Hi guys,

Old school player here who has recently found a new group of peeps interested in getting into the game... they know that I used to play a lot back in the day and they were looking to me to help them out. Just wanted to peek my head in and see if there are any of the old school players left on these boards (Nate obviously being one) who can tell me what if any significant changes have taken place in the game since I stopped playing in about 6 years ago, give or take... I obviously see that they are using more straight forward products instead of the booster decks nowadays... What are the most common deck types being dealt with now, and what are the most significant additions/subtractions/alterations in major cards/deck concepts from back in the day? Oh, and a big; "Good to talk to you again." to any of you who might remember me...

Archon

I remember you Archon - you left right aorudn the start of Valyrian blcok when they began rotation if it was about six years ago that you left.

Well, the biggest chaneg is in terms of distribution - as you noted. they have gone to a fixed rpoduct model whihc is way more accessible to many people and seems to ahev really helped the game. A bunch of carsd are reprinted that you will rememebr form Westeros/Ice and Fire Days - though unless they are exact repritns (in terms of text) they aren't legal for tournaemtns. For example - the Streets were reprinted, but you cna only play oen copy per deck - and it says so rigth on teh card. But you can't use the old one becuase it doesn't say that specifically. Stuff like that.

Lannister is still really good at kneel, Stark at Claima nd kill, Greyjoy at STR pump and unopposed, Baratehon at renown rush. Targ still burns, but ti has been toned, way, way, way down. Martell will probably be new to you - even if you were around for the Crown od suns release, tehy kind of sucked for a year. They are probably the best House in teh game now.

We lost a lot of the old player base when they switched formats, but a few of us hung aorund (rings, kennon, ktom etc.) and more seem to be coming back lately (mathlete, sactown Chicago etc.).

Let me know what specific builds/strategies you are interested in and we can discuss differences. Welcome back.

I remember you as well - hope to have you back!

Stag did a good job of explaining.

There are some new mechanics as well, and some new rules - but nothing earthshattering. Each house has a keyword (infamy, ambush, etc.). And now you keep your gold through the whole turn and use it for events and dominance (which I had hoped would kill influence, but alas). If Stag is right on the timing, they also introduced Agendas which are probably the biggest change since they are 'start in play' cards.

Other than that, the house strengths are about the same.

Hey SL,

Good to hear from you again (and Rings as well) I remember you guys of course... The guys that are interested now are longtime gamers of a variety of different games who are very competitive and very good at everything they decide to get involved in... I guess the most important thing I'm looking for is the current cards/decks/concepts that are the ones currently under constant use that you have to consider when designing any deck type... Example, Back in the day you had to account for cards like Valar and Armaggedon in any deck you made, and Greyjoy and Targareyn decks held concepts and combos that could not be ignored when building a deck. I assume they still have Valar, since that was such a staple card, but I don't know what cards/combos are on that level today, especially with some of the new concepts you guys mentioned... I actually stopped playing before they even came out with the "deadly" trait, so I don't even know how badly that has affected the game...

I did see that they use a multiplayer format as more of a standard now (which if you recall I was a HUGE promoter of)... is it as popular as the H2H format now?

Hey, Archon, I'm pretty sure I remember seeing your name around way back in the ancient days. Lol, always strikes me as funny when someone like Stags mentions me as one of the old player base.

Multiplayer (called "Melee" these days and 1v1 is "Joust") is not quite as popular as joust, but it's made huge strides in the last couple years and even won over former hardcore Jousters like myself and Dobbler. I'm sure this year's GenCon turnout is going to be the best for all formats of the game since it launched, but we'll have to wait and see for the final numbers. That said, you'll find the melee game a slightly different creature than it used to be thanks to the addition of titles- cards that you select each round which offer a variety of bonuses and to some extent dictate who is able to attack who. And since you choose again each round, it can really have an effect on the table dynamic.

Archon said:

It depends where you live. the short answer is no. Or maybe its yes.

Melee (Multiplayer) is not as common in most metas, but some are exclusively melee (very few). Melee is taken into account for overall champion in most tournaments, so nearly all competitive players play melee for that reason. I know a few of them don't like it and wish they didn't have to play it.

I for one, enjoy melee more than joust (H2H).

Thanks for that guys.

I use to be really vocal about multiplayer back in the day because I found it far more challenging (and subsequently rewarding) than H2H for 2 reasons; 1. Deckbuilding alone couldn't win it for you in multiplayer... there were too many variables that you couldn't account for with just your cards... so you had to actually be able to roll with the changes, good or bad (much like Littlefinger in the books, for those of you who have read them... and, at this point in the books, can anyone honestly say that there is anyone who plays the game of thrones better than Littlefinger?), rather than just trying to force everything to go the way you want/expect it to (Like Cersei... and is there anyone still living who plays it worse than Cersei?)... which brings me to point 2. The game is based on the books... and NOBODY in the books is only playing the game against one opponent... EVER.

Oh, and a big fat question before I go out and spend $500 on cards... are there any products in the LCG that are not currently valid for tournament use? And are there any plans to "cycle" sets in and out of validity like they started doing with the old CCG?

There have been a couple of banned cards (you can find the FAQ in the news here), and now they restrict cards (you can have 3X of any one restricted card) which has been a great success (at least IMHO).

Some people love competative melee and some not so much. Kennon and Dobbler (etc.) have found the light, but others of us have not (me, Mathlete, etc.) - while I totally agree with you in theory about not only playing one opponent in the books, that doesn't ring true when you are at a table with 2-3 people from the same meta, or who want someone else to win (or you to lose). Is that like the books? Of course. But that doesn't make it fun (again IMHO)...shooting your dad is in the books and I wouldn't do that (BTW I am not trying to start the fight up about MP again, I love that it gets more people into the game - just giving the other side of the story on COMPETATIVE MP, not the game in general which is probably the best MP game I have played...excepting maybe Vampire).

Overall, I don't think you will find many changes from when you played - with the possible exception of Agendas. Deadly and other keywords have their place and players need to know them, but they don't materially change the game.

At this point we haven't heard word #1 about cycling from FFG. Personally, I think they SOMEDAY will just restrict competative building to X number of sets, whatever that number is. But that might be awhile off - you just can't assume they can playtest 10X this number of cards, or 100X (heaven hope we get that far!). Although the restricted list might change that...it is just hard to get new players in w/o any type of restriction so they don't have to drop $500, or $1,500 or $5,000 someday. And you get into some sort of power creep (or lower sales) if you keep printing the same sort of cards (although FFG has done a pretty good job with subthemes).

Good luck again!

To follow up on Rings' thoughts: I distinctly remember you and I archon, basically fighting alone agaisnt the hordes on this point back in the day. i fully agree that melee is the more immersive exeprience, that the game actually plays better in melee than in Joust (far less NPE control effects) and that it takes a different and more challenging skill set to master.

But...

I can't endorse ti as a competitive format, at least not the way they have it laid out currently. i have heard too many stories of meta-groups forming teams on teh way to big tournaments and tasking one team member to play a straight control deck and headhunt the better plaeyrs out of meta for me tot ake this seriously. Tehre's no way to police this, there is no way to prevent it - and some folks are playing the system and not the game.

i'll never pass up the chance for a melee on League night or on a weekend afternoon with firends, and the next blcok looks ot be supplying su with cards that will really shien in melee (and that delights me). I think you will have a lot of success building your meta by encouraging play in this format - but I can no longer argue that it should be the default competitive platform.

Yeah, I've seen that issue before... and the solution can be found in one of the rare lucid moments of a psychotic woman... "When you play the game of thrones, you either win, or you die."

In every mutiplayer game I've ever been a part of that had the issue with people collaborating to help each other to get rid of everyone else first, and then fight it out amongst themselves, the issue was dealt with effectively by making no acknowledgements for anyone but the ultimate winner... You play random round robin, single elimination of everyone who doesn't win at their table... At best, it all but eliminates significant team scheming, since the co-conspirators know that whichever of them do not win will not be moving on, and so even schemes to work together will be constantly hindered by each of them watching their backs for the inevitable backstab that would be coming (sound familiar to you book fans?)... At worst, a team scheme can only work once in a tournament since only one of the schemers will advance...

... and of course, as noted, there would be NO rewards, prizes, or acknowledgements for the runner up or any other places... If you don't win the game, you "die", just like everyone else who failed... that way conspirators can't console themselves by basking in the glory of a "respectable" finish... To quote another psycho in a moment of semi-lucidity; "You get NOTHING! You LOSE! Good day sir!"

Yeah, that's cool and all, but unless it's an event like GenCon where I can go do something else far away from the tournament when I'm eliminated, I really don't like the concept of tournaments where you get eliminated in early rounds.

Meh... if you're in a local tourney, and you have 16 people (which by the standards of the old ccg was pretty good size for a local tourney), there's only 2 games anyway... the first round is 4 games of 4 players, second round is all 4 winners playing for the title... Even if you have 64 people, that's only three games.

Hmmm... the two Regionals that I went to this year both had 3 rounds of random pairing before going to a final table. I believe they both had around 20 people. I'd much rather have several games and the chance to play, have fun, and effect outcomes rather than lose and walk away immediately. It's a bit like going 0-2 in the first round of a large Swiss paired Joust tournament. You can do the math to find out if it's even possible for you to make the cut. If not, many people drop. Single elimination tournaments are like, only I don't get to make the choice to drop, it's made for me. *shrug* Personal taste, I guess.

It's a very gray rule to enforce, but it worked for V:tES. "Play to win". Also, I imagine It'd be a pain to correct as you can't just DQ the player and just have him 'ousted' from the table.

Kingmaking is still inevitable... the player is still required to aim for the highest standing he can get. But if it is no different, then it is simply up to the player.

King making is one thing. Assassination decks - that have no chance to win but are just designed to take out a specific target are another. I tend to think archon has teh right of it - the torunament fomrat really shoudl be just Player 1 advancing. It shoudl not be about who comes form teh biggest meta or who has the most friends outside the game.

I recommend everyone hating everyone, then no one has friends outside the game. Except when you consider that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, who is still my enemy...

Or just play the game. I played a melee yesterday when I got hit with the first seven consecutive challenges. Was not fun, but I ended up winning using Reek.

While the multi-player debate is always fun (just like back in the day eh Stag

), If somebody could fill me in on which cards are necessary to consider for pretty much every deck (and which packs those cards come from), I'd appreciate it... Also, which modern deck concepts are necessary to consider as well... it's hard to get people competetive people involved if they don't know what they have to prepare for until they get their face kicked in by it lol...

Archon said:

I think perhaps it'd be interesting for you to go back a couple of pages in this forum and have a look at the different tourney reports from this year's regionals. That should give you a nice idea what's currently being played. There's also a bunch of reports/articles over at cardgamedb.com regarding this year's regionals.

I think the 2 Champs & a chump podcast on the top 10 plots would be somewhat useful too...

Yup, I think a solid resource is our podcast which you can find a link to in my signature and of course, the latest episode post every Friday. Dobler makes sure to let everyone here know when it's up. We're not always the best at staying strictly on topic, and some of our ideas haven't been executed as well as we'd like (newb episodes, on air game), but I really feel like our episodes on the before and after of the Regionals we attended (Minnesota, and Missouri) as well as our Top 10 plot and Ranking the Agenda episodes offer a wealth of great information for competitive players.