The Shuffle out of Space - my blog about AH:TCG

[Eruantalon 17]

Hi guys!

I'd like to invite you to check my blog about Arkham Horror: The Card Game. New content will be posted regularly, threatening to unhinge your minds with knowledge of the occult, so you can add it to your favorites already ; )

http://shuffle-oos.blogspot.com/

[awp832 447]

Interesting read,  I feel we might have a lot to discuss.   I picked up AH LCG over the weekend, I'm also a seasoned veteran of AH Board game, and play primarily 2 player games with my wife. 

I don't  really draw any distinction between "types" of luck as you put it.   I don't find much difference between drawing a Healing Stone and an Elder Sign in AH board game on your opening unique items, and getting a bit of a hot streak with dice or chaos tokens.   Luck is luck, no matter how you slice it.   And what's more, players *want* luck in their games, even if they say they don't.  I've met plenty of gamers that balk and complain about too much "luck" in their games, but you know...  games exist in which luck is completely removed from the equation.  Games like Chess, Go, or Shogi.  When I ask these friends if they'd be up for a game of Chess instead, they usually look at me like I'm from another planet.  People like luck.

And now I guess I have to go on a tirade about multiple core sets, since you brought it up on your blog.   I guess I sort of have a problem with it.   I like FFG and I like their games, but this multiple core sets thing is just absurd.  I noticed this annoying trend when I started playing the Lord of the Rings LCG, and saw it again in Netrunner, and it's back once more with AH LCG.  It would cost FFG what,  literally a couple of extra cents to give us x2 of every card in the core set?  Easily done,  so the only conclusion is that they do it on purpose in order to force people to buy multiple core sets.    Now, I don't actually mind so much that you can't play Roland/Daisy together unless you buy multiple core sets.   That's an economy choice.  Otherwise you would have to literally print double the player cards and have most of them sit in the box for most of the time.  What I mind is that there is only one copy of -just for example- the .45 Automatic, or the Old Book of Lore, where players obviously might want to include 2 in their deck.  FFG deliberately excludes copies of these cards in order to sell more core sets.  It's a lousy thing to do to your customers.

So why do they do it?   Well, because it works.  Because you went ahead and bought 2 core sets didn't you? -even knowing full well you wouldn't use half the cards.  And so long as we keep falling for it,  then FFG is going to keep doing it.  I steadfastly refuse to buy a second core set (never bought a second core for Netrunner or LotR either) , and I advise everyone to steadfastly refuse to buy a second core set as well.  If we really don't like this practice as customers,  then  we should stop encouraging it. 
 

Edited January 9, 2017 by awp832

[Eruantalon 17]

The luck theme is a very interesting one. Obviously, even just the one designed to make the experience replay-able has similar outcome on the results you archive. However seems to be easier to accept, especially in cooperative games.

 

Also, luck of draw and a die might be different, sometimes. If you draw cards (some games even use dice in similar matter, before "assigning" them) before making choices, random event occurs before you decide, what to do. hence, you can adjust to the luck (see: Mage Knight). If you, however, draw a card/roll a die after the decision, you must wage your chances before making the call and it might backfire even if you don't try to push your luck and play it safely.

 

Of course validity of the decision (quality of your play) should always be judged regardless of the random roll/draw.

[Khudzlin 734]

And now I guess I have to go on a tirade about multiple core sets, since you brought it up on your blog.   I guess I sort of have a problem with it.   I like FFG and I like their games, but this multiple core sets thing is just absurd.  I noticed this annoying trend when I started playing the Lord of the Rings LCG, and saw it again in Netrunner, and it's back once more with AH LCG.  It would cost FFG what,  literally a couple of extra cents to give us x2 of every card in the core set?  Easily done,  so the only conclusion is that they do it on purpose in order to force people to buy multiple core sets.    Now, I don't actually mind so much that you can't play Roland/Daisy together unless you buy multiple core sets.   That's an economy choice.  Otherwise you would have to literally print double the player cards and have most of them sit in the box for most of the time.  What I mind is that there is only one copy of -just for example- the .45 Automatic, or the Old Book of Lore, where players obviously might want to include 2 in their deck.  FFG deliberately excludes copies of these cards in order to sell more core sets.  It's a lousy thing to do to your customers.

So why do they do it?   Well, because it works.  Because you went ahead and bought 2 core sets didn't you? -even knowing full well you wouldn't use half the cards.  And so long as we keep falling for it,  then FFG is going to keep doing it.  I steadfastly refuse to buy a second core set (never bought a second core for Netrunner or LotR either) , and I advise everyone to steadfastly refuse to buy a second core set as well.  If we really don't like this practice as customers,  then  we should stop encouraging it.

 

Things are actually better now (though not in the way you want). Instead of having seriously diminishing returns for extra core sets because of cards in 1x, 2x and 3x (like in LotR or Netrunner), most cards are 1x, and the cards that come in multiple copies are ones you'd likely want in multiple decks (granted, this is somewhat diminished in a coop game because of scenario cards). Also, I suspect it would cost more than "literally a couple of extra cents", as you put it, to put a full playset in the core set (a cost they would definitely pass on to their customers).

 

I bought 2 core sets. With them, I've built 2 investigator decks (each with plenty of 2x) and the encounter deck for each scenario (plenty of encounter sets are needed in 2 scenarios, so a 2nd core set helps even with that).

[mwmcintyre 271]

From what I've seen, they DO include two of every player card they introduce via Mythos pack at least.

[awp832 447]

I estimate adding a second copy of the single copy cards would add less than $7 American to the cost of the box.   Based on it's fairly easy to get a printing company to print a custom card for 10 cents/ card, and I'm sure FFG can do it much cheaper than that.  Without having my game on hand, I am estimating about 70 cards that have only 1 copy,  so $7 or less.  Compare that to maybe about $40 for buying the game again.

And no, I don't feel that graciously being allowed to buy only 2 core sets instead of 3 counts as improvement.  The only reason for that is there is a hard limit of 2 of each card/ deck.  If it was 3 of each card per deck like in other LCGs, you could bet that there would still be singleton cards in the box.

So, is it literally a couple of extra cents?  Well, per card, yes.   But sure, I'll concede that it would cost FFG about a whopping $5-7 extra in printing costs to give their customers what they deserve.

[Gaffa 673]

I estimate adding a second copy of the single copy cards would add less than $7 American to the cost of the box.   Based on it's fairly easy to get a printing company to print a custom card for 10 cents/ card, and I'm sure FFG can do it much cheaper than that.  Without having my game on hand, I am estimating about 70 cards that have only 1 copy,  so $7 or less.

 

You're ignoring the economy of scale printing for huge print runs on very large cardstock, where adding your beloved "second copy of the single copy cards" costs a lot more than printing a single print run from another company. It's not $5-7 in extra printing costs, it's a full additional set of card stock which would have to be printed, collated, and sorted into boxes.

 

Those of us in publishing and printing, without actually knowing the specific details of FFG's contract with their printer (FFG hires out their printing to another company except for POD stuff), chewed it out around the time Netrunner came out, and estimated that a full "playset" for one of FFG's base set boxes would increase the price point by about $30-$40 for the consumer; certainly no less than $20. It's just not as easy to add more cards to a print run based around a certain number of cards without then having to add more cards to fill out the next card sheet, and that ups the price considerably, even before you consider the additional shipping costs for the extra weight of an additional print sheet of cards per box.

 

FFG found their price point years ago (certainly before Netrunner), and the fact they've continued it for now nearly a decade shows they're quite happy in their marketing and sales for their base set LCG boxes, and they won't be changing any time soon based on random internet comments I'm sure. As is said every time a new LCG comes out, FFG reminds us that their own sales data shows the majority of their LCGs are purchased by people who never buy a single expansion pack for the game ever again, and many of those people don't even deckbuild. They just take the starter decks as suggested and never change them. To give the majority of their players a wider amount of replays, they don't give them a complete play set of the cards for their decks, to increase variance. That appeals to non-deckbuilders more than having a full set of tools to build decks...because most people who buy the base LCG boxes don't want to build decks, they just want to shuffle up and play.

 

FFG knows some people on the internet (but not all of them) gripe about "needing" to buy additional copies of the base set for their LCGs. FFG also knows those people still buy less copies of their core sets combined than their general sales to people who will never buy a Mythos pack ever again. To raise the price from $40-ish to $65+ dollars just to make a few gripers on the internet happy would raise their price point beyond the reach of the people who are buying their core sets just to shuffle and play. Simply put, FFG makes more money with their core sets as they are now than they would if they included a full playset of all the cards, plus not including a full playset increases the variance (and thus replayability) for the casual gamers who want to play Arkham Horror or Netrunner but never want to deckbuild.

 

And given that FFG is the company that printed trading cards with just Star Wars RPG talents printed on them, this is a company that would happily merchandize anything if they think they can make a profit out of it. I'm sure they've looked at doing the "completion set" some people talk about wanting for their LCGs -- publishing "just enough" cards for deckbuilding players to get a full playset of the cards from the base set. And they haven't, because card print runs are expensive, and they've figured they can't make a profit on it.

[Khudzlin 734]

And no, I don't feel that graciously being allowed to buy only 2 core sets instead of 3 counts as improvement.  The only reason for that is there is a hard limit of 2 of each card/ deck.  If it was 3 of each card per deck like in other LCGs, you could bet that there would still be singleton cards in the box.

 

I wasn't referring to that. I was talking about the fact that there are far fewer dead cards in extra core sets for the newer games (beginning with Star Wars), because almost all cards are singletons, and those that aren't are the neutral ones. Netrunner and Lord of the Rings were bad deals because of all the dead cards (the 3rd Netrunner core set gave you 7 cards), not because they required 3 core sets.

 

Also, 2 core sets are enough for 2 players, provided they agree on using investigators with different classes (which is better anyway, since that broadens their possibilities). Are you really going to object to needing 1 core set for each player?

 

@Gaffa: Thanks for providing professional info.

[awp832 447]

I'm not at all objecting to needing 1 core set per player,  I think that is clear in my first post. 

And yes, obviously FFG is making more money this way.  My point was that it's coming at the expense of making some of their consumers (like myself) annoyed.  And if we as consumers want to change that,  than griping on the forums is one thing,  but we should do more than that,  we should also show FFG we dislike their policy by withholding our dollars on extra core sets. 

I also am not sure I buy the argument that most people just play out of the core box.   I think this is probably untrue,  but I don't know how to prove it one way or the other.   Now,  obviously if you look purely at sales than the sales of the Core box are going to be way, way higher.   It's designed that way, since everyone who has an expansion necessarily has already bought the core box.  And many of those people who bought the core box will have bought more than one, driving sale figures higher.   But that doesn't mean that most people play the game this way  (obviously here I am referring mostly to other LCGs since AH LCG is still just in it's infancy, but I expect it will apply).  Also, there will always be those of us who buy a game and then for whatever reason, simply don't take to it and don't buy any more.  That's another core set sold, but can you really argue that that is how that person is *playing* the game?  I mean they're not really playing it at all if it is sitting on a shelf, so I would say that doesn't count,  but it would still show up as a sale figure. 

No other company that I am aware of does this.  Imagine if you bought the game Pandemic and you opened it up and it said.  "Okay, so included in the game are 12 disease cubes of each color.   Now,  you're allowed to play with 24 disease cubes of each color, but you don't actually have them.  So if you want to play with just the 12 disease cubes per color in the base game- that's fine,  you just probably won't win as often.  Now if you want -and this is totally optional-  but if you want to you can buy another Pandemic core set and you can throw everything away except for those  cubes, which you can use in your Pandemic games."

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by awp832

[Gaffa 673]

I also am not sure I buy the argument that most people just play out of the core box.   I think this is probably untrue,  but I don't know how to prove it one way or the other.

So you don't have any reason to think it's untrue, but you will anyway. Why? Because it supports your argument?

 

The only access we have to the marketing data from FFG is the stuff they share with us. So far, in their annual reports (usually delivered at GenCon, to the public), they have said their market research continues to show that the majority of their core set LCG releases are sold to people who never buy another expansion -- and they even tell FFG they don't even deckbuild. That's one reason why FFG actually includes sections on "Yes! You can build your own decks!" in the core set rules.

 

Now you could say that FFG is just lying to us in their yearly reports. Which then just moves the goalposts of you not believing what data we have because you just don't, to you just believing FFG is lying, again with no particular evidence.

 

Since in the past FFG's yearly reports have otherwise checked out to be true, and since that's the only data we have on the buying patterns of their customers that will probably be available to us for some time, I'm opting to go with FFG and say they're honestly reporting on their own internal sales surveys. If you have any other data, there's a lot of us who would love to see it. If you want to believe otherwise, that's fine, but what little data we have is currently going against you.

[Daft Blazer 291]

The world really needs another 'multiple core sets' discussion!!

Edited January 9, 2017 by Daft Blazer

[Eruantalon 17]

Glad I sparked the discussion (again). read a really interesting insight into structure of the sales. I used to assume almost all buyers are hard core fans like me. Maybe becouse it's whom we encounter on-line on a regular basis.

And today is Wednesday - time for the new post!

http://shuffle-oos.blogspot.com/2017/01/investigators-of-arkham.html

[awp832 447]

So, to be fair, I haven't played with the Dunwich Investigators but speculating;  doesn't it seem like the Dunwich investigators are going to be much more powerful than base game ones purely by virtue of deckbuilding restrictions?  It seems to me that the versatility of being able to take a small handful of cards from any class far outweighs the value of being able to take level 1+ cards from a single class  (and more of them too, of course, but still).  

Any Dunwich investigator can include powerful cards like Leo de Luca, Burglary, or Old Book of Lore, and obviously that's just getting started on the list.  That versatility seems really powerful.
 

[Eruantalon 17]

Hey awp832,

 

glad you read my blog. My answer to your question is:

 

Yes and no.

 

So far we haven't seen all the possible class combinations - there is 20 I guess (for each of 5 class one of 4 others for the subclass), nor have we seen all cards of level 1 and 2. So it's highly speculative at this point.

 

Still 2 things are to be considered:

1. 5 is quite a limited number of cards. As Roland I'd like to use 2x Magnifying Glass, 2xDeduction and maybe Dr. Milan and hyperawarness at least 1 each. It's already 6. Playing as Wendy I would add 2 copies of Leo, Sneak Attack, Backstab, Hard Knocks... what about Pickpocketing and Burglary? Hard to stop at 5, really.

2. Some of higher level cards come in very handy. Back to the Roland example - lvl 1 Magnifying glass is really powerful for him. So is level 2 Beat Cop for Skids.

 

In fact, some believe Dunwich investigators deckbuilding options are weaker, that's why they have higher combined sanity and stamina. In any scenario, the trade-off for versatility is quite a significant one.

 

If you don't mind, sparking a discussion under the posts in my blog would be nice, though I'm still happy it inspired you to share your thoughts in here ; )

[Ardulac 17]

So, to be fair, I haven't played with the Dunwich Investigators but speculating;  doesn't it seem like the Dunwich investigators are going to be much more powerful than base game ones purely by virtue of deckbuilding restrictions?

I think they will be comparable initially and drop off over the course of a campaign (especially in longer campaigns). Only choosing from leveled up cards from 1 class is a pretty big limitation with the current card pool.

[General Zodd 459]

 

So far we haven't seen all the possible class combinations - there is 20 I guess (for each of 5 class one of 4 others for the subclass), nor have we seen all cards of level 1 and 2. So it's highly speculative at this point.

 

Actually, I think you'll find (he says, adopting a poindexter accent and pushing his glasses up his nose) that it's actually only 10 combinations. Each time you calculate all the variations for a given class, that's one less to calculate on each other class as one combo has already been identified. Then one less again for the second, etc.

As a result, we already have half of those possible combinations accounted for, meaning that they were always going to have to get creative to keep making unique deck building options for all new investigators. The relative merits of which will probably only emerge after a lot of gaming. That obviously won't stop us all having our opinions, however!

[rsdockery 537]

There are ten combinations of two classes, but twenty permutations. In this case, the order actually matters, since you can't get higher-level cards in your secondary class. There's currently no way to combine, for instance, Will to Survive with Bind Monster.

[General Zodd 459]

There are ten combinations of two classes, but twenty permutations. In this case, the order actually matters, since you can't get higher-level cards in your secondary class. There's currently no way to combine, for instance, Will to Survive with Bind Monster.

Touché

Long day at work... excuses... etc...

[Gaffa 673]

You seem to be thinking that the "twenty permutations" will be some combination of two of the five classes, like we've seen in the base set. Already, the Dunwich gang breaks the rules (they're basically mono-color with a slight splash for character quirks), and Marie Lambeau is almost non-classed (Spells, not Mystic, is her preferred type of card, even though she's core Mystic).

 

So there's lots of possibility for things beyond just making stuff like Survivor/Guardians, etc.

[General Zodd 459]

You seem to be thinking that the "twenty permutations" will be some combination of two of the five classes, like we've seen in the base set. Already, the Dunwich gang breaks the rules (they're basically mono-color with a slight splash for character quirks), and Marie Lambeau is almost non-classed (Spells, not Mystic, is her preferred type of card, even though she's core Mystic).

 

So there's lots of possibility for things beyond just making stuff like Survivor/Guardians, etc.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you, Gaffa. We were discussing the limitations of just variations on the core set investigators to highlight why they need to get creative and do different things with th deck building rules.

Speaking of which, did I imagine it, or was there a preview of an investigator who's deckbuilding restrictions included traits on cards rather than just classes. Again, another really interesting twist, which we won't really be able to assess until we get to play it.

[Gaffa 673]

Speaking of which, did I imagine it, or was there a preview of an investigator who's deckbuilding restrictions included traits on cards rather than just classes. Again, another really interesting twist, which we won't really be able to assess until we get to play it.

That would be Marie, who is technically a Mystic, but her only 0-5 spread is for Spells, regardless of class.

[Limboduck 8]

Also Rex Murphy, who cannot take Fortune cards. https://arkhamdb.com/card/02002 

[Limboduck 8]

So, to be fair, I haven't played with the Dunwich Investigators but speculating;  doesn't it seem like the Dunwich investigators are going to be much more powerful than base game ones purely by virtue of deckbuilding restrictions?  It seems to me that the versatility of being able to take a small handful of cards from any class far outweighs the value of being able to take level 1+ cards from a single class  (and more of them too, of course, but still).  

 

I don't know - Agnes seems like a far more powerful Mystic, just based on her Horror ability. And Daisy can make a passable Mystic too, whereas Rex...  can only investigate. And Wendy gets access to a nice wide set of events, which is ideal for her. 

 

I kind of think that for soloing, the Dunwich investigators might be too specialised. As part of a pair/group, that's offset somewhat - but I think that ultimately they'll be less flexible, even with the wider choice of cards.

[awp832 447]

Rex isn't a Mystic, Rex is a Seeker... investigating is what he is supposed to do.  He can aslo evade better than Daisy.  Burglary looks really good on him, so does Scavenging.  He can always take Scrying too if he wants a bit of mythos help.

I agree some of the Dunwich team might be too specialized for soloing (except Jenny I think -maybe Pete too), but as part of a group they look like they are very strong, and will continue to get stronger as more cards come out.  

[Eruantalon 17]

First post about a certain investigator! Time for Roland!

http://shuffle-oos.blogspot.com/2017/01/roland-banks-fed.html