That quote was from rings and not myself.

Funny thing about mentioning loyalist being banned, I just remembered he wasn't actually banned, he was rotated early, lol.

yeah the qoute system was being wonky so i just attributed to one of the two. i think rings had quoted you and that was the one i left.

Lars said:

oh my god I just threw up a little in my mouth

Wrecking Ball said:

Casual players (players that do not play or are not interested in playing in official tournaments) can play the game with whatever AGoT cards they do or don't want. The idea of FFG banning cards for casual play is complete, utter nonsense. They are your cards, and how you and your group decides to play with them is completely and solely up to you and your group. FFG even left this convenient note on the FAQ's Banned List :

"The following cards are banned from LCG tournament melee and joust play:"

Bannings only affect competitive play. Period. When considering whether or not a tourney legal card should be banned, the only context you should and need to think about is the tourney (aka competitive) one.

(Erratas on the other hand are meant to physically change the wording on a card, and should technically affect casual play even though casual players can ignore them if they want to. Just like how they can ignore any rule they want even though they are suppose to be following them.)

Interestingly enough, the one local group of casual players that I know hasn't taken cards off the ban list -- they've added cards to it. Val and Narrow Escape aren't allowed in their games. They also banned the Wildlings before any errata/ban was made to The North Agendas. I think they just banned them outright since they weren't sure what specific bans could balance them. I don't know if they've banned any other cards (I'd have to ask); I just know the cards they did ban they found to be grossly unbalanced and NPE. I know of the group because one of the group's players joins our meet-ups since he enjoys playing the game competitively; however, he can't get his other friends to come because they refuse to play with or against the cards they banned locally.

By having an unbalanced competitive scene, I'd argue we are discouraging casual players from making the transition to competitive play. Hell, it wants to make me and others I know want to leave competitive play. It made a competitive gamer (a very good one) I know stop playing AGoT only a few months after he got in. He likes the mechanics, but found the design to be so unbalanced that he could no longer find a good reason to keep on playing and spend more money on the game. He likes that the Wildlings got nerfed, but sees no reason to get back in with cards like NE and Val around and upcoming cards like TLS or At the Gates (fetch any Maester). He also feels that if Paper Shield were to be reprinted, as long as NE is around, there would be very little reason to not run at least 2 in every deck given all the other powerful free cost events in the environment (i.e. BotS).

In short, an unbalanced environment is not appealing to many people. Bannings and good errata are the quickest and easiest way to undo that lack of balance.

Yeah, double post!

Wanted to add (as others have mentioned) there are two problems with waiting for "answer" cards to solve a balance problem, powerful card, etc.

1) If those cards do not exist in an upcoming cycle/expansion. Players will have to wait at least 6 months to see those problems addressed, which means an entire tournament season can go by where the issue is unresolved.

2) If FFG does print answer cards, that doesn't mean they will produce the best answer cards for the problem. Given FFG's track history of design in LCG, I'm not banking they will either.

For example, Stag Lord has said he would like to see more in-House cancel to deal with things like NE, but if there's no other in-House cancel other than Doran's Game, he's going to be sorely disappointed for an entire tournament season; especially because I know that he never plays Martell.

Let's also consider that NE is suppose to be an "answer" to character resets, specifically Valar. Putting aside the fact that the game as always been big on character resets, it should be obvious that not a single person seriously tested NE in R&D. How do I know this? Because a reprint that had errata and clarification doesn't get printed then errata twice, unless no one gave the card any serious attention. All signs point to this having happened in development:

Design: "Hmmm, it would be interesting to having an anti-Valar card...I know Narrow Escape!"

Veteran R&D Guy: *Looks at design description* "Oh, Narrow Escape. That's a reprint! Definitely anti-Valar." *Gives check mark*

New R&D Guy: "I don't know anything about this card, but if you say it's a reprint and it's ok, I guess I will too. I have other cards to worry about." *Gives check mark*

*No one bothers to check CCG FAQ for errata and clarification....cards sent to printers*

*Spoil Bara box to community*

Community: "Wow, Anti-Valar card! Awesome!"

*Bara Box comes out. People start using NE*

Community: "Wait, NE can do what!?"

*Errata 1*

Community: "Two NE's in hand...that's, unfair."

*Errata 2*

Well, you know the rest. Point is, all of this stems from R&D failing to do it's job correctly. I'd even say it's a failure on design's part. If they wanted to throw in an Anti-Valar card into the environment, Outfox would have been a million times more interesting. Besides being a plot (which are suppose to be game defining), it specifically rewards skillful players and still creates that "Do i really want to do X now?" (aka game theory) scenario everyone wants the game to have:

• Do I Valar now or later to avoid a cancel? Does my opponent even have Outfox?
• Is he going to play a "When revealed..."? If he is, do I want to cancel it or save this for another "When revealed..." plot?
• How can I figure out if and when he'll play another "When revealed..."? Will the game even last for another round if I don't cancel now?
• etc. etc.

FATMOUSE said:

Wow pretty strong comments here. Considering the number of permutations and interactions a particular card can have, I am actually quite amazed that there are so few bans and errata's.

With 20 new cards coming out each month coupled with a demanding community asking for more interesing and diverse cards, Design and R&D has a very challenging balancing act to fulfill. (Meet production quota, playtest every permutation of every new card).

The current FAQ lists 31 cards that have been errata'd and 4 cards that have been banned. Total 35

If my math is correct there is somewhere close to 1000 distinct cards in the environment at the moment. 35/1000 = ~ 3.3% "defect" rate. Defect being defined as a card that has been changed or banned. Even that is somewhat misleading when you looked at some of the errata for the cards. Many of the errata is for "clarification" vs changing to support "game balance". Don't get me wrong, there are definitely cards in the errata list that were changed specifically for game balance or to prevent NPE, but to say that 3.3% of the cards were errata because of game balance would be misleading.

All this to say that I disagree and don't think we can say that R&D and the designer's are not doing their job. Can the output be improved? Certainly. We are only human. All things can be improved. However, given the production contraints, the fact that R&D relies heavily on volunteer playtesters, I think the final product is actually pretty darn good.

Keep up the good work

If your only metric of good design/bad design is "ratio of banned/errata'd cards to legal cards", then then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your metric.

orclrob said:

How come that cards like Narrow Escape, Blood-Crazed Screamer, Knights of the Hollow Hill etc. are noticed by players immediately and not by designers/playtesters? Good job you say? Narrow Escape as a reprint is a shame for FFG actually. Also, I'm really courious how they tested Wildlings. Wildlings vs Night's Watch?

Rogue30 said:

It is all in how you see it. To be sure, the 'once per turn' on Narrow Escape was a miss - but a miss that EVERY card creating company has seen. But, as I said in another post - personally I LIKE the card. There is plenty of mass removal (Valar and Bleeds mainly but also Targ + Threat and others) while now there is exactly one mass counter (rather than specific counters like Bodyguard).

It rewards people for thinking through their decks and not just running resets + draw + weenies. Personally, I am disappointed when I see one, but usually I toss my hand. I have a better board position (or I wouldn't have played the reset) and I put cards in my deck to counter the loss of cards (i.e. Marshalling or draw phase draw, cards that don't allow my opponent to hoard cards, etc.).

Narrow is certainly not a reason to say the developers have dropped the ball. Wildlings are not either, they were supposed to be a bomb card and were (I just wish FFG wouldn't think getting extra power was such a big negative - it isn't), and they went probably 10% overboard (maybe - I still think the Army was the main issue). Nor is there any rule that NW HAD to be as strong as Wildlings anywhere.

There are going to be issues with wording. FFG isn't Wizards (who the ball consistantly, as does YuGiOh I have heard and those are the two biggest), and doesn't pay playtesters (full disclosure - I am not a playtester, but know they don't). If you want releases with no errors or power misplays, you ARE going to be disappointed - five years ago, two years ago, this year, with MTG, with FFG, etc.

As far as the playtesters go, maybe they have a different definition of what's good and bad for the game than the vocal opponents of Narrow Escape. It may not be that they didn't see the "problems", Maybe they didn't see them as problems. Many on the boards don't feel that "any strong neutral is bad for the game because it might become an auto include." Maybe playtesters fell into that category.

As far as Blood-crazed Screamers and Knights of the Hollow Hill, I personally always read the card as errataed, so I never understood the need for the errataes. Maybe I've played the game too long and my mind autofills the meaning based on past rulings and errataes, but I found both of those rulings superfluous.

kpmccoy21 said:

Those was not an example for broken cards. It's a prove that FFG does poor job. Card game is about wording. With a little effort those cards should be rewritten before printing. That means nobody in FFG check cards against clear gametext.

rings said:

Yeah, you are right. I was unjust. I was looking from big company making games for profit perspective. Apparently AGOT is made by 2 or 3 fans with volunteer help of playtesters. That would explain all mistakes, poor card wordings, overpowerd cards, poor playtesting, wrong rules answers and those numerous card/rules mistakes in official articles.

Well, at least I'm really glad that we have such die hard fans who made this game without profit, and that most of those fan illustrations looks like professional job.

rings said:

To be sure: you know this card text now and in the past? And of course you've read what FATMOUSE said?

rings said:

One? The hand's judgement vs Bleeds. Old Bear Mormont vs Valar. And what's the purpose of all those saves cards? They are too costly? Not useful in comparison with NE? And then in different topic you will say "**** this power creep".

As for Threat from the north I thought that everyone agree that's good for the game (weenies decks). You said yourself:

rings said:

And BTW draw? Comparing Lanni/Martell draw to Stark draw? Yeah, right.

rings said:

To be sure: in your opinion NIght's Watch was supposed to be weak (Nedly) and Wildlings was supposed to flood the tables (Nedly)?

rings said:

I have played different card games. I know they (makers) are only humans. But everyone repeat "it can be improved". When exactly it will be? For now I see no hope. I think I can be objective and I know when company make good job and bad job, trust me.

Whew...usually we agree a lot Rogue - not sure what I did to get that much of a post!

I am just stating (as others had) that overall, I think design has done probably the best job they ever have. The houses are more balanced than I have seen them (although GJ could use some help!), and there are about as many bannings as their was in the CCG days.

Just because I said there should be resets and weenie control, doesn't mean that I don't think there should be counters to them (especially a counter that has a built-in cancel no matter how costly it might be). I have won/lost games due to resets, and I have won/lost games due to Narrow Escape...I think both are equally viable in the present card-stock.

Also, aGoT has always been a game of over-powered cards. Do you remember the first Khal Drogo? King Joff? Trading with Pentoshi? Wheels? KoF? The year where 7 of 8 top-8 decks had The Eyrie? That doesn't stop your ability (or mine!) to complain about them - I certainly don't stop. But it is hard to say FFG is doing anything different/worse.

I like Nedly cards as well - but I don't expect NW to be better than Wildlings (spoiler alert!) in the game because they beat them w/ Bara's help in the books. *shrug* Unluckily, it usually doesn't work that way IRL. ~Otherwise Lanni would win all the time and they don't...wait...

You are right though - everything can be improved. I just thought it was a little harsh saying they are doing a worse job than the CCG days, or any other CCG I have played (L5R, LoTR, MTG, FMA, Star Wars, and many others). I think if FFG thought professional paid playtesters would increase profits, they would do it. They seem pretty good about making $$.

Rogue30 said:

I won't be quite so kind as Rings was. Honestly, if you see no hope, then perhaps this isn't the game for you. FFG does a great job, and while they aren't perfect, their longevity speaks for itself. How many other games have come and gone during the lifetime of a Game of Thrones?

I work in the Engineering field. My firm is thought of as one of the best consulting firms in the area. Every time we have an installation package leave our offices, it has been through multiple QA (Quality Assurance) checks. The original designer, the technical reviewer, the presentation reviewer and the senior engineer review the package. And yet still there are mistakes that happen. It doesn't make us a bad engineering firm, actually I believe we are the best in the area, it just means we aren't perfect.

I don't know what the internal QA process is for FFG, but I'm guessing there are many people who review each card before it goes out. But much like I Rings, I have been playing this game for a long time (8 years) and the number of errors/errata/bannings we have now is lower than any other time I can remember. FFG does not do a poor job. I'm not sure why you play this game if you feel that way. I would never play a game that I felt the creators did a poor job.

Heck, as the creator of the card Knight of Hollow Hill, I never once noticed the nuance in the way it was worded and I never felt it needed errata, but apparently other people did in order to create clarification.

I won't be as kind as Dobbler was. I wish I had an "ignore" fucntion for Rogue30's posts - becuase (quite frankly) I don;t think he contributes much.

Rings has the right of it: There was a MISS on NE with "the more than once per turn thing". BFD. It got caught by hte community and fixed. See how that works? you amke some constrcutive suggestions and the game is addressed by the company. You'll find walking away to be less helpful for teh game as a whole, I suspect. Of course: feel free to excercise your option to quit - especially if there is "no hope". Not every game is for every player.

If peiople do choose to leave, I sincerely hope they enjoy the flawless games out there that don't have any minor issues with 1,000+ card pools. Be sure to tell us about it - I'll have to read it, since I can't ignore it.

And again, Rings is exactly right on NE as currently constituted. Without it it would be very easy to draw+reset+weenies. And finally, yes Rogue - Stark can do it too - not as well as Lannister or Martell, but I play Baratheon and Targ, so i don't want to hear it.

Back on discussion: Rings:: you forgot Bannermen of the Storm for Baratheon - that card will always be played as long as its legal. And i have been seeing king's Champion a lot more recently than I had in quite some time. Knight decks, the return of Bleeds and all that.

I agree that FFG is generally doing very well.

To be sure, there are quite a few things I haven't liked about the LCG experience. The transition from CCG was poorly executed and without ANY guidance from the community. This is old news, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. For most of the LCG, I've had to buy three chapter packs to get playsets of each card. The Defenders block felt like a mixture of overpowered cards (Val, Wildling agendas, etc.) and underpowered, unplayable neutrals with little in-house flavor to advance the storyline. Seasons/shadows both felt pretty gimmicky (and unbalanced) when they were first introduced. There has been some cards that shouldn't have been printed as is...either the wording was confusing, or the power level should have been adjusted.

On the other hand, FFG has done a fantastic job of addressing most of these issues, and in my experience, is *much* more responsive to community requests than other game companies. FFG listened to requests for changes in distribution to 3 copies per expansion/chapter pack, printed post-GJ boxes without resin house cards, and has dramatically ramped up organized play activities in the past two years. Designers also appear to be somewhat responsive to community perceptions. Complaints about the lack of draw in every house in the early LCG era were met with the printing of Val, King's Landing, Hollow Hill, etc. In fact, more than a few people were calling for the reprint of Narrow Escape before it was printed...I'm not saying those players directly influenced card design, but I think it would be naive to assume that nobody was listening. The seasons and shadows mechanic has continued to be supported in later blocks, so that now most houses have at least a "fun/thematic" build for the mechanic, with many having very competitive builds. (In competitive play, only Lanni and Bara lack competitive season builds, and these are the two houses with the strongest shadows builds, in my opinion.)

Finally, remember that many/most of the above-mentioned changes were made because a very small minority of FFG's customers expressed their views - forum visitors. I don't have solid statistics, but my guess is that in the United States, the vast majority of FFG's LCG customers never visit this forum. FFG is not Wizards of the Coast. Balancing the competitive environment is probably not the primary consideration...and yet, FFG seems to devote a surprising amount of effort to ensuring that all of us are (at least relatively) happy.

Wow, I'm at work where I can't post for a few hours and all pretense of civility breaks down. lol

Kennon said:

~Because clearly you are the keeper of all pretenses of civility.

Chump.

Dobbler said:

~Why yes, actually I am. Did you miss that memo?

That would explain why you keep putting the old coversheets on the TPS reports.

Kennon said:

Ahh, great movie!

rings said:

Whew...usually we agree a lot Rogue - not sure what I did to get that much of a post!

So, did you take this personal? Why?

rings said:

They seem pretty good about making $$.

Agree. Wasn't I the first in line who was angry with KotS resin "gift"?

Twn2dn said that FFG does a good job of addressing issues. They need to know about issues in first place, right?

Still no answer about Abandoned fort issue, though.

I can make much more complaints but I will spare you them. I can imagine all this hate for me.

Stag Lord said:

Good to know, thanks. When FFG makes good job, I say "good job", when FFG makes poor job, I say "poor job". I just try to be objective. I am not a bootlicker. I love this game and I want FFG to improve. That's bad?

BTW Is it forbidden to complain here? Or maybe my posts are rude? Note that I'm not native speaker and I am blunt.

Stag Lord said:

Ah, you are right. I just saw the word 'Bannermen' and ignored it I guess there had to be ONE good card in that cycle

I am not as sold on the Champion, even in a Knights deck...but you play Bara way more than I do, so I punt. The ability is too narrow with the current card pool, and the lack of discard effects. Mabye if I saw Bleeds out of Bara more.

Be careful about wanting a game where no one ever makes a card that needs to be banned...it's very easy to do...it will just lead to a game where new cards are worse then existing cards.

Every game out there wants the ultimate. A game you can keep interesting, without rotation, power creep, errata, and bannings.

i don't know enough about AGOT yet to say if this is a problem, but it would be the first game ever to achieve that.

Cheers Rogue30! I greatly appreciate your posts, regardless of what other people say. Also kudos to you for actually reading what FATMOUSE posted, because it seems like you're pretty much the only other person here who even acknowledged what he contributed.

As for everyone who seems to be sticking up for FFG, great! But it's alright to call them out when they do something that's actually dumb . I mean, let's face it folks. We may never know why Narrow Escape was printed with it's incredibly stupid text in LCG when all they had to do was reprint the CCG version, but does anyone honestly think FFG can justify it?

It's wonderful that everyone's showing solidarity for a small design team that tries it's hardest to bring us an awesome game set in a universe we all love, but the game doesn't magically get better if we all sit around cheering design on when they make bad decisions.

Also, great point papalorax. I promise not to take nature for granted.

@Rogue30: Abandoned Fort works as written in English version, confirmed by Nate. The ball, in this case, is on the translators roof, not FFG's.

Jef said:

I missed that, ****, I was hoping it would end up being like the translated versions.