I like the idea of an all at once bang. Isn't that MtG's model? Seems they do well with a big bang approach. Also, There is a severe lack of new mechanics each cycle. You have new effects, but not a wide-ranging set of effects. Melee was really the big thing out of Champions. Imagine if the next set added a new keyword for every house. That would shake up the meta like an earthquake I would imagine. Now maybe you don't have to worry just about Ambush out of Targ, but also Intimidate. I believe MtG subscribes to this. Each cycle has a bunch of new keywords splashed across all of the cards.

More and interesting keywords would keep the card pool more interesting for me. It forces a re-draw of the entire card evaluation process. Right now, the CPs don't shake up the way I evaluate cards. They simply add new cards that I evaluate the same old way.

I started playing at the start of the 60 card model with the Brotherhood cycle, through the entire time ive been playing the game i have never once witnessed a cycle come out or be announced and just been blown away by what it was, Maesters blew me away because Fatmouse made it pretty clear early on how much it would dominate the scene but i have yet to see something really get me excited about buying it and seeing how it works.

. . . except the expansions. . i've been around for Baratheon, Targaryne and Lannister and all of them got me really really excited for the game, maybe i just need another one to get me amped up. heres hoping for a Roberts Rebellion box

I'd rather just have the ccg model back. I miss draft and opening packs. If the ccg model ever does come back, which i doubt it will because the lcg model is easier to control from a financial standpoint; I would like the commons/uncommons in the packs to be more randomized. Other than that minor gripe, I want the ccg model back badly. It was much more expensive though

The communnity seems to have changed a lot from when I got in. More than anything that is what has me losing interest in the game on a larger level. I'll stick with my gaming group here but the card distribution format isn't really a problem for me.

That said I'm liking the CoC format, but smaller player base it makes more sense. I'm not sure what could be done with AGoT. I hated the idea of rotation but I'm starting to warm to some version of limited card pool, either artificial by means of restricting how many different cycles/expansions can be in a deck, or with flat out rotation… not sure if that would be enough for you, not sure if that would overcome my distaste for elements that seem to be embodying some of the worst of Magic and what eventually led me to give up that game entirely.

What intrigues me though, if we are talking about reexamining the distribution format, is following the LoTR model. Their expansions create an enviornment for the following cycle. If we got 55 cards which defined the environment we were going to play in for the next 6 months I think that might be pretty interesting. We saw a very limited form of that with the House expansions, one would come out and there would be a rise in the number of that houses decks, but because they were so specific the impact on the greater metagame was more a case of including a couple of cards to fight or exploit that houses tech.

Penfold said:

WB

This is what I was talking about earlier. I would like the card pool to be locked from Regional 1 -> Worlds (roughly end of may -> october). Then have all the cards released after worlds until the start of the next regionals season in the format you suggested above.

It always seems odd to me that regional1 and worlds, being at completely diff ends of the calendar, are contested using not only a vastly different card pool, but likely a different set of rules. Locking things down would lend an actual SEASON feel to the game, much like the major sports do. They have their season, then during the off season all the teams makes trades and acquisitions and start the next season off fresh.

dcdennis said:

except all USA professional leagues do have in season trading usually till around the half way through the season. Plus a injury to a key player can alter the team. So really what you're saying is that FFG is running their competitive play like a professional sports league?

in all seriousness if you had the same card pool for 6 months the game would become exceptionally boring at the competitive level IMHO.

There are some chapter packs or cycles which provide miniscule amounts of support for certain themes. Unfortunately, those themes may get punished for rotation/limiting the card pool by cycle/pack. I guess I would just hope that if such a list existed that they wouldn't be added to just to keep 1 - 4 really good cards from being used.

Making a change like some that are suggested would go against the LCG model and would likely piss off a lot of people. I'm okay with the idea of going like CoC with larger sets for a bigger infusion of cards all at once but not with restricting the card pool, that is the same crap that MTG and WoW TCG do that I despise.

Looking at the game from a non-competetive, small-meta standpoint I have always dreaded rotation because it feels like such a cheap fix. It might be warranted, but I have always been more impressed by designers who pull through by bending and modifying their games and metas instead of simply chopping bits of them of.

Reading through the discussion, it feels like the problem is more in the design than in the output-model, though they are of course not mutually exclusive.

Ever since I began playing the game I have been completely baffled by the way subthemes are ignored, or even more strangely, semi-ignored. The poor forgotten Night's Watch for example, they get the odd card here and there nowadays but nothing to get them past the problem that even if you put all their availible pieces together they can do little more than stumble out of bed unable to compete or challenge anyone. Instead of throwing them these odd buffs every now and then, 4-5 cards that actually work, a new agenda, or something more tangible would make more sense, at least as compared to dead cards for a dead theme.

Now, the truly graceful solutions lie in cards such as A House of Dreams and Dragon Egg, in my mind. Cards that make you go back to and old theme and re-evaluate all those funny-but-unworkable ideas you might have had browsing through all those interesting-but-too-expensive locations, for example. Is there any key-locations out there to make a competetive build with A House of Dreams? I do not know, but I like the idea of new cards that retroactively change the place and function of a broad range of old ones and make you look at them in a new light, without resorting to imo more "cheap" solutions such as drastic erratas or cycle rotation.

To my mind, FFG is holding back too much though. I do not know if they fear upsetting a delicate balance, but in my mind it is generally preferable to have some things get destroyed than that nothing happens at all.

Toqtamish said:

The release schedule isn't the heart of the LCG model. The equal access is. I don't see that changing.

Toqtamish said:

I feel like any design problem is exacerbated by the "output model" because the output model does not encourage periodic rethinking of strategies. (Note: that statement does not advocate for continually adding new mechanics; it actually bemoans a lack of incentive to explore what we have.) I think the distribution pattern might be the bigger factor, too. It is certainly the easier theory to test, though.

It goes against what they have said right from the start they would NOT rotate cards out of the LCG. I hate rotation personally from experience. So I am against that as an option.

dcdennis said:

What you are suggesting is not remotely what I was talking about and I would completely ignore any such tournament restrictions. I couldn't think of a worse thing for them to do in regards to halting boredom and card apathy.

I'm specifically saying that expansions would introduce, all at once, the core of a theme and that the next six chapter packs would flush it out. The tournament rules would remain exactly as they are now which as was pointed is pretty much the way it is done in sporting teams changing their line up.

The reference in my post to "…the format you mentioned above." was meant to only refer the distribution model of large chunks at once, not the frequency of said chunks.

Toqtamish said:

Toqtamish said:

Well in all fairness this was said at the same time as they wouldn't be reprinting anything. When a product was out of print it was gone forever. They went back on that pretty quickly. My guess is it was caused by foreign markets opening up. People in Spain or Italy joining in a year or three after the switch to LCG and wanting product that was older and hard to find. If you are reprinting in one language, and creating a possible game imbalance might s well do it in all and alleviate that imbalance.

If the game is slowly collapsing because of its own weight better to create some form of restriction that keeps it fresh and accessible to newer players.

Of course they did say no rotation. I have no idea if that was a more hardline approach, but I suspect if they think rotation would help their bottom line they'd do it.

Toqtamish said:

In the original post, I did say tgat there are starting to be too many cards for my liking, and that while rotation for "unfair advantage" was totally lost on me, I might eventually be convinced to accept rotation to "clean the meta game." But nowhere in this thread did I suggest a solution that included rotation. My suggestions involved release schedules only. No rotation.

ktom said:

so basically what you are saying is that you want rotation?

Penfold said:

I think a whole cycle at once could have much more interesting tournament applications than semi-regular updates that go with the current seasons. Who knows if the restrictions of The Maester's Path and Search and Detain would have happened if this regional-worlds season had big environment changing cards like House of Dreams, Little and Less, and to a lesser extent the Targ power boost, charagendas, pro/anti agenda cards, and the new city plots? A big infusion could go a long way towards having all of the pieces together to flesh out new mechanics, instead of inserting shiny new things into proven strategies.

I quite enjoy the gradual release of chapter packs (the current model). I used to dread the release of a new MTG set; having to drop a lot of money on booster boxes and packs at one time was difficult.

Yes, I already know the response: the price works out the same in the end. True. But, although the price is the same, the experience changes. I like the slow and more gradual tweaking and emergence of new themes and mechanics.

I much prefer the subtle infusion than a shock and awe tactic of dropping the whole cycle on the same day.

dcdennis said:

With House of Dreams, many incomplete or not-entirely-practical builds have a shot at viable or near viable play. It opens up entirely new "build your own agenda-esq" options as well. However, for all the 100% thumbs up this great idea brings, it may not actually address 2 roots of player frustration: deck variety and investment value.

To be clear, AGoT already has 'variety of decks' that are viable for each house. However, as many people have noted, many of those decks lack variety in how they are --and can be-- competitively constructed, not matter who is playing them. (e.g. Greyjoy may have 3 competitive decks, but every winter choke deck contains the a majority of the same cards and plays the same)

While the growing card pool may slowly diversify the options for each of these builds, it is just as likely that new incomplete builds will simultaneously draw out the process and add to the backlog. More over, as the backlog grows longer and larger, individual CP feel less significant. (and less financially compelling)

Put in another way, if a card does not receive context for up to six months, and potentially languishes as a 'dead slot,' Damon is stuck awkwardly decide: does he bump the card's power to excite people now but potentially unbalance the game OR keep the game in long term balance with a current mediocrity that could make players feel like they wasted money and lose interest in the game?

Rotation doesn't address these issues. Neither does distribution volume without targeted over-saturation of existing mechanic/trait themes. And, perhaps, the financial realities of the player base and retail constraints don't justify augmentation to FFG. However, if they do, consider the following:

Reprint sold out chapter arcs as deluxe box sets with 20-40 bonus cards that expand on those arcs' central themes.

This could fill content holes with relatively little effort, removes 'dead slots' from future packs that attempt to address ages old content, allow single source distribution of errata'd and ret-con'd cards, strengthens playability-as-a-single-purchase for new players, and could reduce the inventory overload that can cause 'cap toothing' of CP's on the brick and mortar retail level.

My two cents: I love the idea of the restricted list to balance power creep and maintain variety. I would add the Summer, Winter, and Knights agenda to this list. Way too many Martell summer decks… yawn.

Ya if they treated the restricted and banned list as more of a living entity with frequent additions and subtractions i think it could achieve a similar effect as rotation would.

Honestly, they could be frequently updating the restricted/banned lists and really help develop the meta through that way more than rotation (and it would be easier.) If they do it on a regular basis they could even include a print-out in the newest chapter pack of the current restricted cards (i'm not sure why they don't do this anyway… i guess production is probably two far in advance for it to be meaningful?)

Something else, in addition to infusion, that I think would help encourage innovation in deck building is if we could come up with some sort of decent draft system.

One of the best things about draft in the CCG days was that it forced you to play with cards that everyone would otherwise overlook. Very frequently, that turned into the "second look" that sparked whole new deck ideas.

With so little encouragement to look twice at the "less obvious" cards, the LCG card pool tends toward "shallow," no matter how many cards are actually in it. Draft was a great format for creating that encouragement to look at the "less obvious."

ktom said:

I'd definitely love this. I'm building a Cube of CCG cards that I'm really excited about, but it would be interesting to put something together for LCG cards too.