This article on CardGameDB got me to wondering. How does the Burden of Knowledge in this game compare to other games? My first thought was Chess. Is the Burden of Knowledge of chess concepts (openings, forks, pins, castling, etc.) more complex than the rules Burden of Knowledge in AGoT?

Feel free to come up with some other games and comparing them to AGoTs Burden of Knowledge. I'm more curious where AGoT falls on the scale.

mdc273 said:

I don't care for teh chess analogy as any card agme has a much higher factor of randomness than chess ever will.

However,: to answer your question; i have played many CCGs over the yars and the Burden of Knowledge is higher in Thrones than in almost any other one that has come across the market. It is degrees of magnitude more intellectually taxing than Magic, at its best.

I agree and disagree.

On the basic rules, out of a starter, I don't think it is marginally worse than any playable CCG. The basic income, challenge, and other rules are pretty intuitive. MTG is a bit easier, but then again personally I don't think ith as the same depth of being entertaining and fun either. War with my 6yo son is way easier, but it gets really boring quickly

However, once you start playing competatively, and need to know all the specific timing and ruling issues, then it is crazy complex. I am still mad that when they pushed the reset button they didn't institute the chain (heck, Warhammer LCG has it) and get rid of influence and just allow gold being spent through a whole round to replace it (do we really need two difference resources PLUS reducers?), but that is my opinion only obviously.

I have played competatively since the first month the game came out, and don't know the rules that well. That says somethign about their complexity and lack of intuitiveness…but also says something that you don't have to be a rules lawyer to do well. And that I am not very bright (or pretty lazy)…I guess it says that too.

Yeah…. I am probably the totally wrong person to comment on this….

Nah, ktom. I'm not trying to prove anything with this thread. I have a legitimate curiousity for how people perceive the Burden of Knowledge in comparison to other games. Someone may very well think this is infinitely simpler than other games, and in the right context that opinion can be incredibly valid.

Is it that you don't have an opinion?! Who doesn't have an opinion?!?!

And as far as comparison to Chess, I'm not comparing AGoT as a game to Chess as a game. I'm comparing the Burden of Knowledge in Chess to the Burden of Knowledge in AGoT. The distinction being "In which game are you required to know more just to be able to competitively compete?" And ultimately I'm hoping people come up with comparisons like yours, Stag Lord. The wider variety of comparisons, the more vivid a picture of where this game falls on the ultimate Burden of Knowledge scale.

i don't know, rules that i am confused about usually make sense when they are explained to me, but some just seem off,

im playing Greyjoy and have out Iron Fleet Raiders and Corpse Lake, my opponent discards the top 2 cards of his deck to lower Iron Fleet Raiders strength, He discarded a Character so great now i can claim a power. . . .. but no the discarded cards were paying the cost for an effect as oppossed to being the triggered effect so i cant use them. But from a newer players point of view this is kind of rough when deckbuilding and trying to put working decks together

mdc273 said:

In short, I think a lot of things that are actually clarifications (which are not really all that complex) are treated as "rulings" to be learned. As a result, I think the "burden of knowledge" is seen as being higher for the game than it really is. But given that I have a reputation for being the one that works out a bunch of those clarification that people just remember the result for, my opinion on that is probably suspect.

So I guess it all depends on what you mean by "burden of knowledge." I really don't think there are a sh!t-ton (that's the technical term) of rules to learn in this game. I also don't think there is a sh!t-ton (again, technical terms) of rules complexity, either, since 95% of situations can be worked out from the rules. But I know that not everyone agrees with me that 95% of situations CAN be worked out from the rules, so I don't expect anyone to believe me.

That said, I will freely admit that the loose template consistency we've seen over the years invites a perception of the game being more complex than it is because it invites the assumption that the wording is different for a reason. "All roads lead to Rome" might make driving complex, but it leaves navigation pretty simple (assuming you want to go to Rome). So I'd also say that if you have a higher tolerance for the inconsistency (as I seem to), the game probably looks much less complex.

ktom said:

this. from past errata experiences people are now trained to feel they are missing something if they don't find the 'trick' in the card text, as opposed to just taking it for what it is.

rings said:

I think it's surely saying something about you….

@Rings: You are not alone…I have questions every other chapter pack or so, and judging by the rules forum, so do many (most?) other long-time players. I've seen mathlete and finite post questions, and fat mouse and others debate opposite sides of a ruling.

Think I agree with the author here. Even if it may not actually be the case, it at times feel like a common law system. I think a big part of the issue though is inconsistency in wordings. For example, "reduced by" and "lower" have the same meaning, but sometimes it's not immediately clear if differences in wording are intentional or relevant or not. Another example is that keywords aren't considered character abilities, even though they are an ability (for lack of a better descriptor) on a character.

I came over from the SW:CCG which has about a trillion more rules and complexities than AGOT. So my opinion on the matter is probably totally skewed. But in general I'd say AGOT is a pretty straightforward game with the occasional oddity that you just need to learn. For myself, most of my early issues came from not knowing the timing flowcharts. Learn those and you will master the rules quite quickly.

Interesting. The thread has kind of gone down a rules complexity road – which wasn’t where I was heading in my initial post. The rules are what they are – my understanding of Burden of Knowledge and the degree of complexity of Thrones lays in the mechanics of the game itself.

To expand: I think organically GoT is more complex and carries a higher Burden of Knowledge than any other card game I have come across. Given the potential for six (or more) individual challenges initiated in each Joust’s challenge phase, with the possibility of nearly every card on the table (including “lands”) impacting this phase as well as “instants” played form hand – all under a turn by turn changing environment determined by an out of play effect created by the “Plot” – as well as managing two resource curves and keyword based calculations – I do think the tactical and strategic learning curveon GoT is steep indeed.

I'd put it in the middle of the game I've played. Compared to something like the SW TCG its way more complex. Compared to the SW CCG its not at all complex. In that game there are usually about 20 non character permanents on the table affecting the game state. There is an objective which affects the game state in about 9 ways. There are then 10 more characters on the table. There is a sideboard of 12 cards that can jump in at any moment. Then you have to track cards in your deck and remember where they are. Now that is one heck of a complex game.

Yea, Stag. I was actually thinking of the massive card pool. A player needs to know Ghatson Grey exists. A player needs to know Meera Reed exists. A player needs to know about the Hatchling's Feast/Threat from the North combo. I probably didn't clarify that enough.

The rules complexity side-note is interesting, though. Ktom brings up a great point. The rules would be much more straightforward if the wordings on cards were consistent. Like if they made an icon for Moribund - Discard and Morbiund - Dead and then used that for kill and discard effects. Then they make a shredded card icon for send to discard pile and a deck icon for send to deck. It could very well be that the rules are elegant as written and the horrible inconsistency in card text makes the game seem much more challenging than it really should be from a rules standpoint. Also, not having the basic timing window as part of the core rule book is a MAJOR oversight I think. Why haven't they fixed that…

So let me adjust my original questions.

1) How much of an onus is on the player to know all the cards that can be played against them compared to other games? How significant are the consequences of not knowing the entire card pool compared to other games? (Something like not knowing Game of Cyvasse exists in AGoT to not knowing Lightning Bolt exists in Magic)

2) Are the rules for AGoT confusing compared to other games? Is the card text on individual cards confusing in AGoT compared to other games?

And wow that Star Wars game sounds kind of crazy, haha.