I'd like to start a topic on everything you think FFG should do different with the new edition. I'll start with a few obvious ones.

-Full play-sets of each cards in the base set, 3x if that stays the standard. Even if the base cost gets higher, I bet everyone will rather pay 99$ for a big box that allows for deck building right away instead of spending three times 40$ to do the same thing and getting stuck with 3 boards and 3 sets of redundant statuette.

-Black borders instead of white borders. Black borders just look better. I have a few cards from early 40 cards packs that are black bordered and I just think they look awesome. I assume FFG is going to revise the front art, it's best if it's easy to differentiate the editions. And going with black borders would be pretty sweet.

Core Set distribution has been debated to death. They won't give us a full play set. They've clearly settled on the $40 price point being the sweet spot for Core Sets, particularly as their market isn't just people who want a complete set. They're an appealing purchase for someone who wants to try the game. A lot of us are going to buy a complete set of Core Sets right out of the gate, but the big appeal of this reboot is that it's more new player friendly. And having the entry cost be $40 (and if you like it, buy another copy or two) is far more new player friendly.

As for borders, most of the recent LCGs have abandoned standard borders around every card. You look at cards in Star Wars and Netrunner and Conquest, and every faction has their own unique design, and different card types are laid out differently, and the art goes all the way to the edges. I imagine we'll see the same thing here.

the idea of the core set as it is right now is just fine for me.

but FFG could print a complementory set of cards for tournament players with their in-house manufactoring. that would be an awesome service.

I think in every LCG the Core Set discussion remains, but honestly I think we'll just see the same distribution as with other LCGs, which means we'll have to buy triple Cores to get playsets of all the cards. I really wish they would at least include two copies of each cards, I we can get playsets by just buying a second core set....

I am fine with them not having a full player pool in the base set. It isn't meant to be just for full collectors, but also those who want to play as a core set alone. However, I hope they avoid having millions of excess cards if you want a full play set. Either do almost exclusively 1 of a kind in each set (buy 3 sets for a full play set but not so much doubling of cards), or have no 1 only cards in the core set (so two purchases will be enough for a full play set, and nothing like Netrunner's third core set purchase only netting you 12 cards you didn't already have a full play set of).

As for mechanics, I'd love Nate to consider:

1. "Choose your own setup cards" (instead of random + an optional mulligan)

2. Draw phase = "Draw 2 OR Search 1"

3. some sort of "Reserve Deck" that future-proofs side deck ideas like Maester's Path and Black Sails. It could even work like shadows, where cards cost a fee to put into the reserve and can be brought out at the beginning of any phase for their printed cost. (Possibly even returned to the reserve for the fee at the end of the phase) If the reserve's function was universal, and could be used by any card, the shadows crest wouldn't ever have to return as a specific thing BUT we'd still have access to the interesting timing/trap setting nature it currently can provide. Heck, if stalwart cards always ended up there from play, stalwart could be interesting finally! (though I doubt Stalwart will return in 2nd Edition)

also: A built in 'POV Character' concept, which could be a default state for no-Agenda. (ala the hand of the king variant rules)

If we're talking theme, it's almost silly that having a POV character has never officially been part of the game…

the idea of the core set as it is right now is just fine for me.

but FFG could print a complementory set of cards for tournament players with their in-house manufactoring. that would be an awesome service.

They will never, ever, ever create a product whose sole purpose is to undermine sales of the Core product of a game line. They never have printed a "completion pack" for any LCG and they never will.

I wholly expect the Core Set will have some drawbacks. You want the Core Set to create a demand for future sales--the company has to keep selling product, the accusation of "cash grab" is kind of silly when we're talking about a for-profit company--so in a sense you would want your core set to feel tangibly incomplete. Good enough to play with, definitely fun, but just shy of being good enough to be a self-contained game. If people can feel content with one core set, then you are only costing yourself future sales.

They've said that the Core Set is going to have *six* factions worth of starting decks. Now, based on what Netrunner did and to a lesser extent Star Wars and (if memory serves) Conquest, those starting decks are going to be "Run this Alliance agenda, pick two factions and shuffle them together" and that will be your deck, and at least it will function, but probably won't be "good" by any stretch of the imagination. It probably also won't be a fully legal size, not if they're committed to keeping the $40 price point, which IIRC was one of the bullet points in the SOTU.

It probably also won't be a fully legal size, not if they're committed to keeping the $40 price point, which IIRC was one of the bullet points in the SOTU.

Why do you think it probably won't be a legal size? Conquest had 7 factions and you could create decks the same way (one faction + loyal of another faction + neutrals) and for all but one faction it was legal tournament size.

I had to think about that for a moment.

1) AGOT first edition Core Set decks weren't legal sized, and that was only four Houses, not six. I expect that they'll want Melee to be playable out of the core set box, which for six factions implies some severe constraints/compromises. So, perhaps we'll see two different deckbuilding sample lists--one full-sized for Joust, but maybe not full sized for Melee. It's entirely possible they may put 3-player Melee as the limit of their core set ambitions--which would be interesting considering how unbalanced 3-player Melee inherently is in first edition.

I certainly hope they take the lessons-learned from the first edition core set and don't expect the Melee decks to be played as Joust. They were horribly unbalanced, especially Stark being the only one with high claim and Valar. (There's no doubt they're aware that the AGOT core set stinks on ice..."not a good entry point for the game," as they've said, so I'm pretty confident they're going to try and live up to the good quality that recent LCGs have set the standard for)

2) Star Wars couldn't build legal decks out of one core set. Obviously that game's deckbuilding rules are wonky, so obviously that's a grain of salt.

With Conquest, could you create two full-sized decks? How were the Neutral cards distributed between the players?

also: A built in 'POV Character' concept, which could be a default state for no-Agenda. (ala the hand of the king variant rules)

If we're talking theme, it's almost silly that having a POV character has never officially been part of the game…

According to the product description page, each faction will have a starter deck in the core set. That means the core set will have 8 starter decks in it. Not sure if that means they will be tournament legal or not, but unless they change things further down the road, we will have 8 factions as options right away.

Maybe they will be reducing the minimum deck size for the 2ED? I find it interesting that the core set may have at least 480 cards in it for starter decks.

Or perhaps they will provide a chunk of neutral cards that are expected to be used in deck building with each house... but "starter deck" usually means the deck is playable out of the box.

Product Description page: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=277&esem=1

A starter deck for every faction is included in the Core Set. You can make your deck with cards from a single faction, but like A Song of Ice and Fire , your games of A Game of Thrones: The Card Game Second Edition are filled with alliances. Every deck has the option to use an agenda to call upon the support of another faction. If you call upon the support of a faction by using its agenda, you can include cards from that faction in your deck free of penalty. The exception to this rule is loyal cards. Loyal cards include characters unshakable in their devotion to their House, locations intrinsically tied to a faction, or events that represent tactics used only by a single faction. Loyal cards can never be included in another faction’s deck.

In LOTR lcg you could build non "tournament" size deck for each 4 spheres (about 30 cards with one Gandalf) when the official was 50 cards.

In Netrunner you could build one runner and one corporate deck (tournament legal, by using all the neutral cards) So you have to rotate those neutrals to one deck from another. (7 factions in there)

In Star Wars you get 7 objective sets to 4 factions and 2 objective sets to 2 factions (6 factions total) And one or two neutral sets... So you could build one dark and one light faction with 8 objectives (the tournament minimum is 10 sets) (But not for scums or Smuglers who only had two objective sets is core)

None of them had full sized deck to each faction, so not likely to see them in AGOT neither. It would require too many cards.

Most likely you can build small deck (not tournament legal) to each house like in LOTR or like in Netrunner by rotating neutral cards...

If it's anything like the current Conquest core, you will be able to make a full sized deck, but there won't be any customization available. With a single core set, a Space Marine deck allied with Astra Militarum can only be built one way: you take all the SM cards, all the non-loyal AM cards, and add in a set of neutrals (you could double up on neutrals, but that's the only customization you have).

So it might be similar in this core set. A mono House deck maybe won't really be doable with just one core set, and they could import the loyal thing from Conquest (which we already have really, with House X Only). With one core, you can make a full-sized Stark deck allied with Bara, but customizing that deck will require a second and third core set.

Speaking of Conquest, I wonder how big alliances will be in 2E. I know that they want to make using OOH cards less cumbersome in 2E, but I also kind of like the generally fairly mono environment of 1E AGOT. I like that in most cases, OOH cards are rare. Even if alliances are a bigger part of 2E, I hope they find some balance to make mono decks viable (unlike Conquest, at least for now, where a mono deck could almost always be improved by splashing in from one of the allies). It could be done through agendas; if I understood the description correctly, it sounds like alliances take the place of your agenda, so there could be house specific agendas that make up for losing out on the versatility of some splashed OOH cards.

I just received the first edition as a gift and then found out that 2nd ed was coming, at first I thought that's typical but then again it will be good as I'm brand new to the game.

Also FFG have all those years of issues from the first game and will hopefully make it better, the 2nd ed will have issues as with every game but with new artwork and a revision I can't wait for this.

I had to think about that for a moment.

1) AGOT first edition Core Set decks weren't legal sized, and that was only four Houses, not six. I expect that they'll want Melee to be playable out of the core set box, which for six factions implies some severe constraints/compromises. So, perhaps we'll see two different deckbuilding sample lists--one full-sized for Joust, but maybe not full sized for Melee. It's entirely possible they may put 3-player Melee as the limit of their core set ambitions--which would be interesting considering how unbalanced 3-player Melee inherently is in first edition.

I certainly hope they take the lessons-learned from the first edition core set and don't expect the Melee decks to be played as Joust. They were horribly unbalanced, especially Stark being the only one with high claim and Valar. (There's no doubt they're aware that the AGOT core set stinks on ice..."not a good entry point for the game," as they've said, so I'm pretty confident they're going to try and live up to the good quality that recent LCGs have set the standard for)

2) Star Wars couldn't build legal decks out of one core set. Obviously that game's deckbuilding rules are wonky, so obviously that's a grain of salt.

With Conquest, could you create two full-sized decks? How were the Neutral cards distributed between the players?

1) I wouldn't expect to have each faction with a full sized deck mono faction, I was trying to say it is a possibility that it will be a legal sized deck with the treaty mechanics. I'm not even going to try and claim that it will be a halfway decent deck. So, I would expect it to be this way for Joust only.

2)You could build a legal deck with only one core set of Star Wars. You don't even technically have to pull in a second faction to do it, though you could if you wanted to.

As for Conquest, you can build two full-sized decks. You put one copy of each neutral card in each deck and combine all of the cards of one faction and all loyal cards of another faction. The only time this won't work is if you ally for AM since they for some reason only have 14 non-loyal cards (though chaos has 16 non-loyal cards).

I find it interesting that the core set may have at least 480 cards in it for starter decks.

On the product page it says the contents of the box can be sleeved using 5 packs of sleeves. That's 250 cards max, or ~30 per faction, including plots. That is nowhere near tournament legal deck size. The only way I can remotely see this work is if they have four slash decks at almost tournament size.

Well they might also lower the size of decks. 50 cards seems to be pretty standard for most of the LCGs, we might see that be the new magic number.

If there are 28 plots in the Core Set (the number in the current Core, who knows what it'll actually be), plus 8 House Cards and however many Treaty agendas (maybe 8 too, one for each House), that's 44 cards right there. That really only leaves about 25 cards per House. If Treaty agendas allow you to use anything at all from the other House, then bam, 50 card decks. Not ideal, but enough to make 4 legal decks for a melee.

Of course, the 5 pack of sleeves number might not be the final number.

Looks as if buying at least two core sets on release day would not only be a wise decision, but one fully targeted at by FFG.

Of course, the 5 pack of sleeves number might not be the final number.

AGoT 1ed has 220.

A:NR has 252.

LOTR has 226.

SW has 240.

CoC has 165.

WH40k:C has "over two hundred" (why wouldn't they give the exact number!?).

WH:I had 220.

Looks as if buying at least two core sets on release day would not only be a wise decision, but one fully targeted at by FFG.

I will sure as hell have three Core Sets in my hands at the earliest possibile time.

Well they might also lower the size of decks. 50 cards seems to be pretty standard for most of the LCGs, we might see that be the new magic number.

If there are 28 plots in the Core Set (the number in the current Core, who knows what it'll actually be), plus 8 House Cards and however many Treaty agendas (maybe 8 too, one for each House), that's 44 cards right there. That really only leaves about 25 cards per House. If Treaty agendas allow you to use anything at all from the other House, then bam, 50 card decks. Not ideal, but enough to make 4 legal decks for a melee.

Of course, the 5 pack of sleeves number might not be the final number.

I'd be willing to bet that the size of the Core Set is probably pretty well set. The math you just did is the kind of thing you'd do early on in requirements phase of the project.

If you're right, though, it means we won't see the "Loyal" keyword until the first pack cycle.

I think they pretty much have to reduce the minimum deck size to make these numbers work out. I have every confidence in them dropping to 50 like the other LCGs (minus NR going even lower) as this frees up a lot of constraints in production of a fully functional Core Set as well as allowing players to sleeve their draw deck with a single purchase of sleeves (generally sold in 50s).

50 is also nice in that, assuming one sleeves his deck and plots in different colors, you get to avoid the "hot dog bun conspiracy" where you have to buy two packs of the same sleeves because the game requires a 60-card deck, and packs come in sets of 50, 80, or 100, but never 60 unless you import fancy anime-themed sleeves from Japan.

50 is also nice in that, assuming one sleeves his deck and plots in different colors, you get to avoid the "hot dog bun conspiracy" where you have to buy two packs of the same sleeves because the game requires a 60-card deck, and packs come in sets of 50, 80, or 100, but never 60 unless you import fancy anime-themed sleeves from Japan.

Those nefarious hot dog buns!

I think they pretty much have to reduce the minimum deck size to make these numbers work out. I have every confidence in them dropping to 50 like the other LCGs (minus NR going even lower) as this frees up a lot of constraints in production of a fully functional Core Set as well as allowing players to sleeve their draw deck with a single purchase of sleeves (generally sold in 50s).

I'm very much against reducing the deck size for tournament decks. If anything, I'd be for *increasing* it. I'd like to see more variance, both in deckbuilding and in game play.

With a smaller tournament deck size, the number of cards that will see actual play will be even smaller, and the number of those never leaving the binder will be even bigger. The effect that we'll see ever the same decks and can reliably predict the vast majority of cards in them will be more pronounced.

In game play, smaller decks will have a bigger focus on pattern execution. They will be more like well oiled machines. Games will be more one-sided and less swingy, and there will be more NPE.

In short, smaller decks will reward the better deck builder, bigger decks will reward the better player. Bigger decks are also more luck dependent, but I can live with that.

The bigger deck size is the reason why so many people say DWDW decks are so much fun.

Personally, I'd hate a min deck size of 50. I'd love a general 70 or 75 card min deck size, but that doesn't seem likely. If I can't get that, please leave it at 60.

If one CS doesn't provide enough cards for several tournament legal decks, that's not a problem. Never was much of an issue with the 1ed CS.