No way i stopped playing MTG for exactly this reason.

And there are much better ways of keeping costs and shelf space in stores managable.

For example whole Clash of arms could be reprinted into single big box sold for let's say 40$.

And we actually need more cards to make some less used traits more atractive not the other way around (dothracki, dragons)

michaelius said:

So you prefer the cards you have bought for hundreds of $$$ becoming worthless trash after a couple of years ??

My main point here is MtG has shown that with the help of a dedicated banned/restricted lists, satisfying formats featuring many thousands of cards are achievable and rotation is not a neccessity for a healthy format. My Dark Confidant example above was made to show how dedicated people are with regard to the eternal formats and that in MtG older cards in general keep both their playing value and financial value after a rotation in the Standard format, which makes rotation really kind of a non- issue.

And by the way, prices of individual cards should obviously not be a problem in a LCG.

I think he meant that he quit playing MtG because of the rotation. Not that there was no way he would quit MtG. "No way! I stopped playing MtG for this reason." Is probably a better way to interpret that.

Excellent points Aegon! Legacy and Modern are too often overlooked in this kind of discussion.

I haven't played magic in a long time, but I would assume that Legacy and Modern formats appeal primarily to veteran players, who bought those cards at the time they were legal and then hold on to them afterwards? That few players "start" their tournament scene in legacy or modern? How well supported are the tournament scenes for the other formats, and what's the perception on balance and relative power level compared to Standard (Type 2)?

Ratatoskr said:

2500 in SW:CCG according to this site . Of course that was split between 2 factions, so 1250 for light and dark and Decipher had a nasty habit making almost all common cards completely worthless in gameplay (forcing you to chase rares) so the effective pool was much lower…

michaelius said:

The CPs really need to be reprinted into a cheaper box. It helps new player get in the game, and reduces the number of SKUs for vendors. I really can't imagine any players deciding to wait 2 years for the CPs sell out and be reprinted in a box just to save a few bucks on buying the monthlys.

Call of Clthulu is switching from CPs to boxes, so hopefully they will adopt the format for reprinting AGoT.

mason240 said:

that would mean, that the card pool in AGOT has to be split between 6 factions (+ neutrals to each), cause many players tend to play only one or a few favorite houses. thus the card pool for each house would be extremely small and very easy to handle for new plyers (especially when focusing on one house).

of course as a player i should know about all the cards and their mechanics - but isnt this the same in SW?

anyway: i also think there is still a very long way to go before we should start to think about rotation (if ever).

That depends how restrictive the deckbuilding is. Can you mix cards from different factions (like AGoT) or not (like WoW)?

There was no mixing in swccg - you played light or dark, period. And to return to earlier question, yes, there was significant power creep, which effectively killed a good number of early cards, including unique characters (later versions of the same character were just plain more powerful).

And also, was the game symmetrical (light vs light or dark vs dark possible) or not (like Netrunner)? That would matter for what card interactions between opposing decks you need to watch for.

As I suspected, some people vehemently oppose the idea of rotation and, to my surprise, many don't agree with the necessity for (eventually) limiting the card pool, there have been some interesting defences of their views and some factors I hadn't even taken into consideration, including some interesting supporting evidence (both ways) from a variety of other CCGs. I'd love to hear more examples from other competitive fields in card games people have played in! My experience is limited to Magic and AGOT, and my MTG experience is over 10 years out of date.

Burden of Knowledge will probably wind up being the key factor in deciding whether or not to limit the card pool. You can't have a game where top tier players literally need to read every card being played because there are too many to remember. Until the burden of knowledge on players gets to the point where even people at the top tiers have to read a bunch of cards while playing, there is less of an argument for card pool limitation. Of course I have a feeling some players only had a vague idea what the card Pyrophobia did at GenCon, so who knows how soon that will come. If you start making very well templated cards that you don't really have to read to know what it is they do, then maybe you wouldn't need to limit the card pool. That's probably something I'll have to think about.

The availability of cards argument is always an interesting one, too. It's certainly frustrating when your ability to buy cards is what is holding back your competitiveness, whether or not that limitation is real or imagined.

mdc273 said:

For some reason I do not think that will necessarily be the case considering decks are built to adapt and beat decks that player believes is going to be the main themed deck in the current environment. There are lots of cards that do not see play yet because they are not useful enough in the current environment. I imagine some will resurface if and when there is a point in time where they will be more effective. At that point, I don't blame anyone for forgetting about it or not knowing what it does. There are lots of cards that used to be the cards many people would include in their deck because there was a time when they worked quite effectively. New cards have come out and different decks are built now so there may not be a place for that card any longer.

For a hypothetical example, Dissension is a great card, but if no one is playing Allies, Mercenaries, or Refugees, then it ends up becoming a waste of deck space. If Dissension ends up being put aside because of this, then after some time, characters with those aforementioned traits may begin to make a comeback into players decks, Dissension becomes relevant again.

My point is, some cards may have little to no relevance at different points in the life of this game. That can mean that not everyone(even top tier) will remember what those cards do if they are not played enough. At some point they may become relevant again depending on what they fight off or if they can synergize well with a new card. At that point, everyone will know what the card is and does.

If someone can find a great use for a card that is not used that much and the other players don't remember what it does, then I don't really see a problem with that.

Bomb said:

Perfect example of this is MISINFORMATION. I never saw that card once in 10months of playing, then once the LotR box came out with Frey Hospitality et al; it was in every Lanni deck I faced.

Yep, you give a great example of Burden of Knowledge. You had to know that Misinformation existed to be able to plan for it. The discussion of the meta is another example of even more Burden of Knowledge. The individual player has to know what the meta is like or they may very well put together a solid deck that just happens to be super weak against the current meta. Variety is great, but it greatly increases Burden of Knowledge. Once you start limiting the card pool, Burden of Knowledge starts to drop off.

Hmm. I guess I am failing to see your point. You basically just said the definition of an LCG.

I think that is my point, LoL. The game will eventually go into uncharted waters. Current wisdom indicates that increasing Burden of Knowledge (and entry costs to play the game) is problematic. Many games give significant effort to reduce it (or equalize it with regard to cost). Only time will tell whether it is a necessary evil of card games. Wizards isn't really willing to change it's model for Magic since it is so successful. FFG is currently on track to break the mold, for good or ill. I guess I like the conservative side, but testing the waters is certainly an interesting proposition.