Jump to content

Grimwalker

Members
  • Content Count

    1,834
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from rsdockery in Shipping Now   
    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.
  2. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from Antimarkovnikov in Player card only packs released after a cycle is complete?   
    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.
  3. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from rsdockery in Player card only packs released after a cycle is complete?   
    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? 🤔
  4. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from Antimarkovnikov in Player card only packs released after a cycle is complete?   
    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.
  5. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from Antimarkovnikov in Player card only packs released after a cycle is complete?   
    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.
  6. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from Antimarkovnikov in Player card only packs released after a cycle is complete?   
    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. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from Duciris in State of LCGs   
    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. 
  8. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from Carthoris in Unwilling to buy 2 core sets. Should I pass on this game?   
    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.
  9. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from Duciris in State of LCGs   
    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. 
  10. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from rsdockery in Unwilling to buy 2 core sets. Should I pass on this game?   
    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.
  11. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from rsdockery in Unwilling to buy 2 core sets. Should I pass on this game?   
    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.
  12. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from rsdockery in Unwilling to buy 2 core sets. Should I pass on this game?   
    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.
  13. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from rsdockery in Unwilling to buy 2 core sets. Should I pass on this game?   
    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. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from rsdockery in Unwilling to buy 2 core sets. Should I pass on this game?   
    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.
  15. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from rsdockery in Unwilling to buy 2 core sets. Should I pass on this game?   
    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.
  16. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from rsdockery in Unwilling to buy 2 core sets. Should I pass on this game?   
    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.
  17. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from Duciris in State of LCGs   
    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. 
  18. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from Marinealver in Speculation: Android CCG will return, sans Netrunner   
    Number of LCGs that actually *have* died for not having "good entry points" = Zero. AGOT first edition would have been broken by rotation, Star Wars was cannibalized by Destiny, Conquest and Netrunner fell to licensing issues that had nothing to do with the game.
    But Mep has never been one to let reality intrude on his fantasy.
  19. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from Jetfire in End the Run   
    Whether or not their agreement with WOTC has any force remaining, FFG/Asmo relies on its reputation for absolute discretion as a bargaining chip in its relationships with all its licensors. If FFG starts blabbing about NR, not only could anything remotely blaming of WOTC perhaps be potentially actionable, it would put them in a bad odor with Disney, Bethesda, iD, etc etc.
  20. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from panpolyqueergeek in End the Run   
    When I’m speculating or offering an opinion, I state it as such. I don’t phrase it as “I know” unless I have solid reasons to say so. 
    And if your position is based on “available information is corporate lies” then that doesn’t increase certainty for anything. 
    I freely concede FFG didn’t believe in R&R enough to print a full run but the same can’t be said for any other product in the line. I.e., they only stopped having faith in the line after they knew it would be dead. And if their previous experience from Conquest, Star Wars and AGOT 1st ed says that final products don’t sell well I think it’s an understandable mistake. The degree of demand for it reflects just how healthy Netrunner was up until the end. 
  21. Like
    Grimwalker reacted to Duciris in R&R Second print run announced   
    Also, they may not be able to ship it by boat.  Timing what it is.
  22. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from Duciris in R&R Second print run announced   
  23. Thanks
    Grimwalker got a reaction from digitalbusker in Revised core: worth getting as a board game?   
    Yes, sure.
  24. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from ScottieATF in End the Run   
    As a former playtester, as someone who knows present playtesters, I can state that this is flat wrong. That’s not how things get designed or tested. Having a better, more well-rounded than TD  “second purchase” set was to serve as an entry point to the game.
    Gee, who do I know who is constantly bellyaching about that?
    As for the rest, more made up baloney. Revised Core Set wasn’t short-ordered, it was fantastically popular and was bringing new and returning players to the game in droves. Sales and tournament attendance were up at all levels. 
  25. Like
    Grimwalker got a reaction from ScottieATF in Feel cheated   
    @Mep‘s Theories about how FFG managed the game require one to believe that up is down and black is white.
    The Revised Core Set was successful enough to sell out and need another print run, so they didn’t print enough.
    New players were coming into the game at a rate not seen in years, but the game had no good entry point.
    They decided to kill the game so long ago that they hired an entirely new full time staff member just to do playtesting  of one cycle and design a single deluxe set.
    Agreements between business partners end all the time for innumerable reasons, but all problems could be solved by throwing money at it. (GDW pulled the Warhammer license not because of the cost of the agreement but because FFG was getting into the miniatures business for example. Destiny as a CCG competes directly with MTG...)
    Up is down and black is white. Better watch out at zebra crossings.
×