dormouse said: Are you sure? Yes.

I'm talking about Decipher SWCCG. And they lost license, but it had nothing to do with success of the game.

dormouse said: It is the reason why those rules were "expanded" that matters. They changed the game You have no idea what are you talking. dormouse said: Your come back was a game not actively in print with no company support worth mentioning... so I'll see your question about "how many players quit because of rotation" with probably far fewer than have missed out on SWCCG/TCG entirely because it isn't being produced. Is that because the game became too unweildly to develop for or because it as not attracting enough new players to be profitable? You have no idea what are you talking. Unless you are talking about SWTCG

dormouse said: . I'd rather see every House with some unique flavor of attachment control, in time, rather than a neutral solution. It keeps House distinction primary, and makes it a harder choice for it to be included. I concur.

dormouse said: that means you have dozens (if not hundreds) of cards that will never see play now. Yeah, with rotation you don't have hundreds of cards that are not banned... dormouse said: end result was changing the rules to prevent said power creep from ruining the game. ? What are you talking about? Rules were expanded, just like shadows and seasons. Rules were clarified just like moribund concept, phase charts and actions/framework windows. Wait a minute, so you are saying that AGOT also changed the rules because of power creep. That's ridiculous. dormouse said: printing new Summer Winter cards and answers would prevent the mechanic and Chapter packs from needing to be rotated You know, it seems to me that you are just used to rotation, that you treat it like something normal. Just like those guys who defend boosters concept. You are willing to buy again the same cards just like those guys are willing to buy boosters.

Old Ben said: So in an average CCG it´s not only about wheter old or new cards are better, but also about the possibility to gather the best 60 cards of all collections So, maybe this was business error (not gameplay)? SWCCG was in shops all the time. (Don't forget that even old players didn't have key cards, because of booster model, ultra rares etc., so this can't be reason for rotation I think). Funny story: I asked some people about some fiefdoms few days ago. Imagine my surprise, when they told me that they don't have it, because if you bought a box, then you had only 3 copies of given common. Old Ben said: No1. rotation is a good access point for new players, that´s undeniable in my opinion and a good thing. Core Set are excellent access point now, so I think this is no longer true. Old Ben said: No2. Design failures can be corrected, which is not a good thing in general, but often necessary. Errata or counter cards can correct this. ingsve said: But one problem is that some old AGOT cards are very powerful and anyone that has those cards would have a distinct advantage over someone that only has newer cards. So the issue isn't the size of the card pool per se but the amount of ultra powerful cards that one player has access to that other don't have access to. Hopefully this will not be a problem in LCG. Also, this might be a design/testing problem. Rotation seems to me like poor excuse for poor tested game. ingsve said: The only way to make a CCG work without rotation is to make cards more and more powerful in future sets. That also has a drawback in that it creates moer and more NPEs which is also someone that we want to avoid and that can be done by rotating cards. I don't agree. There is a saying: "There is never much time to make something properly. There is always much time to make something from the start." BTW Anyone wondered how many people abandoned the game because of rotation?

Old Ben said: But SW:CCG had a kind of passive rotation, it´s true that there were still a lot of the old cards played, but the newer cards saw an extreme increase in the power level and so older cards rotated. Yes, but you decide which cards to use (no banned cards). If you wanted to use old Han becuse of your strategy, you could. If old cards are not powerful then why to ban them? That's not logical. Old Ben said: My usual example here is Han Solo, of course he´s one of the most popular charachters in the SWCCG universe, so everybody wanted to play him, almost every Han Solo version was a little better and/or had some more game text, stats etc., however today he´s used rarely in most of the SW:CCG decks, because there are just better charachters, like any non-unique Jedi with a lightsaber, there are even better pilots than Han. Ok, but that's absolutly normal situation. We have a lot of Arya, Catelyn, Ned etc. Now if you say that Han is not used because he's weak, then aren't you contradict yourself a little? Aside from designers ideas/errors, you can use any version of Han if you like. Old Ben said: Farm boy luke was a pilot ... Daughter of skywalker (jedi traing and ewok friends version) ... Bobby is standing machine, Ned is a drawer, Catelyn Winter defender etc. Old Ben said: I can´t remember any deck that was viable in earlier editions as well as in later editions in that game. Of course, bacuse game lives (without rotation), moreover it changes more, because card pool is so huge - more options, more ideas. Let me ask two test questions: 1. You are a new player. You don't want to play in tournaments. Are you worried by a huge cardpool? Remember that you can take only ~60 cards in your deck. 2. You are a new player. You want to play in tournaments. Are you worried by a huge cardpool? Remember that you can take only ~60 cards in your deck. Second question may be a little harder, so I'll tell you what I do: I go where old players play. I play with them. They use all old cards (x3). Effect? I learn very quickly what "Paper shield" is for example. All in all they can take only ~60 cards into deck... There are always good cards and weak cards (in opinion of players) - rotation or not, it doesn't matter. Also remember about a very common misunderstanding: "players = collectors". That's not true. You don't need every ever printed card x3. So, huge card pool don't hurt players. (I don't care about collectors if they want to collect, then it's theirs problem) Why do you want to limit card pool?! It limits also your creativity. Are these "big card pool problems" even confirmed? Or maybe it is just business decision? (I'm aware that testing new cards is much harder) And one more thing: I know that you don't want "rotation" now, but when? Mostly I read here that the card pool is too small, that LCG lacks some tactics, there is no attachment control, too little location control, that expansion coming too slow (!), that we don't have House Arryn, House Tyrell, Night's watch etc.

Stag Lord said: In a CCG you have to have rotation or the game will die. That's not true. I played some CCG and never heard about rotation. And yes, I have participated in much organized play of a game with a large card pool (5 years - no rotation - the best experience in my life). But that was SWCCG. Large card pool means a lot of combos constantly developed by players. There is no 1 powerful deck which beats all, because there are constantly new cards and new combos - game lives. But you may be right that this is the case in AGOT, I don't know yet, it may be because of AGOT mechanic. But if this is true for AGOT, then it's hard to imagine that next year or two you could not use seasons or shadow mechanic. schrecklich said: Also, older cards tend to go out of print and become scarce/expensive. Ok, but then are the reprints, right? So, older players must buy the same cards again, new players buy them anyway, and old cards still are banned - I don't get it.

Of course I'm asking about old times. So, cards not "standard" legal were banned in tournaments. What about casual play? Did you not use them also? If yes what did you do with these cards? Sold them? Nobody wanted it I suppose, because they were not legal, right? So they were useless? This is crazy. All cards should be legal to the end of the world in my opinion. And one more thing: if rotation exist then there are some reprints, then you have less new cards, right? (you buy the same cards again)

Hmm, I didn't think about it earlier, but we have two definitions used in game: attached card's owner AND attached card's controller So shouldn't "attach to an opponent's character" mean character owned by opponent?

BTW Could you please explain what exactly the rotation is? Old cards are banned or something? (I played SWCCG, so I don't know about the idea)

Tugglife2 said: Say, I could attack with as many characters as I want for a military challenge assuming they all have the military icon? And I would be able to defend with as many characters as I like? Yep.

I think Motley is discarded, (No longer meets requirement "opponent's character") but I'll wait for ktom's answer.

It's worth to mention that opponent can spend gold to bring card out of shadows before Daario can "steal" it.

Attachments stay in play until discarded by other effect (e. g. Maester Cressen). If character is killed or discarded or taken to hand, his attachments are discarded.

schrecklich said: I guess because there is no window for player actions until after dominance is awarded. Daario is not a player action (but I think you already know that). schrecklich said: As a general principle, is it the case that if a passive ability is initiated at the beginning of a phase it resolves before framework actions that take place at the beginning of the phase? No, but there is nothing to do except "beginning of the phase" in that framework. schrecklich said: So if something happened at the beginning of the draw phase, would it resolve before players drew cards? Similarly, if you brought a character out of the shadows at the beginning of dominance, would it count for dominance? Yes and yes. Mind that before "draw framework" there is "player actions" box. EDIT: BTW: I know why you are confused. Core set rules say that winning dominance happens "at the beginning of the phase", but FAQ chart treat this as a separate framework.

I understand why these cards have "kneel all" text (to avoid drawing/standing more than 1 card). What I'm not sure is: is this kneeling a cost? (and we know that you can pay cost only with own cards) To make this short a simple question: I have 1 "Bay of ice" in play. My opponent has no "Bay of ice". My opponent wins initiative. Does he kneel my "Bay of ice"? Bay of Ice: "After a player wins initiative, that player kneels all cards named Bay of Ice, then draws a card." Kingdom of Shadows: "After a player wins an I challenge, that player kneels all copies of Kingdom of Shadows to choose and stand a card with the S crest."

But don't forget that chapter pack is somehwat different. Some players buy only 1 CP and they might be happy that they got some x3 and some x1 (mostly unique cards anyway). So the question is: if x2 would be a definitely good thing for everyone? Maybe x1/x3 is good compromise? Maybe solution is to ask FFG to better handle which cards are x3? I'm not sure, that's why I wanted to know what you all think.

And what about second thought (x2 each card)? No opinions? Or maybe you already discussed this in the past?

Old Ben said: ~That´s a lie. ;-) Believe me or not I learned every new list by heart (I started when New Hope came out). ktom said: And if there were 3x of The Hand's Judgment in the pack, I'd still probably think I didn't have enough. But I don't need "weak" cards (x1 or x3 irrelevant). Now, if I buy two "good" cards and one is x1 and the other x3, then seller knows about it and he wants greater price for the first one.

ktom said: in the CCG days, there were "rares" that I placed absolutely no play value on and would have traded easily or just given away. And there were some commons and uncommons that were so good, I'd hardly trade them at all. That's true. Funny story: Last month I bought "The battle of Ruby Ford" pack and I got by mistake "House Umber Berserkers" x2 and "Herald of the King" x2. As you know there is no official information about content of any FFG product. As I said it is just a little, almost unimportant thing to make your life easier...

master_death said: What if a stealth character attacks now? Nothing. Stealth works before defenders are declared. (And you can't use it before, because you don't have attacking characters yet). master_death said: Does Daario steel the gold before its counted for dominance? Yes.

Ok so you remember all cards' quantity? You know that this "F 34" is completely unimportant information? And it is still there. Why? For example in SWCCG there was no R/U/C info on cards and still players knew very well which one is rare. But other games (like AGOT in past) have this info - it's just the small thing that makes your life easier. So why to waste ink for printing "F" letter? We all know that all the cards now are fixed.

Gualdo said: Do the "Kneel 1 influence" to make return in hand the DAyne Reserves is appliable only if they are in play (and not if they are in discard/dead pile)??? I think yes Correct. Aren't they too good already?

Week ago I was trading with my pal and he pointed out that he values x1 cards from chapter pack a little more than those x3. He said "something like rare". Now two thougths: 1) Sometimes you don't remember which card was x3 in pack and you don't know if you want to trade for other card (quantity of which of course you also don't remember). Solution to this (as you don't have internet access all the time) would be a number or a little dot next to card's collector info. For example: F1 34 and F3 25. Or F* 34 and F 25. Or something different that allows you to tell quantity. This is no big problem, but if FFG could do it without big work, then it would be nice. 2) I'm so glad with "Princes of the sun" that I thought: wouldn't be great if chapter packs was all x2? You could split it with friends without problems and easily collect playset. What do you think guys? Would it be better/worse for players? Would it be better/worse for FFG? After all it shouldn't be rarity in LCG