Yu Gi Oh has no set rotation. They also have a very active Restriction list with things coming on and off a lot. Every 3 months is a different format because of list changes and the changes are hotly anticipated. It's a pretty cool system. YGO also has extreme power creep.

A bigger restricted list would not solve the problem of "if I can't get every pack I don't want to play" and "It is too expensive/daunting to start playing"

I think a chapter pack rotation with a Core Set II with some reprints would be the best solution.

tofubones said:

Somehow I don't see anything that would creep Renly, Dragon Thiefs, Fury plots, Pyro Cache, Castellan etc out of existance.

A new Core Set is absolutely not what FFG should do. FFG wants this game to be as easy to get into as possible (which is admittedly only going to get worse with more cards), and the Core Set is fundamental to their whole LCG business model. It is the absolute starting point for each and every player. You buy the Core Set, and then you decide where to go from there. Some people will be happy with just those cards, others will start buying deluxe expansions and chapter packs.

They put out a new Core Set, and all that goes out the window. Now it's not so clear where the starting point for a new purchaser is. And anyone who'se been content with just a single Core Set suddenly has an outmoded product. Some of us are grumpy at the idea of rotating out the cards from Clash of Arms and Time of Ravens, but those of us who care about those packs are just a portion of the game's userbase; every single player of the game is affected if you change the Core Set.

Plus, the Core Set generally has only one copy of each card, and it should stay that way. You don't want triplicates of everything in every deck, and the Core Set is designed to be playable right out of the box. If they did release a new revised Core Set with cards from CoA and ToR, where does that leave us? Needing to be 3 Core Sets AGAIN? I'd rather not.

A straight reprint of the chapter packs or converting the cycles to deluxe expansions are really FFG's only options if they want us to continue to have access to these cards.

Hmmm... for the card gamers anywhere on the casual to hardcore spectrum, I don't really see how a Core Set Second Edition would be particularly discouraging considering all of the other frequent releases, expansions, and packs that they are already purchasing to varying degrees.

For the boardgamers who want to stick with just the Core Set box experience, I still don't see how a Core Set Second Edition would be particularly discouraging. Those who are happy with their currently owned product stick with it. Those who want to see what's been updated purchase the Second Edition. For example, as far as I know, no one seems to be pissed off that FFG released a Second Edition of the AGOT boardgame. Instead everyone I know seems to be extremely happy with the updated art, extra house, and tweaked and revised rules.

If FFG were to release a Core Set Second Edition that updated it and built on what's been learned about the metagame, player interactions, and player preferences in the years since the first release, I actually think it would be quite popular.

AegonTargaryen said:

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 !

I guess I should have said VIABLE formats for card games with no rotation. There is a reason multiple people snickered (and I am sure many more did in their head) when MTG Type 1 was even mentioned in this thread. And you are right - aGoT isn't MTG - older cards have no real value unless reprinted, unlike MTG where SOME older cards (mainly really old and rare ones) have a worth. But whatever, I asked a basic question and you gave a basic answer so I can see that...just not a viable answer since MTG figured out LONG ago that some sort of rotation/restriction was necessary, and I think they should know being the most popular game in the world and all As did AEG, FFG at one point, Decipher, etc, etc...

You know, you don't have to read us just talking about basic rotation theories if it is making you sick...I know I wouldn't!

You are right that taking away cards would diminish the options available. But so does a huge card pool. Why possibly play Cercei's Attendent when you can play Doubting Septa, or one of the 3 +1 income guys, or the new 2 strength tri-con, or random chud #86 that will be coming out in the next cycle? Saying more cards will only = more diversity in decks assumes that FFG can consistently make new themes that are exactly as powerful as the existing ones. That just ins't possible in the long run.

Anyone who doesn't believe in power creep needs to go look at the new card spoiled today (Dobbler called it power leap rather than creep). Or look at the plots people are normally using these days.

I totally agree with you though that there needs to be a happy medium. I really think just restricting deck building to X number of cycles would work fine. You want to play Winter/Summer? Maesters? Nights Watch (LOL)? Knights? Fine, you will find PLENTY of support in three cycles plus the Core plus one of the house expansions *shrug* That doesn't remove any cards from the legal format, but helps to ensure more of them actually have some worth in competative play (again, casual players shouldn't give a crap one way or another).

Lastly someone said (Michaelius?) why are we running out of CP's if it is getting intimidating for new players. #1 I don't think it is there yet - you can still get a playset for under $1,000. That won't last forever. #2 FFG isn't reprinting. Heck, I know I pick up an old CP once in awhile. Collectors might just pick up one here and there. It might even be some prize support for existing players, or an FFG employee spilling coffee on a few . Of course someday we are going to run out of product, even if demand is weak. Michaelius also said he couldn't imagine certain cards being irrellevant. Just wait. Newer plots have already made quite a few old solid plots irrellevant. Nothing stops FFG from making a new Castellean that costs 2 in the next cycle to increase sales. It is just history that most cards are made irrelevant by new more efficient or useful cards.

I'm not entirely sure why this is even a debate. The entire reason for making the switch from CCG to LCG was to end the rotation system and never make cards obsolete. It's like debating whether or not we should re-institute slavery now that we got that whole constitution thing sorted out.

dcdennis said:

yea. . . . . . it's not at all like that

rings said:

Hmmm... I'm not quite sure that you're understanding options in the way that options should probably be used here. In the example you're using, you seem to be saying that there are currently 5 viable choices for a 1 cost Lannister character. If we were to rotate or ban one of those, then perhaps Cersei's Attendent would be viable, or perhaps it wouldn't. If it does not, then we're down to 4 viable options. If it does, then we're still at 5 viable options. Either way, we don't create more options- we merely create different options and possibly less.

Of course, that's just on a card level analysis, but I believe the deck level analysis to be more pertinent, and I think, the one much more likely to change dramatically if rotation were enacted. The important question to me in relation to what you brought up is- do we have any decktypes that are currently being held back that would suddenly become viable by eliminating other cards from the environment? Possibly Brotherhood and Ghaston Grey ( ;p) but that's a singular card in a recent set, rather than a large swath or theme that could be excised by the usual concept of rotation. On the other hand, if we were to rotate out the first couple of chapter packs, there are notable builds that would be greatly diminished or destroyed. The total viable number of decks would go down, and I don't see any way that they would go up. In fact, a couple new ones would have to spring up to reach parity.

Also, per MTG comparisons, AGOT LCG is far closer to MTG Modern than Vintage or Legacy. And quite honestly, I think Modern is probably their best format in existence right now.

dcdennis said:

Bwahahahaha. ~The Restricted List only counts as 3/5 of a card for deckbuilding purposes!

Oh wow................ I'm going to burn, aren't I? *sigh*

dcdennis said:

This isn't true. That was not the entire reason for the switch, and probably wasn't even top 3.

1) The game was DYING. It was not bringing in new players. They had to reboot the system to have a chance to attract new players.

2) The manufacturing costs for producing "fixed pack starters" vs "random boosters" is SIGNIFICANT. Massive cost reduction by moving to chapter packs.

3) They wanted to move the game to a more casual atmosphere. Doesn't anyone wonder why OP program has never been fully developed? Perhaps because there are people at FFG who simply don't want it and wanted to attract a new type of player....the board gamer...thus...why we got a "in the box" experience of the Core set.

Hmmm... Dobbs, I think you might have just made the argument for no rotation pretty strongly.

In relation to your points:

1. The game is currently growing by all metrics that we have available to us and all feedback that we've heard from FFG. There is no need to reboot if the current system is working.

2. Manufacturing costs aren't effected by rotation one way or the other.

3. Rotation is only necessary for the OP crowd. If FFG wants to downplay OP, then there's no reason to rotate.

Kennon said:

Obviously FFG decision-makers seem to be warming up to the idea of a more involved OP program lately, but I definitely think you are correct. If their mindset has always been geared towards the more "casual" player throughout the LCG era, then rotation would seem very out-of-character

Kennon said:

Kennon said:

Depends on how you look at it:

1. That can't be sustained. At SOME POINT, the sheer size will turn off new players. Trust me, I am already seeing it a bit. Just because something is growing, doesn't mean the growth isn't #1. slowing, and #2. couldn't be larger. Plus...the whole TV show and new book and everything probably helps

2. True. Although sales could be. Cost reductions without sales = who cares.

3. Can't argue there. Although it isn't like there is NO organized play, and as people have said on this thread, even if you are not competative, it does affect casual players for some reason.

Also, Kennon I am not sure what you are saying below. I think limiting the # of CP's you can use for tourney decks (while not rotating anything) increases options in that it levels the playing field for themes. The primary theme of the house isn't quite so robust. Let's say Targ gets support for burn (a major theme) in every single cycle, but they only get Maester support or Dothraki support in a few. A some point, there is no way that the major theme isn't more powerful than the sub-theme, since that theme will only get more efficent over time...right? Plus more cards will be used, since not every deck is going to use...say...refugees?

Sorry that particular thought mainly has to do with rotation rather than some style of block deckbuilding limitations. The main issue that I see with block deckbuilding is bookkeeping, though I also think it would be another huge blow to combo style decks, which are just now barely getting a foothold.

Kennon said:

I agree it would be tougher as a TO, but if all you are looking for is 5 symbols (as an example - 3 CP cycles and one house box and a core set) it wouldn't be THAT bad. Better than rotation, and truly only effects competative players.

I probably don't see an issue with combo decks either - is there truly any of the combo style decks that need more than that (tell me if I am wrong, I don't play combo a lot)? Any combos I can think of really rely on 3-4 cards, which if my math is correct it is impossible not to get those with 5 different 'sets' available.

rings said:

I think the first two points are really dependent on the percentage of sales going to the OP crowd, and given the current scheme (I'm curious how many league night kits are sold) that really only counts the people attending regionals/nationals/continentals & worlds. Whhen you look at Stahleck & Gencon, were they're any unique attendees there that hadn't been to a previous regional/national. Let's say "we" are only a half or a third (and it may be smaller <or larger>) of the total "population" of purchased cards, with the remainder being purchased by basement boardgamers, local boardgame store-types and collectors. Without knowing the production numbers, it's not like it's easy for us to estimate Will the attrition between those currently playing be refreshed by those who have to surmount the current entry barrier? As rings says, sales growth can't be permanent, even with the success of the HBO series. And even amongst the nerdier set to which AGOT lends itself, the percentage of people purchasing the play experience (sorry, had to continue the alliteration there) that go on to become competitive (see also, Madkasel) isn't likely to climb too high.

On the last point, with the creation of Worlds and the hubbub over who's actually going to attend (there doesn't appear to be any assistance for US regional winners to make the trip), it might appear that FFG is really only targeting the hardcore players (yes rings, we know you're hardcore ) for OP. I never played the Decipher AGOT, but what was there OP like? Did it appear that they had any plans to continue building on the license beyond the popularity of the films? Or did it pretty much end when Deciper did?

I guess the question is, at what point does a decrease in OP-type players (as a function of sales) due to entry price affect FFG's planning (assuming that the data is even parsed on their end)? And does marketing/management give direction to the designer/developers? If so, those are they guys to find and buy drinks when you got to FFG Event Center.

That being said, I think the # of Cycles + Core and/or Expansion seems like a good intermediate step.

I have been out of the game for quite some time. But I've always been a tournament player, not a casual player. So I'm viewing this idea from that perspective.

I stopped playing when the 3x chapter pack sets were just beginning to be released. Imagine all the cards that have come out since then. The 3x sets plus the house expansions. I'm not sure how much it would actually cost but, that cost is the reason I'm not in the game anymore. I fell behind and the cost outweighs my want (and my wallet), to continue playing.

I am highly in favor of rotation. For cost purposes, for variation purposes, and for format purposes.

On a side note: Did Aegon ever actually play MtG? Cause comparing AGoT to modern/type 2/standard is a horrible comparison. Look how many sets are in standard at a single time. Cards get rotated out of standard and into other formats to keep the format fresh and different. Also, MtG has the horrible problem of there never being more than a few deck types at a time. Look at reports for a PTQ or FNM. Tell me they aren't all variations of 3-4 different decks.

Having a large card pool to choose from is good for a game. But is the large card pool actually effecting the decks in the top tournament tiers? Or is everyone still using the top 10% of the card pool because those are the best cards? (That is a legit question by the way).

It's already been pretty well stated that FFG is going to have to do something about the growing card pool either through rotation or more use of the restricted/banned list. The restricted/banned list may favor those who already have all the cards but, rotation is the way that I feel would show interested people that they don't have to spend hundreds of dollars to feel like they can compete in a tournament.

Of course, if they rotated, Husemann, you'd have to spend pretty close to the same amount to get in as you would to catch up and be complete. If they don't rotate, you can still play (likely a pretty decent deck) with the cards you already own. Or you could even use those cards along with a few strategic purchases to save you money.

Kennon said:

But as a tournament player, I would want all the options available. Neither option really appeals to me personally at the point I'm at. I just think rotation would be better for gaining players in the long run.

Why not try a format that uses only the core set, the boxed expansions, and 2-3 chapter pack sets that get randomly selected every (3-6?) months or so? That would give variation on what gets played and would provide some excitement to find out what the next rotation would be.

I like this idea too. This way, none of our cards is rendered obsolete and more cards are given a chance to be tried out in decks. Suddenly, more and more cards become meaningful.

Husemann said:

Have YOU ever played MtG ? It doesn't seem so to me.

First of all, in MtG STANDARD, the format with the smallest card pool, the truth is that almost every year a few weeks after the big rotation, in no time there are just 3-4 tier 1 (i.e. the ones that win tournaments) decks left. DUE TO THE LIMITED CARD POOL and intensive net-decking, the top players are quick to figure out the best strategies and those few strategies are going to dominate the format until the next rotation, i.e. for about 1-2 years. During the lifespan of a Standard format, things quickly become quite stale. Right now, there is mainly U/W Delver in some variants, some variants of Wolf Run and maybe three to four other competitive deck-types. It's like in the early AGOT LCG days when Lannister was dominant for 1 1/2 years before the other houses got relevant options with the increasing card pool.

It is therefore quite ironic to call Standard "fresh and different". Right, if I rotate out all half the cards every year, you have a "fresh and different" game with every launch of a comletely new card pool. Big surprise. But at what costs to the players ? They spend hundreds of Dollars/Euros/Whatever for their cards and then they can't play them anymore after just two years (even less for the later sets in a block) !

Only, IN MAGIC THIS IS NOT THE END for those cards. You can use those same cards to play in MODERN (consisting of every card released for standard play since the Mirrodin block of October 2003) or LEGACY (consisting of every Magic card ever released since 1993, with the exception of the ultra broken ones released early in the game) or one of the fun formats like COMMANDER (a highlander format). Once again, only for completion's sake, I also mention VINTAGE (which is not supported very much and where you can play with almost every card ever released, including the broken ones from the early editons).

Due to the broken cards included in its cardpool, Vintage is indeed not a fun format, HOWEVER, both Legacy and Modern are accepted formats played by a vast number of players for many years . All three formats - Standard, Modern and Legacy, are supported with OP. Standard more than the others, because the publishers of MtG like to make money with new cards. But ask a random magic player which format he likes best and "Standard" might not be the answer you get in many cases, for the reasons outlined above.

But it is this mix of having the options to play with completely new card pools while at the same time to stil be able to use the "old" cards that makes MtG so interesting.

IN AGOT, as said before, most likely there will be NO SUPPORT for more then one format. AND THIS MEANS, if there is a rotation, YOU MIGHT AS WELL THROW AWAY all those cards you bought so far. All those beloved charactes that finally saw print, all the money you spent for the cards, GONE.

In MtG, I can still sell the top cards many years after I first bought them on the secondary market. In some cases, they have increased in value, because they have become a staple in one of the eternal formats. Not so in AGOT: Once rotated out, all you will have left after a rotation is a pile of trash with nice (or not-so-nice) pictures on it.

Thus, if we would REALLY need some sort of limitation to the card pool (I do not think this point has been reached), I also would strongly favor the suggested systems where no cards a rotated out, but you have to choose the cards for your deck from the core set and deluxe expansions and two to three chapter pack cycles of your choice.

Make a limit on the number of cycles you can use in tournament play. Maybe its all the Deluxe Expansions available with cards from X chapter pack cycles. Then the cardpool for any deck will never exceed what it is at right now (by very much).

That sounds similar to my idea, Mathias. I think that kind of rotation would be great.

It would allow the environment to continuously change to keep the current meta from getting stale. Eventually, every pack would be playable at some point, so no card really goes to waste. Everyone has a reason to keep their cards and continue buying the new cards that come out. If anything, I think it would make some cards that get overlooked in certain cycles become possibly playable.

I'm sure that system would have some kinks but, it seems like a happy medium between limiting the card pool and still allowing players to use the older cards.

I'm not sure that proposal fixes much. I had a similar idea (and I believe it was proposed somewhere earlier in this thread)... but let's look at some of the arguments so far;

1) Big-up front cost to new players. Limiting your deck to only "X" cycles does mean that someone who knows what deck he's building can have a lower up-front cost (but someone who knows what deck he's building can buy all the right CPs now anyway, saving money) - it doesn't really help the "new" player.

2) Design challenges with expanding card pool. Designers still have to worry about any potential card interaction, unless it's across X+1 chapter pack cycles (not really a big help for the designers).


Mind you, I like the idea of saying "Hey, he's already played card from 3 different cycles, so I know I don't need to worry about that shadows card being Venemous Blade!" and I like the idea of expanding variety by (perhaps) making new cards viable eg; "I can't afford to add "A time of ravens" cycle to this deck, so I guess I won't play refugees... so let's look for some other weenies".

I am strongly against rotation.

The primary reason for this is very simple: When I buy something for a game, I hate being told I can't use it. Instead of providing a motivation to purchase more cards to stay current, it actually has the opposite effect on me, discouraging me from buying more cards that I know will "expire."

I kind of understand rotation when you're dealing with a game sold in boosters. When you don't know what you're getting, it helps to have a smaller card pool to build from. With the Chapter Pack format, however, putting together a deck based on an idea is a lot simpler (and cheaper), especially since we have websites with searchable card databases.

I've avoided other CCGs for years because I despise being told that I can't continue to use cards or decks that I enjoy because they're no longer current (in fact I've had a habit of tournament play for games that introduce rotation). The fact that AGoT never did this was something I loved. Yes, the shift to LCG format DID do this, and I still don't agree with that decision (in fact, in weekly league play, my meta ignores the LCG/Legacy deckbuilding restrictions), but I put up with it because I love this game.

So far, I have not witnessed cost intimidation to be a big factor, the Chapter Packs and Deluxe Expansions have taken care of that. Yes, if you want to collect EVERY LCG card EVER printed, it takes quite an investment, but there is NO reason to make that investment all at once, and this is HANDS DOWN the cheapest game to keep up with.

In short, I suppose you could say that I oppose rotation because I see no good reason to support it.