Sokhar said:

Agreed. It feels like we're overdue for a new expansion and there's plenty of design space available for new ones. Every House has theirs now, so expansions that explore some of this space outside the House X model would be most welcome. There's a lot of room, for instance, in the "Neutral" cards for expansions to work with. Likewise, the second tier Houses already introduced (and so often mentioned in these discussions) could provide some great deckbuilding opportunities if they were given some attention.

The Lanni box came out at the end of last year. I was rather hoping to see a new one announced around GenCon. I am one of those who really likes the trickle/evolution nature of the release cycle but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see the meta shaken up a couple of times a year by the kind of big boost an expansion can provide. The CP cycle structure just doesn't put enough new cards in the pool to give us shiny new toys and expand support for existing themes very well.

 Ktom, I have similar feelings about joust, but I feel there is a lot of unexplored deck building variety with melee.

I like your suggestion of a larger, less frequent release, but I'm not completely sure about the frequency.

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to something like ktom has suggested here, or if AGOT adopted the expansions-only approach COC now has. Obviously as they're already halfway through announcing the next cycle, we would definitely be several months away from anything like this actually being implemented. This naval cycle should be done around late spring, early summer, so next summer or even next fall would be the soonest if FFG decided to forego more chapter pack cycles.

I do have to wonder if there would be much economic incentive for FFG to make the change, though. AGOT, from what I can tell, is the most successful of the LCGs (though perhaps Netrunner or Star Wars could give this a run for its money), and thus chapter packs probably sell fairly well. COC, on the other hand, seems to have a much smaller player base, making their asylum packs less profitable. Perhaps COC is a testrun to see if the expansion-only approach is the best way to go for the LCGs; if it bombs, it won't hurt FFG as much as with a bigger game. Given that they now have six LCGs on their hands, the expansion-only approach might be more efficient, and could potentially be adopted by every game. I know they're already putting out data packs for Netrunner, and the assumption has been that Star Wars will have its own force packs, but perhaps that too will stay with expansions.

remembering the old CCG days i immediately felt the same as ktom. it was always a great day when a new set with lots of cards was released. meeting with other players, opening together displays of boosters, discussing card after card, many "wows" and new strategies already start to get shape in ones mind, and finally play a draft tourney - i really miss it ;-)

of course there is excitement each time a new CP is released, but its small excitement. and nothing you are really looking forward cause it became so used to (except here in europe, where sometimes you have to wait 3 months for a new CP …).

but then, looking at past cycles of cards and imagining the impact these might have had on the game and building decks, if they had been released as a big box, i daresay: no. a good cycle is a good cycle. a cycle that defines deck building will always do so (like Time of Ravens, Secrets of Oldtwon). maybe in a different timely manner and the perception by players may also be a different one (which isnt unimportant).

anyway: what about a hybrid of both systems? for example having CPs each month starting with october (till march). then play the regional season with a clearly defined card pool. then one big expansion in august (release GenCon), and having a clearly defined card pool for Worlds.

during summer/early autemn there are too many things going on anyway, so it would also be a little bit of relief for FFG and their partners (and here in europe we wont have to wait 3 months for a new CP …).

Just posted this idea on another thread, but wanted to throw it out here too because I think it's relevant to the discussion.

What if rather than changing distribution (or possibly in addition to changing distribution), FFG announced a new restriction to deck building? Players were restricted to Core Set + house expansion + cards from any 2 past cycles (their choice) + current cycle. This would force players to build decks with cards they may not otherwise use while also encouraging the use of newer cards, which would comprise a larger portion of any given deck.

I suspect that such a restriction would force deck building away from the "optimization of mechanics" (burn, blanking, kneel, 1-round rush, etc.) and toward more thematic deck building with much more variety. Every time a new cycle came out, past cycles might get a slight boost…for example, a new card like Illyrio may encourage a Targ player to look back at old cycles with a lot of ambush (or shadows) that they may not have otherwise considered, whereas a card like Dragon Egg may encourage someone to pick an entirely different 2 cycles.

Twn2dn said:

validity aside, which i have no comment on, i would hate this restriction if only because it would make building a deck a huge PITA, having to constantly cross reference the cards with the sets they came in etc…Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it would work, but I hate it nonetheless. 

 edit: basically i hate anything that requires me to think or use actual effort. im lazy. i skipped a meta meetup on saturday because i didnt feel like getting off the couch to physically assemble a deck.

 I feel much the same as Ktom in terms of the feel of deck building and the overall metagame.

This isn't an acceptable solution, but one of the things I do to help is stop playing for several months at a time.  Basically, I take 2-4 months off.  I will buy the chapter packs while not playing, but won't think about the cards at all.  Then, when I jump back into playing, I attempt to re-evaluate the metagame based on the 40-80 cards that are "new" to me.  

It still isn't the same thing as releasing 6 chapter packs at one time, but I do try and accomplish the same thing internally. 

Like +1, and I think a large swath of the competative community agrees.

I would rather a larger set smacks me in the mouth, rather than the trickle, trickle of themes and subthemes. 

I am all for the LCG model, I just think it needs to make more of a splash. 

One more thing:

Part of it is design.  Maybe since I was around in the CCG days, but I haven't seen a theme really rock things in a good way in awhile.  Yes, Wildlings and Maesters did hit the meta hard, but more in a 'put lots of X cards in = win more' sort of way, not a rule or mechanic that really shook things up.

I see them trying with Naval, but unluckily that theme has been around for awhile, and certain other decks don't care (kneeling, etc.). 

I like the idea of an all at once bang. Isn't that MtG's model? Seems they do well with a big bang approach. Also, There is a severe lack of new mechanics each cycle. You have new effects, but not a wide-ranging set of effects. Melee was really the big thing out of Champions. Imagine if the next set added a new keyword for every house. That would shake up the meta like an earthquake I would imagine. Now maybe you don't have to worry just about Ambush out of Targ, but also Intimidate. I believe MtG subscribes to this. Each cycle has a bunch of new keywords splashed across all of the cards.

More and interesting keywords would keep the card pool more interesting for me. It forces a re-draw of the entire card evaluation process. Right now, the CPs don't shake up the way I evaluate cards. They simply add new cards that I evaluate the same old way.

I started playing at the start of the 60 card model with the Brotherhood cycle, through the entire time ive been playing the game i have never once witnessed a cycle come out or be announced and just been blown away by what it was, Maesters blew me away because Fatmouse made it pretty clear early on how much it would dominate the scene but i have yet to see something really get me excited about buying it and seeing how it works.

. . . except the expansions. .  i've been around for Baratheon, Targaryne and Lannister and all of them got me really really excited for the game, maybe i just need another one to get me amped up. heres hoping for a Roberts Rebellion box

 I'd rather just have the ccg model back.   I miss draft and opening packs.  If the ccg model ever does come back, which i doubt it will because the lcg model is easier to control from a financial standpoint; I would like the commons/uncommons in the packs to be more randomized.  Other than that minor gripe, I want the ccg model back badly.  It was much more expensive though :(

 The communnity seems to have changed a lot from when I got in. More than anything that is what has me losing interest in the game on a larger level. I'll stick with my gaming group here but the card distribution format isn't really a problem for me.

That said I'm liking the CoC format, but smaller player base it makes more sense. I'm not sure what could be done with AGoT. I hated the idea of rotation but I'm starting to warm to some version of limited card pool, either artificial by means of restricting how many different cycles/expansions can be in a deck, or with flat out rotation… not sure if that would be enough for you, not sure if that would overcome my distaste for elements that seem to be embodying some of the worst of Magic and what eventually led me to give up that game entirely.

What intrigues me though, if we are talking about reexamining the distribution format, is following the LoTR model. Their expansions create an enviornment for the following cycle. If we got 55 cards which defined the environment we were going to play in for the next 6 months I think that might be pretty interesting. We saw a very limited form of that with the House expansions, one would come out and there would be a rise in the number of that houses decks, but because they were so specific the impact on the greater metagame was more a case of including a couple of cards to fight or exploit that houses tech.

Penfold said:

WB ;)

This is what I was talking about earlier. I would like the card pool to be locked from Regional 1 -> Worlds (roughly end of may -> october). Then have all the cards released after worlds until the start of the next regionals season in the format you suggested above.

It always seems odd to me that regional1 and worlds, being at completely diff ends of the calendar, are contested using not only a vastly different card pool, but likely a different set of rules. Locking things down would lend an actual SEASON feel to the game, much like the major sports do. They have their season, then during the off season all the teams makes trades and acquisitions and start the next season off fresh. 

dcdennis said:

except all USA professional leagues do have in season trading usually till around the half way through the season.  Plus a injury to a key player can alter the team. So really what you're saying is that FFG is running their competitive play like a professional sports league?

in all seriousness if you had the same card pool for 6 months the game would become exceptionally boring at the competitive level IMHO.