Hahahah!

Sounds like a fierce deck. Congrats.

lol. That is a ridiculous statement. Traited cards come and go. When a set focuses on them everyone gets excited, except those people who wanted some other trait focused on. Hell if I were Damon I'd just create cards with no traits at all or with every trait and no game text. Since apparently he can't win for trying. Not everyone WANTS to play a bolton deck in Stark. They only get half a dozen or a little more characters in a cycle to begin with that means if they were to try and support previous themes, you'd get 1 lady, 1 lord, 1 tully, 1 bolton, 1 knight, 1 night's watch, and 1 direwolf. Some of that could be doubled up, but not much of it. Or, they can do what they have been doing, creating new cards that follow the Houses main mechanics, fills in a whole here or there, and then tosses in one or two additional traited cards, and every cycle, pick another existing trait or two to include. Given the choice I would take this every single day and twice on Sunday.

The black bordered cards were printed when the game was still a ccg. Only the Clash of Arms chapter packs are legal black bordered cards in tournaments.

Is anyone else having serious problems using cardgamesdb.com? When I do a search I get most of the results hidden under the frame that contains all the search variables. I am having to cut and paste it into a text document in order to see what things say. I am on a Mac running OSX 10.6.8 and browsing with Safari 5.1.7.

It isn't your English that is bad it is your inability or unwillingness to use logic. We have seen one piece of ice and once ice breaker. How do you know there isn't a superior ice breaker that is the equivalent of Hadrian's Wall? You don't. You are basing your guesses (and wild guesses at that) on the math of a game that lasted how many years in print and development? Since almost without a doubt there will be card limits put into this game at did not exist in the original game having a different formula to determine the cost and strength of a card is going to be needed, and within that there will certainly be variance making some pieces of ICE and some ICE breakers no doubt stronger and weaker than others. You AND I both lack enough information to be able to determine whether or not the Wall is broken within this game. Just because it would have been overpowered in the original game tells us nothing other than they have changed the power levels of cards in this game… And as I pointed out early that only makes sense given the distribution and limitations on deck building the entire LCG line holds, and therefore cannot be used as any kind of adequate measure on what the overall power level of cards in this version are going to be.

Dude, you are part of the NR council thing, you guys changed the game, added rules and card that were never in the original game. You have no credibility when it comes to what changes they have made making the game different from the original when you did the same thing. The problem is evident, they changed the game in a way that is different than how you changed it and because of that you are dissatisfied. That is your privilege, but you are not being prudent with all the stuff you are saying you are being whiney. And Android is a different game, this in Android:Netrunner, or Netrunner for short if you want A:N, but it is not Android. That is a board game that has nothing to do with being a runner hacking into a corporation or being a MegaCorp and trying to advance your corporate agendas. Give it a rest before you end up in a sanitarium. We don't want you to have a nervous breakdown. Take a deep breath, relax, and repeat after me, change is not necessarily bad. One agenda that gives a tag under no expression of logic equates to trace and link being removed from the game. Keep saying this until you can post something that is factually based.

I am super excited… SUPER excited. I don't get most of wormhole surfer's reasoning. Because one piece of ICE uses a different set of stats it somehow breaks the game when compared to a singular breaker with the same stats? That literally follows no line of logic at all. WOTC could have jsut as easily shown a strong piece of ICE and a weak breaker in their original advertisements for the game, but somehow this indicates unbalanced design in his mind… You will have to explain this one to me. As far as the art goes, FFG has some amazing artists, I have liked the artwork at least twice as much as the best piece of art from the original game. That computer generated ridiculousness is so dated. It is like watching Buck Rogers (a show I still love) and laughing at what they imagined was going to be the future. Sure 14 years from now I will probably look at the artwork of this game and do the same thing, but it needed a fresh look, it really did (not to mention the license probably does not cover the artwork or graphic design of the original game). They are no doubt going to be different, but the same. I personally really look forward to the reboot of Netrunner. The Android world seems really rich with its own history and notable characters and corporations. I have been planning to pick up those books (I think there are two) to get myself more into the world. Seems like I will be doing that early than I expected. I am actually finding it hard to embrace my normal cynical side, which could be problematic. If the game isn't awesome I will be bitterly disappointed, but right now I am giddy. Giddy I tell you.

Well only in so far as they a the only thing in the game defined as an icon in the rulebook, yes. The typographic symbols do not count as icons, they refer to icons and story struggles, as a form of shorthand. If anyone argues with you then you can pull open the rulebook and turn to the card anatomy page and point out where the icons are named with pictures, and then ask them to point out anything that contradicts or adds to that. Always fun to rules lawyer a rules lawyer. Stick it to them, in a nice if slightly smug good sportsmanship sort of way.

He didn't say it wasn't a triggered effect effect, he said a player does not trigger it but resolves it… so if I had to guess it means the game triggers it, the player resolves it. Which makes sense in a lot of ways since he has no choice about it being triggered. Any chance we can get his actual words on this answer, as well as the specific question asked? Sometimes that makes a world of difference.

Those aren't keywords those are subtypes. Keywords are things like Toughness, Heroic, Invulnerability. And the reason is because it really makes the design incredibly linear. I grab everything that says Mi-Go and boom I have a deck… either the deck is designed to do everything, or it has glaring holes in it and no one plays it. For whatever reason people seem reluctant to splash. New cards definitely lean more towards reinforcing or creating new deck types than providing solutions to existing ones… but you need to have cards which do double duty, and Snow Graves is one of those cards. In a deck intended to filter or discard cards from your opponents deck Snow Graves is a serious tool in preventing him from turning your deck off. Sure it can also wreck other deck types, but it enables one also.

How is it FFG's fault that your local retailer sells cards that are not legal? I'm pretty sure that is on your retailer for not having them clearly marked or members of your group for not reading what they are buying. The LCG cards clearly state they are LCG, the CCG cards state they are CCG.

Printed literally refers to the ink on the card in question. Since those icons are not printed on that card they would never be effected by something that uses that phrase.

I actually think restricting it is better. IF you make it steadfast only Yog can use it which means every faction loses the ability to prevent all the discard pile recursion shenanigans including all the relics. I am convinced that is a card that needs to be generally available in the environment. Restricting it keeps it available to everyone, but lessons the chance of seeing it in every deck, it becomes a meta choice, and Yog discard manipulation decks become more viable… That is my reasoning at least.

You failed to keep in consideration those three other characters can be killed, bounced, have their traits blanked, etc that prevent incinerate from incinerating your target. What we can pull from this is that it is all context dependent. Your meta, your play style, and your house is really going to determine which is the worst to face and easiest to fight at any given time.

Oh, and Staton… the Stannis is dead sexy.

I think that is the real trick of it… most burn decks run no theme besides burn. Now you have to include more dothraki or allies or knights or something to get that effect off, and at its best is mid to late game after the reset… I think it is awesome for non-burn decks. It will definitely go in my army and dothraki decks, but I have no intention of putting it into my burn deck. I'd ratehr use hatchlings feast and Threat from the north.

Sweet, I think I called them all right except for the Underground Asylum… and I had no idea how to handle that one, but his ruling makes perfect sense once it was layed out that way. I like that he admitted that the wording in the FAQ was unclear. Rare to hear someone admit to making mistakes or being less than perfect in the corporate world. Thanks for asking the questions Yipe.

And the newest one has been announced, Android: Netrunner. Oh hells to the yeah!

Depends on what you mean screwed with. The any number of cards in your deck was godaweful and made for the most degenerative play experiences at the tournament level it was ricockulous. Outside of that… well, when you are right you are right. I think that the mechanics need to be updated a bit, but the game play should functionally remain the same. So excited.

I actually expressly don't want it to be compatible… they would have to rerelease all the same cards for it to fit into the LCG model and if you change the rules of deck building (and I believe it is safe to assume they will/have) it just breaks down even further. The old game was fun, especially sealed, but I'm super intrigued by this "new" game in the LCG model. P.S. The 80's kid in me would never forgive the adult me if I didn't end with this phrase… "Hack the planet!"

I got here too late, that was precisely what I was going to say.

'The passive is resolved on the action' that is to say that when the action itself resolves it will do so as the changed version and not the original version. That is the misapplication here. The passive resolving on the action not the end result of the passive resolving before the action itself resolves. If it worked your way then there is no point in ever having a passive resolution anywhere else in the action chain. Ask Damon why it doesn't work your way. I'm sure he could come up with a detailed answer that will outline where the confusion is… hell he might even reverse himself. That said, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that it is this point, the passive resolves on the action, so when it resolves within the normal timing window, it does so in its new altered form.

This would hardly be the first time that general player wisdom is based on a complete misunderstanding or misapplication of the rules. We actually have someone we can ask about this. Has anyone sent it in to Damon yet and got his ruling on the matter? This is like having a debate in a bar in the mid 90's. Everyone is sure they are right. Now everyone just whips out their smart phone and has the answer, and gets back to the main thing which is drinking. Someone send it in so we can get back to the drinking.

The Khopesh has a number of effects on it, but the wounding is a single effect that deals 1 wound each to two characters. That single effect is either successful or unsuccessful. A card that cannot legally even attempt to have an effect resolve on it means the effect cannot be triggered at all which means the other character could not be wounded since it is the same effect that wounds them both. If I have a double barrel shotgun any thing that stops me from firing the shotgun stops me from firing both barrels. A bullet proof vest however could still protect one of the people being shot but that is canceling the wound not stopping the pulling of the trigger.