The recent discussion around rotation, combined with a few recent comments from friends who play this game, inspired me to share a few thoughts on why I believe a more robust use of the restricted list would be the better option. I have posted a somewhat lengthy article on CardGameDB that explores each of the many aspects related to this issue, including card design, power creep, and what the composition of the restricted list might look like. The article is available here: http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/index.html/_/articles/an-argument-for-more-frequent-use-of-the-restri-r126 . (No login required to read.)

For those who prefer the shortened version, my basic argument is this: Each card set includes a small number of cards that are slightly too powerful, a small number of nearly worthless cards, and a majority of cards that are more or less balanced. In the competitive environment, good players typically tend to use more of the better cards and fewer of the mediocre cards. Ultimately, the mediocre cards become virtually unplayable because they cannot compete. The "real" competitive card pool is thus comprised of a much smaller number of "top-level" cards that are used much more frequently. Unsurprisingly, these cards typically do not mirror a particular theme, such as Tullys or dothraki, and they tend to be less thematic than less competitive builds that focus on flavor (such as a build based around dragons). Rotation, whereby older cards are excluded from legal competitive play, would do little to rebalance the environment because (1) many of the most powerful cards are relatively new, and (2) rotation would simply reduce the number of powerful cards while also eliminating many cards that are perfectly fine. Sure there would be fewer overpowered cards in the environment, but overpowered cards would still exist and see a lot of play. The only sustainable way to deal with overpowered cards and slow power creep is to use the restricted list much more frequently or liberally than it is currently used.

I expect there will be much disagreement on this conclusion, and I welcome comments and suggestions. I think this discussion will ultimately help FFG decide on a path. The decision makers tend to be somewhat attuned to public opinion, and players here have much to contribute.

If you do disagree with me, I would request that you at least take a look and skim through the longer article posted on CardGameDB. It may be that I have poorly represented my thoughts in short form here. I have vetted the longer version, and it does a good job (I believe) of laying out in logical fashion why a restricted list would be the best course of action, compared with rotation and/or in-game balancing through the printing of more cards.

The more I play games with other people the more I believe we are jumping the gun. IMO we haven't seen the game more balanced than it is at this moment.

I do like the restricted list though and think it is the best tool we can use for the future, but as of right now I don't have any worries about the state of the game.

Reek said:

Again, all of this is based on my personal experiences, so I'm interested to see how things go during regionals. At the very least though, I suspect that we'll see quite a bit of house variety, but VERY LITTLE variety within each house. That is to say, all of the winning Martell decks will run 50-80% of the same cards, and the same is true for Targaryen, Lannister, etc. This is an improvement from two years ago when only a couple of the houses were truly competitive, but it's still less than ideal. Given the size of the card pool, there should be A LOT more diversity of builds within houses.

What would you think of having an legendary pool of cards that players could use no more then 2 of in their deck?

This legendary pool would be in addition to the restricted list, so a player could build a deck using 1 restricted card and 2 legendary cards. The legendary pool would be larger then the restricted list. While the restricted list would likely remain static, the legendary pool could be more malleable and could see adjustments every couple of months.

Some cards that are currently restricted would better fit into to the legendary pool (such at the Fury plots) and it would give a middle path for dealing with cards like Val+TLS. Rather then just ban the combo outright, as was the case, Bara players would have to choose between standing Robert and another legendary over Val and TLS.

The legendary pool would also be good tool for creating some more balance between the houses. Should one house become too powerful, one or two cards that have become auto-includes for any deck built out that house (say House Messenger) could be added.

Simply expanding the restricted list in it's current form would mostly likely mean a death sentence for almost any card added to it.

Yes, it would be another list to keep track of when building decks, but implementing such a mechanism would be a rather elegant way of making the games many 2nd tier cards and decks much more viable, leading to a much greater diversity in deck types.

-

mason240 said:

This makes sense to me - As someone who had reasonable success with a Baratheon Knights of the realm deck that made a lot of headway out of Robert participating in every challenge (I ran Devious intentions OOH) I've been hit quite badly by the errata in the FAQ. I feel that something like this would have prevented combos like Bob+Satin+First Ranger + Builder of the Watch or Bob+Apprentice Collar + Maester's Path + all the chains, and wouldn't have needed such a bruising solution as the errata (as revenge, I'll probably just add Val to my deck for risk-free draw when the laughing storm is around)

The OP also mentioned themed decks that see little play, such as Dothraki, Tully etc in competition. I wonder if there's a way in which this could be improved- perhaps some kind of additional restriction on OOH cards? on the other hand, this wouldn't do anything to stop some of the horrifcally un-thematic house + neutral decks that have been seen in the past - Maester Bob, Martell-Wildling, Lannister-Infamy-Brotherhood etc.

I'll try to check out the original article some time in the week

I like the idea of a "legendary list" as Mason has suggested it. I do have to admit, after taking a break from the game post Gencon last year, and then coming back to the game in it's current state, it was a bit of a change. The amount of "combo" in the game has certainly gone up, unfortunately a lot of those combos are either overpowered, or things that can cause NPE. I was shocked to see just how strong some of the new cards were, and just how crazy some of these effects could get (i.e. discarding an entire deck with Satin).

I am definitely against rotation, although it is often the norm in competitive card game environments I feel like to do such would be to throw away one of the greatest strengths of the LCG format. Something like this would provide a much more finessed solution while still keeping the competitive play environment manageable.

I would put in a strong vote in favor of Twn2dn's approach. There are always going to be cards that stand out as unusually efficient. Card rotation would reduce the total number of these stand out cards, but probably not the percentage, and it wouldn't address the basic problem. Competitive decks would still exhibit a high degree of homogenization, and the fewer cards that are available, the closer we approach a situation where there is actually a "best" deck, demonstrably more efficient than any other. To take an extreme example for illustrative purposes: if there were a tournament in which every deck had to be composed of cards from the Princes of the Sun expansion, I would expect to see largely identical decks. Another way to look at deck variety is to ask, in any given deck, how many cards are included that are included in no other deck? In the extreme example above, i would hypothesize that almost no cards would be included in one deck that were not included in many others. Eschewing rotation and liberally using the restricted list is the only way to create a card pool with a relatively low percentage of "auto-includes," and a high degree of variety in competitive decks. I find that particularly attractive as a guy who likes to play off beat decks.

I also prefer the restricted list option from the perspective of a less than hard-core gamer. That may not sound like a point in favor of this argument, but i think i represent the market that the LCG model was designed to reel in. The difference between me playing AGoT and not playing M:tG is the approachability of the LCG model for a new player. If, at any given time, a large block of my cards were going to be completely unplayable i would lose a lot of enthusiasm for the game. I understand that it may seem distasteful to cater to the more casual player, but attracting more players is good for everyone.

I don't think more "lists" are the way to go. It makes the game more confusing for casuals who want to follow the rules.

In reading these posts I have two separate thoughts.

First, I think that there does have to be something said for the use of the restricted list to avoid power creep. Power creep is a real thing. It was very much evident in the CCG era and must be addressed continually. With that said I do have some faith in FFG's game designers that as situations arise they will be dealt with. Some cards definitely seem useless. I would suggest this is a throw back to collectable card games, where commons tend to be weak and rares strong, but you can't always have all the rares you need. Maybe this model is out dated in an LCG format. Maybe things will change as the format is more fully understood (like the transition from 1X chapter packs to 3X chapter packs).

My second thought. Out of the concern for experiences that seem one-sided. For people who don't like that type of situation. There is a lot going on under the surface. There is a game. Played competitively. Where the game is completely balanced. Where experienced players win over less experienced. It's call CHESS (or any other game where players start identically).

Any other game. Ever. Has randomness built in to it. Because it is the HUGE equalizer. Dice. Random draws.

Not to discourage players. I love having more players in this game, but to say that when something random happens it's the game designs fault and that things must be done so it fair is a bit extreme. Will good players win more often? Yes. Will they tend to build better decks and be ahead of the curve in deck design? Yes. But to say in a situation where in the example used from the CardGameDB article, where a player had two-claim, and price of war, and no quarter, and die by the sword. That's luck. The opposite side of this is that the player had a hand full of events only playable after a certain effect. In the randomness of the game, what happens if he/she can't win a military challenge. In some match ups the successful military challenge may be a given, but definitely not all. What if they player had 2 saves and 3 cancels that investment by player 1 is completely undone. That's luck too. But there is a true degree of balance there.

I would argue that having such a large card pool adds balance to the competitive game. By having more and more cards, it will make it hard to ever know what you will face in the match-up. It means everyone has to build better decks. So do it. Build better decks. Test them more. Play more.

My suggestion would be. If meta-mates are struggling in a match-up or having difficultly with deck design. Step in and help. There is nothing against the rules that say you can't. Will they always listen? No. But the better your opposition the better you will be. Don't revel in victories over "weaker" opponents. Make them as strong as possible, and then if you still win you have something to celebrate.

Sorry for the novel.

TL;DR Power creep is real. But FFG seems to be on top of it (maybe not always but getting better). Weak cards are a throw back to common cards in CCG games. Maybe (definitely) outdated in a LCG.

Having issues with randomness controlling the outcome of your game? Play CHESS.

Don't just settle. Sometimes, it's not that the game is unfair. It's that your deck needs work. And maybe to some degree, so does your play.

Replied in length to this after the article in CardgameDB.

Synopsis:

I'm also a bit worried in the direction that the competitive game is going with the saturation of power-effects. Almost to the point, that it's starting to become quite stale.

I think that Twn2dn's approach is good, and something really needs to be done at some point in the near future (by the end of this year, I reckon).

The primary targets to be considered for the heavy-handed restricting should be (with examples):

• Card draw Agendas (TMP, Both seasons, Knights): Especially seasons due to the raven immunities.
• Power Weenies (Refugees, Distinguished Boatswain, Lost Spearman): Over-efficient setups are pushing the game in a bad direction.
• Too efficient removal (Tin Link, Hatchling's Feast + Threat from the North): For example Threat+Feast was okay, when Targ didn't have much to support it. Now? I wonder...
• Repeatable/OP "soft"-control (Cyvasse, Scourge, Meera, House Divided, GG): Especially in cheap locations.
• Too efficient Rush (KL Flowers, PotS Viper, Beric, Taste for Blood, Core Robert, New Cersei)
• Repeatable and efficient Cancel (Alannys, Iron Throne, Baelor, He Calls it Thinking)
• Poweful Plots (Retaliation!, Loyalty Money Can Buy, Search and Detain)

Siege and PbtT would need to be looked at separately, since some of the restrictions should already impact them, but if they remain too strong, then something else (like errataing of Fear to only work when you have at least one plot in your used pile) could be done.

-

I'm all for a 2-3 layer list. Casual players don't have to care about it AND if they do, it causes less book keeping issues than errata because the cards can stay "as printed" heck I've always wondered why no one considered making rare, medium and common actually equal a slot count in a player's deck in the first place. Thumb up for the discussion.

RobotMartini said:

Something like this seems like a good idea- Having gradually got into competitive play over the last 6 months, I find it a bit annoying when I buy a new chapter pack and know instantly that 2/3rds of the cards are never going to get used.

Perhaps a recognition that some cards are weaker, but an accompanying requirement to include some weak cards in tournament play would give us all better value for money.

Whole hearedly agree with twn2dn.

I argued this poitn vigorously on the Rotation thread. I don't think rotation need be an option for the LCG model, and I think a big selling point of the format is that there is no rotation. the folks who are concerned about power creep and too many cards in the pool are tournmaent players - and the easiest way to satisfy them without alienating the majority of the customer base is a vigorous use of the Restricted List.

In fact, bans should be used more freqently as well.

To my mind, let a card play otu over the course of its block - and if it becoems apparent that it is turning up a lot and warping the metagame, but it on the RL. Maybe update teh RL at fixed intervals like every three CPS - so four times a year. Halfway through each block and then again at the end. It will be easy enough for competitve players to anticipate and plan for such updates - and really: these are the only players who really need such a list.

Excellent thread.

Mathias Fricot said:

What I am proposing is a fundamentally new approach to restrictions. This isn't mutually exclusive with the previous approach; you could do both. Basically my suggestion is that rather than focus purely on maintaining relative environmental balance, FFG should take the next step and use restrictions to actually make the game more *fun*.

Admittedly, what is "fun" is highly subjective, but I think there are some common features we can isolate and try to cultivate. Most people enjoy winning, and a strategy that wins 100% of the time is going to be extremely popular. And yet, most veteran players don't find it much fun to run highly competitive decks to steamroll new players. In other words, the experience itself plays a big role in how fun something is. In this game, I strongly suspect that what makes the game fun is (1) having the ability to make choices that you feel will impact the outcome of the game, and (2) having those choices constantly shift and so that you must constantly adapt to your opponent's maneuvering. This is why the melee format can be a lot of fun for some players - who excel at persuading their peers - and frustrating for others, who feel like no matter how they build and play they can't influence the outcome of the game. These choices can happen during deck building, and some people (me included) actually prefer building decks as much or more than playing with them. Most frequently though, they involve in-game interactions. (As an aside, this is a big reason why plot decks are so fun...they are highly impacting. I almost always feel like whatever plot I play next will make a difference.)

Increasingly, however, the competitive environment is moving away from interactive gameplay to pseudo-solitaire. If I can get my combo off, or do what my deck does best first, then I'll win. Think about it this way: In theory, the order of cards I marshall and which cards I search for when using search effects should be highly dependent on my opponent's deck . In practice, does that really happen? Or do I pretty much always play the same cards on setup no matter what, and search for the same maester or look for the same game-breaking combo? Unfortunately, powerful effects are speeding up the game in a way that necessitates competitive players take advantage; otherwise, you lose.

Twn2dn said:

Can you expand on this a bit more? I'm not sure I agree, but I definitely respect your opinion when it comes to thinking on a larger scale about the game.

More thoughts on the idea of a Legendary Pool. Expanding the restricted list and changing it from only allowing one card to allowing two would have close to the same effect as adding an additional Legendary Pool, but with less complexity. Implementing it that way could also mean that a lot of the cards that currently errated could return to their printed text.

For example the list would presumably contain Measter's Path, Tin Link, Gold Link, Valyrian Steel Link, and standing Robert - all without erratas. A player would only be able to choose two, so there would be no Robert + Agenda + collar + unlimited gold + easy draw + easy attachment removal. Players would still have the option of running Robert with the Agenda - they just wouldn't be able to use the powerful links or have access to any of the other Legandary cards (TLS, Val, Fury of the Stag, OOH Pyromancher Cache, ect). Players could still put a collar on any character not on the list and use them with the Measter's Path, but they will have to choose between gold, draw, or attachment removal.

imrahil327 said:

In the Martell example highlighted above, I also want to point out that this isn't a "God Draw" situation... it's the equivalent of a Hatchling Feast + Threat from the North on round 2, during which the Targ player also piles 3-4 chains on his maester Aemon that he grabbed first round with At the Gates. This is something I do frequently, and unless the opponent has an immediate answer, such as Meera in shadows or a Narrow Escape, the discarding three characters often decides the game... all because I happened to draw that Hatchling Feast + influence within the first two rounds. On the other hand, sometimes the opponent does have a Meera in shadows, and then I'm basically out of luck with my maesters unless I happen to have just the right counter early on. Either way, once the decks are built, it isn't really about strategy - it's just about who gets the pieces first. (Deck building requires quite a bit of strategy, so there is an argument to be made that even if game play is overly luck-based, deck construction still requires a lot of skill. The problem with this argument is that with net-decking become more popular, deck building really isn't as hard as it used to be.)

In either case highlighted, it really doesn't matter what my opponent does, unless they happen to have some form of cancel or character removal. Basically, they're losing board position immediately and will have an exceptionally difficult time recovering... simply because the Martell/Targ player happened to draw their power cards first. An easy win for one of the players, but not particularly interactive or fun.

To be sure, not all games like this (yet) - and I do not want to overstate by saying that most games are like this. But the increase of powerful effects is leading to a situation where games are less interactive and ultimately less fun.

I think there is some validity in what you are saying, and I think it is especially true in a mirror match. Crevic and I talked about this during our regional on Saturday, as he played the GJ winter vs another one at least once and maybe twice, and that seemed to be consistent with his experience. I can tell you that I'll definitely be paying attention to the first couple turns of the game much more in the near future to see what I find. In my preparation for regionals, I definitely felt myself trying to maximize the possibilities of my flop, and 2 of the 3 games I lost, I was only able to flop 3 cards after a mulligan. It is interesting to note that Bruno won with a KOHH deck, which is the ultimate example of a deck that doesn't care about a flop, but that might mean there's even MORE emphasis on turn 1. I'm kinda bummed that I didn't get to see what Bruno's deck did.

-

I'd be curious to hear how many of the other issues potentially have to do with hand destruction/denial- another one I've seen a lot of complaints about recently is the TLS/Threat from the East knocking a player down to 4 cards while the Bara player stays at 7.

That Stark combo that you mentioned is awesome, of course if you are playing another stark, or someone just sets up better military strength than you or you don't draw the event in then that doesn't happen. Also since everyone fears Stark/Siege so much, even though they have not won a regional in the last 2 or 3 years(I think), you could always play a plot that completely destroys that first turn. Uneasy peace, with fear of winter out they only have 2 gold, so only 1 military challenge at max, Shadows and Spiders if you are Lannister or Martell, Muster the realm, the only 'stark weenie' that I can remember that is an army is Bastards Elite, or just throw down loyalty money can buy and cut the number of cards killed in half.

Honestly I am a stark player through and through, I have tried a ton of different combinations, but I promise you this there are plenty of ways to beat Siege easily if you want to. When preparing for a tournament, I remember a player much better than I, said that part of building a deck was 'playing the meta.' You have to be aware of everything out there, and plan accordingly.

In casual play you will always have decks that run up against a crazy combo that will destroy them. But when you build a tournament deck you can plan for the things that you anticipate being the best. You want a 100% full prove plan against fear of winter or shadows and spiders turn 1 you drop Forgotten plans, 3 gold isn't bad, it wins init against shadows and spiders and is a coin flip against fear of winter. Or as someone else mentioned in a different thread First snow of winter destroys the mass low cost character set ups and has the added bonus of making that turn 2 rule by decree not an option.

The reason that so many different decks with tournaments is because of many reasons, the first is player skill, and that includes deck building and preparing skill. Another reason is because there are counters to everything a deck can throw out so when one thing becomes popular then people can easily tech against it.

Very good article and points. I truly think we are going to see WAY too much of the same X houses and agendas going forward (see: CaliCon) which can't be good for the game (not to mention the obvious power creep issues).

1. I still believe limiting the number of CP's (3?) + core set + either 1 or all of the house boxes is the best and more inobtrusive way. The strategy on deciding your sets would add another layer to deck-building and this solution becomes a more permament solution than all of us arguing over a 40+ restricted list. I really think that could go badly (look as us now with a smaller set of them!). The negatives I have heard don't seem that bad IMHO (anything we choose is going to be tough on TO's), all cards are legal, and we will see a lot more cards in play.

2. That being said, I could get behind the plan. Either a longer restricted list, or a 1 per deck/2 per deck/banned list, or whatever.

3. If it is someday decided to go this way, I would like to put Threat from the North into play as one. It really doesn't do what it was originally used for (weenie control) and burn is just too consistent with it. Add in the Maester issue, and I do think it should be restricted.

4. Agendas suck. I won't rail on them too hard, but they do. Card that start in play suck to balance, and have in every game. Okay, that is off my chest.