Old Ben said:

Yes, they might've allowed it there...the European community can afford to be a little looser, we just can't "officially" endorse proxies/print-outs due to our legal agreement with Lucas & Decipher.

rings said:

Hey, we don't take ourselves too seriously either, it's mostly an excuse for those of us who still play to get together & hang out with each other a few times a year.

(BTW I love Decipher games, Star Wars was one of the best gaming systems ever, and LoTR wasn't far behind. Too bad they sucked hard at implementation so they lost 90% of their clients on huge properties after 5 years or less. Impletmentation issues like no rotation/restriction of cards...and CFO's stealing millions).

Ugh, SO true.

-Istaril said:

Nice idea. Not only you avoid stereotypes, but all packs in your collection keep their value as well.

Serazu said:

High "buy-in" cost is a direct result of LCG system. If we want to lover it then FFG should repack older cycles into house specific packs.

1 pack with all Targaryen stuff from Clash of Ams, 1 pack with Lannisters ,..., 1 pack with all neutral cards. Because at the moment if you want to collect 1 house you are essentialy paing 10/15$ per 2-3 usefull cards in each pack.

And that's before I get started on putting important cards like Jorah Mormont in princes of the Sun or Robb Stark in Kings of the Sea or important neutral cards/plots in Queen of Dragons (Loyalty, Paper shield etc)

PS. We can't edit posts on this board ?

michaelius said:

You can for a few minutes after posting. There will be an "edit" link in the light grey bar at the top of your comment, next to date/time.

LaughingTree said:

Sounds nice, but unluckily DOESN'T solve:

1. Power creep vs. no useable cards.

2. Buy in $$ amount for new players which are the lifeblood of any game.

(again, this is more 'when the time comes' discussion - but right now it is, what, $1,500+ to get 3X of every card...it is STARTING to defeat the LCG model)

rings said:

How much is it to get that many copies of all tournament legal MtG cards at any given time? Does anyone know or can at least approximate?

I'm generally opposed to phasing out blocks, but I do see the point about the hurdle of entry for new players. I was already intimidated when I started purchasing all the Game of Thrones LCG stuff, and that was two and a half chapter pack cycles ago.

Ultimately, I can't think of any solution that is satisfying one way or the other. The question is whether phasing out blocks and frustrating players over their now illegal cards is better or worse than presenting an intimidating amount of available cards to potential new players. I do like the idea of a "Chosen Few"-esque solution, except that I'm not convinced that it'd solve anything.

As far as balancing the game is concerned, I think the restricted list was a great idea. I don't know how it'll develop as the card pool grows, but right now I think it's doing its job fairly well.

I feel like we will eventually need to move to X blocks only for tournament use. However, I think an easy solution here is to have updated core set reprinted every couple of years. Fill those core sets with staple cards for each house. Then you can have the house expansions each be legal, plus the latest four chapter pack cycles. As a new core set or house expansion comes out you can retire the old core set or house expansion. The only problem I potentially see here is that the extra core set every couple of years is going to be on top of whatever FFG has planned that year, which means extra money and somehow fitting it into the printing schedule, and we all know FFG isn't that great with printing schedules.

Staton said:

I think updating the Core Set regularly would actually be a very bad idea. The Core Set should be the absolute simplest buying decision a new player can make, the beauty of it is that it is the clear-cut starting point. Think of all the threads this forum already has, the "I'm new, what do I buy" threads which always have the same caveats: don't buy these two blocks just yet, they're about to be reprinted, and make sure when you pick up these expansions that they're the Revised Editions.

What you (pretty much) never hear in those threads is "You've bought the wrong thing first" and if there're multiple Core Sets floating around, that could become a very real problem. Accidentally buying an older edition, buying the newest edition but it turns out an older one is better, buying one only it turns out a new edition is scheduled for next month.

Hmm that's certainly true, but should we exclude the core set from being rotated or updated regardless of the impact it has on the environment? Also I think that once every two years really isn't that often, and most of the cards from core set to core set will remain the same I would imagine. Mostly it was a way to include things like say the Refugees, while not having to worry about keeping the rest of that chapter pack cycle around.

Surely the best answer to the ' Should FFG ever phase out blocks, yes or no ' question is to choose both options simultaneously?

Nobody likes having their cards made obsolete.

New Players like to be able to buy everything without re-mortgaging their home.

So, why not just have two formats? One that's a non-rotating 'eternal' format, and another that's a rotating 'modern' one?

That way new players can start with one format, then 'graduate' to the second if they choose. Existing players get double the numbers of 'metas' to think about. Nobody is forced to stop using anything, and new players can 'buy in' to a competitive format without breaking the bank.

The only cost to FFG would be that they'd have to run two simultaneous restricted lists... i.e. threpenny bit. The cost to players would be even less.

Long story short: I don't know why the community gets so panicked about the prospect of rotation. So long as FFG keeps supporting an eternal format (inasmuch as they currently support organised play at all) what's the big deal if they introduce a second rotating one?

I don't know. Introducing 2 formats would make meta's essentially have to make the same decisions. I could be really good at making "eternal" decks, but if my meta only plays "modern", then what is the point?

I don't like the multiple tier strategy that magic uses. It makes it so its much harder to play against other people who play a different tier than you.

Also, no matter how many formats FFG "supports" there is still only going to be one format that matters. This is the one where you get to make a card for winning. Everything else will just seem to be a noncompetative format. Much like melee was before you got to make a card for winning.

I don't think there's much of a need the way the design seems to do chapter pack cycles.

New players should get the Core + House Expansion and play with that. Maybe get a few of the new ones coming out.

Then its a matter of cherry picking chapter packs that YOU need.

My gencon deck for instance: It used the core, and house expansions for bara and martell primarily.

The only cards in CP's needed in my deck were Mel, Val, Loyal Guard, and Seat of Power. Everything else I could have substituted and the deck would be OK.

That's 2-3 CP's IIRC. And I think that's for most since 80% of the cards in a CP cycle are only optimal for that season's theme. Need a brotherhood deck... sure then its Core Set + the Brotherhood cycle. But for a new player they're almost better off either building a standard deck out of core + expansion. Or the flavor of the week deck that the cp cycle is supporting. And then after playing for a little while and against a bunch of different decks should they branch out.

And we have a new player format: league play.

And if FFG does Print On Demand then we can cherry-pick cards like To Be A Wolf, Pyromancer's Cache, Val without FFG needing to reprint the CP and without us needing to pay $15 we can pay them $3-$4 for the cards. (I think $1 a card is a decent PoD price... still makes the CP's economic if you need more than a few cards).

Fieras said:

Do you feel the same way about the fact that Joust and Melee both exist?

Because, based on current data (i.e. the various worldwide metas currently in existence) the fact that there's currently several separate competitive formats supported by FFG doesn't appear to be causing too many problems.

Staton said:

Forgive me if I seem a little glib about this... but there's a fairly simple answer to that objection.

It involves FFG doing exactly the same thing that they did to make Melee a competitive format. I.e. giving the winner of the Gencon tourney (which would presumably emerge were a decision to have two joust formats emerge) the chance to make a championship card.

Problem solved, no? And all for the cost of a few e-mails and a single card in a chapter pack.

I feel like FFG wouldn't do that though. Plus, I feel like being able to make a card be a rare occurance. If they start putting out tiers, then you are going to start having at least six or even nine cards being made every year. It starts to feel a bit less special to be able to make a card then. *shrug* maybe its just me.

LoneWanderer said:

Apparently you weren't at gencon.

Fieras said:

I wasn't.

However, I was present to witness the aftermath here.

Based on those observations, I'd submit that the real problems which occured at Gencon had very little to do with the fact that multiple formats existed, and more to do with the fact that one of the formats was left open to behaviour which a large number of players regarded as abusive.

To return to my original point though, the fact that there's multiple formats currently in operation doesn't appear to be causing many (if any?)local playgroups any real problems. There's no evidence to suggest that adding a third would.

Staton said:

I don't think that's the case at all.

As I understand the situation at present (and please do correct me if I'm wrong about this), Gencon has three 'make a card' opportunities (Joust Winner, Melee Winner, Overall Winner) and Stahleck has one (Overall winner).

Adding a third tournament to Gencon (Joust Modern) doesn't push us into 6+ territory (though, ironically, giving EU players the same number of 'design a card' opportunities as their US counterparts would), and would that one annual extra card opportunity really make the whole thing feel 'less special'?

Finally, as a footnote, is 'making a prize awarded to a very tiny handful of people, only once each year, feel marginally less unique... without actually altering the substance of the prize itself' really a solid argument against supporting a beginner friendly format that might potentially attract new players to the LCG and enable them to engage with a competitive LCG scene?

Y'know, because getting a card for winning a tournament is probably cool and everything; but I can't help but think that arguments which focus on what prizes a small number of people might get at a couple of yearly tournaments could potentially be missing the 'bigger picture' of the long term health of the game itself and the need for the community to constantly attract and retain new participants.

LoneWanderer said:

Don't forget at LCG days the "Make a card with a group" that happened. That's a fifth.

Why wouldn't there also be a Melee Modern and Overall Modern?

goshdarnstud said:

My point isn't " So long as there's X or less fan-made cards a year then it's all ok ". What I'm trying to say is that the need to protect any individual feelings of 'specialness' experienced by a tiny number of players each year is far less important than ensuring that there's a readily and affordably accessible competitive format for new players to compete in.

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that this whole discussion about the number of player designed cards per year is a complete red herring.

Who cares if it's 1, 5, 10, or 20... if the game's playerbase isn't continually expanding (or just staying level with the number of departing players) then the whole shouting match is irrelevant; because if that doesn't happen then AGoT will eventually go the same way as all the other dead CCGs that have gone before.

Having an affordable format that new players can feasibly buy into is a vital part of encouraging more people to join the game; and isn't that the most important thing?

Well my point wasn't so much "there's going to be too many player created cards out there" it was more "I doubt FFG will support both formats equally." The Modern format would become the main format for competative play where you could make a card. The extended or legacy or whatever format would go the way of Highlander is now. Sure FFG has tournaments for it, but its not as well supported as LCG is. Actually are there even Highlander tournaments anymore at GenCon? or just Player ran tournaments? Anyway, at that point you might as well just rotate them, because the majority of players aren't going to use those cards not available in modern format. This would be great for new players, but how well would it be at maintaining a player base? Plus, how many of the influx of new players in the past six months even care about the tourney scene? I bet its not that many.

Staton said:

1. That's just speculation. If they were both supported with regular tournaments and a restricted list, why would one suddenly supercede the other? One only needs to look over to MtGLand to see a world in which a CCG simultaneously supports several succesful competitive formats.

2. No, but that's because this is the first time in the game's history that it's been buoyed by the release of the first series of an internationally successful TV show. Going forwards, attracting more regular board/card gamers, an accessible tournament format for new players is going to be essential. At present we kind of have that, but as the card pool expands (and, with it, the price tag of acquiring everything available... itself one of the big draws of the LCG model) that's not going to be the case so much.

Speculation based on previous experience with the company, and on precedent set by the company itself when dealing with multiple formats based on some blocks being legal and other nots. I feel like there is some pretty good evidence that this is exactly how FFG would run their tournament support.

Staton said:

Previous experience with the company perhaps, but not previous experience with the company's management of an LCG.