I was at my FLGS last night and was told by two people that there is a list of cards that are restricted to a single copy, as well as the algorithm for determining what can go in the deck, online. One even said it was posted by FFG. Does anyone know if any of this actually exists? I'm unable to find anyone even talking about it online. Is this a hidden secret of the interwebs?

One card I was told was told on the restricted list—only ever one in a deck—was Library Access. I could've sworn I'd seen one with two of those in it.

Resolution by Thread Contributors : As far as anyone else can tell, for the time being, there has been no release of the algorithm used to determine what may constitute a deck. You'll find a link below that allows you to search known decks for cards, but the sample size is very small in comparison with the possibilities. Things that may seem apparent at this sample size, are likely to be misunderstood, and shouldn't necessarily be taken for granted.

The following link provided by dperello in this thread is likely what they were referring to. It provides neither the algorithm used, nor a definitive list of cards that are limited to a single copy.

https://keyforge-compendium.com/decks

What are you even trying to say?

Are you asking if a deck with library access is restricted to one? I have not heard that. Is a deck with 2 illegal? No.

He knew your deck? Did you know his? If you didn't that is kind of scummy.

Just go here and explore a bit. You'll get statistical evidence of card limitations. I haven't read anything by FFG about card limits though.

https://keyforge-compendium.com/decks

I would'nt think you can restrict cards as your deck is set and removing cards is now not that deck

I’ve read on BGG that Bait and Switch is limited to one per deck. I tested that statement using the link on dperello’s post, and I couldn’t find any decks with 2 copies. Admittedly I’m prone to user error, so I could have searched incorrectly and there could be decks with more than one copy. I’d really hate to play against those if they exist...

My first post was unclear. Basically, I was asking if FFG has released a list of the restrictions on KF decks used by the deck creation algorithm. The claim was made that the algorithm itself had been posted.

I think dperello’s link must be what he was referring to. They don’t seem to have any with more than one Library access.

The tangent I was going on about was allowing 4 of a card. It seems like that provides too much consistency for such a small deck.

I have a deck with 4 dust pixies. Huehue

5 of a card exists, haven’t seen more than that

A quick search shows 9 decks with 6 Niffle Apes.

Where do you search for this kind of thing?

edit: nvm, see it now

No concrete information about the workings of the algorithm has been released beyond the most basic. We don't know for absolutely sure what restrictions it has particularly as we've still only seen a tiny sample of the potential decks (less than 0.00001%).

13 hours ago, debiant said:

My first post was unclear. Basically, I was asking if FFG has released a list of the restrictions on KF decks used by the deck creation algorithm. The claim was made that the algorithm itself had been posted.

I think dperello’s link must be what he was referring to. They don’t seem to have any with more than one Library access.

The tangent I was going on about was allowing 4 of a card. It seems like that provides too much consistency for such a small deck.

FFG has, as far as i found, not released a "Banned card list". Since each deck is unique there might never be single card bannings. It wouldnt make sense as one banned card will automatically ban a whole deck. They might "Ban" a deck by putting chains on it as a kind of handicap.

Your friends might be speculating too much about the way each decks gets constructed, as are a lot of questions/assumptions on these forums

I think it should be max of 3 of any one common, 2 of an uncommon, 1 of a rare. Or at least 3 of any particular card. The level of consistency obtained by having more than three of any given card, seems too much in such a small deck.

Maybe that’s just my own hang up though.

You trade flexibility for consistency though. Sure you have 6 Niffle apes with 2 queens, but that would not be an improvement when it likely costs a more flexible roster of creatures in Untamed, which has a strong flexible roster naturally.

12 hours ago, Lokekar said:

You trade flexibility for consistency though. Sure you have 6 Niffle apes with 2 queens, but that would not be an improvement when it likely costs a more flexible roster of creatures in Untamed, which has a strong flexible roster naturally.

The deck I ran into at FnKF had 4 Dust Pixies and at least 1 copy each of Nature's Call, Full Moon, Regrowth, and Witch of the Eye. It allowed him to generate 13+ amber in a turn (the rule of six kept him from doing further damage). He had excellent amber destruction and capture combos as well. Combined with Brobnar and Sanctum his board presence was strong enough to reap his way to victory without the Dust Pixies in case he had to play around certain steal/destroy amber cards. He faced decks with a strong Shadows and/or Dis presence and wiped the floor with them. It was a brutal deck. He also comes form a solid Mtg background, and has memorized each card. So, there's that. It was an extremely consistent deck.

It made me realize how important it is to carefully evaluate your opponents deck list ahead of time. Unfortunately, my deck and my experience were nowhere near strong enough to prevent him from destroying me, 3 Keys to 1.

In the future, I'd love to see a Dis card which enables you to name a specific creature, and destroy a number of copies of it in a player's deck (maybe with an amber cost or chain penalty). This wouldn't be damning to most decks, but could even up a deck with many copies (4+) of a strong amber generator or similarly powerful creature., Something like this for artifacts and actions would be great to see as well.

2 hours ago, debiant said:

In the future, I'd love to see a Dis card which enables you to name a specific creature, and destroy a number of copies of it in a player's deck (maybe with an amber cost or chain penalty). This wouldn't be damning to most decks, but could even up a deck with many copies (4+) of a strong amber generator or similarly powerful creature., Something like this for artifacts and actions would be great to see as well.

Something like this?

Soul Trap

Artifact - Dis - Item

Ongoing effect: Any creature that is the same name of the card under Soul Trap cannot be played by either player.

Play: Put an exhausted creature under Soul Trap.

Action: Destroy Soul Trap and discard the creature under it.

FFG is very tight-lipped about the algorithm, and have implied that it is not a fixed things but may be getting constant adjustment between waves of generated decks. So you won't hear much from them. I've heard them say at one point that theoretically you could have 12 of the same card. You would only be able to play/use 6 of them on a turn (rule of 6).

Statistically, we do see that some cards are restricted in some fashion. Library Access is pretty busted if you can play it twice, so restricted to 1-of. (Ways of playing it twice or more unfortunately do exist) Library of Babble on the other hand goes up to at least 5.

Niffle queen goes up to... 3? Wow. https://keyforge-compendium.com/decks/1b419037-b6eb-45be-b644-0a0f35b909fb

You can have 2 bear flutes. But is that good? It has it's uses, but 1 of those bear flutes could have been another bear.

Some people like to claim that card isn't able to be played more than once a turn, because it states that you can play one non-Logos Card. I believe this is an improper interpretation. If you reference a Brobnar card that tells you to ready and fight with one friendly creature .... surely that doesn't mean that is the only friendly creature that you can attack with "because it says one". The card does not say "only one" or "only one this turn". The one card allows one non-Logos. I believe that is replicated for each card play.

5 hours ago, KFMixer said:

Some people like to claim that card isn't able to be played more than once a turn, because it states that you can play one non-Logos Card. I believe this is an improper interpretation. If you reference a Brobnar card that tells you to ready and fight with one friendly creature .... surely that doesn't mean that is the only friendly creature that you can attack with "because it says one". The card does not say "only one" or "only one this turn". The one card allows one non-Logos. I believe that is replicated for each card play.

In the thread about this someone took a screen shot of a conversation with Brad Anderson that says it isn't limited to once per round.

21 hours ago, KFMixer said:

Some people like to claim that card isn't able to be played more than once a turn, because it states that you can play one non-Logos Card. I believe this is an improper interpretation. If you reference a Brobnar card that tells you to ready and fight with one friendly creature .... surely that doesn't mean that is the only friendly creature that you can attack with "because it says one". The card does not say "only one" or "only one this turn". The one card allows one non-Logos. I believe that is replicated for each card play.

That reference doesn't work because of the specific 'this turn' addendum in Phase Shift.

On 12/1/2018 at 7:41 PM, debiant said:

Resolution by Thread Contributors : As far as anyone else can tell, for the time being, there has been no release of the algorithm used to determine what may constitute a deck. You'll find a link below that allows you to search known decks for cards, but the sample size is very small in comparison with the possibilities. Things that may seem apparent at this sample size, are likely to be misunderstood, and shouldn't necessarily be taken for granted.

The following link provided by dperello in this thread is likely what they were referring to. It provides neither the algorithm used, nor a definitive list of cards that are limited to a single copy.

https://keyforge-compendium.com/decks

Maybe it isn't a large sample size compared to what is possible, but since it is pulling from the registered deck database and we are talking about mostly common cards, I don't think that is much of a limitation.

I believe every single card is limited to "this term", when it is an action card. I don't believe that terminology changes anything, because it doesn't say ONLY one this turn, just one this turn. The difference is the delineation that it's not one every turn, just one this turn for each version of phase shift. The wording that they use for this game is quite particular, and it can be interpreted multiple ways.

3 hours ago, KFMixer said:

I believe every single card is limited to "this term", when it is an action card. I don't believe that terminology changes anything, because it doesn't say ONLY one this turn, just one this turn. The difference is the delineation that it's not one every turn, just one this turn for each version of phase shift. The wording that they use for this game is quite particular, and it can be interpreted multiple ways.

I'm thinking of the ambiguity in your use of "particular" in this quote. I'm certain I understand what you mean, and I can't understand how any of these nitwits might interpret things differently…And, that's how we start a fight about a single word or phrase. Then, Mum comes along to quiet us all down, but not before the blood has run from our noses. We sit down with a cup of tea after we've washed up. And, just like the tea, many of us are left bitter because we've steeped too long. Mum is FFG for those who've transcended metaphor and only comprehend binary.

So, yeah…ambiguity. The phrasing of the printed text on many KeyForge cards is deplorable, but many people are quite sure their interpretation is correct. Card text and rule books are something a designer writes, developers fix, well-considered playtesters scrutinize, the development team corrects, serious minded, "blind" playtesters break, and developers fix again. I wouldn't want to be a hobby game developer for all the money in the world. It is also something publishers ought to be concerned about.

I'm not sure where things fell down here, but **** rolls down hill and usually stops once it hits something rather large, like FFG corporate headquarters.

4 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

Maybe it isn't a large sample size compared to what is possible, but since it is pulling from the registered deck database and we are talking about mostly common cards, I don't think that is much of a limitation.

I'll agree that it's possible the sample size has patterns, I'm just not sure anyone beyond the keepers of the algorithm know at this point what is possible. Even then, what is possible may change. Actually last I heard, Richard Garfield hadn't even calculated the possibilities of the algorithm he used, and he's a mathematician. I know the possibilities are limited in certain ways.. Is it without the realm of possibility that our sample size is meaningless, and that we've only begun to see the potential for decks that may or may not exist? I think it's improbable that any comparison of what our current statistics offer up as knowledge can't change tomorrow. It's not just a small sample size, it's a small sample size of what's currently in print, which could also change tomorrow.

It's also possible that the algorithm can cause changes over time. The four horsemen might initially all be in the same deck but overtime the fab four might fall in love or have creative differences and go the way of the Beatles. The Timetraveller's Future Self might find a new friend to keep him company. "Timetraveller? I do't know anyone named Timetraveller, I'm just here to shuffle your discard pile into your deck." With maths infinite things are possible, no matter how improbable.

TL;DR Assuming an overarching pattern is almost certain to make us wrong. But, for the moment, it's practical. That's cool. it's how all forms of learning have evolved. But if we believe in the absolute truth of patterns like these, we might be on the road to seeing Richard Garfield's face in our grilled cheese sandwiches.

I’d be interested to hear your opinions on horseman if war. Does he indeed force all creatures including active house to only fight?

16 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

I’d be interested to hear your opinions on horseman if war. Does he indeed force all creatures including active house to only fight?

No, he'd be like Ringo, the backbone of the band, but utterly useless on his own. J/k I love you Ringo. It wouldn't be the only utterly useless card—rare or otherwise—to be found in a deck.