Just because another game has restricted cards, doesn't mean that it isn't a symtpom. It absolutely IS unequivocally a symptom of cross faction given that the issue would not exist in the case mentioned in the thread if the restriction was in place. Whether you feel that it is tolerable enough is up for debate, but from a design point of view, it was a solution to cross faction deck construction. (in the terms of design and deck construction btw, "Pods" are essentially factions. There is a distinction between thematic faction and mechanical faction.)

You are completely wrong about what pods are in the context of Star Wars. A pod is a set including one objective and five command cards that go into their respective decks as a group, rather than by individual cards. They are not factions, nor are they anything like factions. Although there are as yet no pods that include multiple factions, almost all include neutral cards; some are purely neutral.

The two pods I'm referring to that were restricted in Star Wars were of the same affiliation (aka faction). In this case, it was Smugglers and Spies (a single faction). Others affiliations include Jedi, Rebel, Sith, Imperial Navy, and Scum and Villainy (the last, also a single faction). None of those are pods. They *have* pods, like factions in other games have cards.

At any rate, I said restricted lists (and various other post-release adjustments to card pool) weren't a symptom *particular* to cross-faction games, meaning that they occur in both cross-faction and mono-faction games. So seriously, give it a rest and let's not pollute the thread with a separate debate that is well-trod ground, and already has another thread dedicated to it.

That aside, I would argue that a restricted list *is* an incentive based solution, given that by making two or more cards mutually exclusive, you disincentivize each individually via an increased opportunity cost. The problem with avoiding any solution that involves altering card text or card pool is that they're either external to the game, such as social incentives or "story-based" incentives (neither of which will have much impact if a player is at an event solely to win), or card-based solutions take 6 months to a year to filter into the environment (considering design, playtest, print, shipping, etc.). Meanwhile, the tournament scene is being taken apart by the problem cards.

You'll need to explain what you mean by a pigovian tax in the context of a card game, because unless you're talking about raising entry fees or lowering prize support specifically for players who play cards judged to be damaging to the game environment, I'm not really sure what you mean.

I agree that I hope FFG takes their time to get it right.

I believe what Subodei is referring to with the term "mechanical faction" is the Star Wars game's assortment of mechanics that are meant to synergize well, which indeed does bleed across faction boundaries in some cases, and a large part of the LCG is figuring out where these exist. But that's all I'm going to say on the matter, as I feel these posts are getting a bit too lengthy for discussion on a game that isn't the board's topic.

Mechanically, groups of cards that come together and cannot be mixed and matched is similar to that of clans. The difference with Starwars is that it has a nested pod tier below factions. Again thematically no it isn't similar at all, but from a design and mechanical point of view it is a principle similar to that of clans, albeit more restrictive than l5r was.

EDIT: Couldn't be bothered with it.

Restrictions are not incentivised decisions at all..they are well, restrictive and deliberately lay out what can or cannot be played. Incentive solution is making things cheaper or more expensive depending on who plays them, kicker effects, things that in general make cards fit their desired theme better, but does not limit their play to that theme alone. Give the decision to the player as to what is most suitable. The psychology of restrictions in card games is a big thing, and something Rosewater goes through in his blogs if you are ever interested in looking at it.

With regards to piguovian, it relates to how to restrict the utility of items. EG. If you want to reduce number of people using disposable plastic bags every time they go shopping, you add a small cost to it. It is not exclusively down to consumer/market entry, although those are usually the examples given. It is incentive based encouragement/discouragement with the aim of changing behaviour, so instead of banning plastic bags, you just make people consider the cost of their use. A card example would be the 2 gold discount you used to get for in clan, or the 2 gold penalty you get.

I believe what Subodei is referring to with the term "mechanical faction" is the Star Wars game's assortment of mechanics that are meant to synergize well...

That's rendering the term into uselessness, and clearly not the context in which the term was used in the post to which he was responding. Regardless, no matter the term used, the pods in question that hit the restricted list were the same color/clan/affiliation/faction/outfit/pick your game's equivalent term. Even if both pods were restricted to their own faction (with the "Smugglers and Spies Only" restriction, aka Loyal), the problem would have existed regardless. This neatly rebuts the claim that such lists are a symptom particular to games that allow cross-faction play, as stated -- the same problem would exist if SW decks were forced to stay in affiliation, or severely penalized for doing otherwise.

Happy to discuss this further in the thread dedicated to discussing the mono/multifaction debate: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/189546-mechanical-advantages-of-privileging-monoclan/page-6

I believe what Subodei is referring to with the term "mechanical faction" is the Star Wars game's assortment of mechanics that are meant to synergize well...

That's rendering the term into uselessness,

How?

How come my comments are pollution...and yours legitimate? Twas yourself who brought it up restrictions in the discussion. You are quite dictatorial when it comes to what people can and cannot discuss in a thread, and it wouldn't be the first time you tell people what they can and cannot say. Not sure why you feel the need to do so.

I said "Let's not drag [the cross-faction argument] into this thread if we can possibly help it," complete with a rather friendly looking emoticon. As in "let us," including myself. But I'm unsurprised you read it as an attack or a dictatorial stance rather than an invitation to be polite to people who might be interested in this thread's original intent.

Apologies to everyone else.

Mechanically, groups of cards that come together and cannot be mixed and matched is similar to that of clans. The difference with Starwars is that it has a nested pod tier below factions. Again thematically no it isn't similar at all, but from a design and mechanical point of view it is a principle similar to that of clans, albeit more restrictive than l5r was.

For deckbuilding (and game balancing), Star Wars pods are more akin to single cards than anything else. A Star Wars decklist only mentions the affiliation and the objectives (making it very short), because nothing more is needed (since each pod is made of cards that always go together - though some cards, especially generic ones, appear in more than one pod). The equivalent to clans is affilations (Jedi, Rebel Alliance, Smugglers and Spies on the Light Side; Sith, Imperial Navy, Scum and Villainy on the Dark Side). In L5R, you can mix and match between clans, even though the game mechanics encourage you not to. In SW, you can take pods from different affiliations as well, provided they're from the same side (to make it clear, both sides have different-colored card backs). And you get to not play every single card in the clan.

In my opinion, 2017 is the better call. Yes, there's a serious risk of losing momentum with the playerbase, but I think that FFG can honestly bank on a certain rabid loyalty of the fan-base, and an assumption (hopefully accurately) that the LCG product to come will be built with the care expected of a top-flight product. I believe that taking an additional year is actually a very wise choice by the brand. It means that they're taking the necessary time to really work on this and put it together properly, rather than slapping it together on a lick and a prayer and hoping people follow along.

Were it 2018, I might say something about "It shouldn't take that long," but I think 2017 is a perfectly valid length of time for a project of this scale.

Announced Sept 2015

Released August 2017

So 23 months.

- Minus approx 6 months for printing and shipping leaving

- 17 months for:

- complete redevelopment of the game from the ground up,

- bringing together design and development teams from across the company that has tons of other lcgs and product lines,

- ironing out any kinks in the acquisition of the IP,

- presumably getting all the new art and graphic design sorted

- a period of playtesting and redevelopment

Makes sense to me

Begone Necromancer!

Also in edition to what I said ^^^

FFG want to create a lead time of around at least 6 months - so that they are designing products way in advance. So they'll be working on the whole first cycle too.

Whole cycle and some ideas of what next after that.

I'm quite happy if FFG is actually playtesting the whole of the first cycle before the release. This would probably mean that with only the Core Set everything will not be balanced (there will always be a few faction above the rest), but that by the end of the first cycle, the environment should be in pretty good shape.

Seeing how FFG is dealing with AGoT and its 8 factions, I have good hopes for L5R with as many or less factions, as the game could do with as few as 6 factions.

L5R CCG started with 6 factions, and by the time of Jade Editions had gone up to 12...

Let's just hope the L5R LCG doesn't go that far.

I'm quite happy if FFG is actually playtesting the whole of the first cycle before the release.

In my experience playtesting for them this has been the norm. That isn't to say it will continue or not with L5R but we did it with Conquest. I was playing Tyranids when the core came out.

I'm quite happy if FFG is actually playtesting the whole of the first cycle before the release.

In my experience playtesting for them this has been the norm. That isn't to say it will continue or not with L5R but we did it with Conquest. I was playing Tyranids when the core came out.

Not every company does this. We're still playtesting the Ashes box due to be released around Halloween .

But yeah, I here that FFG is usually about a year, year and a half ahead. I beleive Lotr is two cycles ahead.

I won't be surprised if they just use tweaked unreleased base Onyx cards. It just could save them a lot of designing time. AN:R proved they reprinted many CCG cards under different names and with slight modifications becasue of mechanical changes.

I won't be surprised if they just use tweaked unreleased base Onyx cards. It just could save them a lot of designing time. AN:R proved they reprinted many CCG cards under different names and with slight modifications becasue of mechanical changes.

That might explain the apparent clamp down on all the Onyx related material and why we still aren't allowed to see it.

I won't be surprised if they just use tweaked unreleased base Onyx cards. It just could save them a lot of designing time. AN:R proved they reprinted many CCG cards under different names and with slight modifications becasue of mechanical changes.

That might explain the apparent clamp down on all the Onyx related material and why we still aren't allowed to see it.

I think this is a decent shout tbh.

One other possibility is that they wouldn't want to show people what they decided not to give them, if that makes sense.

I'm quite happy if FFG is actually playtesting the whole of the first cycle before the release. This would probably mean that with only the Core Set everything will not be balanced (there will always be a few faction above the rest), but that by the end of the first cycle, the environment should be in pretty good shape.

Seeing how FFG is dealing with AGoT and its 8 factions, I have good hopes for L5R with as many or less factions, as the game could do with as few as 6 factions.

L5R CCG started with 6 factions, and by the time of Jade Editions had gone up to 12...

Let's just hope the L5R LCG doesn't go that far.

Six?

Hm...I suppose we could make do with just Crab, Crane, Dragon, Lion, Mantis, Phoenix, but I personally think it should be upped to seven so that those Unicorn don't complain too much.

I literally can't conceive of the game without Scorpion. Bias as much aside as I can. That said, I started in Emperor so I've only ever known 9.

I can see 8 but anything less than that and it starts to get unrecognizable for me. Again, not to say that the game will remain recognizable for me.

They could just have the packs cost $19.99 a month and put more cards in them, to support a full slate of factions.

Wonder would it be an option for ffg to split the starter box into 3 starters, buying all 3 gets you a full playset and have the clans split amongst them.

I could see a starter simply requiring a bit of cross-clan play. I mean, outside of personalities, how many cards were really single-clan, anyway? At least in 20F, each clan had a dedicated holding, a dedicated strategy (or at least, one that worked uniquely with each clan), and a dedicated suit of armor. A dedicated sensei or two also existed, but those probably wouldn't be in the base set. Apart from that, most cards were included more for theme rather than because of clan (though your clan choice may influence which theme you build).

As far as having reduced customization of decks, I think that's pretty much a given initially, if we only have the one starter. But I don't see a problem with limited options for pure decks (at first), with variety coming from splashing in personalities from other clans (hm...I wonder if these Akodo samurai can help give my Tsuruchi scouts a bit more muscle...). This could particularly work well if they changed the way the cross-clan penalty from being +2 gold cost to +2 honor requirement, or something like that. Of course, this all assumes the game mechanics remain largely the same. If those change, it's entirely possible other solutions could arise as well.