Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Grimwalker

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    61701, Illinois, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Would like to offload my collection--played early on but had to move to a new city that didn't have much of a meta and I'm far behind. Asking $200 OBO plus shipping.
  2. I still use US MM/DD/YYYY notation in text, but I do use that in all my work filenames because I can sort by A-Z and it puts all my reports of the same name in date order.
  3. I think most people play in chronological order of release, so that cards (including Investigators, Player Cards, and Basic Weaknesses) from future packs and cycles unlock as you get to them, at least for the first play through. And hey, if you got out of Dunwich without being horribly scarred with mental and physical trauma, no reason you can't keep going. If they've racked up too much mileage, though, I think most people hit the Reset button.
  4. That’s a total non-starter. How are singles obtained? Through deluxe sets and Mythos packs. What’s the full cost of a set of player cards from a single cycle? 6x15+30=$120, just to break even, let alone shipping, web site fees, payment processing fees, and other overhead. What’s the cost of just buying the packs like a normal person? 🤔
  5. I have never seen any sleeves that would accommodate the dividers.
  6. Will. Never. Ever. EVER. Happen. Cutting into expansion pack sales is exactly what this would do even if there were “quite a market” for groups like yours but more likely what this is going to do is just be a shelfwarmer because almost everyone already owns its contents via the regular packs. There is no reason to assume the overlap in the Venn diagram between “people who want player cards” and “people who don’t want scenario cards to make those player cards usable is more than minuscule. And even if there were, it’s not good business to create a product whose sole purpose is to facilitate people not to buy your highest margin products.
  7. Gloomhaven retails for one ******* hundred and ******* forty ******* dollars. You should be *embarassed* you brought that up given the arguments that have already been raised in this thread.
  8. The realities of inflation are just one more reason Mep’s naïveté over what can blithely be stuffed into a game box is only a happy fantasy.
  9. I defend positions that I feel to be true. It’s beneath you to actually try and apply an ad hominem argument. It’s one thing to attack a person’s arguments—which is what I do to you—it’s quite another to pretend you know anything about hidden motivations. The latter is just another attempt to poison the well, not actually prove a point. I invite anyone to search my post history for when I’ve brought up playtesting and they will see you’re a liar. I detest bad arguments made in an attempt to shore up a presupposed position. You’ve decided long ago, and have proclaimed repeatedly, that FFG are money grubbing scum and you’re willing to make false arguments and ignore counterpoints in order to walk back to that conclusion. 1) As pointed out in the posts prior to mine, adding cards to fill out a playset of cards puts you well past the $40 or even (the rarely seen for economic reasons) $45 price. That puts you in the $50 range. 2) you refuse to educate yourself about the economic reality of Price Points. (Hint: it’s on Wikipedia even.) There’s a world of difference between $40 and $50, and there’s a reason you rarely see anything in between. 3) yes, shipping is by container. But raising the overall weight of the contents raises the overall weight of your freight, plus the added expense when it comes to actually loading it on trucks and sending it to distributors, who then have to load it onto further trucks. Ignoring the additional costs added all along the production and distribution chain so you can continue to bleat about how little paper and ink costs is simply dishonest. But then, poisonous and dishonest arguments are all I expect from you at this point. 4) everything about the Core Set indicates it’s a low-margin product, and you simply don’t make much more money with repeat sales of a low margin product. Twenty percent profit times two is still 20%. Much better to get people onto the repeatable high margin sales of Deluxes and monthly packs. At the end of the day, it’s better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Stoking discontentment for bad reasons gets my goat when it’s about games I love, and that’s all you do. It’s much better to explain that there are valid, sound reasons for the core sets to be designed and priced as they are, and advise consumers to make rational decisions for themselves within these circumstances. One thing is for sure: getting people to complain about the design and to not buy the core sets is not going to result in positive change. If anything, poor sales are just going to result in game cancellation. At the end of the day you’re trying to hurt sales, that hurts the game, and so you’re doing more harm than good.
  10. I'm addressing this to other readers, as Mep is completely unreachable and unreasonable. He's poisoned the well of FFG games for years and no one should respect his opinions. It doesn't turn a huge profit for FFG to make people buy multiple core sets, because Core Sets bear all the hallmarks of not being a high-margin item. What you get for a $40 core set is a LOT MORE "stuff" than what you get in a deluxe set for $30 or in a Mythos Pack for $15--those latter two is where the money is, and if a core set doesn't make the buyer say "****, I really want more cards," then it really isn't doing its job. As I've explained to him more than once, he is simply wrong that the cost of adding cards to the core is only a penny per card. It impacts weight and shipping costs if *nothing* else and he is completely talking out of his *** to claim that they could add a third again as many cards (it's 70 cards, by the way) without either impacting production or hitting some arbitrarily imagined price point. If he were right, Mythos packs would cost only $5 or $10. Also, $45 is past a significant threshold in terms of Price Point. I've tried to get Mep to understand this reality of economics but he insists on embarrassing himself. The complaints of consumers who are unhappy with the value returned from a second copy of the core set doesn't actually go very far to offset the realities that created the design constraints of the core set. At the end of the day, to put more copies of cards in the box means starving the overall card variety out of the base set of the game. No deckbuilding whatsoever. If you put more copies into the box and don't reduce the number of cards by title, then cost goes up. And when cost goes up, fewer people buy the game. It's just that simple.
  11. that one's on me, I just don't play L5R. Anyway, I was going off of what people told me--that some factions were in the doghouse in a core set environment and waiting six months at 1-2 cards per pack just wasn't going to move the needle sufficiently. Anyway, the point stands: if they didn't make the Core Set card pool as broad as they could in terms of cards by title, the game would take even longer to get to a playable state. Not only would people complain about being forced to buy more product, they would do so in greatly reduced numbers because the Core Set didn't give a good experience.
  12. Yep, you're right, I miscounted. But the point remains--how much deckbuilding could you do with those 10 cards if they represented 3 Assets, 1 Event, and 1 Skill by title? None--none at all. People would complain that forcing them to buy additional Deluxes and monthly packs to open up the card pool was a cash grab, and, AND--it wouldn't be a playable cardpool for months, until they'd released half a year's worth of content minimum to get to the variety they'd have had on Day 1 if they hadn't listened to shortsighted, deluded, dishonest people with myopic priorities. (Oh look, 8 factions in L5R necessitated that they release the entire first cycle of monthly packs in six weeks instead of six months just to make some factions playable even in a game that realistically demands three core sets. HMMMMM.) But yes, some people most definitely are deluding themselves, or they're willfully ignorant despite information provided. Dishonest inasmuch as it's dishonest to state as fact something which you don't actually know is true, and since I know a lot of these statements being made by some deluded people are not true, it really makes me wonder.
  13. This is only half right. For any business the difference between "cash grab" and "product with viable profitability" is basically whether or not you have an axe that you've spent years grinding. The Core Set design is subject to multiple constraints. It must provide a sufficient variety of cards by title. There are only 9 level 0 cards for each faction--having that cut down to only 4 or 5 cards by title would impoverish deck building options, which would in turn create a dire necessity for additional product, and cause people to b!tch about cash grabs. It must have a viable set of scenarios. Night of the Zealot and its encounter deck elements provide a tremendous bang for the buck, and you couldn't really cut into that very far without drastically impacting its playability. If NOTZ were sold separately, yeah you could dramatically increase card count and give 2x of more cards probably, but then it wouldn't even be playable at all without a second purchase, and would cause people to b!tch about cash grabs. It must come in at a $40 cost. This is the real sticking point. FFG has held to $40 for over a decade, because at that price point, people are often willing to make a blind buy. Going up to $50 would, in economic terms, reduce demand, i.e. sell fewer copies. The extra elbow room for additional cards would not create enough extra sales to make up the difference. And unfortunately, there are only so many cards you can put in a box along with tokens and rulebooks. (When they made Netrunner's revised core set they even cut the Rules Reference Guide and published it as a PDF to save money.) Contrary to what some people would claim, you can't just add stuff into a box and only account for the penny it costs for paper and ink. That's not how product valuation works. But, even if you did go up in price, the other constraints would still be in place. It would still be the best idea to provide the greatest variety of cards as you could in the core set, and that means giving two cards instead of two copies of the same card for any given slot. The only way you'd think you were getting a better deal in that situation is if you compared it to what the core set would give you at only $40, but you couldn't since that product wouldn't exist. And in doing so you'd reduce the number of people who would actually buy the thing. So, at the end of the day, the design is confined by cost and yet must maximize card variety. The only way to do that is not to double up on cards by title unless you absolutely have to, as was done with many staple neutral cards. The prospect of a second core set purchase is not a cause of the design parameters, it's a result of them. But given that the core set is what it is, they're not really helping themselves if they create a product whose only purpose is to cannibalize sales of the central item of the game line, so I very much doubt we'll ever see a deckbuilding pack. Every LCG they ever made all benefit from a second core set because of similar design constraints, and they've had ample opportunity to do such a thing before if they ever decided they wanted to try that.
  14. Cancelled due to poor sales. "Botched" = the license was pulled by the license owner. Cancelled due to poor sales. Also was cancelled after Destiny came out, so arguably the poor sales were the result of cannibalizing its own player base. Again, "botched" = the license was pulled by the license owner. You're being tremendously unfair. When the license isn't being renewed, everyone gets blindsided, and there simply isn't time to tie everything off with a neat little bow, especially when they have been taking steps to revamp the game for the long haul. These things are in the pipeline for at least 18 months in advance, and for the Revised Core Set it was essentially two years in advance, and so when they get word that the end is nigh with less than a year to go and a bunch of product already in the pipeline, there's really nothing anyone can do except stop developing subsequent products and and let the clock run out, and wherever it ends, it ends. That's not a "botched" job. Sometimes you just get dealt a losing hand and it's a bad beat. It is possible to make no mistakes and still lose, that's not unfair, that's life. When game sales are not justifying continuation such as with WHI, SWLCG, or Call of Cthulhu, then sure, you can make the call, and know in advance that the last product in development will be the final release, and you can make sure it balances the whole. They at least tried to do that with Reign & Reverie for Netrunner.
  15. For some reason my eyes skipped right over the "LCG related." No, they haven't. I very much doubt there will be for at least a year, if ever. I mean, I'd be right there for any Android universe card game.
  • Create New...