

If you're gambling type - go ahead, be my guest. I'll remain by my opinion.

So think of this scenario: my Stark deck runs 2x milk of the poppy, and I don't feel like I have room for another non-setup card. Is it not reasonable to cut one milk to include one of these? Or is the only reasonable approach to either replace both milks or none?

Also, you act like tutor effects don't exist. I run Building Orders. That will allow me to search for this, a milk, Ice, or maybe economy, depending what I need. Having 1x of this card is very different to running 0x when you have Building Orders in your plot deck.

You'll lose a lot of consistency for yourself if you'll include only 1 copy of stuff like milk or frozen. If you feel you need both of them, you either clear enough space, or decide what among them is more important for your well-being. Plus, another reason in favor of at least 2 copies of a given attachment - condition discarding stuff.

Tutor do exist, but two things: they take valuable plot deck space; they are still inconsistent with only 1 copy of needed attachment in your deck (that's like 25% chance the card you need will show up).

Long story short: the approach you are describing is "Jack of all trades, master of none" + a lot of luck involved.

It can be MVP in the current meta against those Harrenhal Lannister and Baratheon dominance decks. In the current meta Stark is one of the best banner house beacuse of this card.

Vulnerable to conf and cressen. Still sucks.

That's like saying every character without an int icon sucks because they are vulnerable to Tears. Craven and Milk are vulnerable to Confiscation and Cressen as well but everyone and their grandma plays them. At cost 3 and lower this can turn off Ghaston, Highgarden, The Red Keep and lots of other great locations. It's not an auto-include or particularly reliable but it also doesn't straight up suck. Not with the lack of decent location control so far.

That's like saying every character without an int icon sucks because they are vulnerable to Tears. Craven and Milk are vulnerable to Confiscation and Cressen as well but everyone and their grandma plays them. At cost 3 and lower this can turn off Ghaston, Highgarden, The Red Keep and lots of other great locations. It's not an auto-include or particularly reliable but it also doesn't straight up suck. Not with the lack of decent location control so far.

Needless to say that was hardly my grand dissertation on the myriad reasons that this is still a poor card, even with the increase in marauding locations. I stand by my statement.