Talk:A Game of Thrones (card game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Please stop accusing this Wiki of Copyright violations. There are NO copyright violations on this page. All of the material on this wiki is readily available on FFG's website and is intended for promotional use. This site has been viewed and evaluated by FFG as containing appropriate factual content. The link to the wiki is a "sticky" thread on the official AGoT forums on FFG's website. I have personaly spoken with the developer of the game and he is in complete agreement that the material on the wiki is being used appropriately.

EthR

I am sorry, but this is a copyright problem. It is not sufficient for Wikipedia to have permission to use this, it must be released under the GFDL and in any case there is no way we can verify that the developer, who may not even have the authority to permit the use, has endorsed it. We would need an email from someone @agameofthrones.com to permissions at wikimedia .org confirming that the text is released under the GFDL. Do NOT re-add the text unless and until this has been verified. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have relayed this request to FFG/AGoT. I am confident they will release these types of materials for publication on the wiki.EthR 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify?[edit]

How about some examples of what is wrong with the formating? Just saying to someone "fix it" is useless, downright rude actually, without telling the person what is wrong with it.EthR 15:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider clicking the links in the header. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course I clicked the links and got the giant documents of suggestions. I'm not really prepared to spend the time to cross-reference my document with the style guide. Give me an example. As far as I can tell I have followed the wiki format well.EthR 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no internal links in the article other than the first few sections. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By internal do you mean links to other parts of this ariticle or to other wiki pages?EthR 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other Wikipedia pages. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to “A Game of Thrones collectible card game”[edit]

As far as I understand, the title of this game is A Game of Thrones”. Right? In that case, and given that I understand WP's naming conventions, the proper title for this article is A Game of Thrones collectible card game, to which I will move it unless there are objections. Arbor 11:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The game title fully has the Collectible Card Game (with capitals), so shouldn't be moved. Coldwind 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no. The game title is A Game of Thrones. Right? The spelling of the term “Collectible card game” (not part of the title, as far as I can tell) on the box art wisely follows FFG editorial policy, but has no bearing on what we should do here.Arbor 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... you appear to be correct. Serves me right for going by the logo. Everywhere I can find on the FFG page has it solely listed as A Game of Thrones. Thus, I support a move lower casing it (or... to be consistent with the board game, moving it to A Game of Thrones (collectible card game) Coldwind 20:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up of lists[edit]

Do we really need a list of all possible traits in the game? It'll be an ever expanding list (several new ones are created each set), and since they have no game mechanics themselves, is this not basically a list for a list's sake? Wouldn't it be simpler to just have a sentence/section that describes what a trait is?

Similarly, the informal deck types? Why have these listed... particular if there's no explanation as to the theory behind them?

And again with the Agendas - saying what an agenda as a card type is, but there's no need to list all of the currently usable agendas.

Also, since Iron Throne Edition was just released, someone with access to the rules (not yet online) should do up a section explaining the new Multi-player Title cards.

And maybe a section on the new card templates (assuming there are any images available that we can use.Coldwind 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to be bold and maybe try cleaning up some of this stuff myself. Coldwind 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EthR 14:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC) The reason for informal deck types is that there is no list else where. Yes it would be more relavent to have explainations of the theory. Why not add that instead of getting rid of the information? The purpose of this page is to provide MORE information not less to get people interested in the game. Also this is a fact based entry and many of the facts you have deleted. Honestly I do not agree with you deleting it. The point is to give a non-player a feel for the flavor of the game and how nedly it really is. My frame of reference is to not repeat information availible else where. I think I stuck to that goal well.[reply]

No list elsewhere? That depends on your point of view - certainly deck building sites would have several variations on that idea, and we do link to a prominent one in the external links area.
Now, I admit, I was bold with my deletions, and if concensus is to restore them, then I'm not going to be an unreasonable hold out. But remember that the point of Wikipedia is not to be a how-to guide, nor a rules document. As much as I'm a fan of the game, the goal of this article should be to answer "What is this game about?" I don't know about you, but whenever I've explained the game to people, I've never been asked questions about deck types. How to win? Yes. What books is it based on? Yup. Does it feel like the books? Certainly. What kind of cards involved? Sure. But never what kind of decks can a player make. Your experience may be (and likely is) different.
Honestly, I'm not even sure if we need the full descriptions of the card types that I left there (still more rulesy to me than encyclopedic), but I'm not _that_ bold.
And yes, Wikipedia is fact based, but that is qualified by it not being an indiscriminate collection of facts. Do you really need every possible trait listed to give someone a feel for traits? Instead of listing House Tyrell, House Marbrand, House Umber, House Dayne, House Frey, etc... why can't we say "some traits represent the various great houses of Westeros". Same feel, fewer words. Taken further, "some traits represent groupings of characters in the world of Westeros", now we've pretty much included every other character trait. A couple of examples were thrown out (honestly, mostly just to give something to wikilink) to give a grounding, but we certainly don't need to list every one.
Honestly, consider the Magic: the Gathering article - almost no rules are discussed there at all. It has qualified as a Good article, and almost made Featured article.
Still, yay, discussion! Coldwind 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you link to Tzumainn's website tutorial?

Also about House Arryn... Littlefinger a.k.a Peytr Baelish is technichly sworn to House Arryn. And The Eyrie was in Westeros Edition.

Overhaulin' done?[edit]

Rutting time out... that edit by 142.176.0.18 was me. I coulda sworn I logged in...

Anyways, I finished the clean-ups for the remaining card types, as well as the game play section. I removed the informal deck types, as I could see no value in listing those, similar removal with the keywords, but I did add a common game terms and rules section. Could more go in there? Maybe we could add Immunity and Cannot Be..., but I kind of think those might complicate things for a casual reader right out of the gate.

I cut out the champions except for the World Champions. I don't mean to imply the other guys aren't deserving, but we can't list every tournament here, so I think a nice arbitrary line at the World Championship will suffice.

I made a few other minor tweaks, like the intro paragraphs to give a better idea of the nature/goal of the game, and removed some superfluous images.

Stuff that (I know) is left:

  1. New additions from Iron Throne edition - new card templates, new Multiplayer Titles, and possibly a multiplayer tournament format if released.
  2. Citations/references for the World Championships, and maybe the Awards.
  3. Moving the article as per Arbor above.

Coldwind 15:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backup of Paragraph in case I made a mistake[edit]

I want to clean this up. If there is a significant problem, the old one is here:

In addition to the noble houses, the AGoT CCG also features many other factions present in AsoIaF. These include the Night’s Watch, their enemies the Wildings[1], the clansmen of the Vale, Maesters, Septons, the knights of the Kingsguard, and Beric Dondarrion’s Brotherhood Without Banners. Most of these characters are neutral in the game and can be added to decks of any house to make a variety of theme decks.

References

  1. ^ "Winter Edition Teaser". Retrieved 2007-07-16.

Question on Reliable Sources[edit]

The problem with documenting tournaments and other aspects of this game is that, like most other CCG's there is not much official publication under wikipedia's definition of reliable source. On the other hand there are some sources that are self published, but could be considered experts. One is Nate French who posts a development journal to show the development process of the card game. I would consider that to be a primary source. The other are articles on Tzumainn's web site which is a self-published site to collect strategy and news on the game to supplement fantasy flight's own web site. Bloodycelt 13:50, 29 March 2007 (EST)

Fair use rationale for Image:Heir.jpg[edit]

Image:Heir.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kingslayer.jpg[edit]

Image:Kingslayer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nedstark.jpg[edit]

Image:Nedstark.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Standfast.jpg[edit]

Image:Standfast.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Handgold.jpg[edit]

Image:Handgold.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ironisland.jpg[edit]

Image:Ironisland.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add some references and more cleanup[edit]

So Staton added some changes, I'm going to try and get references.

Also, going to split the table up between CCG sets and LCG sets. Seems to make more sense.

And maybe add in symbol expansions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.221.197.21 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms Everywhere[edit]

Who put all these acronyms here?

"A Game of Thrones (or AGoT, for short) is a collectible card game (CCG) produced by Fantasy Flight Games (FFG), based on the A Song of Ice and Fire (ASoIaF) series of novels written by George R. R. Martin (GRRM)."

This is both hilarious and unencyclopedic. 159.153.129.39 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that (IAT) this article uses (TAU) too many weird acronyms (TMWA). Some even have (SEH) lowercase letters in them (LLiT), which just looks silly (WjlS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.225.123.40 (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Skomorokh  09:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Game of Thrones collectible card game → A Game of Thrones (card game) — The article originated at A Game of Thrones (card game). It was moved to A Game of Thrones Collectible Card Game because an editor said it was the official and proper name. Another editor then moved it to A Game of Thrones collectible card game per MOS. The last move was not appropriate because "Collectible Card Game" was not intended as an disambiguation term. In addition, the article does not indicate "Collectible Card Game", so it seems that returning to A Game of Thrones (card game) is the most ideal move. --Erik (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why were the set symbols removed[edit]

I noticed the set symbols were removed for the set expansions. Please note that those symbols are the ONLY method to identify the expansion the card was printed under. If anyone is actively updating this site... then contact me. (If there was a good reason I don't want to step on toes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodycelt (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on A Game of Thrones (card game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Game of Thrones (card game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Game of Thrones (card game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from A Game of Thrones: Second Edition (card game)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not merged. After improvements to the Second Edition article, its notability has been established, and it contains sufficient content to merit inclusion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the second edition of this game has much stand-alone notability. I suggest merging this here. Given that merge discussions have very low visibility, I'll ping User:VickKiang, an editor interested in board games and recently highly active in related topics. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I haven't played the game, but its gameplay seems similar. I had a very quick look at BGG, and there seem to be some revisions and minor rm/change of previous concepts, but others are very similar. The links page shows some refs, none are RS IMO, so if this is at an AfD, there'd probably be a consensus to merge. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is one merge that I have no particular objection to. BOZ (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No support - fundamentally different game. Living card games are stand alone. This is a CCG which is not the same thing. It's just using the same IP is all. Yes, it's confusing, but no need to confuse people further by mixing the two together. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leitmotiv Ah, fair point, the name mislead me. Now, the question is - is this game notable enough for a stand alone entry? Ping @VickKiang , @BOZ. Right now nothing in the page for second edition suggests it is, which means it would likely end up deleted at AfD. Can anyone find sources to rescue it, or maybe we can agree on a redirect target (soft deletion)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: So with Fast Break it was originally thought that there were no notable sources, but it had one. Then the reasoning shifted to there being a need for two notable sources. A Game of Thrones article has two notable sources, the Scrye guide and the Dummies book which has a 3 page spread about it. It's very likely this game has more reliable sources. I believe a policy on Wikipedia is that even though sources haven't been added yet, but potential exists, this is not reason enough to delete an article - correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can tell, this article is not eligible for deletion. Wikipedians rely too heavily on the internet when making decisions about sources when many exist offline. It's not a far stretch to consider a major IP like A Game of Thrones has potential sources out there. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leitmotiv Let me correct you: WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: You know during my travels on Wikipedia over the years, I know I've been in discussions about articles that don't have enough sources, that there's no immediacy to delete it when it's thought it could be improved. Which is why many articles get the tag to improve it by adding sources. I can't cite policy at the moment because I'm preoccupied with other matters for the next couple of days. This subject matter seems to fall into that space of those who wish to delete articles vs. those who wish to give them a chance - seeing as there's no impending deadline. This conversation seems moot to me though. This particular article has enough suitable sources, and it's very likely more exist in The Duelist, Scrye magazine, and others that @BOZ: has access to. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leitmotiv Just to be clear, we are concerned about the 2nd edition, which has only one source, which while arguably in-depth is not indepedent (it's a blog or such, about one of the game's expansions, from the publisher's website). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well that's why we're discussing it here on the wrong article? You can see why this conversation is misleading. I see now that you did mention 2nd edition, but I blew right by that. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leitmotiv That's why I suggested a merge. In fact, to make things MORE confusing, it seems there were AT LEAST FOUR related GoT card games:
BGG claims all game are related (calls the three others reimplementations). I think it would be best to cover them here under spin-offs section, as my understanding is that the Origins-winning CCG spawned at least a stand-alone card/board game, and two LCGs, neither of which appears notable for a stand-alone article.
Of course, this mess is not helped by the fact that all these games have nearly identical names. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone interested in fleshing the article out more using the Dummies book. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, Leitmotiv, VickKiang, and BOZ: Any consensus on this? I'm looking to close the discussion as it's been open for nearly a year now. The article for Second Edition also seems to have been expanded by Davidagnome since this conversation took place. As I'm unfamiliar with the subject, I could be mistaken about this, but a quick look suggests that while some sections are in need of further references, the article should now pass WP:GNG. Thoughts? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 11:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do see it has been expanded a lot from here. I'm fine with keeping it as a separate article due to its size. BOZ (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link BOZ supplies shows it's too big for a merger. What the article needs is TLC. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is some reception now... I hope there is no confusion with other similar named games. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so too. Going to go ahead and close this discussion now as it seems we all agree a merge is not in order. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Game_of_Thrones_(card_game)&oldid=1197173588"