I started this new thread because I didn't agree with one posters view of what an LCG is, and I felt having an indepth discussion of rotation in reply to ktom's original thread would take away from the points he was trying to make. I apologize in advance, if I misjudged that.

TL;DR for Dennis:

I support Rotation and think it is good for players, and can be good for the designer/developer/company if handled properly though I admit there are some drawbacks that can be problematic. Further I don't fully flesh out all aspects of how Rotation could affect a LCG like this one, as this the first post of potentially several, and wanted room for it to grow.

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.

From FFG's LCG's Home Page:

A Living Card Game® (LCG®) offers an innovative fixed distribution method that breaks away from the traditional Collectible Card Game model. While LCGs still offer the same dynamic, expanding, and constantly evolving game play that makes CCG’s so much fun, they do away with the deterrent of the blind-buy purchase model that has burned out so many players. The end result is an innovative mix that gives you the best of both worlds!

The model has nothing to do with rotation, or limiting the card pool. The "LCG Model" is the release of fixed cards in groups so players don't have to spend an arm and a leg buying packs of random cards hoping to get the "rares" they want and not the coaster rares that they usually end up with 6 or 7 of.

Some may argue that the use of expanding insinuates a rotation is off the table, but I counter with the back half of that sentence where it says, "game play that makes CCG's so much fun," and would like to point out most CCG's have a rotation of some sort.

I personally believe rotation is what is best for any game because it keeps things fresh. Once you commit to buying product for the game you will continue to do so. Adding a rotation doesn't change that if your goal is:

…to play with new cards.

…to be competitive.

…to see more of the storyline.

A rotation should only affect competitive players. The casual player shouldn't care if there is a rotation or not because they play with whatever cards they want; it also limits the "arms race" to something more manageble since they are likely purchasing casually as well playing casually.

Competitive players should want the designer/developer of the game to be free to take risks in an environment that is forgiving, and rotation provides that safety net.

A non-rotation game should be more difficult to design/develop because the ability to truely balance a card properly becomes too time consuming the larger the pool gets, and corners are cut, and that leads to more errata/bannings which make players just as, if not more, upset.

If your issue with rotation is that you want to play with all your cards forever… no one is stopping you if a rotation is implemented… they're your cardboard do with them what you will.. but if you want to play at a tournament you have to adjust (which should be the kind of challenge you are up for in the first place being a competitive player). Ironically, and in my opinion detrimentally, this also applies to newer players to the game who have to hunt down CPs from sets released years ago.

For players, rotations are good.

For companies, rotations can be good, but there can be drawbacks.

If they institute a rotation, they are recognizing that the print run of a particular set of cards is finite. That can be difficult to project, but with time and a good team, figuring out how much to spend on buying art/printing cards/packaging and shipping can be done effeciently to maximize profits and minimize waste.

Even if a rotation is not in place, there will continue to be a decline in the purchase of a particular "set" or "expansion" over time that drops off sharply the farther away from the release date and as the available supply nears its end.

A rotation can dictate how much product is purchased because they only need so much to last for so long.. on the flip side, without a rotation, the amount of needed material can be estimated to cover initial demand but in order to cover future demand effectively is more of a crap shoot, and can result in spending more money than necessary.

A rotation is good for the company's bottom line if the game has a strong and growing competitive player base. Competitive players don't like too many or too few options. Knowing where that line is, varies by game, but once it can be established what the expectations of the competitive player base are, meeting them will create a happy customer; happy customers buy product; profit is made.

Ultimately, the company doesn't spend any more money than they normally would on the product just because a rotation is in place.

Beyond that, every company places different values on the various groups of people/players that buy the product they are selling.

At the core though, there are two groups: casual players and competitive players.

Betting on the casual player to grow the game can be a long slow process, because casual players spread excitement about the game through a grassroots kind of influence. Random player sees them playing at a brick and mortar and becomes interested, picks it up and a new player is born.

A lot of the casual players I know don't play at brick and mortars.. they play in the comfort of one of their homes because they are tight-knit group of friends and want to enjoy the ease of a refridgerator or television in the background.

Betting on the competitive player to build the game can produce a burst of interest, but growth can be unstable. Players are more apt to walk away if you piss them off.

Major tournaments at large conventions are an ideal way to grow the competitive player base.

At places like GenCon, you have the confirmed leads you are looking for… the gamers who play card games, and are predisposed to traveling hours just to play the games they love.

An exciting tournament scene at a major event like GenCon can be a gold mine. But if players don't feel like the trip was worth it because prize support was shoddy or lack luster, or if there were problems with how the tournament was run, or if the state of the game itself (talking about issues related to power curve, rotation, etc) is an issue, that negativity will filter out into those perspective leads poisoning the potential gains that could have been picked up.

That poison can persist long after the major events have come and gone in places like this forum.. where potential new players could conceivably visit prior to making that financial decision to invest in the game. Though it is more likely, new players will test the water with a minor purchase and then visit the forums.. regardless the effect can be the same if there is a negative vibe or generally unlikeable characters lurking about.

Who wants to invest hundreds of their hard earned dollars into a game if the community they would be joining contains too many jerks?

I've drifted away from the topic of rotation, so let me bring it back to that now..

Rotating the competitive environment keeps the players in that community talking about the newest combo and the next big thing and helps to avoid a stagnant forum setting.. A game without rotation keeps players talking about things in the past, if more recent cards have not knocked the older cards off their competitive post.

That can be problematic to new players trying to integrate into the competitive community as well. Most new players coming into the game for the first time have no idea there is a group of cards that can be dropped a Summer deck to generate a consistent draw engine.. it's not a hot topic.

If they join an established meta, they will likely pick up on that there.. but for players coming into the game without an established meta, because of interest generated at an event like GenCon, or if they just don't have players around them and want to start something new.. they are at a disadvantage.

Rotations reset the playing field. They provide an perfect entry point into the game for new players.. and growth comes from new players. The easier a company makes it for players to invest in their game the more successful it it bound to be.

Right now, just to get started new players need to buy at least a core set, the expansion of the house they want to play. Will they be competitive? No. Not even close, actually.

How many cards in your tournament deck come from the core set/house expansion? How many of those were "basic" locations (read income producers/reducers).

The majority of your deck is likely from CP's, but for a new player how do they know what they need to buy to get the cards they need?

A casual glance through this site didn't reveal any CP Card Lists, or databases, I could have missed them though.

There are other options like searching for a third party software program and then downloading a bunch of files, and hoping you don't miss one, or screw it up… or going to another site to get information about AGoT (which would be kind of upsetting to me if I worked for the company, because I would want my players to spend as much of their time on the company site being bombarded with advertising for other games made by the company; to drive profit… just saying).

In the end, I think the benefits of rotaion outweigh the negatives. Sure some players will end up with a bunch of useless (in tournament play) cardboard because of rotation.. But if the designers/developers are doing a good job, players should not have room in their decks for the majority of the old stuff anyway. And you can't whine about what you don't miss.

I opened this thread having pre decided to flame you for making yet another rotation post, however seeing as how you were nice enough to include a tldr specifically for me, you are now my favorite person on earth.

Edit: i used the 4 minutes your tldr saved me to make and consume an enormous fluffer-nutter, and it was excellent. Thanks again.

Really that big huge post just to reply to me since you disagree with me ? I don't know if I should be flattered or annoyed. It goes against it as they have said from the start LCG's would not rotate. I don't see rotation as a necessary thing. I'll admit me saying LCG model was the wrong way to word that. Maybe going against their word would be a better way to say it.

Toqtamish said:

people keep referring to some place where FFG promised no rotation. Can you please provide a link? I cannot find this officially stated anywhere. I have a feeling it might be 'I heard someone say that FFG said it so ill repeat it as fact'.

I honestly do not recall where it was posted. I am against rotation as an option and think I am free to have that opinion same as others are free to have the opposite. I do not see rotation as the necessity some others are seeing it as now, competitive play or otherwise.

Toqtamish said:

Of course you are, that fact is not in dispute. I am simply asking the people who are using "FFG promised us no rotation" as one of their arguments to prove it.

EDIT: i'm not saying that they never said it, i would just like to see it for myself. i have searched high and low and can find no such instance where it was said other than word of mouth.

When the LCG switch was announced, there was a lengthy open letter from Christian Petersen to the community explaining the whats and whys. The non-rotation thingy might or might not have been in there.

Anyway, that letter was one great piece of CRM. Very open and honest. I would very much like to read it again, but I can't find it. So, if any of the oldtimers have it somewhere, I'd very much appreciate a link or a file. Thank you!

It seems that in some ways to keep an LCG fresh the choice is between rotation, power creep, or innovative mechanics/unexplored subthemes.

With a few exceptions, the designers seem to be going for the third of the choices, and the Damon interview posted on the Team Covenant site (and reposted elsewhere) seemed to indicate that Damon finds the state of the meta just fine, since in his opinion players aren't using stuff that is strong, competitive, and 'new' in terms of what the meta has seen. So from a designer standpoint, I would venture that Damon is against rotation. He also indicated that Clash of Arms will eventually be reprinted. But why would they do this only to rotate it out?

Rotation seems to be what a lot of the longer-term competitive players want. As a new competitive player, I don't really care since I don't own much of the older stuff, but I can see someone who spent some serious coin on ebay grabbing the Season packs getting pretty hacked off when they are made illegal for regionals or something.

I just can't see rotation happening anytime soon as a realistic possibility, whether it would be good for the game or not.

I did read the letter but do not have a copy. I do remember something to the effect of no rotation. I also remember there would be no reprint of chapter packs also, and key cards would be reprinted in future packs as needed. So realistically whatever was said in the letter is now meaningless.

ultimately FFG will do what's best for their bottom line, so reprints. I would like to see rotation, but doubt they will because that word has to many negative connotations to the casual player and I think the vast majority of sales go to casual players. So the rotation debate while interesting and worth having doesn't amount to much. If at some point the competitive scene starts driving the majority of sales and the competitive field cries out for rotation it might happen.

i know some of the old CCG players in my meta are growing bored with the LCG,as am I. The current state of the game is pretty much the future state of the game. There can't be any major shifts simply because that would functionally invalidate(rotate) older cards. Basically what is competitive now will most likely be competitive years from now. I think the House of Dreams agenda will try and refresh some of the old cards, but overall I don't see it changing much. The agenda still won't be as efficient as maesters or stark kill/rush or greyjoy choke or Martel in general. I see little point in buying new cards after the next chapter pack. The navel mechanic just looks like more book keeping, and really I don't want to clutter my decks with more half supported mechanics. IMHO the game is functionally done. So I will keep playing with what I have casually because I think there are a lot of fun decks to be built in the current pool of cards and I like my meta mates. I am starting to shift my competitive attentions to Netrunner as it will take several years before it hits LCG stagnation.

The problem I see with a strict rotation model (ie on X date, Clash of Arms is no longer legal; on Y date, A Time of Ravens is no longer legal, etc) is that it will eliminate deck types entirely because of the way that FFG engineered the cycles in the first place. Because the cycles introduce themes or mechanics wholesale that are not supported significantly in future cycles, rotating out a cycle is tantamount to eliminating the corresponding theme/mechanic. For example, if Time of Ravens goes, seasons goes with it. Sure, there are a smattering of season-related cards in later cycles, but those cards can't support the archetype. Shadows will die with King's Landing, Maesters with Oldtown. Eliminate BwB and you lose the core of brotherhood and Asshai. I don't see the wholesale elimination of these themes and mechanics as a good thing.

People often cite Magic as the prime example of a game gang rotates and has succeeded. As I see it, the difference is in the distribution design. (Disclaimer, i havent followed Magic closely for a few years, but this is what i remember.) Magic has a core set unlike that found in AGOT. Instead of the fixed box that we have, Magic reprints its core edition every so often, keeping some cards, adding others, and removing still others. The core, plus the most recent few expansions, are legal. However, because the core is able to evolve each time it is reprinted, the designers can choose to lend support to themes or mechanics that might otherwise see a drop when expansions rotate out.

At the same time, I recognize the need for a smaller card pool so that we don't keep seeing the same optimized decks with the elite cards only; I can see how that can create a stale feeling. That's why I'm intrigued by Twn2Dn's suggestion in another thread, that a legal deck can be made up of cards from the core set, the house boxes, the current cycles, and any other 2 cycles of the player's choice. Want to play shadows? Great, use KL and one other cycle. Stuck on maesters? Fine, Oldtown plus one. Etc. I think such a model would cut down on the min/max optimization and would encourage more creative ways and varied ways to fill out a deck theme.

TL/DR: individualized player-selected limitations on the card pool > strict rotation

It seems the intent was to grow the player base via casual players. Focusing on multiplayer, the introduction of the core set at a loss-leader price, the alck of emphasis on a structured organized play program with prizes etc - seems pretty clear how they wnat to build the game.

And for the record - this seems to be working.

i would be against rotation, and any such decision would certainly stop buying expansions and Chapter Packs if such a decision was undertaken.

(Now…. to clip and save this somewhere for easy posting when the next returning competitive player opens this can of worms up again sometime after the holidays).

While I respect the opinion of rotation, I equally and completely respectfully disagree.

I am against rotation. I am a former Magic player, and while I loved the game, having to keep buying new, expensive singles to keep my decks updated (strictly due to rotation and power creep… two issues not showcased in AGoT IMHO) got old very fast. Having to drop hundreds of dollars on a "good deck" is not sustainable, so when I was introduced to AGoT, I was wowed by the LCG model in addition to the gameplay, card design, ect. I have since then purchased every card (excluding those darned elusive first 3 CPs). While initially expensive, to have a competitive deck in AGoT, it costs less than 20 bucks a month versus the hundreds of dollars every couple months with Magic.

In addition, I feel that including a rotation, like someone else stated, would make certain types of cards completely vanish, like shadows, maesters, ect. While it is possible to correct this for the competitive scene by reintroducing similar types of cards in future sets, in order to serve both the competitive and casual community, these newer cards that are knock-offs of the old ones will experience power creep (to keep casual gamers still interested in the new cards). This is evidenced in Magic quite blatantly.

If rotation would ever occur, I would quit playing because of that rotation and the soon to come power creep (notice the first paragraph's mention of this). The LCG model is partly what separates this more sophisticated game from Magic and Magic clones. Being ooooed and ahhhed by a completely game-breaking meta every month or so is IMHO not very intellectually sophistocated, and it is inherently difficult to balance (especially considering the smaller design team that AGoT has compared to Magic). There are many deck types and ideas that simply have not been explored yet in the expansive current meta, and rotation would stamp those ideas out. A continuous stream of new CPs continuously enhance the game in subtle, tweaking ways that continue to balance the meta and create new deck ideas to explore.

In short: Rotation = crippling for AGoT

If you read my opinion, I thank you

(EDIT: I am aware that a rotation would not necessarily increase the cost of the game, like it does in Magic due to AGoT's CP approach…. the first paragraph is a lead-in to my argument…. "cost" is not a strong argument for either side IMO)

While in general I agree that we need rotation, I do believe that a more liberal application of the restricted and banned list could come close to accomplishing the same thing.

I find the current environment so very stale, and a large part is due to consistent use of Maesters Path, Summer and Winter Agendas as "throw on" agendas to give a deck easy card advantage. I rarely get this way with a card (or cards), but I feel the metagame would become more diverse if these agendas were banned. They aren't encouraging unique deck designs, they are instead created a shortcut for easy card advantage.

Ratatoskr said:

Here you go, good ser:

Roseville, MN, Dec 21, 2007

An Open Letter From the CEO of Fantasy Flight Games
to the A Game of Thrones CCG Community

INT. PROXIMO’S SOLAR. AFTERNOON.

PROXIMO
Oh, you should see the Colosseum, Spaniard.
Fifty-Thousand Romans, watching every movement of your sword.
Willing you to make that killer blow.
(beat)
The silence before you strike.
The noise afterwards.
Rises.
Rises up like a storm, as if you were the thunder god himself.

…Win the crowd, and you’ll win your freedom.

Maximus
I’ll win the crowd.
(beat)
I’ll give them something they’ve never seen before.

- Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator.”

Sometime during the adolescence of the A Game of Thrones CCG (“AGOT”), I believe it was just after the release of the Ice and Fire edition, some players were screaming of storm clouds gathering and of doom (not the Valyrian kind) on the horizon. Some went so far as to declare AGOT “dead”. Witnessing such despair, I felt the need to calm the waters, and so posted something akin to “while it is true that all things -- in the end -- must die, for AGOT the answer is, echoing the lonely words whispered by Juba in the Colosseum, “Not Yet…. Not Yet!”.

That post, in its reference to the movie “Gladiator”, earned me the nickname of “Spaniard”, a handle I proudly hold as I fight for AGOT’s future. Remember, there is no such true love for AGOT as the that carried by the staff of Fantasy Flight Games. Every day in our breakroom, multiple lunch hour games of AGOT can be seen. Myself, having contributed a significant chunk of the original game design (the Plot card system namely), take great pride in the system, the fortitude of the rules, and Fantasy Flight Games’s perseverance in its survival.

Sometimes the fight for survival is hard.

It is an established fact in the hobby gaming world that most games die (if they indeed had life at all) after their “honeymoon” period is over. The new is no longer new, the quirks, once charming, become annoying; and most importantly – the spark is no longer there. Something shinier comes along, and the player moves on. A story old as time itself.

I don’t think there is any doubt that AGOT has survivedits honeymoon period. I am continually amazed by the great people, cunning gamers, and loyal fans that comprise the AGOT player base. I can assure you that Fantasy Flight Games is as loyal to you, as you have been to AGOT.

Yet, perseverance alone does not make a game grow. Loyalty does not forestall a game’s mortality – new players do! Although I disagree with industry-pundit Ryan Dancey’s conclusions on most topics, I do agree with one spectacular point of his: a game’s health and well-being is tied to the strength of its player network. Would you subscribe to a telephone service with only a few hundred other phones? I believe that the success of a CCG (and of most games) is tied to likelihood that a player will find other players.

All games have attrition in the player base, for a plurality of reasons. Older games will eventually see a decrease in the network of players, a cancerous process that makes the game exponentially less attractive. It is therefore critical that new players equal or exceed this attrition. When a game is new and fresh, the acquisition of new players requires less effort, but as a game ages, this task becomes increasingly difficult and costly.
When a game crests in this way, I have often seen players blame the company (sometimes rightfully, most times not) for not advertising enough or for other incompetence. Advertising is somehow seen to be the panacea of troubled games. While there is justified room for advertising in a marketing plan, it is a fickle, risky, and mostly intangible way to increase a player base. Fantasy Flight Games, although we do advertise AGOT, has always felt that most of our resources were better invested in other efforts proven to be more effective in gaining new players. We have implemented such efforts over the years (most recently with Luke’s tour around the country), and we have seen ebbs and flows of success. But over time, the game has continued to slow. This is not AGOT specific, the same can be said for the CCG category in general, especially the more complex games (the exception having been CCGs for younger players based on weekly cartoon shows.)

However dire this may sound, whatever conjecture maybe racing through your head at this point, don’t despair. We’ve yet to throw in the towel on any of our CCG’s, and no towels will be thrown today.

Let me say, once again: “Not Yet!”

“Not Yet!”

We have, of course, given much thought to the game and how we can create a new life for it and its community. It is a fact that the game needs change. That what is old must become new again. We don’t wish to fight yesterday’s wars, we want to move into the better future.

Nothing shall be the same.

To heed the banners. To ride into this future. We hereby introduce the following changes to the A GAME OF THRONES CCG:

Change One: The Living Card Game

For what is dead may never die, but rises again, harder and stronger!
- Aeron Damphair

Future AGOT releases will no longer be sold in “booster packs" and “starter decks”. The planned release that was entitled A Clash of Arms has been cancelled. Rather, AGOT will be launched in a new format that we call “Living Card Games”, or – to coin a new acronym – the “LCG”.

When Fantasy Flight Games’s Call of Cthulhu CCG failed to garner an audience large enough to support new game releases, we decided to instead release “Asylum Decks” so that the existing player base would have new content on a regular basis. This was a new and untried type of product, and Fantasy Flight Games had no expectations for how it would be received. At a minimum we hoped that Cthulhu players would appreciate our dedication to supporting the game.

To our surprise, these decks were a success. With this in mind, more ambitious thoughts began to stir about the future of the format.

The AGOT LCG.

There will be no further A GAME OF THRONES booster pack, or random collation, releases. Starting in February 2008, Fantasy Flight Games will begin releasing monthly “Chapter Packs” for AGOT, each containing 40 cards. (20 unique cards. As with the CoC Asylum Decks these will be 10 unique cards in 3 copies, and another 10 unique cards in 1 copy.)

Each deck will retail at $9.95, and will be produced in a hang-tab tuck-box (see picture on the next page).

The AGOT Chapter Packs will ship in “cycles” of 6 decks. The first such cycle is aptly called A Clash of Arms. All decks, released monthly, within a cycle will have the collectors “button” relating to that cycle. Each deck will have its own title – for example, the deck to be released this February will be called The War of Five Kings.

The second cycle of Chapter Decks is titled A Time for Ravens and will be launched with the release of two Chapter packs at Gen Con Indy 2008, and continue with monthly releases through December 2008.

Chapter packs will be limited edition product. When they are gone, they are gone. We don’t want retail stores to worry about an ever expanding line of decks, and we want the limited nature of AGOT cards to remain intact. Note that individual cards from Chapter Packs could make an appearance in later sets and products (just as prior cards have been re-introduced in the past in Premium Starters and the Legacy Pack).

Also, at Gen Con Indy 2008, we will introduce the new AGOT starter set, a $29.95 SRP boxed set, with a plethora of cards, custom playing pieces, a game board, and updates to the game system. In this way, Fantasy Flight Games brings AGOT into its greatest core competency: that of boxed game production. It is envisioned that a new AGOT starter would be created for every Gen Con along with a new cycle of Chapter Decks.

As manufacturing, shipping, and other human factors can be unpredictable, Fantasy Flight Games intends to make its monthly release dates happen on time by manufacturing all Chapter Packs of a single cycle in one printing. In this way, Fantasy Flight Games will have the inventory in stock, and will be completely in control of when the product ship to the market. This should insure a predictable and timely release schedule for the Chapter Packs within a cycle.

Why make such a change? Are we fixing something that is not broken? Are we breaking fixed things? These are good questions.

Please allow me to present some of the issues and thoughts on why this is a very powerful, positive change, not only for AGOT, but possibly for other CCG’s and the marketplace as a whole:

1) Collectibility Backlash

As many of you are well aware, a great number (if not majority) of hobby game players are reluctant, if not outright hostile, towards collectible games. Many reasons exist: random collation, cut-throat competitive play environment (not in AGOT, of course), cost, availability, and lack of players (compounded by the first series of points.

We saw with the Cthulhu CCG a significant resurgence in interest and players once the format changed to the non-collectible Asylum Decks. Suddenly, we realized, the potential player base had doubled, if not tripled, simply due to the step away from random collation. In the same way, we now hope that many new players will become interested in AGOT, and that former players will return to the fold. The game is now more accessible, a fact that we hope to communicate far and wide in the industry.

2) International Resistance

In 2005-06 Fantasy Flight Games made an effort to take AGOT to international markets, expanding the player base, and increasing Fantasy Flight Games’s return on the assets invested in each release. Although moderately successful in some countries, the cost of printing and maintaining a normal CCG can be very aggressive on publishing partners (especially as the collectibility backlash in Europe has been extremely strong), and impossible to bear if a “critical mass” of players do not materialize in that country. So, as some countries began to fail, the production became more expensive for the others (including Fantasy Flight Games.) The LCG format is conducive to far better distribution opportunities overseas than the CCG format, for. The incremental production is so much smaller, and the production process itself is less expensive for smaller print-runs, than a CCG (which, in addition to high cost, incurs a tremendous amount of waste in booster packs, booster displays, disposable common and uncommon cards,.). Now, even languages with smaller populations will be able to join Fantasy Flight Games in producing AGOT locally, and larger countries are certain to be targeted by Fantasy Flight Games for localized AGOT LCG releases.

3) Novelty

Unfortunately, once a hobby retail store has discontinued a CCG, it will virtually never stock that game again. This has an almost insurmountable effect on acquiring new players, regardless of advertising and effort. Thus, players that later become interested in AGOT by Fantasy Flight Games’s marketing, find it increasingly harder to locate product, and, more importantly, find it harder to find the retail play-areas that re so critical to organized play and finding other players… Understandably, stores must use their resources to invest in the next up-and-coming product, and do not have much incentive to invest tremendous time and effort in a game that has run its course in their store. As all CCG players know, there is a vast number of CCG’s available and more are released monthly. Attempting to create renewed resurgence for AGOT in these tidal waves of new products is a costly and almost certainly futile fight. Instead, we dare to be novel. Dare to be new! We aim to launch not only the AGOT CCG with renewed vigor, but in a way that affects the category itself. Affects how players and retailers could see the category in the future. We know we have one of the best games out there, and it is time that it had an equally unique and novel release identity that sets it aside and plays to its strengths.

4) Marketability

In our years selling CCG’s, we have found that a substantial number of stores are unable to effectively sell, or even carry, CCG’s. For example, in the U.S, if you go into a Borders bookstore, you will typically see the few CCG’s they carry, hidden away behind the counter to avoid theft. In this new format, we gain access to other markets (such as the book store market), which will be a positive event for player acquisition.
Also, the investment for a single hobby retail store to try a CCG is typically at least one starter display (about $100 retail), and a booster display ($100+ retail). As an LCG is sold in smaller increments, we believe that a far greater number of stores will now be able to carry the product (and perhaps this will also mean that the cost of reintroducing AGOT would be far smaller for retailers that are no longer selling the game.)

Change 2: The Multiplayer Angle.

Starting with the 2008 AGOT Regionals, and culminating with the Gen Con Indianapolis World Championships, these AGOT games will be played using multi-player format. (Updated tournament rules will be provided in January.) This choice was made to move the game to where it is strongest, which is (in our opinion) in its multi-player incarnation. Think about it! What AGOT games have a greater flavor of A Song of Ice and Fire than the multiplayer games? In addition to the solid mechanics, you have the politics, backstabbing, hyperbole. Some multiplayer sessions seem as a page ripped out of the novels themselves.

Although there will be no one-on-one AGOT World Championship, Fantasy Flight Games will continue to run tournaments and organized play for one-on-one games, as well as “classic” format games. In addition to the Clash of Arms cycle of cards, standard legal cards leading up the GEN CON world championships in August ’08 will be the Winter Edition, Song of Twilight, Song of Night, Winter Premium Starter, Iron Throne, House of Thorns, House of Talons, and Five Kings sets. More details on this will be provided in January.

Using analogy, former AGOT championships were akin to tournament chess, while the new AGOT championships will harken to tournament poker.

Change 3: Organized Play.

In late spring, Fantasy Flight Games will launch its new Organized Play (OP) program for A GAME OF
THRONES. We are creating an entirely new program, one that, like the LCG format, is innovative and novel. It isinto a new gaming age.

The planning phase of this new OP program have just been completed. The implementation of this project will require a significant effort by Fantasy Flight Games, but one that I am confident will result in an amazing service to the players. We intend to keep the details of the OP program under wraps for now, but will reveal more as we get closer to completion of this program. If you are a Night's Watch member, and you want to be informedabout our organized play plans, please contact Luke Reed at [email protected] so that he may add you to our list of Night's Watch contacts for the new program.

Until the major OP program is rolled out, our organized play team will be creating several events for the player community, as well as organizing the 2008 Regionals for April 2008. Keep your eyes peeled on this new site for news and other announcements.
Thanks for playing,

Christian T. Petersen
C.E.O.
Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc
[email protected]

EXT. THE MOROCCO ARENA. DAY

Maximus extends his arms to the crowd, sword held high, dripping with the gore of his foes.

MAXIMUS

(shouting)
Are you not entertained?

So now we have evidence that rotation was never denied in this original manifesto as originally postulated. Do it to FFG. Rotate away plz.

Rotation seems unnecessary for A Game of Thrones. Although there are many reasons that I can see people wanting a rotation, it would be more or less pointless for the casual players, and highly frustrating for competitive players. Given that there are very few big aGoT tournaments, which are relatively low stakes compared to other card games, I can't see a satisfactory way of handling rotation. AGoT events are already split in time between joust and melee and rotation could cause a possible 2nd format for each (a Standard and a Vintage format, to borrow from Magic), which would just make the scoring for the overall championship and time to conduct a tournament a nightmare.

Also, rotation would cause a wrench in the way that cards are currently designed. New cards that refer to old mechanics, like Manning the City walls and A City Besieged would be basically useless if there were rotation. Add to the fact that a City Besieged will be one of the only ways to deal with the new Hall of Dreams agenda (ie if King's Landing rotated, you could only hit HoD locations of less than 2 gold with it), and you can easily see how the idea of rotation would break down the overall mechanics in the game. I can see rotation as a way to break the homogeneity of the metagame, but let's try to see the effect of more judicious updates of the restricted list and introduction of new, powerful cards like Hall of Dreams and Less and Less change the game. If 6 months from now, the restricted list hasn't changed much and tournament winning decks are still largely dominated by Winter/Summer/TMP decks, then maybe I would consider rotation a more necessary measure.

I'm Brett Zeiler and I support rotation.

Stag Lord said:

Everyone has had good points and valid opinions, though I have to say Stag Lord, your's was pushing the bounds of believability. As a long time player stretching back to the original CCG days, for you to have stayed with the game this long through all of it's ups, downs, iterations, and at least 1 rotation back then… I find it hard to believe that if they set up a reasonable and well planned out rotation again, that you would take your ball and go home.

No disrespect meant, I'm just sayin'… come on man, really, you would quit over a rotation? I'm not buying it.

On a side note, a poorly planned or handled rotation can be catastrophic, and I expected there to be "the sky is falling" reactions just by mentioning the possibility that one could or should occur.

But realistically, some of the issues I have seen people have with rotation (ie. losing themes like summer/winter, maesters, BHB, etc.) because a CP cycle would be rotated out, are a bit knee jerky.

Think about this for a second, when you rotate something out, you have to replace it with something. Too many people focus on what is lost in rotation and don't stop to think, "hey, at least we will be getting whole new themes to replace what we lost"

And finally, the idea of rotating CP cycles out one at a time is not something I would advocate. The point of rotation is to create a fresh environment and trimming off the past a slice at a time isn't going to do that.

If I were doing it, I would announce it at least a year in advance, mark the next two CP's (if the distribution model stays at 1/month) with a "bug" or indicator that represents legality for the upcoming "book" (they obviously would be legal for the current environment leading up to the rotation), then rotate all the previous un-bugged CP's out at once keeping the Core Set and each of the House Expansions in the legal rotation (these latter two sources permanently since they create a starting point).

Two CP's, the Core and the House Expansions may not be enough cards to start a rotation, which is why I would boost the release of CP's to bi-weekly which only adds an extra $15 a month for players… or drop expansions (150 cards) every 3 months for $100 which is basically the same thing with more infusion.

Current model: 60 cards @ $15 = 4 cards / $1

Expansion modely: 450 cards @ $100 = 4.5 cards / $1

Obviously this is just an example of how it could be handled… I am sure there are many (if not better) ways to do it. Just wanted to illustrate that rotation isn't all about what you lose but what you gain as well.. the lose of themes like Rivers/Summer/Winter/et al. is in the designers hands and how they want to shape the environment.. losing them doesn't necessarily mean they will be gone forever either…

And then there is legacy. All those rotated out cards from the CCG days could use some friends, and additionaly vibrant tournaments at major events is never a bad thing. The more active your tournament scene is the more interest it can generate.

And you don't have to include legacy tournaments in determining who is champion… make legacy stuff seperate and you solve that headache right there.

There are always ways of working things out for the positive.

First you have to look at the common problem which is why these agendas and deck types are required:

1.) You generally need to draw 3 cards per turn in order to compete. (2 from normal, 1 from agenda/location/effect).

2.) There are a few cards you need to be in place for certain decks to work.

I say we solve #1 by changing the rules to allow 3 cards per turn, then ban/restrict most of the card draw put in place.

We solve #2 by reprinting Benjen's Cache.

Now I also think we should rotate out Defenders of the North, and then make a new Nights Watch/Wilding Expansion that gives them their own house cards (or give the wildings their own house card, and restrict the NW to the neutral house card… reprinted in the expansion for convenience).

The following are simplistic, possibly unfair criticisms of rotation:

1. Rotation incentivizes lazy design. Even in the current LCG, CCG cards are regularly reprinted nearly word for word and, since the fundamental structure of the game requires X-cost X-str X-icon characters and X-resource providing locations to function, there is no incentive to radically redesign those cards. Furthermore, if they are redesigned what value do slight variants provide the pool? In either event, without radical mechanical changes, the player is forced to purchase redundant cards.

2. Rotation does not prevent incomplete/uncompetitive design. The LCG took 55 products to actively address a majority of trait-based decks (with house of dreams). Unless the rotation radically refocused the design process, there is no reason to expect a new product will take less time and/or investment to develop.

3. Competitive play IS necessary for casual play and both groups will be annoyed by a forced heavy reinvestment in the product. How many casual groups allow players to use CCG era cards? (even the LCG art style CCG cards) How many groups have at least one player who keeps an eye on errata and professional trends to ensure the group is playing 'right' and that cards are ''fair'? If old cards (and old investments) are no longer 'legal' amongst the greater community, or if rules dramatically change/no longer support old cards, how interested will casual players be in making further purchases?

4. Rotation does not guarantee new ideas. 49 products ago, the LCG didn't even have character agendas, which were in the CCG before it was 'rotated'. The LCG will have its first truly new mechanics (challenge modifiers) in its 56th product. Again, since the game's core must be supported (or resupported by a rotation) there is no reason to expect truly new mechanics to develop within a reasonable time frame.

5. Rotation does not guarantee superior pool balance. the CCG had bananas crazy cards. the LCG had/has TMP and others. Just because it's new doesn't mean it will be better tested or thought out. More likely, it will be just as rushed and just as unsupported as it is now.

6. to reduce the impact of the above 5 criticisms, Rotation has to be complicated or restrictive, which can as easily make the competitive deck pool even smaller. Core set + Deluxe set + 1 CP is --relatively-- easy to police in official play but presents balance issues across the houses and certainly doesn't provide room for a lot of deck options. (it even chokes decks that potentially need cards from all over the pool to function) any option more complicated than that is complicated and thus annoying to police in official play and triple annoying in casual play. (for the builder too, since they don't get to use a swath of the cards they own)

Pro: …maybe a House Tully house card? Probably not…

RobotMartini said:

I disagree whole-heartedly. Laziness of design is a human error not a functionality flaw from rotation. From a design perspective, rotation creates a blank canvass at set intervals and that allows for a flexing of creative muscle without having to back check a huge pool of cards for balance. That's not laziness that's being efficient with your time. Furthermore, the source material is finite. In the current format design is forced to revist characters and redesign them in new ways to fit new themes; but often, since the new themes are sub-par compared to other competitive themes, the new version are benched. That sounds an awful lot like the redundancy you describe, in a system without rotation; if you rotate, your options for which versions are available are controlled in a much better way so that designs hard work pays off with cards seeing consistent playing time in decks instead of living in a cardboard box collecting dust from the day they are released.

RobotMartini said:

Correct, rotation does not prevent design from being incomplete or uncompetitive; that, once again, falls into the lap of the designer/developers. And you point out perfectly that whether a rotation is instituted or not, design/development is the root of this feeling of staleness. That aside, saying it took 55 products to actively address a majorty of trait-based decks is unfair. They were addressed, just not to your satisfaction. The speed at which themes develop or traits are addressed, is not connected to rotation, it's a decision on designs end as to what kind of priority/plan they have to do that. Without a rotation, the time frame for them to get to trait-X is infinate, it could be three years from now. With a rotation, they know they have to address it in a much more confined amount of time. A rotation forces them to decide, 1.) if a theme will be addressed in that block, and 2.) how to implement multiple themes effeciently and effectively to reach their goals for the block. If you are distributing CPs then a block can be looked at as a Book. Books have beginnings middles and ends. Then another book is written.. and so on and so forth. I'm not saying you have to design based on the flow of the books, that would be lazy; but it would also be a fan boys dream.

RobotMartini said:

Explain to me again how rotation forces reinvestment. If you are playing this game at any level, competitively, casual-competitive, or casually, you are buying CPs every month right now without a rotation. Rotation doesn't change the distribution method or frequency, it is a red-line on the competitive calendar, that is all.

Now, casual players (players who do not play in tournaments) have no reason to stop buying product if a rotation is implemented, because it doesn't affect how they play the game. As you pointed out, some casual players may still even use CCG era cards that can't be used in tournaments anyway. So your argument that just because some LCG era cards become "illegal" to use in tournament play doesn't hold water as a logical reason behind not purchasing new CPs post rotation. But perhaps you are mis-categorizing the kind of players you are talking about.

Casual-competitive players (players who aren't hardcore into the tournament scene, but still like to play in tournaments perhaps even with house rules to allow for those pesky legality rules for old CCG era cards) buy a CP here and there toss the cards they like into their tournament decks. Here's my favorite part about card games. It's up to the group how they want to play the game. They can make their own rules and still run a tournament. It would be sanctioned as an official event if they do, but hey, they still can have fun playing the game. And if they DO want to play in a sanctioned event, then they know that they have to adjust their decks for legality and play by the official rules. Rotation doesn't change the rules, it adjusts the available card pool. If you want to be competitive then you have to make the investment. If you have stopped buying CPs because you have your decks the way you want them now and can attend a tournament without making any changes, then yes rotation would be bad for you… but because you've stopped supporting the game financially I really don't care to hear the whining. Legacy tournaments would be this kind of player's bread and butter.. they don't have to financially support the game and can continue to save their $15 a month living in the past.

Competitive players (players who attend tournaments regulary and look for the most effecient way to build their decks) are already forced to buy each CP as it comes out, because of their predisposition to finding the most effecient way to build their competitive deck, and any truely competitive player will tell you, they buy everything because they never know when they will need it for the next big deck. While the initial hit of the first rotation can be hard to swallow, the promise of shiney new things and the excitement to create the next Tier 1 deck, should ease that pain relatively quickly. And after the first rotation, each subsequent one becomes easier because players become accustomed to rhythm in the frequency that they come.

RobotMartini said:

Correct, rotation does not guarentee new ideas; having a competant and enthusiastic designer does. As for the rest of that number, it doesn't make logical sense. There is no reason to expect truly new mechanics to develop within a reasonable time frame now… and that's a design issue not a rotation issue.

As mentioned above, rotation actually whipes the slate clean and provides the designer a blank canvass to work on. Sure the core mechanics of the game stay the same, it's what makes AGoT what it is, but a great designer can take that blank canvass and those mechanics and create something special each time without having to figure out how to be creative by still balancing that new idea with Summer/Winter/TMP/BHB/etc. With rotation that "new idea" can be realized fully, and live free from the influence of Summer/Winter decks and the way they impact the environment. Everything that is created and put into the game as it currently is affects the state of the game, every new idea now has to take that into account… how will this interact with Summer/Winter/TMP. Many great ideas die because they cannot be realized without severe modification so that interactive problems don't develop with existing cards in the pool. Rotation solves that problem.

RobotMartini said:

Again, your are correct in pointing out that rotation doesn't guarentee superior pool balance; and again that's the job of the designer/developers. Whether or not a cards/themes will be better tested in a post rotation environment depends on several factors; not the least of which are the designer/developers and the testers. But what does play a significant role in that process is the magnitude of the environment the cards and themes have to be tested against. With rotation that pool can be kept at a size that promotes easier testing and less errata/restricting/banning. As the situation is now, it surely takes a competant tester a signifcant amount of time to look at how a new card/theme interacts with the large pool of cards that we have.. and as we have seen, corners are getting cut, because if they weren't the restricted list would not be in existance and errata on the scale that we have it, wouldn't be happening.

RobotMartini said:

I disagree that rotation has to be complicated. I think it is short sighted to say that it will be. It can be clean and easy to implement. I agree that Core+Deluxe+1CP is not enough at the beginning of a rotation. If you bump it up to 3CPs you are getting closer, though. Again, balance issues and card interaction across the pool (synergy) and whether they are "choked" is a design/development issue. The idea that rotation will be annoying to police in official play doesn't quite make sense to me, because all it requires is the ability to recognize a symbol that denotes legality (something card games have been doing for decades); but if your beef is that you won't be able to use all the cards you own, your flat wrong; let me introduce you to my friend the Legacy format…

TL;DR for Dennis:

All in all, I get what you are trying to say, but I think your issues are not with rotation but with Design/Development and how the game is being put out now and how you imagine it will be. Perhaps you are right.. I haven't been back long enough to know if Design/Development isn't living up to the task, or even has the passion and moxy to make a rotation work. And while I may not know the designer, I do know Nate. He is certainly smart enough to figure out how to make a rotation work.

I think you forgot to include something for me in your last post.

dcdennis said:

Fixed

Shikaku said:

a gentleman and a scholar are you. I owe you one beer for every tldr you give me btw now and worlds.

dcdennis said: