darkbladecb said: Poor form, FFG… It doesn't make sense to have a Regional season where from one weekend to the next people are using different cards… Why doesn't it?

And knowing is half the battle.

Hm, I seem to recall last year that they did something pretty similar, making packs legal after they had been available for a month. I kind of expected this to be honest.

It states the TO is the final arbiter of how to enforce all rules. Damon in his email clearly states what he believes scouting to be, and still states it is up to the TO to decide how best to handle the situation. I suspect that it was our debates here that "forced his hand" to have an official stance. Basically what it reads like is if both players don't care if people observe their game then the TO can just let it go. Sounds perfectly reasonable. Accusing someone after the fact of scouting, rather than when the scouting is occurring is going to be extremely difficult to prove unless you have credible eyewitnesses. In the end, it really sounds no different than all the other things in the rules about shuffling, stalling, and manipulating your or another player's standing in the results. None of those are particularly easy to enforce, or even easy to tell when it has been violated. We all have laws, no matter what country we reside in, that are difficult to enforce or prove violation of, but those laws are there none the less because just having them reduces the frequency that honest citizens will violate the law. *shrug* I think in the end the idea is for people to play their games, letting each game itself determine how well you do. Does anybody here really want to argue that this is not the ideal way for us all to play in a tournament?

Surreal said: It is all a design choice if you want to make the game with or without card limits. No limits just requires more planning from developers but the result is a way more freedom with deck building. But there really isn't. There is less freedom with design because every card has to be looked at with the knowledge this card could be easily available at any given time and played repeatedly turn after turn, or several times in a single turn. This means you have to design the card itself with specific limits that reduce the use of the card (making it situational or less powerful, or both) or by forcing a limitation on the game state (take Ashur's Tablets. The card requires you to have three in play to trigger it, as opposed to knowing the card is only going to be able to be drawn so many times and therefore is able to be used with each of them). As to freedom in deckbuilding when you have to face specific degenerative builds or certain effects that vastly skew a game in one direction or another or minimize or otherwise alter some fundamental part of game play you either play a deck that includes cards that fight against it, duplicate it, or just use those same exact cards. The more "auto includes" required in a deck the fewer choices you have. This is a feature of games in general as each player seeks to find the most efficient build and ignores all the other cards, but when I can find the single most efficient card for draw I can include that specific card in my deck only a certain amount of times in one format and must rely on other cards to generate similar effects in one format and need to include absolutely nothing else in another and that means a single card is going to dominate a larger percentage of your deck than it would otherwise. That feels like freedom, but it is really forcing you down a very narrow path. It is the illusion of free will. Now I'm not saying that placing restrictions is more free will, just that it creates a more diverse play environment and most people recognize on a fundamental level that the more of your cards you can use in putting a deck together the greater variety of cards and effects you use in a game the more enjoyable the experience is. Anyway. I think we are all bored with the topic and are not going to agree with each other so letting it drop is a great idea.

Buhallin said: That article includes 5 years of SWCCG World Championship decks. There aren't a whole lot of cards which are used more than 4 times (the standard limit of the day, thanks to Magic), and of those that are, LITERALLY only one is rare - the rest are uncommon or lower. That's with a pool of somewhere around 1300 cards at that point, in a situation where top regional qualifiers were flown AT DECIPHER'S EXPENSE to the world championships. It's a comprehensive a meta as you could possible find, so it would seem very possible that you can allow unlimited card counts in a deck without it seriously distorting the power:money relationship. Yeah, I'm done here - congratulations, you win the internet. Pointing out a single game that was a fiscal success doesn't prove your point. You toss around "empirical" when trying to refute my points but then provide empirical evidence when it supports you. *sniff* Mmmm… I love the smell of hypocrisy. Of course it still boils down to a single game based on what is arguably the most well known IP in all of fandom, in a system that was regularly ranted against as being unbalanced with Decipher making the bizarre decision not to ban broken cards or combos but by releasing silver bullet cards that effectively shut down the entire tactic based on the card. I wouldn't even dream of basing an entire argument around that. And as I alluded to in another post because the system required you to burn cards from your deck for… well nearly everything, the number of a specific card you had in your deck was not particularly helpful. The entire format of the game minimized the benefit of having high card quantity counts of rare cards. Which of course could be done by other game companies… except they also recognize how ridiculous the entire idea is to design a "feature" of the game one way and then counter that with three other features that minimize the importance of the first.

Buhallin said: Really? I mean, seriously?? I've argued in every single post from the very first time I realized that it was the R&D Mole that touched you in the bad place that part of the key to making unlimited counts work is that cards that would function well should NOT be rare, and this is something developers would have to consider. It's one thing to hold up a straw man, but you're actively fighting against the exact opposite of my actual position. Sometimes it seems like you exist in your own world. I know you have played CCG's before… you have to understand why they have rarity from a marketing level. You are suggesting bucking that trend and making the useful and powerful cards commons… At which point you've taken the biggest step possible to creating n LCG without addressing the distribution/quantities issue. So now we have the power cards easily available to everyone… what next? You realize this was not the thrust of my argument, it was a facet. You can try and elevate it as much as you want but no one is picking up what you are putting down.

Buhallin said: Call it a cop out if you want, Is it a cop out? Without the analysis we cannot determine whether or not any usuable information can be gleaned. So it basically boils down to you saying that you don't believe the expenditure of time and energy is worth it when there is no guarantee of the desired answer being arrived at… hm… that sounds somewhat familiar.

Yes, active player resolves conflicting passives.

Plotting ouside of the game is collusion and is forbidden under good sportsmanship rules which are part of the tourney rules in AGoT. Two people wanting to cheat at the final table is just that. Cheating. Same can be done in the final four of a joust… and has been done, at worlds even. So it appears the problem is you have an issue with cheating. Great. Me too.

Buhallin said: One last point, so we can hopefully stop a little of the hyperventilating: I'm not necessarily saying either system is "good" or "bad". What I'm saying is that I think that unlimited card counts enable gameplay elements which aren't possible with limited card counts, and the impact to the game both in terms of testing and cost to players is manageable. That doesn't seem like all that extreme a statement to me. Nonsense. You could easily have multiple cards with different names that inhabit the same design sphere that give the same deck building advantage as having no limit. There is no such way to scale design backwards though in a game that has unlimited numbers of cards except to never print the cart or otherwise alter the ability on the card or availability to a player (as in ban). Making it rare simply means whomever has the necessary money to spend has the strategic advantage. The cost for testing or purchase is not at all manageable, and the very fact that you stated you think it is makes me question whether you are even trying to engage in a serious conversation. I'm sure the wayback machine can pull up some quotes on the econdary card markets for sought after rares from unlimited card games. What do you think they will show? Your statement would dictate that the rares should be easily affordable in any given quantity for a casual player to afford so are you willing to have a discussion about these numbers?

Buhallin said: Happening to think a game can survive without a card limit is not some horrid apostasy. I'm also not sure that I've held anything up as "good" or "bad" design. Yes, there are other ways to get the effect I'm suggesting, such as keywords (which is in no way unique to or even originated by FFG's games). But that also has other design issues to it, because it's not a much broader pool of cards you have to worry about, and there's a greater potential for interaction. Two things that affect "troopers" now have to be considered each time, for every new "trooper" that you introduce. In my own experience with CCGs and other tabletop games that use similar mechanics, it's interactions that cause a problem, not just a direct card. Trying to do the same thing by creating 3x3 different cards introduces a greater risk of unexpected interaction that just allowing 9 of the same card. Actually I do think it is a bit of an apostasy, at least in regards to an LCG. That is what we are talking about isn't it? I mean if we are just talking about CCG's in general then no, a terrible terrible idea, a horrid design choice, and doomed to eventual failure without massive amounts of card errata, clarification, restriction, banning, and printing of numerous silver bullets in comparison to a game designed with limits. SWCG did have an advantage in that the system was a closed system, your cards were essentially everything. Limitations would have forced players to make much harder deck building decisions and I have a feeling the people who fell in love with that game would have resented having to make those decisions. This is where we start having problems though… recognizing what is a well designed set of rules for a game, good execution of a game, and good follow through with a game, and of course poor versions of those things. It is possible to have one be very good and one be mediocre and one be very poor and end up with a game that is still popular. Or obviously any mix of the above. The idea of unlimited cards is not inherently bad from a core game design principle. It is at best a mediocre choice to make when it comes to execution and has always presented itself to me as extremely horribly poor in follow through. And those are not kywords by FFG's designation, keywords have a specific meaning in relation to the rules of the game. Traits and subtypes are simple designators and other cards will reference them or create a rules state.

Buhallin said: Well, gee, how many games with card limits have gone out of print? That's at least as valid a metric - that is, not at all. The vast majority of CCGs have failed, trying to create some sort of causation to support this is meaningless. Sorry for breaking this down into multiple posts, but Edge's forum software is for ****. Good question. I say we even it up by looking at the percentage of the two. It isn't meaningless, it is just difficult to parse the information. Don't cop-out. I posit that because the increased expense for both the publisher and the customer that unlimited format customizable card games have by and large failed because they were created an imbalance that was fiscally prohibitive to correct for both groups. IF you would like to refute this point we can start looking at what percentage of games with no card limitation have succeeded and failed versus those without (and we can even find a definition of success that does not instantly require the game to be currently in print. I have a feeling though you recognize that you are going to have a distinctly hard time refuting this stance, but I am game if you.

Buhallin said: Well, yeah - that's kinda the definition of "cop-out" in these discussions. "This will be hard and I don't want to do it, so I'm going to find a shortcut." Erm, yes and no. Generally speaking the slang term is in reference to something that is inconvenient to fulfill not something that is a statistically improbable to fulfill. There is a distinct difference between a product of any variety being in testing and development for weeks, months, or years with a finite amount of people and then being released to the public and having 10 to 5000 times that number of people "testing" that card over an identical span of time (and usually many times longer. Your statement is absurd.

I agree with you there. The entire talk about Trace/Link being removed was from Wormhole Surfer and we all know that he was a reactionary poster. Not to say he always has been just the guy was caught off guard (thought he had the inside track on info and turns out he was wrong) and responded poorly to it. There has been nothing to indiate that Trace/Link has been altered in anyway… though I kind of hope it has been. Same reasons why I hope all references to dice have been removed. A streamlined game that is, IMO, easier to understand, has less fiddly bits, is easy to play and to teach, and puts the emphasis on the primary strategies involved in game play rather than side interactions.

In terms of design space, I see it as the opposite. Limiting card counts takes away an entire selection of abilities which would rely on multiple copies. Mostly this covers areas where cards are inherently weak, but groups of them would build power geometrically, or you have lynchpin type cards that take an otherwise relatively useless card and improve it. Leia leading Rebel Troopers goes nowhere if you can only have 3 Troopers in the deck, but without card limits it becomes an interesting synergy that can truly compete. Not at all. All of the LFG games use traits/tubtypes that are distinctly different from a cards title. This fills that exact design space and is infinitely more flexible. "Leia Organa gives all Trooper characters +1 strength." This works for Rebel Trooper, Rebel Sniper, Alliance Guard, and Rebel Officer, who could all have the Trooper trait. On the other hand because each is a specific card that can only be in the deck x3 by name each one can fill a slightly different design space some being much more powerful than you could otherwise have in a deck because you don't need to fear a deck running 12 of them. I certainly acknowledge that it makes testing easier if you limit the card count - which is actually why I think it's a cop-out on the part of the designers. I also agree that if you're in a collectible environment, that has to be considered. I'll again point to SWCCG as one that did it right - Leia may have been a rare, but the Troopers were common. IMHO that's the balance you should aim for in a synergy like that - 1 or 2 of the rare card, and the others common and easy to find. What!? A cop-out that you acknowledge that something is going to be difficult? You realize that M:tG has a large professional team of testers cards are in development for 3-4 months easily and they still have cards that receive errata or get banned. That entire point of view completely ignores reality.Cars are safety tested by computer, in lab, and on the track for over a year before they ever see the inside of showroom let alone your garage, and we still have car recalls, mechanical, technical, electrical, and god be merciful safety flaws that get reported on a regular basis, and they have divisions of hundreds of people and millions of dollars testing every aspect of the car. And SWCG hardly did it right. It did it in a fashion that some players found acceptable. Given the size of the property the fact that it was fifth or sixth inpopularity and people who didn't like it panned that game repeatedly (and yes the unlimited format was key amongst those complaints) I would hardly point to it as a model to follow in anything. Ever. And, this is not a collectable game. Every card has the exact same rarity outside of the Core Set. What I am getting here is that you like what you like and attribute those games mechanics as being good design and others being bad design. This is just wrong. Are there any games with an unlimited restriction on cards that is still in print?

True, but not you are using a large restriction on design space (and card text) to do something that could more elegantly be done with the base rules of the game. It is all about design philosophy, but I see it as being a lot easier to test the power of a card when it appears x3 in your deck, knowing that the very probabilities of drawing a key overpowered card, in fact acts as a limitation on it, versus trying to figure out if the card is fine at x7 but broken at x9 and therefore needs limiting text. To be clear, I don't see anything is fundamentally wrong with the other way, it is just not my preference, especially when it is a matter of $$$.

Jhaleen is correct, I meant to say the last time it is addressed in the rules.

Well that was freaking simple way of explaining it. My way was all convoluted about distinction of effects etc.

The point I am making is you are judging the game and what is and is not skill based in regards to the game itself based on your own preferences. That is no different than me saying games that only allow the pieces of the game to effect the outcome of the game are flawed. Any game that doesn't allow me to use my creativity, intellect, ability to bluff, and strategize, and outthink my opponent is flawed. The better player does win in games that have politicing in them, because that ability to form alliances is part of the game. I bring up AGoT because many of the players who prefer it 1v1 say exactly the same things you do, ignoring the fact that again, the same people tend to win or score highly in multi with the same frequency that the top players tend to win or score highly in 1v1. Diplomacy, Rex, AGoT etc. etc. are not ever determined solely by someones ability to negotiate. The win condition is not get everyone on your side, or to attack everyone but you. Those victory points must still be scored and you must still protect your position, as a matter of fact you must do so against at least twice as many and frequently three or four times as many opponents. In AGoT you must build your deck with the knowledge in mind that will be facing multiple types of decks, you will need means of protecting yourself AND able to exploit openings where you find them. You also need to include cards that can be used as carrot and stick. And then you have to be able to read the metagame and your specific game to know what kinds of carrots and what kinds of sticks will work best, as well as what your overall strategy is going to be (do you rush all out, do you hang back and appear to be non-threatening, do you disrupt others plans, etc.). All of this needs to be balanced with the skill of who can be bribed and who can be blackmailed, who can be cajoled, and who can be threatened, into taking actions that benefit you, and what cards you will need to play to do so. There is obviously nothing wrong with it not being for you, but you are completely mischaracterizing this kind of game. It is literally at least as skillful a game as a 1v1 version of the same game, and a very sound argument could be made that it requires a more diverse but just as deep skill set to do well in it.

It is a frequent problem of friends helping friends in competitive head to head games. Scouting by way of informing on certain players deck tech, colluding to take a draw so both of you will make the final cut out of swiss rather than one of you in and one of you out (and a different person getting that final slot) are all known things. And being able to table talk your way to a victory is strategy. Convincing someone to help you at a table, forming an alliance is part of the game, not a flaw. You may dislike it, but that is about your personal preferences not a flaw in game design any more than having to resource cards you put in your deck is a flaw in Cthulhu, or having to play runner vs corp is a flaw in Netrunner. They are features of the game, not flaws. And if you have ever watched AGoT played at a high level in melee there is a reason why the same players win over and over at regionals and nationals, even though every other experienced player knows that person is very good and wins frequently, because it takes skill. The ability to bluff, cajole, threaten, all based on the cards in hand and on the table, as well as building a deck that allows you to do so is all skill. But it is more than just the skill of playing the cards as you draw them, but also the skill of playing the player. Head to head players like to pretend that what they are doing is playing poker, while melee games are like bingo, mostly just luck. The reality is they are not playing poker, they are playing five card draw, while multiplayer is Texas Hold 'Em.

All game design is about limitation. There is no game that is not without its limitations on you the player. This one is not more limiting than any other, it just has one you dislike, which is certainly your right. Thanks for sharing with us. Now that you know it is not the game for you, you won't mind of course if we politely move on to other topics that don't include why you don't like the game but feel the need to publicly post such dissatisfaction instead of just going to a forum for a game you do like. Carrying on, we know that there are factions, we can extrapolate that the economy of the game was adjusted a little bit, the art and graphic design has eben completely redone, it is not compatible with the old cards, walls have become barriers… What else?

Buhallin said: Penfold said: Big Dig. You won the game about 60% of the time after a single run on R&D. Yes it was pretty **** broken. That's a pretty blatant exaggeration. <shrug> Maybe I wasn't that good at doing it, or your area wasn't as good at stopping it, or your local meta didn't believe in using a few high-point Agendas to limit the agenda density in their deck, but I never found it to be all that dominant. It was far too easy to see developing, and even easier to shut down by walling up R&D and the Archives. That was actually one of the brilliant parts of Netrunner - the limited actions meant that it was very hard to ambush with something like that. About the time you drop the second Interface, if not the first, every piece of ICE I've got is going over R&D and the Archives, until it's nicely walled up. There are also plenty of meta options available to punish the Runner for such tricks. Maybe, but this is an example of what was being run in tournaments back in the day on the West Coast: 10 R&D Mole 8 Bodyweight™ Synthetic Blood 7 Top Runners' Conference 4 Loan from Chiba 3 Fall Guy 3 Militech MRAM Chip 2 Time to Collect 2 MIT West Tier 1 misc.for-sale 1 Codecracker 1 Pile Driver 1 AI Boon 1 Enterprise, Inc., Shields 1 Mouse 1 Mercenary Subcontract 1 The Deck And if you were playing Classic it was some variant of this: 13 R&D Mole 10 Top Runners' Conference 10 Bodyweight™ Synthetic Blood 5 Militech MRAM Chip 2 Rent-I-Con 2 Loan from Chiba 1 misc.for-sale 1 Rush Hour 1 Mercenary Subcontract I am not saying these decks were unbeatable, but facing them or playing them against a deck that didn't have the right cards (read as rares or extremely sought after uncommons) in similarly large numbers pretty much meant you got crushed.

Frisky AI said: randomblink said: FFG hasn't closed the deal with me yet. It would've behooved them to ship a set to me for BayCon this weekend so I could introduce the game to folks, but there's not yet a hint that they care about the old-timers who can sell the game better than they can. HAHAHHAA. LMAO! Wait… you are serious aren't you?

Sounds pretty nedly if you ask me.