Fantasy Flight Games announces set rotation policy

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=5179

They excluded lotr from rotating. Its been tossed up before about vtes rotating, and frankly, we dont need to if we get in print and re-launch right; Vamps wouldnt neex to rotate, as contesting less is optimal. Of the thousands of greenbacked cards, half are wallpaper, a quater are vital, and the remaining 25% are between the two. If we have a cam-themed base set (4th ed) as a relaunch, issue new stuff and reprints, and push reprints hard in precons, we're golden. We launch vekn sets with reprints and precons (TU is more marketable) and between all of these sets (Ill include the next up anarch wet too) we can reprint all, or very close to all, of the 50% of cards players wpuld need. No rotarion, have the latest prints in the "suggested" catagory on searches, and new players get big pool of never rotating cards. We just have to be in print, and staples get printed with sets. We are missing a bloodlines set and laibon, but they will come, and we end up new player friendly and manufacture less wallpaper. Still need back in print though. (Side note, I started DM and TU as full sets with reprints in SL, just havent finished)

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > They excluded lotr from rotating. > Yeah, sensible move given that it's a cooperative game. They're also finishing out and ending the current edition of GOT, and will be relaunching the game with a new edition which will have the new cycle rotation scheme. I'm not very familiar with the GOT game, but from what I understand, most players are happy with that decision. > Its been tossed up before about vtes rotating, and frankly, we dont need to if we get in print and re-launch right; > With head-to-head CCGs, there's always a best deck. That only changes when the card pool changes, be it through phasing out cards and/or adding new ones. Given that, I think FFG's decision is sensible, and I like that they made this announcement a few years in advance of rotation happening, and that their expansions will have a 3-4 year lifespan (almost twice that of Magic). With multi-player CCGs (V:TES and Shadowfist), there is no best deck. It definitely helps the life of the game to add new things, but adding new things doesn't necessarily mean - and typically doesn't mean - that old things are made obsolete and supplanted by the new things. Having many viable decks and archetypes keeps the game experience engaging and replayable. As such, I don't think a rotation system is really appropriate for V:TES. Furthermore, the absence of a rotation system in V:TES has been one of the keys to it's longevity. Players really appreciate that they can leave the game for years, come back, and still use the cards they bought and still be competitive. I don't ever want to break that trust with the players. There are problems with not having a rotation system, of course, and FFG did a good job of highlighting them. V:TES does have a steep learning curve, and there's a huge body of cards to familiarize one's self with. However, I also consider those things to be assets and strengths of V:TES. It has an enormous exploration space and an incredible amount of opportunity for creativity and personal expression. > Vamps wouldnt neex to rotate, as contesting less is optimal. > There's already a sorta kinda rotation system for vampires with the grouping system. I wasn't keen on it at first, but I've grown to like it, especially when designing. > Of the thousands of greenbacked cards, half are wallpaper, a quater are vital, and the remaining 25% are between the two. > That's another big problem with not having a rotation system, which FFG pointed out. V:TES has a ton of cruft, some of which creates barriers for further card design. I'd love to do some renovation work on the game, but there's no way I'm doing that unless (*crosses fingers*) the game comes back in print. Unless that happens, I want to keep old cards as they are. Renovation also causes a trust issue with players, as people who've left the game for a while and are returning want to trust that old cards still work the way they thought they did. If renovation were to ever happen, it would have to be paired with a big marketing/announcement/information campaign.

> BenPeal wrote: > There's already a sorta kinda rotation system for vampires with the grouping system. I wasn't keen on it at first, but I've grown to like it, especially when designing. > the grouping system is nothing short of genius. It allows for rotation, but doesn't make the groups that are rotated out obsolete. I wonder what a grouping system for library cards might look like. One of the things that has always bothered me about the way the game was released was that there has never really been a core set. Each base set has always had a theme with many of the staple cards reprinted in either starter decks, or in the set as a whole. Given the nature of the Game, it seems unavoidable, but I can't help but feel that this is a sub-optimal way of doing things, and I don't have a better idea, either. I would also rather much move away from the random distribution, in favor of a more LCG style distribution.

> self wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > There's already a sorta kinda rotation system for vampires with the grouping system. I wasn't keen on it at first, but I've grown to like it, especially when designing. > > > the grouping system is nothing short of genius. It allows for rotation, but doesn't make the groups that are rotated out obsolete. I wonder what a grouping system for library cards might look like. > > One of the things that has always bothered me about the way the game was released was that there has never really been a core set. Each base set has always had a theme with many of the staple cards reprinted in either starter decks, or in the set as a whole. Given the nature of the Game, it seems unavoidable, but I can't help but feel that this is a sub-optimal way of doing things, and I don't have a better idea, either. > > I would also rather much move away from the random distribution, in favor of a more LCG style distribution. > We need to launch a base set of cam themed new stuff and staples, with precons geared at new player acquisition if we see print again. Id rather PoD than LCG distribution. But, id take boosters in a heartbeat if it meant being printed.

if it were cleverly done, you could probably merge cam/sabbat, even without folding the anti-tribu clans into the regular ones (which is another discussion altogether). A Camarilla themed base set doesn't change the oscillating weirdness that's been all of our "base" sets. because of the anti-tribu there's a profound amount of overlap between the two by design.

> self wrote: > if it were cleverly done, you could probably merge cam/sabbat, even without folding the anti-tribu clans into the regular ones (which is another discussion altogether). A Camarilla themed base set doesn't change the oscillating weirdness that's been all of our "base" sets. because of the anti-tribu there's a profound amount of overlap between the two by design. > I disagree. You don't build the same decks at all with a Tremere and a Tremere antitribu, a Ventrue or Ventrue antitribu, a Gangrel or Gangrel antitribu... (this is true for a clans I can think of), and when they hit the table, you tend to know what kind of deck you can expect. The only clan that might look the same is Malkavian because you tend to build bleed/stealth with both clans. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

To be honest, I think the major difference is that you see Cam and you should expect Princes. You see Sabbat and you should expect Disciplines. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > To be honest, I think the major difference is that you see Cam and you should expect Princes. You see Sabbat and you should expect Disciplines. > It's one of the big differences (but Sabbat also have Eternal Vigilance, Abbot and now Under Siege) but I expect more a intercept deck from a Tremere deck, but a Nephandus or Tupdog or rush (with Utah) or Black Hand deck from a !Tremere. Merging the two clans together would result in either stronger archetypes (Carna / Nehpandus?) if you keep cards from both clans, or in the disparition of some iconic deck if you choose not to keep the Nephandus for instance. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

It is quite easy to ret-con the Antitribbu stuff into a 'single clan' format. 1) Add a Sect Logo to vampires (Maybe create something for Indies or create something for Laibon) and attach it under the clan. 2) Retcon cards that should be Sabbat-only or Cam-only (for balance or thematic reasons) to include the Sect requirement. That streamlines out a lot of things without necessarily unbalancing the clans or losing their uniqueness. It may increase the use of cards such as Into the Fire and Out of the Frypan (since a Sect change would be enough to get 'antitribbu' cards rather than a Clan Impersonation). I might mark up a couple of demo cards like that. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > It is quite easy to ret-con the Antitribbu stuff into a 'single clan' format. > > 1) Add a Sect Logo to vampires (Maybe create something for Indies or create something for Laibon) and attach it under the clan. > > 2) Retcon cards that should be Sabbat-only or Cam-only (for balance or thematic reasons) to include the Sect requirement. > > That streamlines out a lot of things without necessarily unbalancing the clans or losing their uniqueness. It may increase the use of cards such as Into the Fire and Out of the Frypan (since a Sect change would be enough to get 'antitribbu' cards rather than a Clan Impersonation). > I don't understand the purpose of regrouping a clan and its antitribu counterpart if you split the clan after that with sect requirements. What is the gain? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I agree. Let's keep the antitribus separate. they are in some case variations on the same theme, but it's pretty cool.

yeah, that makes sense. It also doesn't account for other weirdness with going anarch either, but that's probably an academic point. Are there any in-clan/anti-tribu combinations that would be game-breaking? My knowledge of the cards base is pretty narrow.

> Ankha wrote: > > > self wrote: > > if it were cleverly done, you could probably merge cam/sabbat, even without folding the anti-tribu clans into the regular ones (which is another discussion altogether). A Camarilla themed base set doesn't change the oscillating weirdness that's been all of our "base" sets. because of the anti-tribu there's a profound amount of overlap between the two by design. > > > I disagree. You don't build the same decks at all with a Tremere and a Tremere antitribu, a Ventrue or Ventrue antitribu, a Gangrel or Gangrel antitribu... (this is true for a clans I can think of), and when they hit the table, you tend to know what kind of deck you can expect. The only clan that might look the same is Malkavian because you tend to build bleed/stealth with both clans. > I play six Games a year, so I'll take your word for it.

> self wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > self wrote: > > > if it were cleverly done, you could probably merge cam/sabbat, even without folding the anti-tribu clans into the regular ones (which is another discussion altogether). A Camarilla themed base set doesn't change the oscillating weirdness that's been all of our "base" sets. because of the anti-tribu there's a profound amount of overlap between the two by design. > > > > > I disagree. You don't build the same decks at all with a Tremere and a Tremere antitribu, a Ventrue or Ventrue antitribu, a Gangrel or Gangrel antitribu... (this is true for a clans I can think of), and when they hit the table, you tend to know what kind of deck you can expect. The only clan that might look the same is Malkavian because you tend to build bleed/stealth with both clans. > > > I play six Games a year, so I'll take your word for it. > We have to look at the truth, that the cam clans, and a few Antitribbu, use all basic disciplines, and EVERYONE else has 2 normal and a super specific one. Exceptions in malk and tremere. But, gangrel have Pro, giovanni necro, assamite qui, lasombra obt, tzimitsce vis, setites serp, So, we can have a core with starters including most clans, and include "normal" disciplines in everything. Ive thought about merging !tremere, malk, torrie, nos, bru, etc into base clans with traits of sabbat. City gangrel and !ventrue are borderline. But, we would have to be 100% invested, in print, and willing to modify stuff. All !antitribbu stuff would need edited to say Sabbat, or changed for 2 effects or both sides of the clan. But, a base set rooted in cam (sans gangrelmostly, or at least sans protean and gangrel clan cards) would be easy to self contain, and issie staples. ALSO, we just had indy and sabbat small sets, to print as medium sets with staple reprints. Easy enough to make the basics new player friendly as well.

FFG is now officially evil too NC Russia

> BenPeal wrote: > With head-to-head CCGs, there's always a best deck. That only changes when the card pool changes, be it through phasing out cards and/or adding new ones. Given that, I think FFG's decision is sensible, and I like that they made this announcement a few years in advance of rotation happening, and that their expansions will have a 3-4 year lifespan (almost twice that of Magic). > There can be more than just one best deck, but, yes, the environment tends to stabilize around a predictable metagame, which is anathema to the nature of CCGs. Dedicated innovators can keep trying to innovate, but, eventually, it gets tired for them, long after it got boring for everyone else. > BenPeal wrote: > With multi-player CCGs (V:TES and Shadowfist), there is no best deck. It definitely helps the life of the game to add new things, but adding new things doesn't necessarily mean - and typically doesn't mean - that old things are made obsolete and supplanted by the new things. Having many viable decks and archetypes keeps the game experience engaging and replayable. As such, I don't think a rotation system is really appropriate for V:TES. Furthermore, the absence of a rotation system in V:TES has been one of the keys to it's longevity. Players really appreciate that they can leave the game for years, come back, and still use the cards they bought and still be competitive. I don't ever want to break that trust with the players. > I wouldn't say there aren't best decks in multiplayer CCGs. Whether they matter is a different question. Once people are familiar with how decks work, they play to counteract them. In a two-player environment, there may not be enough ability to counteract, where, in a multiplayer environment, ganging up is usually sufficient to cause any one player to lose. I have seen, though, where the four player dynamic of two players stop third player playing a vastly better deck just means fourth player wins with very little effort in multiplayer CCGs. I would additionally say that set rotation is not an all or nothing proposition. CCGs all have multiple formats, V:TES included. Does any CCG balance an eternal format from a modern format? I don't know. I know that the Modern Shadowfist format hasn't been remotely popular with the Shadowfist players I play with and hasn't seemed to do much for the game. Still, at a convention or on a single day, can run one Modern event and one Classic event. I'm also inclined to believe that V:TES could have rotated out cards, losing some of the veteran players but gaining more new players. It's unfortunate that we will not know these things. > BenPeal wrote: > There are problems with not having a rotation system, of course, and FFG did a good job of highlighting them. V:TES does have a steep learning curve, and there's a huge body of cards to familiarize one's self with. However, I also consider those things to be assets and strengths of V:TES. It has an enormous exploration space and an incredible amount of opportunity for creativity and personal expression. > V:TES would still have these things with far less cards in the card pool. Most CCGs need new cards to not be stale. Every CCG gains from new cards. But, I also have seen every CCG I've played with more than a couple expansions suffer from bloat. As much as I personally like bloodlines and championed the idea of Laibon, I think the far better game that is much more attractive to a new player is a Vampire CCG based on the best known clans in the oWoD. There are a number of areas that the core Cam/Sabbat/major indy clans can be developed, though, actually, less so the indies who have just crazy amounts of clan cards. Those of us who played in the '90s remember that the game was fun then. I think we would have had fun with just more support for what was already in the game and without ever introducing Anarchs, BH, Events, Red List, etc. > BenPeal wrote: > That's another big problem with not having a rotation system, which FFG pointed out. V:TES has a ton of cruft, some of which creates barriers for further card design. I'd love to do some renovation work on the game, but there's no way I'm doing that unless (*crosses fingers*) the game comes back in print. Unless that happens, I want to keep old cards as they are. Renovation also causes a trust issue with players, as people who've left the game for a while and are returning want to trust that old cards still work the way they thought they did. If renovation were to ever happen, it would have to be paired with a big marketing/announcement/information campaign. > The playerbase can always decide to play whatever restricted environment they want. The problem with coming up with a format that is rare is that it doesn't get supported to where critical mass is achieved to make it a standard format of play, even casual play. I would very much like to see Events, promo cards, 10th Anniversary only cards, and Imbued removed from my tournament play, which, in turn, would see them removed from most of my casual play. I can do this for unofficial tournaments. Would it be productive? I doubt it. Maybe if local buy in was such that everyone was like "this is the best game ever, this is why I got into this game in the first place", the format could spread. But, I hold out no hope. And, this format still doesn't fix the most important issue of getting new players into the game. It's just a pet crusade to inject some variety while also removing a lot of annoying cards from the environment. Again, Magic's greatest fear is not getting new players into the game. I asked myself when I thought V:TES would see precipitous decline in play after it went out of print. I told myself to check back in a year, then in another year. I'm feeling a malaise about play, even though multiplayer CCGs can survive without new cards for extended periods of time and even with the effort to put new cards into people's decks. At what point, assuming anyone could get the game rebooted, that the answer is to reboot with clearer mechanics and a much more coherent card pool that includes many of the cards people have in their collections so that they can play with a subset of their collections? Traveller Card Game

> ICL wrote: > I'm also inclined to believe that V:TES could have rotated out cards, losing some of the veteran players but gaining more new players. It's unfortunate that we will not know these things. > If set rotation was introduced, would VTES have lost more players than it gained? There's no data for this. Anecdotally, I've heard a lot of people over the years comment to me that one of the things they like about V:TES is that they can leave the game, come back, and still play with their old cards. I'm inclined to believe that part of V:TES's longevity is this quality. If there's been a persistent complaint about V:TES's card base, it's that expansions were coming out too quickly. That's not an issue right now, of course. I also don't see the Design Team being able to make 100+ cards per year. > Those of us who played in the '90s remember that the game was fun then. I think we would have had fun with just more support for what was already in the game and without ever introducing Anarchs, BH, Events, Red List, etc. > But we did have fun - and continue to have fun - with those things. I know it's a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" thing to say, but I don't lament the path V:TES chose. > The playerbase can always decide to play whatever restricted environment they want. The problem with coming up with a format that is rare is that it doesn't get supported to where critical mass is achieved to make it a standard format of play, even casual play. > I've heard the occasional idea for a restricted format, and I've floated one myself. However, such ideas have never gained any impetus. > And, this format still doesn't fix the most important issue of getting new players into the game. It's just a pet crusade to inject some variety while also removing a lot of annoying cards from the environment. Again, Magic's greatest fear is not getting new players into the game. > Since CCP cancelled the game, Brazil has turned itself into a hotbed of V:TES activity. Maybe we should all drink some of their tonic.

Just one point - rotation in vtes may not work as present in "modern" CCG "old sets are banned forever and maybe several cards from them will be reprinted later", but in successively banning and returning to play of large chunks of cards. So we will have fluid meta as well as "forever playable" cards. NC Russia

Another thing to keep in mind about rotation policies is something FFG mentioned in their press release: > Players aren’t the only people who are impacted by large card pools, and as retailers need to carry more and more products in order to support a game, it becomes harder for them to do so. > So, the reasons behind rotation policices aren't just about competitive balance, keeping the metagame fresh, and accessibility - they're also about business concerns. Retailers can get frustrated with having to stock and restock a lot of product in order to support a game. While FFG didn't say so, this is also a problem for the manufacturers. They have to print and reprint products, as well as keep those products in their warehouse, in order to meet the needs of distributors and retailers who are supporting the game. This is part of why I really, really, really hope V:TES can come back in a Print On Demand manner, as POD would eliminate that supply and logistics challenge. The tricky part would be doing that while still offering products for brick and mortar retailers to sell. Cards exclusive to brick and mortar retail products might be one way to resolve this.

I've mentioned before that extending the grouping rule to library cards would be a great way to introduce a cycling element to deck design. If such a thing were to be implemented, I would advocate for crypt and library groupings be independent of each other. In General, I would also advocate pretty strongly against promo-only cards.

> self wrote: > In General, I would also advocate pretty strongly against promo-only cards.[/i] > Indeed so. Especially if they are über powerful. Then again, n the past VTES promos haven't been problematic since they've been widely available and easily attainable. Finnish Politics!