Hello there,

A long while ago I bulk buyed the aGoT *CCG* cards and I've recently started playing again and want to actually catalogue them using 9 pocket pages. I'm having a hard time to figure out what the best order to put them in. I could order them such as all house Stark cards together in the order of card type (e.g. Character/Action/Location) or by expension ( Westeros/Sea of Storms/..). The former is better for finding a card I might want to use, the latter seems better for seeing what cards from what expansion I have...

Further - I've been using agot.gotdns.com to find the order of cards but I can't figure out what the order it uses is and some expansions seem to either be missing or consolidated under a single name. For example, it puts "Taken Hostage" as first card in Westeros edition, but the card says L24 (whatever that means, I couldn't find what the letters on cards stand for) and it's not first Alphabetically either, so I'm stumped.

It seems like trying to sort them by more than house/card type is beyond painstaking. I'd love to hear how other people sort their cards.

I can see your problem!

I currently have every card in the LCG version cataloged. Just like with mine, I would suggest arranging them by set (expansion), and by number in that set. It may take more time, but when your going back through and seeing all that hard work you've done, you will appreciate it that much more. And like you said, it would make it easier for finding a card you are looking for. Another use of doing it this way, is simply flipping through page by page and seeing cards you want to put in a deck. Normally if I'm not with my laptop, I get a piece of paper and just flip through my binder, writing down what cards I would want to use. It keeps my binder organized, and I know I've gone through all the cards available to me.

The L#, (if it is the same in the LCG format), is stating that it is a Lannister card, and what number it was from that set. L for Lannister, S for Stark, B for Baratheon, etc. etc. There should be an icon on the card in one of the corners, or the middle right of the card, that will show what set it was from. The only part I couldn't help with is knowing what set they are. Since I didn't play in CCG days and don't know of any CCG libraries that are full and show every card, that would be more of your preference.

Hopefully someone who did play in the CCG days can post more info to help with the sorting of sets.

Hope this helps!

The letters don't appear to denote house. I briefly looked at Stark cards and some were labeled with S, but some with U. Likewise, I have 3 cards here that go in ascending order and (according to agot.gotdns.com are from Westeros set), they are: "Hedge Wizard" C10, "House Maester" C11 and "Lyseni Pirates" U12. Very confusing.

I don't think that with the CCG cards that would make sense. If I sorted purely based on set and number, I'd end up with the cards changing a lot (e.g. Stark character, Stark character, Stark location, neutral character, Baratheon character, Stark attachment). I have bugger all experience with CCGs, but that sounds extremely confusing to me.

What seems more sensible is all Stark characters, then attachments, events, locations, plot. Possibly also in ascending gold cost.

(I'm not trying to ignore the advice, I'm just not really seeing benefits other than knowing the collection is complete by sorting in complete order of release)

you have cards from a priemum starter in which they were labeled like the core set cards with the house letter in front of the number. These are not the nrom for CCG era cards.

The norm is to have the letter be the rarity and is either C (common), U (uncommon), or R (Rare).

How I would sort the cards is by house and then by character, location, attachment, event. I'd sort those catagories by unique and non-unique and then again by cost. If you try to sort by number you might not have things in as nice of an order.

I think, my preference lays with how you sort your cards, Lars. Even though I would have probably used Husemann's approach if I was going to try and collect the cards I don't have for a full collection. Thank you both for the input, it made me make a decision more quickly.

Lars, is there any particular reason that you sort it in the order of location, attachment, event? For some reason my instinctive approach is to put locations last and I'm wondering if your order is to do with how people go about constructing decks?

This is how I sort my binders:

Binder #1 = All house specific cards (except events)

1. By house, in alphabetical order

2. By type - Characters, locations and then attachments

3. By set/pack in order of release and then card #

Binder #2 = Neutrals, Mixed House Cards & Events

1. Mixed House Characters

2. Mixed House Locations

3. Neutral Characters

4. Neutral Locations

5. Neutral Attachments

6. Events

Binder #3 - Agendas and Plots, again in set order then card #

All events are in set and card # order. I don't separate out house specific events because it's just a pain to have my events in two different places.

The nice thing about this system is that when I get a new pack or deluxe expansion I can just add the new cards to the end of whatever section they belong in. There's no need to re-order my cards when I buy new ones, but it's still very easy to find a specific card I or to browse through at all of my Bara characters, Targ attachments, etc.

Lars said:

I later realized this when it finally clicked for me that it was CCG era cards. I've been playing only this LCG so long, I've almost forgot what a "rare" card was.

Furious5k said:

I just use them more often then attachemnts and more so then inhouse events (mostly...might change depending on the goal of the deck). Also, most of the income locations I am going ot use no matter the deck, while some of the event or attachments are deck specific.

Husemann said:

Yeah, they changed the way they labeled/numbered the cards when they switched to the LCG.

Going back to the original CCG question...

I would sort my binder by expansion and then by card number. If I remember right, the prefix letter usually denotes some kind of rarity scheme (as Lars said, C = common, U = uncommon, R = rare). But the number is the order that the cards appeared on the uncut printout sheet.

The reason I would take that route is so you can keep track of which cards you are missing and as we're talking about the CCG here, it's not easy to get a complete set (oh how I love the way the LCG changed that). At any rate, you may eventually want to track down the missing cards in your CCG collection, and you'll find it easier to track it down if your collection is stored by expansion and number.

sorting your cards depends on how you want to use them.

if you want to play them without thinking of collecting, then i suggest to group together: house > type of cards (like characters), expansion+ card number.

thats what i am doing with the cards that are meant for playing (LCG cards).

if your focus is on starting a collection. i would rather sort them by expansion + card number. searching thru the binder to build a deck is more work then, but you get a perfet overview of waht you have/have not.

thats how my CCG collection is stored (we almost never play the Legacy format).

i can send you an excel file with all CCG cards listed. cards like S1 from the Premium Starter are extra listed, so you wil find every card of the CCG era there.

just send a short message to [email protected]

thorondor said:

email sent