Sideboards are good for strategy in a game where there is almost no strategy once the game has begun at the higher levels. Without a sideboard you have to create a more balanced deck that can take on all comers or so tightly focused that you can get your win before your opponent can set up a proper offense or defense, recognizing that doing so means you may get rolled by a deck that can exploit your weakness. The lack of a sideboard makes the metagame more dynamic since you cannot include an answer to all problematic deck match ups. Of course a very strong argument can be made about sideboards allowing for this or that (some of which you have already touched on), what it boils down to is both formats have positives and negatives and it would be a bad thing, in my own opinion, if every card game followed the exact same format. Regarding the best 2 out of 3, it depends on how you look at it. The whole point of swiss pairings is for the numerous games to have the best players running the strongest decks to rise to the top.Honestly in a 2:3 scenario you shouldn't really be running swiss you should be running single elimination brackets, or at least double elimination with some sort of wild card. Anyone, the idea of a online tournament with players from around the world participating is not new. They do it in AGoT, but it is not supported by FFG either. They are a table top gaming company who has just recently been getting into phone and tablet apps. I can't imagine them stepping outside of this to develop a fully functional online version of a niche card game. I think there is a greater possibility of a CoC app than of a computerized version like Magic Online. Don't get me wrong, it would be awesome, but I try to not get to excited about a thing that is almost certainly never going to happen in my life time.

My understanding is 30 days.

lol. I could go on at length about why you should relax, but honestly the moment I found out about it I wanted to be able to go to my FLGS and buy it. That I couldn't made me unhappy too, so I feel your pain.

There are thousands of people who attend Gencon. Companies regularly sell out of product, especially products released at Gencon. I would be surprised if they didn't have a few hundred for sale at Gencon, but I'd be surprised if they didn't sell out by Saturday… which almost guarantees that someone is going to want a set and not be able to get it.

Fiscal and a calendar years are obviously different. While many businesses operate financially on the fiscal year, not all do, and even some that do, do not communicate to customers using that metric but the more familiar calendar year. You get to the beginning of September and don't have access to them, then I think you have a reason to get anxious.

playgroundpsychotic said: Penfold said: There is no rule against your opponents tossing your deck out a window midgame either. I believe there are actual laws against that. Damaging people's property and such. Penfold said: You want to try and argue that because it is in the books and no rule against it that it is supported or encouraged by tournament play? Regarding melee collusion, I would ask the question: "What would Cersei Lannister do?" The answer is to do what it takes to win. FFG's only real failure is not limiting collusion but not presenting a mechanism that would encourage people to collude with a stranger. For example, split all players into their own "Houses". Each House would be of limited size. If in a game you're with a player of the same House, you would get a small point or power bonus if your House wins the table thus encouraging you to support them even if the person is a complete stranger. playgroundpsychotic said: I believe there are actual laws against that. Damaging people's property and such. You are honestly putting this forward as your refutation? So because the rules do not outlaw me from picking up your cards and shuffling what is on the table into your deck it is legal? What about a card effect that says any player? Can I go to the person with the highest SoS and resolve that effect on a card in play in his game? It is obvious there is is an entire meta plus some who think being a ****** is okay as long as it wins you the game, even if the game does not have rules that allow for it, specifically because it doesn't have rules that forbid it. Congrats, you convinced me that melee can never be a competitive game with people like that playing, and you are causing me to reevaluate whether I want to continue playing AGoT competitively at all. Anyone who has no problem with colluding in melee obviously is not going to have issues with doing the same sorts of things in joust. God willing Netrunner will have a friendly and considerate competitive community.

And slow pay is impossible to judge the same way all the time, so is deck randomization and any number of things the tournament rules covers. Yet there are rules covering them none the less. If you must cheat to win then bully for you. Some people don't mind being douches. That is certainly their choice. I believe they should be publicly ostracized and treated with scorn at every opportunity. Being blacklisted for a year is a lenient punishment in my book. The rules state what is legal in tournament play as well as in the game. You show me one rule where it allows or directs you to collude. There is no rule against your opponents tossing your deck out a window midgame either. You want to try and argue that because it is in the books and no rule against it that it is supported or encouraged by tournament play? This is a game. It is supposed to be about fun. This is supposed to be one of the best group of players in the genre. Nothing about colluding follows the letter or spirit of good sportsmanship.

JackT said: Penfold said: In my younger days if I had been at the final table in melee I may very well have broken my foot off in someone's ass. I'm better at accepting things I cannot change now, Buddhism has helped a bit, but yes, about ten years ago I would probably have found out where they were staying and had a little talk about sportsmanship after the tournament. OH MY. Looks like we have ourselves a bona fide tough guy. They say you can tell the real badasses by how they go on an internet forum and tell you about a hypothetical time in the past when they really would have effed some sh*t up. That goes double if the forum is about a card game set in a realm of fantasy and magickal creatures. I guess it's lucky for us Penfold has decided to cage the tiger a walk a path of non-violence. LOL. You don't know anything about me. Don't go making assumptions. There are all kinds of people in this world and some of them are exactly what they say are. Others enjoy taking a piss now and again mate, but are still far more complex with much more storied pasts than you are likely to imagine. Teasing me in no way refutes anything I've said. The fact is you are posting out of utter ignorance and look as foolish as you assume me to be. Cheers.

Penfold said: Three, almost guaranteed, if by tournament ready collection you mean the maximum number of cards possible to include in a deck. But it is Netrunner, you don't need every card x3 to be competitive, you just need to be a better player. I want to clarify this, be a better player than your opponent, not be a better player than you currently are. The game is so much about strategy and bluffing that it is entirely possible to win consistently just by being a stronger player. The cards of course can help make up for skill disparity, but if you are not playing in tournaments there is no reason to buy three core sets.

You are correct, thanks for adding that exception.

Three, almost guaranteed, if by tournament ready collection you mean the maximum number of cards possible to include in a deck. But it is Netrunner, you don't need every card x3 to be competitive, you just need to be a better player.

Best way to fix it is for people to stop being douches. Won't happen. As long as someone would rather take a competitive non-team game and willfully play it in direct conflict with the spirit of the game and the tournament no rule or point fix is going to solve the problem. Personally I say anyone found to have colluded is banned from the game for a year. Period. Now tell me how much you view this as a team sport and want to help your meta mate win a victory they did not earn in game. Are you willing to be banned from all sanctioned competitive play for an entire year? In my younger days if I had been at the final table in melee I may very well have broken my foot off in someone's ass. I'm better at accepting things I cannot change now, Buddhism has helped a bit, but yes, about ten years ago I would probably have found out where they were staying and had a little talk about sportsmanship after the tournament. I have nothing but contempt for people who have to cheat to win.

bwahaha!

If you play mostly melee (multiplayer) I'd suggest the latest complete cycle Tale of Champions. It includes really fun cards for melee, new plots, and some pretty neat cards in general for all the houses (gives a nice boost to Targaryen which if you are just playing core and expansions is probably one of the weaker houses). I wouldn't say it is the best cycle per se, but it includes a fair number of really helpful cards. Now if you play mainly joust (1v1) then King's Landing is probably one of the best cycles to grab.

This current cycle has already put out 7 plots. I can't help but imagine there may be even more coming out.

I really wish FFG would convince/demand for Edge to use some other forum software this is horrid. Seriously. I know they aren't a technological company, but there has GOT to be someone else they could outsource this to.

You control all cards you own unless there is an effect which has switched control. Cards only reference cards in play unless it specifically says otherwise. So while you "control" your resources and your domain, and your discard pile etc. unless a card specifically names an out of play area its effect only refers to cards in play that you control.

Sarah VanShaw with Master of Myths and Black Dogs and other jumpers is fun!

I assume it is in a discard deck? There are cards that attack the hand and they of course would wreck a deck like this since it is so reliant on a single card. Removing the event from hand forces them to dig deeper into their own deck while you rack up success tokens. I think there are enough ways to get rid of this card/combo that there is little need to worry now that we are all aware of it. I think the NOT being aware of it was probably one of the reasons it won the Philly regional. Not to say it isn't a dangerous deck, but if you don't know what you are facing when you are playing, let alone what you may face when you are building your deck, you leave yourself open. Now that we know about it we can make play and deck adjustments that give us better chances of defeating it. Now some more cancel (especially in Miskatonic and Syndicate) could certainly help out against this deck type, and generally make the destruction style decks less sure in their dominance. Every deck should have a fair way of countering it in the meta, though not necessary represented in every fashion. I personally plan on taking the wait and see approach. Wait and see if the deck appears and performs well at Gencon, Liege, and Worlds, and then see if new cards come out that make the deck less of a dangerous match up for at least a couple of factions. IF it is still an issue by the end of this cycle then I would support either errata or restriction if it is seriously warping the meta.

Notice Small Price to PAy is not worded as a cost. It instead uses a "then" statement, which means the first part of the effect, choosing a character to go insane must successfully resolve before the second part wounding a character, can be done. The effect makes the character you choose to go insane, but there is an interesting thing going on here wording wise, making the character go insane is not what the then statement is looking at, it is looking at you choosing one character to go insane. So once the choice is made you could disrupt it with Charles Dexter Ward make someone else go insane, and then because you successfully chose a character to go insane the then effect of wounding a character is resolved.

It should be noted these forums are actually hosted by Edge, a foreign partners of theirs… hence "edge_foros" in the url which translates to edge forum.

They don't post to their forums for any of their LCG's with any regularity they do post to the specific minisites they set up. While I play a number of their board games I've never even peaked into their other forums so I don't know if they have designers and producers posting their regularly but I was under the distinct impression that it was a company policy to not engage in discourse on the forums. I would find that double standard to be more than a little strange.

And this is why cardgamedb is my site of choice. None of this ridiculousness about having to register and repeatedly logging in. I get to see the cards I want and there are a bunch of awesome articles and podcasts to boot.

Saying there are no current plans to reprint something and saying that it will not or never be reprinted are two different things. Until I see a CnP of the email exchange, or ideally a forwarded version of the email with all header information attached, I'm calling shenanigans on the OP. I suspect he got an answer almost if not exactly identical to Staton's and read into it, speculated on the cards in the secondary market and is pissed because he paid too much. Now he wants someone to blame that isn't himself and FFG's policy of silence makes them an easy target.

Given the wording and title of the card I would say it is a good guess that was the intention of the card all along.