I have no idea how you're getting any of those things out of what I'm saying. Evidently there's some disconnect in communication here, and since I don't want to continue sidetracking the thread, I'm going to drop it.

Having come about 3 years late into Game of Thrones LCG but also having picked up LOTR on release I found several things to be true of the lcg

- You most definately do NOT need every pack to be competative. In Thrones more and more competative decks utilise around 4 or 5 packs at most, with a core set or two and usually a deluxe expansion. This might be due to the fact that Thrones has the biggest cardpool out of every LCG but FFG seem to be getting better and better at balancing packs and necesity thereof, hopefully they wont make as many mistakes with Netrunner as they have with other LCG games, ie. CoC (seriously, 1-2 cards per faction per pack? That would drive me NUTS)

- Competative at home and competative at tourneys are completely diferent things. If you play casually at a local gaming store or at a friends house you will be Sorted with a core set or two, or a deluxe expansion for your favourite faction (if available) I think out of all my friends only I and another person try to get every pack for Game of Thrones. The other 3 have bought nothing save a core set and the deluxe expansion for their favourite faction. By sharing the card pool and picking favourite factions we have mitigated the cost Dramatically.

- It is Amazing being able to get in from the very start and just maintain your collection. Its the most cost effective way to play Any card game I've ever played. $15 a month really doesnt feel that much if youre into the game, and if you lapse out for a few months you only have a few packs to catch up with on your own time, no searching for rares, no buying mountains of boosters, no frantically trying to catch up.

- Not having to cycle cards is excellent. If you really like the game, a la magic, youll want to be semi-competative to tournament ready most of the time. Which means buying truckloads of packs that you Know will be non-competative in 50% of the game sometimes in less than a year. True the LCG might Feel like it has a high barrier of entry but look at it this way, your investments will Never be for nothing, youre always adding to your competativeness with every purchase.

- And on top of that, to mitigate the cash cost completely, all LCGs so far have a strong community online who play on OCTGN, a virtual tabletop where you can download the card sets and try them out against live players from around the world, for Free. Its incredible for testing decks, gaining competative experience and a feel for the world wide meta, as well as making sure the things you buy Are the things you want!

DerBarchen said:

You are missing one important point. I haven't met any MTG player who buy boosters to get new cards. Everybody just buy singles and if you do that it can be actually very cheap to make some very competative deck. I guess it is cheaper than make competative deck in MTG than in AGoT (not sure b/c haven't played MTG for a long time).

I feel LCG is like board game with monthly expansions. MTG really doesn't work good at all as a board game. It only works as a tournament game but does that good. That is too narrow game for me tho. LCG can work as a great board game and also as a tournament card game if you are willing to invest. But still LCG is a money sink as is CCG also. One thing I don't like that usually in CoC for example there is only one card I would like to have in a pack but I am forced to buy the whole pack. But I prefer LCG model still any day.

And that investment for forever. AGoT is starting to have huge amounts of expansions and that situation can be hard as newbies. So FFG have to make reprints or cycle cards some time if they want to keep attracting new players. They can also just release completely new LCG:s as "resets" for old LCG and let old game die slowly but I hope this is not part of the business plan. With MTG you can be sure that you will find players for it for many years at least. That is part of investment. (I don't like MTG much, it is just good example).

I know know much about Magic (never played), but apparently some people do buy booster boxes, I've read lots of threads where people referred to doing so in both Magic and L5R, claiming it typically gave them 1x all the Rares and a full playset of everything else.

I fully agree about cycles. I don't want to buy cards and then have a big chunk of them suddenly become illegal to play a year later when the cycle changes. From a player point of view, that sucks and is a huge deterrent to getting into a game. If I buy it, it's mine and I want to use it, that's what I paid for. At least even Magic has various formats that do allow you to use older cards though - but if you feel catching up in an LCG is bad I think Magic Unlimited is going to be much worse.

dboeren said:

I feel cycling cards is a sacrifice you have to make if you want to keep alive and attract new players. But this can be done in a good way. Lets say for example this kind of model: 4 newest small expansion cycles are always legal (I think one cycle is 6 packs in each LCG). Then after a small expansion cycle rotates out there will be a one big expansion which includes 50% of cards of the whole 6 pack cycle. Thus legal cards would include 4 newest small expansion pack cycles and each big expansion. This allows some rotation and fixing old mistakes but every card you buy is likely to be useful for a very long time.

Vtes uses all cards are legal way. I have played that game for over 10 years but I wouldn't recommend that game for new player now. Also Vtes has always been very bad at attracting new players and that is one of the reasons why it is dead now (well it is bit more complicated).

I just hope FFG would say what is the long term plan with their LCG:s. Now I get the feeling that FFG is not cycling cards but rather is cycling whole games. CoC and W:i are already dying. Some useless cards is better than no players to play with.

As long as they are coming out with new cards regularly, I cannot say they are dying. We're going by different definitions here I guess.

I've looked into vtes, but there doesn't seem to be a possible way to get into it now. You have to either have cards, or happen to join a local group with a huge card pool that you can draw from. Some dead CCGs you can buy lots of cards for cheap on eBay, this is not one of them. Well, there is also the practical factor of wanting to have 4-5 players. It will always be harder to get together a bigger group than to play a game with only one opponent.

dboeren said:

It is hard to know about how many players there are with CoC and W:I for example. Whole Finland I know about 5 for CoC. For me CoC is like a board game with many expansions. I buy a pack now and then to expand it. It is just hard for me to spend much money for that game because I could just new board games. I still like the game a lot tho but I am not going to spend much money for it. I am just surprised how many different LCG:s FFG is starting publish. and

I feel it depends a lot of game mechanism if game will survive. CoC, W:I and AGoT are mostly a MTG clones with more or less mechanisms from MTG. There still are same about drawing cards start of the turn, using resources to pay cards, having creatures and attacking opponent with your creatures. Basics feel very same as MTG. Netrunner and Vtes had a completely different and unique mechanisms and didn't feel like a MTG clone at all. Those kind of games will survive for many years (decades) but they also attract only a smaller and more specialized player base.

To netdeck and buy the cards necessary to build a World Champion deck it will cost you $500-700 or more if the deck is still legal and a recent major win attributed to it.

That will buy you a core set x3 and 4 entire cycles of cards to build your deck with. That is also enough to make all of the top four World Champion decks and European championship decks for Call of Cthulhu.

Booored you are attributing your own psychograph profile to all other players and that isn't really a true condition. Anyone can play any LCG on a competitive level for an expenditure

Surreal said:

Hahahaha.

Penfold said:

Not sure what that means but borrowing something to your game form MTG is not a bad thing at all. MTG core rule system is very solid and amazing design. MTG had the dead land cards problem and card draw dictating too much which I didn't like. Newer games had tried to fix this. I just find it interesting that Richard Garfield designed MTG, Vtes (Jyhad) and Netrunner within short time frame. When you play all those games you feel every game offers completely different and unique mechanisms. I feel CCG innovation has died a bit after it. There is a lot of reusing of same mechanisms (usually from MTG) but I don't see this necessary as a bad thing.

Surreal said:

Ahaha thats good, ~ also Yugioh is the deepest game ever made and the Horus Heresy TCG is totally easy to find and buy.

Seriously though, saying a game is an MTG clone because you "pay resources and attack with dudes" is like saying Skyrim and Call of Duty are the same game because theyre both first person and you shoot things, or that a democrat is the same as a republican because they both wear suits and talk about politics.
I dont think I have ever played a game as deep and as AGoT, with as inteligent and friendly of a community and as thematically and tactically enjoyable, especially in 4 player games. Having played both MtG and AGoT for several years each I can attest to the fact that they are Not the same (or even similar) games, if they were I would love them both, but I clearly don't.

Going back to an earlier point, I dont think CoC or W:I are dead games, quite the opposite. They both have decently sized communities on the boards, albeit not as big as AGoT, and both seem to sell well in my local game store. Nor do I think its necissary to cycle cards, Agot just hit its 9th cycle I think and only now is the card pool big enough to create a truly unpredictable meta, tournament decks are consistently not what youd expect and the projected "best decks ever" are more and more overshadowed by clever builds or unexpected tactics. If cycles were rotated, a la MTG, then the meta would shrink back down to the "accepted best" decks, variety is already hard to come by in competative play and I think cycles hurt the wallet And the game.

DerBarchen said:

Oh, I thought everybody agrees that MTG and AGoT share a lot of mechanism. MTG is a solid system, it just had problems which other games are trying to fix. I don't like MTG either but game influenced by MTG can be very good. Maybe MTG clone is wrong word but there is not good other word that. I guess game influenced by MTG would be better term. With that game example you gave I would say MTG and AGoT are both "first person shooters" FPS. There are lot of different FPS but usually core of the mechanisms are quite similar. Vtes and Netrunner are like different genres. It would like comparing FPS and RTS. But this is going totally off topic now. My point about FFG LCG came from my earlier post already.

AGoT and Magic have very little in common. Totally different resource system. They are both card games however.

Toqtamish said:

~ I don't know, seems like this warrants discussion.

Going back to the title of the thread expect this: Lots of sarcastic discussion/half-arguments and some serious fun. I think the LCG model is very cost effective and very fun, for collectors, art lovers And power gamers and there really isn't that much diference between what your'e used to at the end of the day, except that when you want a specific card, you go out and buy the set its in. $15, done deal (unless its the core set or deluxe expansion in which case its probably $30-40) and no more booster pack headaches.

That said, does anyone think the Biggest downside of an LCG is that cards out of an LCG pack just don't smell as nice as cards out of a Booster pack?

I don't think any of the LCGs are very similar to Magic. The resourcing system is entirely different, the goal of the game is entirely different as well.

Which is a good thing. Magic was very innovative in its time, but its mechanics are very primitive because it was built pretty much from scratch. Newer games have learned from its example and improved their mechanics. Even Garfield's later CCGs were improved based on the experiences learned from Magic. If the same game was released today, I don't think it would be that popular - but as the incumbent system and with a huge tournament support it has lasted for many years. I must admit I have no idea what the inside of a Magic booster smells like either! I was never interested in a game with a collectable format.

Anyway, back on topic.. I really hope that Netrunner catches on. I was never interested in the theme for A Game of Thrones which makes it harder to get into no matter what the gameplay is like. Nor was I interested in Warhammer: Invasion, in part because I dislike GW and their practices. I really like Lord of the Rings as a setting, but a co-operative game isn't really what I want so I was forced to skip that. Star Wars, I just don't know. I'll see how the game turns out but I'm not sure about this one. Plus, I'd have to quit and burn my collection if a Jar Jar card ever came out Call of Cthluhu is the only one that appealed to me thematically, and I believe it to be one of their best games as well.

Now Netrunner comes along. It could be great. It might be very popular too, that's really hard to judge. It's not based on a license that many people know though, will that hurt it? If it catches on big, I think I would be willing to make it my main game over Call of Cthulhu because a rich player environment would be so great to have. The best game in the world is worth much less without an opponent to play against. So, I'll probably keep collecting both for a while until we can see whether Netrunner will be popular or if it's just a flash in the pan and doesn't hold on to a big active community.

Netrunner success depends a lot of FFG long term plans. Netrunner still has active players and community after 15 years of last expansion. That tells something. I don't think Netrunner will ever become hugely popular and I don't think that is part of FGG plan but there can easily be still lot of active players. Netrunner can be a bit too different to gain a huge attention. I just hope FFG plans this game carefully and doesn't immediately release a new LCG again after few years.

EDIT Especially many CCG games comes and goes. There are only rare exceptions which have had active players for over many years.

Surreal said:

There is something to this, because too many games splits the player base. A lot of people feel they cannot afford to collect more than 1-2 LCGs, so too many of them causes smaller fragmented communities. Well, the co-op ones like Lord of the Rings probably don't do this so much, as I think it's a somewhat demographic.

Although it might not be good for the players of that game, they may have to consider at some point folding one or more games because there is an upper limit somewhere on how many LCGs is optimal. But, exactly where is that limit? I don't know. FFG will certainly still release Star Wars at least, and maybe something else after that eventually, perhaps another co-op.

While I agree to some of what is being said, I also think FFG have done well to separate the LCGs. While there is overlap the games are attracting very different people. The games are not really that similar at all. If you look at the forums you see new names pop up for each new LCG, as people are attracted to the games themselves .. .Like when LoTR came out .. the majority have nvr even played a card game b4, and with netrunner we are getting the large fan base that netrunner already has.. . Sure there are some people that cross over and have a few lcgs but the majority of players are not in this boat

FFG has done well to keep them separate… we have Starwars and LoTR for co-op, witch is a completely different set of players to the classic duel games like CoC and I haven’t played warhammer and aGoT so I can not really comment on them but they seam to be a cross between a duels game and board game and now netrunenr witch again is a “unique” type of card game were people use 100% different deck types with different winning goals. This is again,, “different”. Again attracting different people.

Also FFG is very good with supporting the LCGs. They are already running 4 and all are going strong. I do not think any game they make into a LCG will not be supported for a long time. I feel fears are pretty unfounded that this game will not be in production for many years.

I think that Star Wars is no longer a co-op game. Originally it was going to be, then they decided to pull it back and work on it some more and I think it's a competitive game now. Haven't followed it closely though…

I do think you're right that each game sort of has it's own different feel.

Call of Cthulhu is a dedicated 2p game, and allows by far the greatest amount of freedom in deck building.

A Game of Thrones can be played 2p or multiplayer, but multiplayer seems to be preferred.

Warhammer: Invasion is 2p but has different locations your cards can be which are more permanent than CoC stories. I've heard it compared to L5R a lot.

Lord of the Rings is co-op, so totally different than any of the others

Netrunner is asymmetrical, which makes it stand out as quite unique

Star Wars… I don't know. Not a lot of information is available and it's not based on a prior game

Of course different games appeal to different people thematically as well. I found the Game of Thrones books sort of dull and aimless, they just keep on going with no real climax to build to. Warhammer I don't like because it's related to the Warhammer game which I dislike and because it seems to be their worst design anyway. I love Lord of the Rings, but a co-op LCG doesn't make sense to me. The point of designing a deck is to compete with someone else's design. You both adapt and try to outwit the other. Playing against a set opponent that cannot react or appreciate your designs makes the deck design less rewarding to me, like beating up on a dummy.

dboeren said:

There is no real information about this, I have never been able to understand how people suddenly think it will not be when there is no evidence at all saying it is. There is a long thread on the SWars forum about it so no need to get into it here.. still until there is official word from FFG I still consider this game co-op.

He did say "I think" not "its totally not co-op anymore" I guess the general reaction right now is that they took it back to the drawing board, so everyone likes to think itll come out in the format they preffer.

dboeren said:

Hah, nah thats not true. While the 4-player Melee is prominent and unique from other games (especially games like magic where a 4 way game generally ends up being the same as a 1v1 but Longer) it is definately not the focus of the meta as a whole, were all Jousting, one on one heads down the Thrones way. In fact the most recent cycle of packs has been criticised by a lot of palyers for having cards that Only work in 3 way or 4 way games.

Youre both completely right about the variety in player bases though, which is definately indicitive of the uniqueness of each game. I tried moving to LotR from AGoT and honestly I regret buying that core set, but atleast a few of my friends really like it so it wasn't a complete waste? The community for this game already seems to be springing out with its unique members and opinions, and honestly I'm really enjoying it already, the knowledge that there are atleast a few people on these boards ready to talk about the game seriously is geting me even more excited for it! I think worries about the game's initial success are unfounded, the core set will clearly sell very well, past that, lets hope it stays popular!

DerBarchen said:

Ugh, that's annoying. The main thing that had been drawing me to AGoT was the understanding that it was built around multiplayer.

Can anyone point me to a CCG or LCG that consistently supports a multiplayer tournament scene?

One person saying their local group prefers 2p games doesn't mean the game as a whole doesn't feature multiplayer prominently.

Also, I'm no expert, but I don't know any other CCG or LCG that is alive today, at least reasonably popular, and emphasizes multiplayer. Back in the day there was Vampire, but that's no longer being produced.

There's still a pretty vibrant Melee scene in AGoT. There is tournament support for multiplayer at every tournament at every level.

MarthWMaster said:

You should still try AGoT. It is mainly built around 1vs1 tho. Multiplayer works kind of ok but I prefer 1vs1. AGoT multiplayer is everyone vs everyone so it is often game of king making.

Vtes was the best multiplayer but it is not supported anymore and it is expensive and hard to get cards now. There are still players but that game can last 2 hours, super complicated, has player elimination and lot of table talking so that game is definately not for everybody.