bane2571 said:

Emphasis mine. So, basically, in this one scenario you're OK with set rotation?

Just one other relevant thought since Summer/Winter/Ravens keep coming up. There are a variety of Crowns and one character now which can turn on a particular season and a recent event (Ill Tidings) that can target and discard Raven attachments. While the majority of the support of those themes were indeed in a cycle that is becoming more scarce, saying that players who only have access to the newer cards are SOL isn't really accurate.

Kennon said:

I don't know about that- Cotter Pyke is somewhat reliable with all of the GJ saves, but the crowns seem WAY less reliable than the ravens. They cost 2, are just regular attachments which every deck seems to be able to deal with these days, and go on characters who are fragile themselves. Further, the crowns are house-specific, and thus even more expensive, AND they don't provide the gold adjustment. For Summer that's not as big a deal- Targ is decent at getting attachments back, and they might not need the + gold, but trying to play GJ choke with the crown is pretty impossible. Also it's not JUST the birds- if they don't have the packs with the birds, they don't have the agendas either, so even if they 'can' play seasons, they have significantly less reason to do so.

I wish there was a simple way to come up with a "floating card pool".

For example, take the useless "F" (I know it stands for fixed) next to each card number and put it to use. Start printing cards with "G" and make a ruling that says your deck con only contain cards with 2 neighboring letters (i.e. "F" and "G", or "G" and "H"). That way all cards stay legal, but only select cycles can be used together.

There a many problems with this idea. First, the Core Set has "S", "L", "B", and "T" on the cards. Second, we already have so many cards with "F" on them, and I can't imagine a card pool twice the size of what we have now.

Maybe the letter thing doesn't work so well, but there's got to be a way to do something like this.

This is the only system that would provide all the benefits of rotation, without going against the spirit of the LCG model.

^ Get this man a job. He thinks real good.

Well FFG could try and simply promote more prize support for a new limited tourney format to get things rolling. So instead of announcing any kind of rotation and anger some fans, just give the people more options. Then, sooner or later we will see which format attracts more people and they can still decide to make one of the formats to the standard one if it's too difficult to support two formats.

bane2571 said:

Well, this can easily be redeemed by FFG by either reprinting those chapter packs or by publishing a deluxe kind of product featuring the most important cards.

ALL IN ALL, my point is, Eternal Formats (that's WotC official name for Vintage, Legacy and Modern) do exist in other CCGs and can be fun formats if solid banned & restricted lists are applied (actually I really don't care for Vintage, by the way).

Part of MtG's success is that your cards never become worthless due to those formats. You don't have to say goodbye forever after two years.

The problem with AGOT is, due to the more restricted player base, FFG at this point will most likely only really support ONE format.

Now, if I would have to choose between

a) an eternal format where two dozen or so cards are on the banned / restricted list and

b) a format where I can put half my collection in the trashcan every other year,

I always would prefer the solution a) where 95 % of my cards remain playable. Really, I do not believe there are many here who have seriously played with their old CCG cards recently. You do not get much for those on ebay, either. Might aswell throw them away.

The argument which has been made that everybody can play with any cardpool he likes, holds no ground for me. It is a fact that due to the existing community, most players want to play with the same cardpool as the vast majority does. Otherwise, you are not really part of the community. You would not understand what moves the community and not really be able to compete and follow discussions about certain strategies and cards in the context of the environment, which is part of what makes this game so great.

For MTG you have different formats but AGOT already has two formats: Joust and Melee - how are you going to squezee two more tourneys into same time space ?

Deathjester26 said:

Vampire did exactly that. When building a crypt, which was your selection of personalities, the deck could only contain characters of two adjacent groups. It was a way to prevent running too many really good characters for a focused deck.

My only thought about that in a game like this is that it seems that many themes in Thrones were not fleshed out beyond their introductory CP cycle, so the card pool is very obvious when looking for which cards to run and which not, and grouping cycles would really limit these decks to being either one version or another unless it was something more scattered like you can run any cards from core, deluxe, and up to three cycles of your choice. It would bothersome to keep track of decklist legality but otherwise not bad.

L5R also does something similar. Cards are "bugged" with certain symbols seperate from the actual set they are in, and this bug denotes tournament legality. This way, a card can be printed in one block and have the bug for that set, but also the bug for the next set, allowing them to rotate the majority of the cards, but keep certain ones legal for the next round. Of course, this takes quite a bit of preplanning and would probably be a real birch to retroactively add to AGOT now. And I really wouldn't want to do something that required another reboot.

michaelius said:

This is spot on. ANd to counter the argument that "casuals" will not be affected by rotatuion, it has always been my exeperience that:even casual players get turned off when they find out that sets are no longer "legal" As Aegon puts so well:

AegonTargaryen said:

When they rotated out Westeros back in 2004, I tired to keep the set legal for NY tournaments for another year. But we lost 80% of the palygroup anyway - and they were msotly casual, non travelling players. Rotation just is not a good idea in my opinion, and especially not in this format, adn esepcially not when we have the Rsetricted List

We have thrown around the thought to limit OP to X number of cycles plus core sets plus maybe a house box before, I can't believe we forgot about it until Deathjester threw it back out there.

To be honest, I think that is the best thought. The positives far outweight the negatives (playtesting would still be a bear, but that is what the restricted list if for), and all cards would then have a worth. I agree it needs to be announced FAR in advance though...something FFG isn't really famous for

Oh, and LOL on Type 1 MTG. That was a good one I do agree though, that in BIG games with really heavy OP support you can have more formats. Melee and Joust are plenty for aGoT where it is now, however.

I certainly see Stag Lord and other's points about rotation really hurting - it has hurt aGoT in the past and certainly would again. On the flip side, however, I do think it will be harder and harder to get new players into the game without some sort of limits on basic play. Being able to buy the last three cycles and a few other boxes would keep the overall cost to under $500 or so which would be a nice selling point.

Remember, a lot of people (at least in my experience) have joined up due to the lower cost of being able to play (i.e. no rarities to chase). That starts to lose its luster if there is a gigormous card pool, and intimidating. Hell, I am lothe to get back into L5R even those Gerken and DeWulf are, mainly due to that first step...and that is a game with a rotation that just happened so I only have three sets plus the base set to get!

Although I'm hypothetically in favor of set rotation, I think there's a lot to be said for selective banning/restriction, if the end result is to maximize variety, as I previously argued I think it should be.

A MUCH more liberal use of the restricted list would be OK by me, though it seems that a lot of players get worked up when cards from their preferred house(s) are even mentioned as candidates for restriction. But just to give people an idea of the extent to which restrictions *could* be used, here's a sample of cards I think would be OK to restrict that would ultimately add variety to the environment.

• A Maester's Path
• Tin Link
• Valyrian Steel LInk
• 0-cost refugees
• Carrion Birds
• Golden Tooth Mines
• Lannisport Brothel & Tourney Grounds
• Tyrion (shadows version)
• Enemy Informer
• Red Viper (immune to everything version)
• Ellaria
• Game of Cyvasse
• Ghaston Grey
• The Scourge
• Flame-Kissed
• Hatchling Feast
• Rhaenerys's Hill
• Meraxes
• Meereen Tourney Grounds
• Meereenese Brothel
• Wintertime Marauders
• Iron Cliffs
• (the list goes on for each house...)

Basically, the idea is to target powerful, meta-defining cards and restrict the ability of players to combine them in the same decks. If done correctly, this step would render some of them much less useful (possibly never seeing play), but in doing so it would provide a HUGE boon to the variety and competitiveness of certain cards. The question is, do we effectively ban (ie "restrict") a selection of key cards, or outright ban whole sets through rotation?

This use of the restricted list would be a strategic shift in the way the restricted list is used, away from "balancing" the environment, toward using it to promote diversity and an explosion of deck archetypes. To reiterate, I'm not saying this is necessarily better than rotation, but I do think it would be at least as effective at promoting deck and play style diversity. The downside, of course, is that checking deck lists could be a bit of a pain, and there would likely be a lot of well-intentioned people who forget or misread the list and bring illegal decks to tournaments.

Stag Lord and others on this forum have noted the very significant risks of losing players through rotation. Even while I support the idea of rotation (in theory), the loss of players is important to consider and very easily may outweigh the number of potential players who are "deterred" from starting a game that requires such significant initial investment/buy-in. If ramping up use of the restricted list is an alternative, albeit more complicated, way to reduce the power level and/or add variety to the environment in lieu of rotation, then it should be on the table as an option.

rings said:

If high entry cost are bad why are we constantly running out of print of expansion x, chapter y ever since HBO series ?

I gotta say, I rather hate that idea Twn2Dn. I think that is one of the few ways they could go that would get me to stop playing- rather than 'banning' whole packs (which is easy to check for via expansion symbol), a list like that would effectively 'ban' individual cards from a variety of packs- For instance you have 3 sources of burn on there, but Flame-kissed is basically essential for a burn deck due to its terminal effect and its synergy with LDC, so there would be little or no reason to play Feast or Tourney Grounds. Same with the Lanni kneel effects. I guess it would promote card diversity a LITTLE bit, but I think more realistically all that it would do is cause players to gravitate to the next-best layer of cards, while preventing people from playing with some of the absolute best.

+1 to what Imrahil said

I know this is a long shot, but something I would like to see is a vote for restricted cards by the community, or at least a select number of experienced and well seasoned players. Players who play the game on a regular basis that are unbiased about what cards are restricted from each house. With the understanding that FFG has the final say in what cards should and shouldn't be restricted. If browsing the community for the past couple of years has shown me anything is that these boards have a pretty good understanding of the environment with everybody adding some unique and valid points to the conversation. It would also give the fans and players of the LCG control over their own game which could give the community a sense of empowerment.

"With great power comes great responsibility"

imrahil327 said:

One note about the above "sample" list though is that, in theory, a list like this would emerge gradually over time and could begin with what are perceived as the most problematic cards...for example, the Maester's Path + Tin Link. (Restricting both would mean that you could include one but not the other. I'm guessing that would effectively mean banning the Tin Link.) Ultimately, this is a subjective determination, but I think it would be relatively easy to agree on a more liberal use of restriction for many of the problematic neutral cards.

That could work if you introduced second list of let's call them limited cards and then allow for example

0-1 restricted card and 0-3 limited cards in the deck.

And sorry but I fail to see what is desirable in rotation. It might be attractive to bored veterans of CCG era but if FFG decided to rotate seasons with less than a year of warning result would be tons of really pissed off new players.

mason240 said:

I posted a similar thought in a different thread before I read this. I think you are absolutely right about releasing old cycles as a deluxe expansion. They would cut down on the number of overall products that could go out of print and I think they would have a much easier time selling a big box set for $40 that 6X chapter packs. In fact, I think they would entice more players and make more money doing this.

As you said, it won't hurt their ability to sell CPs since no one is going to wait for a new release to go out of print.

rings said:

Oh, and LOL on Type 1 MTG. That was a good one

So YOU think Vintage/Type 1 MtG is comparable to AGOT LCG ? Because I did not. I just listed it together with Legacy and Modern as the eternal formats of MtG, making my point that those eternal formats do exist outside of YuGiOh. I also have mentioned that I did not care for Vintage. So what is your point here ?

AGOT LCG really is best compared with the MtG Modern format. Like in AGOT, the older sets are not allowed (in AGOT: the CCG sets) and the format is only governed by a list of banned cards, not by set rotation. I believe Modern has been a success. A large card pool with a lot of different themes from the various sets provides for interesting build options. By making changes to the banned list from time to time, unbalanced strategies can be countered.

Right now, AGOT also provides for a lot of interesting build options and a good balance has found between the houses, in my opinion. Unbalanced strategies have been taken care of by the banned / restricted / errata list. SO WHY ON EARTH ARE WE EVEN DISCUSSING A ROTATION ? As has been said, card availability can be redeemed in other ways.

Taking sets/chapter packs away just DIMINISHES the build options. Taking away summer/winter destroys an entire aspect of the game, but doesn't hurt decks that do not use summer / winter in the first place. If decks were successful without summer/winter, they will still exist after such a rotation, but summer / winter decks will have disappeared. So, the effect will just be that the amount of playable decks has been reduced.

I also do not see a power creep right now. Every set has highlights and low points. We have had very strong cards in earlier chapter packs (Jaqen H'Ghar, Pyromancer's Cache or Castellan of the Rock, anyone ?) and we have had quite a few weak cards in recent chapter packs (just ask Baratheon players).

Finally, as I have said before, I REALLY would HATE to have to throw away all those good cards. Maybe it would indeed make me quit this time. In particular because we WERE PROMISED that there would NOT be another rotation when the LCG was introduced !

So, can we please move on and stop this talk of rotations and giant restricted lists, because, as I have said before, all of this makes me SICK, as in PHYSICALLY SICK !

It is like someone just walks unasked into my beautiful garden and rips out my favorite flowers while talking about the need for new things to grow.

New options we should get through new cards and not by removing our beloved old ones !

After seeing previews of the next cycle I would not worry about set rotation. I think FFG is just going to power creep (leap) the old sets out of existence.

imrahil327 said:

I am lost. I don't get how having to choose between one of four cards is worse than not bring able to use any of them.

2 reasons:

1. When you rotate a CP, you rotate all cards from it- good and bad. The list Twn2dn provided ONLY 'rotates' good cards.

2. Simple bookkeeping- it's easier to remember "Oh, I can't play with this cycle" than "Hmm, is this card on the list as well as this card? Did that get removed?"

I think I'd like rotation best if it were done in a way pretty much already suggested:

FFG takes many of the staple cards that are needed for themes to work, or for houses to work in general, and makes a new core set with these cards from the current core set + clash of arms + time for ravens cycle. This method assumes rotation is meant to keep it easier for new players to enter, and is not focused on keeping the card pool fresh and to rotate out dominant cards or cards that have been used as staples for a very long time and are ubiquitous.

This would allow people who've already invested a bunch of cash to still use all legal cards from those sets they've purchased, while new players have that drastically easier price point to enter in with. I think it would be really awesome if FFG had a poll online, they said, "OK, this new core set has X card slots, now vote for what cards get in for each house."

Of course, we don't know what FFG is planning, they might be printing up new versions of the first 2 chapter packs with 3x copies like they did with Shadows and Wildling blocks.