While we were discussing the restricted list in my TR thread, I noticed that people seemed to have different views on exactly what the restricted list should do in its impact to the environment. The way I see it, the restricted list should be about limiting card interactions that create NPE's. Very rarely is an NPE situation is caused by just one card. It is usually a combonation of different cards and effects that is greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore, the restricted list makes it so those cards and effects can't interact with one another to cause an NPE. Its a much more elegant solution to the NPE problem, because rather than just ban one card, and still have a potential NPE situation (just to a less degree) you can still play with all the cards, just not in such a way that would cause others to have an NPE.

Now others seemed to think that the restricted list should also be used to facilitate a soft rotate on older cards, by putting two cards on the restricted list with one being clearly better, you effectively rotate or ban the lesser of the two cards. Case in point is Fury of the Sun. Since Venomous Blade, Burning on the Sands, etc is on the restricted list, they really have zero reasons to want to run Fury of the Sun. Now I have a problem with doing this as I don't believe the restricted list was created for this reason, and because its impractical to use the list for this reason. If FFG does decide that this is how they are going to soft rotate cards, then the restricted list will grow to a massive size pretty quickly. If FFG doesn't want people to play with a card, then it needs to be rotated or it needs to be banned. The restricted list, IMO, should be about choosing the best card for your deck, and that choice changing from deck to deck. It shouldn't be a PC banned list. It should be used to "create diversity", these problems really need another solution than the restricted list.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

From Nate French himself. Read here to get a feel for FFG's intentions.

I already know what FFG's intentions are, but I'm questioning those intentions with this thread.

Well, darn you for posting a topic while I was trying to pry that very topic out of the tourney report thread. I think it's a interesting enough issue to distinguish between the philosophical and practical options. I don't know how much "our input" is going to change the viewpoint that The Powers that Be have regarding the List's function, or the criteria they use for choosing cards, which is, I suspect, the meaning you have that would circumvent Fat Jon's pseudo-sarcasm. I would be curious to know how much internal vs. external discussion goes on regarding the situation, and whether considerations are farmed out for playtesters (or just deckbuilders, as I suppose the case would be). Aside from direct input from player interaction at something like GenCon or the Days of Ice and Fire, do they consult the conversations on the boards, vis a vis what the players see as problems (which is more likely reflect there concept of how the game should be) or ask for input from contributors, again, like the playtesters?

For me, the restricted list does 3 things. One I like, one I don't, and the other I really don't care about that much.

1) The restricted list prevents decks from including too many "power" cards. See every Martell card on the list, other than the Fury plot as an example. While I recognize the usefulness of this approach, I personally don't like the restricted list being used in this way. I'd rather see the meta game adjust to solve these issues, if possible.

2) The restricted list breaks up easy to set up, overpowered combos that were not caught during play testing for whatever reason. With an ever increasing card pool, the potential for this to happen will only increase. See Val + TLS as an example. I think this is the best use of the list, even if most of the card currently on the list are not there for this reason.

3) The restricted list attempts to add more variety to decks. This one I don't really care that much about, and I'm not sure how effective it really is. Sure, we see less of the Fury plots now, but we have all just moved on to the next best plot card we can find. If you can keep something from being an auto-include, I guess that's good. However, there will always be popular cards. What's the difference between popular and auto-include? Only the restricted list will decide.

Deathjester26 said:

I think this is actually making the plot diversity less diverse. If you have X plots that are really popular, then you take some of those and put them on the restricted list, then doesn't that make the other plots not on the restricted list even more of an autoinclude since now you don't have the plots on the restricted list. So the choices are even less. I just feel like this should be addressed by the restricted list. This should be addressed by printing more cards of a comparable power level.

Staton said:

It would... if that's what you (bafflingly) used the list to do.

On the other hand, imagine a meta with 10 Tier 1 plots and 90 Tier 2 plots.

Without the list, players would almost always use 7 out of the 10 Tier 1 plots, with the 90 Tier 2's sitting unused.

But if you put the 10 Tier 1's on the list, then all of a sudden you have a meta which explodes from '10 realistic choices' to 90. Which is a good result.

What you wouldn't use the list to do is to put 3 out of 10 Tier 1's on the list. Because that would be pointless and ridiculous.

Obviously, both of our sets of figures are very simplified and don't represent the number of 'tiers' and situations present in deckbuilding. But I think that the example above serves to demonstrate how FFG hope to restrict the top so that the middle can shine.

See that makes perfect sense. I don't agreee with the restricted list being used in this way, but it makes sense. The part I have a problem with is that FFG did that with the Fury plots and Fear of Winter, which I think we can consider Tier 1 plots. Then they went out and just started printing even more Tier 1 plots. So now I'm confused on how FFG is hoping to maintain this plot diversity if they restrict cards for being too universally used, but then turn right around and print replacements for those cards.

LoneWanderer said:

+1 That would be the way to do it, that way those plots I never use but are kinda cool get played. Granted, I suck at picking the 2-3 plots that vary in my decks, so this would actually make my decks work less.....if that's even possible.

I think the restricted list was intended to do MANY things and trying to boil it down to one or two functions is oversimplifying the purpose of it.

I think you're right Jon, but I think some of those intentions are misguided. Using the restricted list to encourage plot diversity is not something I feel the list should do. I think this is something that should be accomplished by a better design of the future sets and expansions. When you create an imbalance in the game, whether it is an imbalance in the power level or the diversity or some other aspect, you should learn from those mistakes and correct them in the future. The restricted list is a solution to the first instance of a new problem. However, FFG doesn't seem to have learned anything from their diversity issue, as they are still printing plots that are used in 85%+ of decks and plots that don't really get to see the light of day. There has to be a happy medium there, but I don't think that FFG is trying hard enough to find that sweet spot and are relying too heavily on the restricted list to fix anything that goes wrong.

~1200 unique cards, 15 restricted and 3 banned.

Every banned card is a design failure, but a Restricted Card isn't necessarily. A card could well be designed to BE restricted, given the current list/system. Even if we assume all restricted cards are a design "failure", to expect every card published to be useable, used often enough-but-not-always, and balanced... even with good design, good testing, things *will* slip through the cracks. 15 restricted cards doesn't seem to be "relying too heavily on" the list to encourage diversity... and I think you have some unreasonable expectations, Staton.

And although I'm fairly new to the LCG, I get the impression that there actually *IS* more diversity in tourney decks than there has been at any time previously. (especially from the 2-3 most recent tourney reports I've seen).

You are correct that there will be some things that slip through the cracks, and I'm totally OK with this. That's what the restricted list is for, to catch those mistakes. However, who in their right mind would look at Loyalty Money Can Buy and say to themselves, "This certainly seems like a situational plot. I bet this will only be in 50% of decks at the most!" No one. That's who.

Fat Jon Finkel said:

It's the internet, that's what it is intended to do.

I don't know - Loyalty is a good plot, but it's not fast or aggressive enough for a rush deck. It's also probably not enough to slow down an opponent's rush deck significantly. It does better for control and combo decks. It's stronger in melee than in Joust. It may have been overdone, but it's not an auto-include. It's a little strong (esp in Melee), but maybe that's the intention - to strengthen combo/control in what was (I'm told) a rush-dominated meta.

Fear of Winter, on the other hand, *would* be an auto-include. "I'm ahead, let's lock the board to it's current position for a turn with claim 2". To me, that's the difference.

I don't think that Loyalty is overpowered at all. I think its in an very large percentage of decks, probably around 85% at this point. This plot is hurting plot deck diversity.

-Istaril said:

Really? To my memory, FoW was not that much of an auto-include when it was unrestricted. IIRC, the problem was more that its very existence stifled variety in deck building because it seriously impeded certain types of decks, and less that it was ubiquitous. I'd wager that Loyalty Money Can Buy or Retaliation are in a significantly higher percentage of total decks than FoW has ever been.

I could be totally wrong of course; maybe it was just my meta that under-used it.

Ratatoskr said:

Fear of winter was a money card. It was a game ender.

Fieras said:

I agree. But was it in 85% of decks?

I wish that Loyalty was more conditional - only taking effect if your opponent's plot has 2 or greater claim, that way it wouldn't be such an easy choice. The only time it "backfires" now is when you use it on a Valar turn.

I think the way to ensure plot diversity is to keep printing more premier plots. Right now there aren't enough tier 1 plots to compete with others. And if there is a situational plot versus a blanket-good plot (Loyalty), chances are the safe choice will win most of the time.

Stasis said:

QFT!

Staton said:

How are you coming up with this 85% of decks number? Is that based on official statistics from GenCon? Only your own meta? Only taking Melee into account?

Of the 5 opponents I played at CaliCon, Loyalty was only in 1 of the decks. It was not in either the Winning Deck nor in the Runner-up deck.

So I am skeptical about the assertion that Loyalty is in 85% of decks.

I would guess its just more popular in your local meta. Its certainly not a "necessary card" for a Top Tier deck at a big tournament.

LaughingTree said:

I agree. Its common, but more common in melee I think.

Certainly not the best sample set, but it's something at least: among the decks posted to AGOTcards.org, Loyalty is used in 113 decks. To compare, Retaliation is in 235 decks and Valar is in 267.

The first Thrones Times had a breakdown of the plot used in 9 tournament-winning decks, and of those, every one used Retaliation and Valar, only three used Loyalty.

I love Loyalty, I use it in practically every plot deck, but it doesn't seem to be actually all that ubiquitous.

The factors in deciding restriction of a card appear to be beyond those that narrowly look at "NPE" experiences, but I do agree that this is the single most important factor. In addition to restricting cards that consistently create NPE experiences, I think overall environment variety and in-house flavor/intended game mechanics should be considered. The reason "flavor" (for lack of a better term) is important, is because card design happens months in advance and sometimes the environment shifts in the meantime. Condemned by the Rock is a perfect example...that card was planned for an environment where Targ wasn't the house with the anti-attachment specialty. At the time it was designed (prior to the LCG), all houses had decent access to attachment discard. While I wouldn't say the card was overpowered, I think it's OK to keep it on the restricted list, since design has since moved in a different direction.

Applying those standards to Fear of Winter, I can definitely say that it was (1) NPE, and (2) so popular in competitive decks that it not only reduced plot deck variety, but also forced players to rethink how they built their decks in general. Many competitive decks still felt similar even when running different houses. In fact, Fear of Winter is the *perfect* card for the restricted list...even more so than Venomous Blade and Narrow Escape.

On the Fury plots, I see these as NPE (though I know many others don't), and they obviously also reduce plot variety. To some extent, their restriction also increased deck building variety, since now a player will often avoid "To Be A__" and run a different event/card that wouldn't normally seen play. (There is no obvious replacement to To Be a Kraken, for example, so you really have to take the deck in a slightly new direction.) Obviously, this consequence can be seen negatively (ie I can't run To Be A Wolf anymore, so I feel even more constrained in deck building, not less). Bottom line is if you feel the Fury plots are likely to often create negative play experiences, then you probably feel they are fine restricted; if you feel they were perfectly balanced (or close enough), then the restriction based on "promoting variety" probably isn't enough anyway.

With regard to Retaliation and Loyalty Money Can Buy, I don't think either is NPE. Moreover, neither has negatively affected deckbuilding in the same way as Fear of Winter. Also, LMCB isn't an auto-include, though I agree Retaliation basically is. I don't think this alone warrants Retaliation's restriction, but if FFG were to suddenly put it on the restricted list, I don't think I would mind either.