So:  Is thrones affordable to begin playing? That's what this whole thread is about. Compared to what? Compared to Magic- Hell yeah! Compared to Netrunner, Star wars and what ever new LCG comes out? No, of course not. That's because there's only 3 core sets and a couple of expansions to collect and you can play competitively no prob. But let's take Netrunner and other LCG's  5 years down the road. What do you think the threads on the  message boards are going to look like? You are correct. We are going to be talking about the same issues. 60 expansions to buy, stale cards, stale metas etc. I think the people who make the arguments about the price to get all the cards, perhaps are OCD, Just bulid with what you have and try to have fun.

I've bought 2 core sets of netrunner and the first expansion was given to me. I really enjoy the game. If you look at my profile it is # 3 on my favorites right now. I'm part of and LCG hub in Nova Scotia for all LCG's and we try to support  and promote all LCG's. We're not putting down the others choice, We are promoting a format of gaming that we feel is superior to other formats out there at the moment.

Everyone knows by now this netrunner is designed by the same man who designed Magic. The man revolutionalized card gaming as we know it. I thank him. i love strategy in card format. 18 years later though the ccgs feel like a money pit and arms race. Let me ask you this. How many Netrunner fans do you think are biased  in favor of  netrunner BECAUSE it was made by garfield? My opinion is most netrunner fans were sick of ccg but infatuated with garfield and jumped at this game when they found out it had his signature on it, If we're talking stale, i've found netrunner getting a tad stale and it's only been on the shelf for few months. The bluffing aspect is cool. but… Thrones just introduced naval enhancements with bluffing too. Score Thrones! I've got my core set and i'll pull that out and play with local gamers if they're looking for a game.

But if i want to invest in something you want to look at the longterm. Which is a better investment choice. Investing in a company that is 3 months old? Or one that is established and steadily growing. Is it going to be a good long burning flame or a fire cracker. Bright and shortly fizzle out. I'm not telling anyone what they should buy. But make sure you really love it and take a step back. Is this infatuation? Or is true love! Any hobby is a considerable investment..It should not be rushed into. And don't do it out of peer pressure.

  Let's look at Thrones against other lcg's 10 years down the road. My prediction? Thrones is going to see slow steady growth. Do you know how many MArtin fans that are surprised to find out "there's a card game?" . So when the other 30 million people who read the books and like gaming find out about AGOT, there's still a huge fan base still not even tapped!  A huge thing thrones has going for it that other games don'ts  is:  it's based on George R. Martins books. When that genious of a man is dead his fantasy work will live on as a classic on the same level as Tolkien. Too bold of a statement? Time will tell. Even if the competitive side of Thrones( which i never believe will) dies off, there's still tons and tons of Nedly players who will continue to play this game to replay their favorite Characters and stories.  I feel bad for those who feel jilted over spending money on a game they loved only to be left by themselves in an area with gamers who change games and interest with the seasons. Unfortunately some of the arguments against thrones are based on a sole meta and it is too early to make predictions on the future of Thrones. IN my area thrones and netrunner are selling off the shelves quicker than they can restock. Netrunner is hot, but the thrones player base is still larger!

I hear a lot of people come through the game stores and they ask " I'm thinking of getting into a game, what should i get into?" And there friends quickly tell them " Oh, Magic, there's ….." why do they tell them magic? Is it because it has better card quality? No. Better game mechanics? No. easier on the pocketbook? No.Because It has more players. What kind of reason is that. I invested money in CCg before and i know the feeling after years of investment. I'm cautious about trying to convince someone thrones is the best. I'm doing it now because this is a THRONES Message board so this is an appropriate place to voice my opinions stronger than normal! If someone's going to play this i  want people to join because they love MArtin or the game itself. They'll enjoy it longer and hopefully feel no regrets over any money they invested. But hey I'm no prophet and Melisandre didn't know how to call it perfectly either. Stannis? Really?

So any of you out there tired of where you live or with ;your local meta. Move to Nova Sotia. Great Place. And if you LIke this game, you'll always have some guys to game with.              - CHEERS EH! 

snaggrriss said:

On your assertion that thrones is cheaper to start playing than Magic: I can't believe you say hell yea. Again, random guy can buy a $15 magic starter deck or a $40 Thrones box. Winner - Magic

On the naval mechanic being a bluffing mechanic: I'm sorry, but this is laughable. This is what the naval mechanic is going to boil down to. Does it benefit me to win this challenge by using the character with a naval icon? Yes? I use it. No? I don't use it. There won't be any bluffing. It will only be catch-22s of blocking a strength 3 character with 11 strength because of a naval character or accepting a Terminal Schemes, No quarter, <insert absurd removal effect here>.

Bluffing involves presenting a situation to your opponent that they must then choose whether to call your bluff or not. A strength 4 power challenge with no Seductive Promise in hand is a bluff. It will almost always be a smart play and I will almost never call the bluff (i. e. I will defend with at least 1 strength) because of the risk-reward factor. The naval icon circumvents the whole bluffing aspect. You don't swing for a strength 11 challenge and force them to call the bluff. You swing for a strength 3 challenge that can become a strength 11. That just forces sub-optimal play on your opponent. That is not bluffing.

On the flip side, Netrunner is pure bluffing. I play NBN. I lay down an asset in my server. Is that a Melange? Is it a Breaking News? Is it an AstroScript? If I don't run it, do they win the game? If I do run it, do I waste 10 credits? The ability to quickly assess risk-reward based on current game conditions is one of the core elements of Netrunner. It is not one of the core elements of A Game of Thrones currently. If it were, I would love A Game of Thrones. My favorite part of A Game of Thrones is being efficient at challenges. Right now, being good at the actual challenge phase process (knowing how many characters your opponent can and can't defend with) is relatively meaningless. You do all this calculation to realize that one Game of Cyvasse screws it all up and go "Well f%@ it, I'm all in or I won't win this." Or worse, you play a perfect challenge phase then get hit by Westeros Bleeds. Or perpetual Bear Island. But you can play solutions to those! Oh wait, you have to draw them. There is no game framework that you can take advantage of. So basically it boils down to build deck, watch deck execute. Rinse and repeat. I enjoy playing the game. I don't enjoy my deck playing me.

Also, saying that something popular like Netrunner (which, by the way, has been around for about 20 years) will fizzle out quickly is a silly argument. Magic was the fad back in the day and it's still here and still the most popular game 20 years later. I would not be surprised to see Netrunner maintain it's current popularity or even grow it. Lucas has been impressive in his short time at FFG. He basically revived LotR. I would be shocked if he screws up Netrunner. I have all the respect in the world for Nate French's and Damon's efforts on this game, but Lucas has shown them up so far (in my opinion) and in a much shorter time.

And does Magic have better card quality? The simple answer is yes. I mean really, is that even a legit question. You're talking about a game where, literally, FLAVOR TEXT gets scrutinized to the nth degree. There was a misprint on one card's flavor text in the last cycle and it got RIPPED for it. Then you look at the quality of cards here and it's a mess. "Wtf? That's how that card works?!" is common. you introduce a new person to this game and then you tell them how pretty much all their intuition on how cards work is flat out wrong. Also, Magic does have better game mechanics. This game revolves around two original game mechanics (the challenges phase and the dominance phase). Everything else has been done before (and most of it in Magic). I'd bet even the challenges and dominance phase have been done before, I've just never played the game.

As to having more players, what kind of reason is that? The best reason. You have to have someone to play against for a game to even mean something. I wanted badly to play Blood Bowl when I was a kid. My parents steered me to Warhammer 40K because there were a lot of people playing it and man am I glad they did. NO ONE at my FLGS played Blood Bowl. Had I bought it instead of 40K, I would've never gotten to play and probably quit gaming altogether.

And as for loving Martin. I love A Song of Ice and Fire. That should be the LAST reason people play A Game of Thrones. The first reason should be because the game itself is brilliant. It currently isn't.

And to the local meta argument. If your local meta is thriving more power to you. The greater meta is not thriving. I would not be shocked to see the Star Wars and Netrunner tournaments at Gencon make AGoT look like a joke. I would love to see the tournament attendance numbers for AGoT and compare them to Magic and the like. It would probably not be pretty. It may grow, and that may be a testament to the community being strong, but I'd like to see that pan out before I'm willing to commit to any praise of this game's marketing efforts. Either way, if your local meta is at a point where introducing new players isn't a problem, go for it. In NYC, they can play Star Wars or Netrunner instead.

There's a great deal of content here to concur with or refute, but at the moment, I'm just going to mention the one that seems obvious to me.

The plot deck isn't a mechanic that you find unique to AGoT? I've played quite a few games (a bit of a dead game junky) and haven't seen anything like it myself. I'm curious what I missed.

Is Netrunner pure bluffing. yes. Bluffing in thrones is more in plot phase, which is a very important part of the game. Challenge phase the bluffing is through what events you might be holding. YOu say the challenge phase a little predictable. What about in netrunner when i call your bluffs and reveal your ice, then it's just resource speed bumps after that. There's cards to reveal what you're hiding to counter those bluffs. After that it's " i need 10 resources to make a run and 5 to trash that annoying herring and then steal you're agenda and gamble it's not agressive secretary."

I'm glad you're still  part of the gaming community by choosing warhammer. Let's take a sport i hate. I hate soccer. I DO love football . Where i live they play soccer every week. They even rent a gym to play it indoors during the winter. (You're probably scratching your head"i thought he lives in Canada and everyone plays hockey?") Now personally i love football. It seems i'm living in the wrong country.I will play soccer every once and a while but never really enjoy it. I do it for the exercise. There's not enough friends to play ( unless you join some touch league Bb), so twice a year we take a trip to meet some other guys and get a couple weekends of football in. I refuse to support soccer because i think it's a sissy sport. Should i play  because more people are playing it? NO! It's still a sissy sport( in my opinion it's ballet on cleats. I apologize if i offended any). Every time i play i feel like i would enjoy myself more running stairs. I believe it's better to play something you enjoy even if it's with only 1 other person. the only flaw with this argument is if they move away on you, then yes, playing because of more people does carry some weight. But then that goes against why we play games- for fun. But then there's the uber competitve player type who play a game because of the better prizes.

You're actually the first person who's defended Magics game mechanics.  If only they spent the same attention to details as the flavor text. You're really going to argue the monetary advantages of Magic? c'mon!

So why are you still on the thrones message boards? If you don't like it leave. Come back when you get bored of Netrunner. Also about the deck playing you. How did you fare at worlds. I wasn't there. i'm not a tier 1 deck builder. If John Bruno was here telling me the flaws of the game i would do some soul searching. But hey , what can i say , I love this game. Been playing for few years. Keeps on getting better. Even after i've played considerable amount of other lcgs.  Something to be said about bruno playing both games though.  I'm happy that you like magic and netrunner.-- CHEERS

snaggrriss said:

snaggrriss said:

@Kennon regarding plots - I'm not sure I'd call it unique. I played Raw Deal (which came out before A Game of Thrones) and they had a whole pre-game phase that involved revealing cards similar to the plot phase. The plot phase really plays out as an advanced game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. I'm not knocking the plot phase, but I am definitely saying that it's not the most unique thing in the world. It's good for what it is, but you could take it out of the game and I'd probably still enjoy it. The plot phase is currently the phase of super powerful, non-cancellable game effects. I prefer more incremental effects that add up to something significant than the bang of single card effects.

As for the soccer analogy, I'm referring to a player who has no bias and doesn't know anything about either game. Let's say a random person wants to play a sport, but doesn't know anything about sports. They see that soccer is really popular and gridiron football isn't. Why would they choose gridiron football in your area (hell, why wouldn't they choose hockey)? People with a pre-set bias have a reason to do something to which their bias tends. Someone with no bias will tend towards the path of least resistance (in this case soccer or hockey, in gaming it would be Magic).

I can't believe anyone would attack the actual game mechanics of Magic. That's like attacking Citizen Kane as a movie. You're talking about a game that is considered one of the best games of all time and is what originated the whole card game craze. Of course the mechanics are dated, they're 20 years old. On the other hand, they have been pretty much unchanged since the advent of the game and yet the game is still the most popular one out there. Hell, most of this game is based off of Magic mechanics. They made a decision to NOT use LIFO (a decision I disagree with). They made a decision to have only one Marshalling phase (magic has two). They made a decision to not have characters actually hurt each other (in Magic they do). There are so many comparable aspects of this (or any) card game to Magic that it's difficult to not give Magic credit for it's obviously outstanding mechanics. Magic plays incredibly well as a gaming system, whether or not the cards are being designed well. The AGoT system is a hot mess compared to the simple elegance of LIFO.

I'm not sure why my performance at Worlds matters in a theoretical conversation. I don't play tier 1 decks because they're all uninteresting to me. They involve playing a combination of cards that is hyper-powered compared to the more thematic cards. I'm a Timmy-Spike, not a Spike. You should also be aware that John Bruno has retired from these boards since about a year ago, if I recall correctly. If he actually posted here he might have something to say and I would listen. I did not attend worlds because I do not enjoy the game. I wish I had played at Gencon so I could actually confront these questions with an answer of "I did well." I had a very consistent Bear Island/Kindly Man deck that would've been fun to play.

I can tell you I was the fourth place player in the Gencon Icebreaker tournament for Netrunner and lost to the eventual winner in the playoffs. I am a competent and experienced card game player.  I achieved Rival in WoW during the first season of arena (top 15% of arena 2 v 2 players on my server group). I was a key person in my guild getting to and being able to defeat C'thun. I created the strategy for defeating Chromagus in Blackwing Lair and for defeating Battleguard Sartura in Ahn Qiraj, two of the most complicated bosses strategically. My resume for gaming goes on.

Why am I still on the Thrones message boards? Because I want to support people who call them out on their decisions so that there is actual conversation around it and point it out when there isn't.. I want to support negative, constructive criticism and make sure there is some. The more reinforcement an idea gets, the more consideration it gets from designers. I am looking forward to playing AGoT again with this new FAQ. It's people that actually and constructively point things out that have an effect. Saying something mocking and condescending just looks petty.

mdc273 said:

I'm not sure I would compare Magic to Citizen Kane. First, the movie is more interesting than a game of Magic. Second, I would more likely say Magic is more like Birth of a Nation and GoT is more like Schindler's List. The former is important in the development of card games (or movies) but there's something repellant about it. The latter certainly stand's on the shoulders of its predecessor's but made something much more uplifting.

As someone who started casually playing Magic again (stopped because of money) my opinion of the game is unchanged. Its not a bad way to pass the time but its still a game about resource and card starvation. You get one card a turn and you're not guaranteed resources. I imagine a well tuned deck avoids these problems but such a thing costs money. Game of Thrones is a game where resources and draw are guaranteed thus placing more emphasis on player decisions. There's also a great deal more depth to it than Magic. Amongst other card games I've played (Warhammer, Netrunner, Star Wars, Vs, Vampire), Magic is worse than all of them.

Magic continues to be beloved for no other reason than inertia. Its a solid enough game and its well supported and advertised. The lower complexity level of the game may also appeal to more casual players.

GoT's still could use a lot more clamping down on certain things but even as I get frustrated with a few gaffes here and there, the cards are generally more interesting now than in older chapter packs.

playgroundpsychotic said:

I'm more comparing Magic mechanics to Citizen Kane than the actual gameplay. Mechanically speaking (that is to ignore all the cards) Magic is what every card game pretty much draws its basic concepts from.

I grew tired of Magic as well. It's mostly an exercise in deck construction. AGoT game became that way for me, though. The actual challenges phase had reached a point where it was less important than deck construction. The only interesting phase for me had become the plot phase where I pretty much mastered Loyalty Money Can Buy and Forgotten Plans. That's, maybe, twice a game that I found something interesting to do. The FAQ will hopefully change that.

Hi there,

I've found this thread really interesting so far.  I recently started playing AGoT around christmas time last year (2012).  I enjoyed the books and some freinds i was staying with also enjoyed them so i bought a core set and had a few games.  Then i found that I enjoyed the game system, out of the box is seemed pretty fun and I had a sense of connection with the characters and so forth. 

SO i bought a couple of the house boxes and built some decks and played htem against each other and we were having a decent time.

Fast forward a couple of months and whilst attending Cancon (in AUS) i went over to the AGoT players and had a couple of games.  After getting destroyed several times over to rapant control mechanics we started talknig about the price and how much it costs to really get into the game and all that.  Given the way the cards are spaced out and everyhting, i was concerned that it would end up being very expensive to play on a competative basis. 

I couldn't beleive it when i was casually told that the buy in was ~1,000 as if it were no matter.  Simply put whether you're rich or poor a thousand dollars is considerable money and not something that you want to be told is the entrance for a given game - even if it is 'relatively cheap to sustain thereafter'. 

I have to say i enjy the game and love the setting, but there are a few things which i find really disconcerting about the whole thing, and after discussing it with the freinds i started the game with we mostly feel the same. 

• The entry price is really prohibitive, especially the idea that three core sets are needed.
• The card bloat is phenominal.  The cyclic nature of magic was used earlier in this discussion as a negative, whereas i feel for any game to thrive in a competative setting there needs to be resets and redress to the state of the game on a reasonable time scale.  My favourite game L5R, did this really successfully, and overall it helped the game survive. 
• Almost every game i've played has ended up is some kind of ridiculous control choke that is extremely unfun, and seems to be endemic of the game as a whole.  The control options are severe and easy to use and they seem (from my limited experience) to outperform rush (generally the counterpoint to control) without trying.  Readily available board resets are also to blame here.
• The restricted list and banned list are great tools, however, competatively speaking they are band aids when a face lift (reset) is probably more appropriate.
• Magic might have simple and elegant mechanics that can be confused as boring, its also doesn't (to mk knowledge - since i stopped in 5th), have to diferentiate between 'draw' and 'reveal into hand', as a method of lawyering its way around its own rules.
• I Like the Barratheons, but apparently they suck at control - ergo they are bottom tier, as with L5r i approached this game with a sense of faction loyalty - so where is the fun in knowing that your faction is on the bottom and likely to stay there outside of jumping through hoops?
• I went through card DB, and put together a deck i thought would be interesting (if not competative - see above), and then checked all the packs i'd need.  I got pretty sick very fast of seeing that there were ones and two's of the cards i wanted in any given pack.  Sure it's great if you've bene playing from day dog, but the ability to buy singles would be really sweet compared to paying $20 AU for a pack and only needing one or two cards out of it. 

It's almost funny because there is a similar arguement going on regarding table top wargaming at present.  That Warmachine is starting to outsrip warhammer because the entry price (all else equal) is so much more attractive.

Anything that wants to survive needs fuel, and players ar ethe LCG's fuel. 

Anyway, i don't really want to ruffle anyones feathers, and this game is great, that doesn't mean it is without it's issues.  Cost and card bloat are the two major barriers to this game and coincdentally if you fix the latter the first takes care of itself. 

I still think the best answer is to quit making chapter packs.  Reprint old cycles into a single deluxe box (you can fit 360 cards in there), charge $60 for it, and now both the price and volume of the expansions you buy to get into the game is drastically reduced.  This would also mean no new chapter packs, switching to a distribution method similar to what W:I and CoC are on; though, I would prefer for thrones to get four 180-card expansions a year, instead of the three 155-cards expansions the other two are curretly receiveing.

A few comments that were made I don't understand:

How, to make a competetive AGOT deck, could it cost 1000s of dollars? What math takes 1000s of dollars to make ONE deck in an LCG?

I know very few magic players, and I've been asking guys at game stores, store owners and old time players, waht they do with their old MtG cards. Just one of them mentioned that they resell their MtG cards to buy the next standard rotation sets, and, of those, they still have to put some money down to get those other cards.

That MtG has a cash prize pay out: This is like saying "I'm going to pick up Basketball cause there's tons of money for professional players! This hobby will pay for itself!'. Not everyone wants to play in big tournaments. Not everyone will win money (few in fact).

MtG is McDonalds. But it is a McDonalds in a field that requires at least one other person to also have chosen it as their purchse of choice, hence, if it is the biggest, people will hedge their bets and play MtG. That and there is that certain something of nostalgia element. Despite the fact that Monopoly is an abhorant game as far as design and interaction, people still play it for that reason alone.

AGOT core set 40 (30 usually), starter decks in MtG 15 (never hardly ever less). Sure MtG wins. But how many different decks can you make from that 15 MtG buy? Can someone ELSE play with that 15 MtG purchase with you? Does that 15 MtG purchase give you access to a sample of many of the games mechanics and flavor of all of the 'colors' in the game? Is that 15 MtG purchase give you enough decks for a 4 player Multiplayer game?

 

This thread should not have been about what game is better. Clearly, sales shows us that it is MtG. This thread's intention was that AGoT is affordable for many aspects of gaming.

1.) Casual gaming. Yes. 40 bucks gives you many decks and multiplayer and cards you can use and tweek a bit here and there relatively easily.

2.) Hardcore gamer: Yes. 300-400 dollars gets you almost any tournament deck with careful purchases AND tons of cards you'll be able to use for other things and decks later. And these will be legal and useful in a competetive and accessible format for forver. MtG lacks that last point.

3.) Must own every card in this game for the present format: At least there are only 15 dollars new every month (or perhaps a touch more).

Slice it any way you want, but lest just try to keep it to the affordability in this thread. Thanks!

HI there

@Vermillion

Good points.  I guess what i was trying to say above is that.  Building a deck that you hope will do well can be an expensive investment, due to card placement within the expansions. 

Where sas, take another CCG that focuses heavily on factions and yet, lacks the competative prizes of MtG - L5R, you can build a pretty decent deck for a lower price margin because of the singles market.  Also i suppose with L5R, as sets rotate, often times they'll rotate cards back in as well.

I just know that having to buy 2 (maybe 3) core sets, a house set and 10+ chapter packs to get a good deck going is a pretty steep front loaded cost. 

Cheers

But this 'good deck' can be the exact deck list of a tournament winning deck… AND you also now have the other 100+ cards from those packs to play around with AND your deck is ALWAYS LEGAL.

Hence, the affordability in the long run.

And don't tell me you can buy a 'pretty good' standard deck in MtG for less than you can in the LCGs with the same conditions. Except maybe MtG Eggs deck, which, I've been noticing, requires more and more rares to run better…

vermillian said:

Sales show that Magic is more popular but that doesnt make it better..