Jump to content



Photo

3x or 0x


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts

Posted 23 December 2011 - 12:31 PM

 I suppose if I was going to bother with this it should have come a lot sooner. But I just wanted to voice my sentiments on the subject. If for some reason this game's core set does not release as a 3x product, I'm gonna forget it.

Does anyone else feel this way?



#2 DrNate

DrNate

    Member

  • Members
  • 238 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 01:45 AM

 It is tempting to want to jump on the "all or nothing" bandwagon, but I'm not sure I have the resolve to vote with my wallet like that. Hopefully, the point is moot, because we will get 3x of each card. Not super confident, though. Gotta milk this license, and they have already proven they can get away with less than 3 copies with the LotR game...

Sure would like some kind of update. Any kind of update. 



#3 Titan

Titan

    Member

  • Members
  • 593 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 02:07 AM

If this happens, it will be the first LCG that does so. With that kind of precedent, and FFG's stated position that they prefer to have a larger card pool available on core sets, rather than 3 copies of everything, it doesn't look promising. Still debating whether I will pick this up or not. 



#4 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 814 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 08:49 AM

I'm definitely going to buy this, and I really don't care if I get three of all cards or only of some. I've never seen what all the fuss is about for the need to have three of every card - after all, the other LCGs don't require three of every card in a deck, it's just that you can't have more than three of any one card in your deck. I've had masses of fun with just one core set of LotR, and AGoT for that matter, proving that I don't need this one to have exactly three of every card.

I support FFG having more variety of cards in their core sets, so if this means we get only 1 of some cards, that's fine with me!


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#5 jhaelen

jhaelen

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,059 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:14 AM

MarthWMaster said:

 I suppose if I was going to bother with this it should have come a lot sooner. But I just wanted to voice my sentiments on the subject. If for some reason this game's core set does not release as a 3x product, I'm gonna forget it.

Does anyone else feel this way?

No.



#6 Penfold

Penfold

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 10:15 AM

 Absolutely not. The game would force people to deck build from the beginning with no credible out of the box play experience. This would be a marketing fail. I would expect the card distribution to be similar to that of LotR.



#7 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,037 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:42 AM

MarthWMaster said:

Does anyone else feel this way?

no, I think it is silly how people expect the 3x every card in the core set.. The core sets are designed to be able to be played as is.. you pick the set and you can play fun balanced games. I see nothing wrong with that, in fact I think this is the better way to do it. If you like the game you get a 2nd set, if you really really like it you get a 3rd. Then all the boosters from then on are full 3 cards a set.

This is a really good system and I hope they do not change it.

 


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#8 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:09 PM

In response to booored and Penfold, suppose the core sets remained as-is, but FFG put out a special product that would "fill out" the 3x sets of the cards that do not come in the box. Would there be any harm in an arrangement like this? I'm sorry, but as much as I'd like to play this game, paying an extra $80 just because the current LCG format can't accomplish its stated purpose of making the investment as affordable as possible without leaving players with gaps in their collections is just not something I can easily excuse myself into doing. But I would be perfectly happy to order a separate mini-set.



#9 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 814 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:24 AM

MarthWMaster said:

In response to booored and Penfold, suppose the core sets remained as-is, but FFG put out a special product that would "fill out" the 3x sets of the cards that do not come in the box. Would there be any harm in an arrangement like this? I'm sorry, but as much as I'd like to play this game, paying an extra $80 just because the current LCG format can't accomplish its stated purpose of making the investment as affordable as possible without leaving players with gaps in their collections is just not something I can easily excuse myself into doing. But I would be perfectly happy to order a separate mini-set.

I've read a similar thing over on BGG before. The folks over there put out the theory that it would be unlikely because such a product implies the core set is incomplete, and you need this additional expansion pack to complete the set.

I honestly don't know why it's such a big deal for people though. It always strikes me as odd, like saying a chess set is incomplete because you only get one queen, but you get loads of pawns. But that's just me! I'm really happy with the current setup, and don't see any need to change it.


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#10 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 09:27 AM

spalanzani said:

 

 

 

I've read a similar thing over on BGG before. The folks over there put out the theory that it would be unlikely because such a product implies the core set is incomplete, and you need this additional expansion pack to complete the set.

 

 

But it is incomplete. That's the point. The only thing that keeps a theoretical supplement like this from being wholly superfluous (rather than having the core sets 3x across the board to begin with) is the idea that apparently, some players would be upset upon opening a box and not finding a set of each card included. I could even see the supposedly "unnecessary" cards being packaged in a different plastic wrap from the pre-built decks, in order to avoid causing confusion for those who wish to play right out of the box.



#11 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 814 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 11:12 PM

Not that I want to get into an argument over this, but  have to disagree. The game isn't incomplete, what you get in the box is exactly what FFG want you to have, therefore they have said THIS is the game, the exact contents of the box you buy.  The rules don't say "you must have three of each card you include in your deck, but we're only gonna give you some of these, and a few of the others". You can have as many as three of each card, but you aren't REQUIRED to have them, and without them the game is incomplete.

But as I say, this is just my opinion on this matter, and I really don't want to get into any sort of argument about it!


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#12 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts

Posted 31 December 2011 - 06:16 AM

spalanzani said:

 

Not that I want to get into an argument over this, but  have to disagree. The game isn't incomplete, what you get in the box is exactly what FFG want you to have, therefore they have said THIS is the game, the exact contents of the box you buy.  The rules don't say "you must have three of each card you include in your deck, but we're only gonna give you some of these, and a few of the others". You can have as many as three of each card, but you aren't REQUIRED to have them, and without them the game is incomplete.

But as I say, this is just my opinion on this matter, and I really don't want to get into any sort of argument about it!

 

 

I know it's your opinion. My opening post was also an opinion. I think it's fair to say that everything that's been said in this thread thus far is an opinion, but of course, that's just my opinion.

You don't need to be afraid of having a dissenting opinion. I don't think you are. If you were, you would not have posted it. But don't you think it's unfair to effectively guarantee yourself the last word by saying you don't want to argue about it? That being said, I don't want to argue, either. But I'd like you and those who share your opinion to see where I'm coming from.

Here is why I feel it is incomplete. Core Sets in the past have included cards in 1x or 2x quantities that would be far more desirable if 3x were included out of the box. A good example is the Lord of the Silver Twilight from the CoC Core Set. His text reduces the cost of playing Cthulhu, an effect which is cumulative if a full playset of him is in play. Due to the scaling nature of costs in the game, this makes it possible to bring Cthulhu into play much earlier. But this is an effect that can only occur if multiple Core Sets are purchased, or cards are traded between Core Sets, something that should not be necessary in a game built around fixed cards. 

Obviously, such a thing is only bothersome at the competitive level. But I would say that that's what makes the issue of quantity so crucial, from a marketing standpoint. As I understand it, the appeal of the LCG production format is that it evens the playing field, so that victory goes to the player with the greatest skill in deckbuilding, not the one with the bigger bank account. If you don't care about how competitive your deck is, you can buy prebuilt decks for any CCG, at a far cheaper cost than one of the LCG Core Sets. I think that therefore, the extra cost is implicitly associated with the promise of completion in the LCG format. Now that individual packs have adopted a 3x pattern, I simply feel that to fully realize this concept, Core Sets ought to do the same.

I know that's not Gospel, and I don't expect it to be accepted as such. But that's my take on it.



#13 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 814 posts

Posted 31 December 2011 - 09:25 AM

Yes, I see where you're coming from. I can see the appeal of having three of each, of course, but such cards are always ones that, in my experience, seem to be fairly powerful cards - such as the example you give in Cthulhu. Having three of them can often make a good game quite ridiculously easy, which I suppose is possibly why they have just the one. I must admit, I'd only include one of such powerful cards in my deck anyway - for example, in Lord of the Rings, I will only ever use one Gandalf card, not just because he's a unique one, but because of the power thing too. It would often make the game too easy, and consequently uninteresting, to me.

According to this website, though, the LCG core set provides the complete standalone game experience, and then if you wish to expand it you can with the fixed-distribution packs. But the core set is not meant to have this distribution of three of each player card. Which is what makes me consider the core sets to be complete, as per the previous analogy with a chess set.

From a core set, I'd rather see greater variety of player cards, 80 or more, rather than half the number but in triplicate.


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#14 Titan

Titan

    Member

  • Members
  • 593 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 02:08 AM

I think that Core Sets have to be treated and thought of as what they are, which is starter decks. They are designed to catch a player's attention and introduce him to the game, nothing more. They are not, in and of itself, designed as competitive decks, which is what 3 of each card basically would give you. They are meant to offer the player a choice, are you satisfied with what it brings or are you going for more? The idea is that you get more bang for your buck if you don't want another core set, by having a larger selection. And the company counts on the more hardcore players to spring for the extra sets, because after all, it is a business, so it looks as that part from a business standpoint. In the end, it is a compromise product, finished or unfinished, depending on your outlook.

 



#15 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,037 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 10:03 AM

MarthWMaster said:

In response to booored and Penfold, suppose the core sets remained as-is, but FFG put out a special product that would "fill out" the 3x sets of the cards that do not come in the box. Would there be any harm in an arrangement like this? I'm sorry, but as much as I'd like to play this game, paying an extra $80 just because the current LCG format can't accomplish its stated purpose of making the investment as affordable as possible without leaving players with gaps in their collections is just not something I can easily excuse myself into doing. But I would be perfectly happy to order a separate mini-set.

While I agree and like the core sets as they are. I also agree with this. The print on demand system seams a perfect way for players to fill out there sets with out excessive costs to FFG. Many gamers suffer from OCD I think, and are compulsive collectors, it is players like them that get all bent out of shape about the core sets. While any experienced card game player can recognize how cheap LCG games are relative to other card games, even with the cost of buying 3 cores, to many people it dose feel like a incomplete product and that they are playing 3 times for a single product. Though i completely disagree with that myself.

Anyway, a supplement product would sate these people, and allow the core set to remain in its very well thought out and proper format.. So in short.. yea.. I think this would be a good idea.


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#16 borithan

borithan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,279 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 04:43 AM

Personally I feel they should actually go "You can have as many of a card in your deck as are provided in one copy of the product). It would mean that "incomplete" core sets would actually be complete, and it would allow the creation of cards that are ok on their own, but would just be utterly bent if you had three... as you couldn't have 3.

Of course that is not the way they are going to go...



#17 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 05:26 PM

borithan said:

 

 

Personally I feel they should actually go "You can have as many of a card in your deck as are provided in one copy of the product). It would mean that "incomplete" core sets would actually be complete, and it would allow the creation of cards that are ok on their own, but would just be utterly bent if you had three... as you couldn't have 3.

Of course that is not the way they are going to go...

 

 

Why don't you think so?






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS