Rave said:

I would never take a decklist from cardgamedb. Why? Because even as a new player, I realize that many of the posted decks suck. Decks can be posted by anyone. If a deck database were more restrictive on who they allowed to post decks, then it might be useful, but that just seems elitist.

Prior to the Small Council articles on cardgamedb, there has been very little in the way of helping new players outside of a meta. Where are the articles from the World and Regional champs? They are easily the best source of information, but I've seen little from them in the past year that I've been checking out this game. When I played M:tG around 10 years ago, there were always articles being written by champs where they would give a decklist (either from the deck they were playing, from other popular deck-types of the time, or from that hidden gem that few people knew about), and then explain in great detail exactly why they chose what cards they used, and what caused them to not chose other cards.

EDIT: I think rotation should happen, but I believe that FFG should make a Base set (deluxe expansion style) so that we don't lose important basic cards (such as the Ravens).

I'm a little late to the party, but I've got a question. This thread is spinning off from Rave's CCG thread, where it was suggested that perhaps FFG does not intend to reprint A Clash of Arms and/or A Time of Ravens. ktom mentioned that when FFG announced the LCG model years back, they said that cards would be available only for a limited time, that once the cards went out of print that was that. Whether FFG sticks by that plan is anyone's guess.

If, hypothetically, FFG opted to not reprint the first two cycles would you want it to remain legal, or be rotated out? As someone who doesn't own most of those packs, I find the idea of FFG no longer printing them but allowing them to still be used quite frustrating, and I wouldn't want that to be the case. It's one thing to say, you can buy however many packs you want or need, it's another when there are packs other players are using that you can no longer purchase (which is already the case with A Song of Summer and The Winds of Winter, which have been OOP for months now it seems).

It's annoying to be at a disadvantage because you can't buy the cards you need--and if I want to run anything with Seasons, I do not have access to the most important cards--and I think it goes against the idea of an LCG. Either reprint the older cards or let them fall out of rotation.

First of all, i have no problem with a big/growing card pool & power creep. It is all relative, and the meta will evolve with it. other ccgs have played this way just fine, and judging from the way AGoT tech is being designed/released (see raiders, mill, etc going from not viable to viable within a few chapter packs), that is the intention with the LCG format. only recently am I seeing reasons to play summer encampment(dragon knight, blood rider), for it to be cycled out now, itd be a bit of a shame cause that tech had potential.
If they started rotating, they would have to change the way they design cycles. right now a single tech can span over several cycles. Now id think theyd have to contain a whole tech within a cycle. something like maesters or brotherhood... or sandsnakes(but even they span over 2-3 cycles)...
I think the card pool would be somewhat quirky with incomplete techs until all the current sets rotated out. And thats a loooong time; or at least i hope it would be...

The barrier for entry IS something to look at though and at this rate its only going to get higher... Is it a problem? If we want a growing competetive scene, id say it is... I really wish there was another way to keep it low for those newer competitors.

I really can't pick a side on this one...

I would say that rotation itself might be good for the game, no need for added powercreep and a lot more deck diversity (funny as it is, but smaller card pool in this case to me brings more possible decks as the decks need to find more creative ways to do something that they cant anymore and we might get few new decktypes aswell) well yeah this point can be debatable.
It would also help new players who are getting in the game since they don't have to buy such large amount of cards. As many have said here this is not problem now, but the longer we continue this way the harder it will be as the card pool keeps on increasing.

I was discussing this with WWDrakey just a moment ago and about what kind of options do we have instead of rotation.
One idea that we got was a new format. Keep joust as it is and let it expand, but introduce the archery format and get it to be competitive.
This format is inspired by the last years chosen few contest and what we thought would be good is core + deluxes +2 newest sets and either 1 or 2 cycles of your own choosing. This format cannot replace joust as it can be too easy to forget which cards belong to what, but as its own format it might actually work. This format would let you be competitive when you don't own all the cards and as every cycle has its own tricks so I don't see people only choosing one/two specific ones over every other. This would create some interesting room for deckbuilding and if it was a supported format like joust & melee then we might not need rotation. It would also help the developers by keeping the demand on the new sets (2 newest are always legal) without the need to keep on creating more powerful cards. Just one idea amongst many of what FFG could do.

I'm probably more the rotation friendly guy. I do think that needs to be done at some point to give the gameplay another angle but I don't know if it's urgently needed now. I mean I really would be happy to play a deck where I don't need to include Refugees or Carrion Birds (I know I don't have to but competitive decks need them 95% of the time). On the plus side, if you have rotation, you'll have probably another tourney format

Dobbler said:

And ?

We live in computers era. If I'm building deck I do it on cardgames.db checking balance of cost to income, distribution of icons and whatever else I need.

Then if I decide I like this deck I can go to shop and buy whatever I need and don't own already.

Saved me a lot of cash compared to my previous aproach of buying every chapter pack with worthwile Targ card

michaelius said:

The "and?" is that it is currently not as easy as 'going to the shop and buying whatever you need and don't own'- some packs are completely unavailable, or unavailable at a reasonable price.

imrahil327 said:

Which can be simply solved by reprinting them in x3 format so I don't see why temporal problem which may or may not last few months should be decisive factor for long term future.

And personally I'd really pissed off if FFG decided to rotate initial packs after I spent 100 euro to acquire all of them.

No rotation, PLEASE ! Talk of rotation makes me sick, it makes me angry. I love a large card pool and the diversity it brings.

Why should we once more reduce our options instead of letting the old mechanics compete with the newer ones ? Everybody loves to try out new mechanics, but it is nice to be able to go back after a while and play Summer once more. Or combine the shiny new mechanics with the trusted old ones.

If availability really should be a problem, instead of rotation or a complete reprint, better make some catch-up product containing highlights from out of print chapter packs. This IS done in other collectible card games. Maybe no one wants to purchase 18 rookeries again (though they have made appearances from time to time), but who wouldn't buy a pack containing all the ESSENTIAL cards from the summer/winter cycle (e.g. Kings of Summer/Winter, Samwell Tarly, A Time for Ravens, Black/White Raven (NEW PICTURE, PLEASE) and the various House Refugees).

Despite some assumptions, I'm fairly ambivalent towards the direction FFG takes, whether they choose to rotate or not.

Here are a couple of additional thoughts, both for and against rotation that I haven't seen anyone mention...

FOR Rotation

1) Playtesting becomes immensely more daunting and difficult as the card pool grows. As such, it becomes more likely that abusive or degenerate interactions between cards get missed and errata/banning happens at a much greater rate.

2) New players can "jump" into the game with greater ease. When GoT launched as an LCG, there was a large quantity of people who left the game who had been playing during the CCG days, but there was also a large quantity of people who entered the game because it was a perfect time to jump in.

AGAINST Rotation

1) We already have a "restricted list", why not just let it become more populated? Instead of rotating a block, just start putting more cycles of cards on the restricted list. Nobody likes being told they can't use a card, and the restricted list allows people to still play with all of their cards, albeit not always at the same time.

I'd just like to point out that there would be far less abusive combos coming through if I was a playtester. Just sayin'.

Twn2dn said:

IMO, the answer to this should never be rotation, but either better support cards for other strategies or the FAQ / restricted list.

Rotation is like hitting the game environment with a SLEDGE HAMMER and than look what pieces are left. Just remove a bunch of chapter pack cycles with all their cards and now we have a better environment ? I don't think so. We have just lost interesting cards and build-options.

The restricted list on the other hand is a SURGICAL INSTRUMENT that can (and has) take(n) care of problematic cards or overpowered combos.

Really, just image what would happen if you bluntly take away the first two chapter pack cycles, for example. Would this even affect house Martell, the alleged "broken" house everybody an their grandmother loves to complain about right now (not me, by the way) ? They would barely notice, I suppose. On the other hand, houses Lannister and Greyjoy would be shattered.

If control really was dominant now, this could easily be changed with a few more "immune to triggered effects" characters. Add a few cards supporting different strategies, take a few others away from time to time, and everything should be fine in the long run.

A small card pool most of the times means that after a short orientation period, once more one or two dominant houses/decktypes emerge that tend to dominate the entire tournament scene, like Lannister Kneeling in the early LCG area, because there are only so many possible builds with a limited pool.

AegonTargaryen said:

I have to just say to the "immune to triggered effects" that cards like it aren't used a lot in aggro, but in control against other control builds. Nearly always I see some immunity character it isn't used for aggro, it's used to slow opponents game even more and getting better hold at the game.

This is two edged sword, if you don't rotate the enviroment will have more and more powerful cards which can lead into fewer deckbuilding options as most things are just not smart to play. On the other hand when you create new opportunities they can turn into new problems aswell. Also I have to say that if the clash of kings/seasons suddenly got rotated I would actually make and run few decks that aren't currently viable. I think the rotation cannot be defended or attacked by the "deckbuild options" as it can equally create and destroy them.

Some very good points, and little emotion which I appreciate. Especially TWN2DN who always writes well. Seems like this discussion does come out every 6-12 months, and it is always a good one.

First, can't we all agree that either rotation or HEAVY use of the restricted list has to happen SOMEDAY? If not, please name another CCG/TCG/LCG where this has worked (*again, assuming competative play only*). You either have large power creep (which I beleive is happening already) or fairly boring, low-sales new product (again, not good for the game). Those are the options looking long-term - although you can delay this sometimes with new themes and/or keywords or the such (FFG has done a fair job of this)...although those themes are only used if they are as powerful or more powerful than existing and that is hell to balance.

I think any sane player would agree with that statement, so it is more of an idea of timing. The main parts you have to worry about are:

1. Does it affect sales? Either you can't get new players in since it is too imposing to see all the cards they would need to have all the options (trust me, this is a valid concern - new players don't want to hear 'visit this website and then just order these certain packs'), or you piss off the existing base in that their cards rotated (although normally at least a portion of them are still valid and are reprinted in the new 'core set').

2. Does it affect gameplay? To be honest, I think a huge card pool is actually detrimental. I rarely do much more than maybe change 1 or 2 cards out of a deck. Yes, every so often there is a theme that FFG does very well. But most CP's I pick out 0-2 cards and file the rest away for eternity. We can talk all we want about vareity, and I agree at this point I think they are increasing deck variety...but that can't last unless the power levels start escalating heavily.

On the original CCG rotation, I was initially against it. However, I got to actually LOOK FORWARD to rotation. It gave me a chance to re-think all of my decks annually, and I was usually relieved not to play, or play against, the same staples year after year after year (I see you Refugees, I see you GJ Winter and Maesters!).

Overall, I am for rotation, or some heavy use of the restricted list. Or changing the restricted list to something more like Yu-gi-oh (ug...) has (the only large CCG that has never rotated). They have a list of banned, 1X, 2X cards. So if the card is broken, it gets banned. Very powerful? 1X. Just overly powerful? 2X. It gives OP a scalpel instead of a hammer. ~And three lists for us to ***** about rather than just one!

Lastly, before anything I think we should all come out against Stanton playtesting. I don't want my kids to live in a world where Stanton is a playtester, and neither should you.

lol Well as apparently the only person who was even remotely worried about Val/TLS combo (Although having seen it in action, it really doesn't seem to be that bad. Its only sped up my rush by about a turn at most.), I think I'd be a bit more cautious than the current playtesting group. No offense to them, I know certain changes get made after playtesting and they have no way of controlling that. Also, let's be honest, your kids will be handing me my ass in thrones no matter who's playtesting the cards. lol

AegonTargaryen said:

This

and what serduck said as well - although I can't seem to double quote.

i am surprised the Restricted List didn't get thought of until page three of this thread - IMO it is the FIRST response to calls for Rotation. If cards are a problem and you're worried about combos are deisgn space - BAN things. ban Venemous Blade. ban Val. These cards have had their day in the sun and have been a rpoblem pretty much from the instant they have hti the scene. RESTRICT more frequently - if the Laughing Storm turns out to be giving Baratheon too much of an edge - put him right back on the list.

Rotation is a hold over form CCG dyas. FFG is trying somehting entirely new here and so far so good. Don;t screw it up by going back to CCg tropes. Make the Restricted list an Living Document for a Living Card Game and you'll be fine. And don't be so afraid to just BAN things once in a while. in the end - you are only banning them for tournament play anyway and you end up taking away a lot more than you do with a rotation.

The torunament scene is only a perecentage of the total consumer base - but like writes: casual players tend to follow things like rotation. Youa re going to annoy way more people with rotation than you will with bans and restrictions.

No rotation.

One important question to me is.... can anyone reasonably argue that the number of significantly different tier 1 to tier 2 decks was larger during the first two years of the LCG (ie, limited cardpool) than it has proven to be as our card pool expands? I don't think so. I think based on the current evidence of the LCG cardpool that we have, as more cards have been introduced, the number of viable decks has only gone up.

rings said:

VteS was a good competitive multiplayer game that didn't rotate. I will say however that during the last couple of sets there was definitely an issue where certain abilities were spread into disciplines that didn't have them before which meant that clan identity was irrelevant since most could do everything. So for myself, yeah it became boring.

Otherwise I strongly agree with the second point made above: a decktype that is strong and still receives some support will still be playable and competitive. Completely new decktypes seem to be developed within a contained cycle, for example the Maesters and suddenly there's a new top tier build. Rotation allows design to shuffle and introduce mechanics, rebalance the environment, and relaunch favorite themes with new cards and a different perspective so one doesn't end up playing the exact same deck while still enjoying the fundamentals that drew one to that build.

Aside from personally thinking that an extensive restricted or ban list is indicative of design running into a corner, I think you may as well just rotate if all the best cards end up on it anyway because you need to make room for new ones that don't play nice with them.

rings said:

No, we cannot agree.

The mother of all card games, MtG, has ETERNAL FORMATS. Vintage, Legacy and Modern. They work and they are fun. It's just a question of keeping the right cards on the banned list.

Vintage and, to a lesser degree, Legacy (e.g. Dual Lands) have an availability problem due to limited print runs of powerful cards in the game's early history, but this does not change the fact that those are playable and played ETERNAL formats. A LCG would (should) not have those availability problems.

A rotation is not necessary and I would consider it a really BAD MOVE. A flexible use of the banned & restricted list (and some errata from time to time) is the best answer to the problems mentioned in other posts.

AegonTargaryen said:

We might want to be careful throwing around the word eternal.

As for formats, Game of Thrones does have a Legacy format (which you can use CCG cards), and I've played in more than one Legacy Highlander tournament. And while these tournaments are not played very often, the truth is, MtG formats are also not played in equal amounts.

sWhiteboy said:

+1 Go Small Council-Except for Staton he smells, and can't playtest worth a ****.

Apparently Aegon has never played Type1 MtG. If he had, then he would know that it is the exact opposite of fun. It tends to end in the first two turns, and is usually won by the player who happened to go first.

rings said:

Big difference with Agot is that this game is story driven unlike MTG for example - so you don't have to make power creep too strong to sell new cards since people will buy them because they have their favourite characters or themes. I'd assume that competitive players are small minority and majority are casuals who want to play a bit with chars from favourite book/series.

Also considering noone has trouble to find a bunch of perfectly playable cards in those two cycles and/or core set that are worth playing then surely power creep is not that bad.

To avoid intimidating new players FFG could reprint those cycles in 120x1 for 30$ which would be friendly for completionists and casuals and not worse than current Chapter packs for tourney players. Also retailers surely would be happier to stock single item than 6 different ones.

Here's my take.

This game is possibly on the threshold of actually having Organized Play take off and be successful. We are reaching a point of player base and card selection that has created a field where the options are many. FFG appears to be ready to commit resources to creating a successful OP for this game, something that we haven't seen since the switch from CCG to LCG. Do we want to start rotating cards out of the environment, and upset (and possibly drive out) a group of the people who have helped make this possible? Just so that the high level tournament players can have fewer decks (and cards) to worry about while designing their decks? Or, do we want to keep an open-ended playing field that requires more control over the cards that we are allowed to play?

I can't get behind set rotation without a long lead-in time, and by long I mean well advertised for about 12 months - - say the 2013 tournament season. And even then, only if we get some of the required mechanic cards reprinted in an upcoming deluxe expansion, or even an all-new Core Set. While there are benefits to rotating sets out of the tournament environment, there are also going to be some drawbacks. And what exactly gets rotated out? Are we going to include the first Core Set, which has cards that are still not worth playing? What about Deluxe Expansions? This would then mean that every three years we rotate out two cycles of Chapter Packs and 2 Deluxe Expansions, with the newest DEs replacing the houses that rotated out. Or would rotation occur every four years? Should it only affect Chapter Pack cycles? We don't want to card pool to decrease to a point where only a handful of decks are viable on the tournament scene. The decision to rotate needs to be though out and properly implemented, and not be an impediment to the format.

I think there is a strong need for this discussion now, about the adaptation of set rotation in the future. Either it is going to happen and people need to be prepared, or a decision to keep all sets and start expanding the Restricted and Banned lists needs to occur.

The first two Chapter Pack cycles were bastard sets, stripped from their initial design as ccg expansions, shrunk down and forced into a mold that wasn't fully crafted yet. The first Core Set, and to a degree the first two DEs, we also created at a time when the game's future was still uncertain and the design philosophy was different (more melee mechanics, bring in board gamers, etc.). But even with their flaws, we are still growing on mechanics that they introduced. The thing I don't want to see is Time for Ravens rotated out just to introduce Time for Ravens II that just rehashes the original themes just to keep the Summer/Winter mechanic. And how much will Shadow decks be hit with the rotation of Kings Landing, and Night's Watch decks (which may just be ready to become effective on the tournament scene, maybe) with Defenders rotating, and so and so and so on.

Set rotation may likely be inevitable. Otherwise cards will become "unplayable" either by banning or becoming obsolete via power creep. And I'm not even sure which side I come down on in this debate. But without the conversation, these decisions will be made (or not made) in a vacuum.

I own all but 2 of the 60 card packs and I'm strongly opposed to rotation, if I don't have a card, I'm usually OK with that in any game.

What is terrible in AGOT is that the entire summer/winter mechanic requires the 2 packs that are almost impossible to get and this is unacceptable. People are saying don't rotate becuase it will make non-rotated summer/winter cards useless. Well that situation we have now is that those cards ARE useless, but only to half the play group.

Is it fair to my meta that none of us can play black raven + carrion birds + samwell? Sure. Is it fair to us that one person was able to buy the last song of summer pack and can use that combo when the rest of us can't? Hell no. It's made even worse by the fact that it is designed to be uncounterable except through the very packs that aren't available.

In general no-rotation is perfect for the LCG format, but letting a set go out of print when the only way to counter it is the out of print set is just rediculous. Every time that one player with his kings of summer agenda comes in and guarantees himself an extra card every turn I just feel like slapping him. Mostly because I have about 20 cards I just can't use.