75 replies to this topic

[PBrennan]

I occasionally hear gamers say "I wish they'd slow down" the releases of an LCG, so that they can explore other decks before the game moves on. If there has to be a bit of time before the next release for whatever reason, I guess now's a really good time to do so given how balanced the game seems to be and how many different warlords seem worth exploring.

[Ragnarok357]

As others have noted, I wouldn't read too much into the fact that we don't have more spoilers or announcements yet.

FFG has recently made some adjustments to the tempo of announcements and released spoilers, seemingly across all if the LCGs, in response to criticism regarding how those items have been handled lately (essentially driven by the Star Wars LCG community, where concerns over community retention were legit when we didn't receive cards for 6-8 month gaps, two years running).

We're also talking just a single faction box, in effect, so what else is there to spoil? I'm expecting the next big deal will be the announcement of the next cycle, which will probably occur at or around GenCon (late July), unless the 'Nids look like they'll be on a much later or earlier boat than expected.

[TimeZero]

You're cherrypicking a game that is already deep into its lifecycle, compared with a new LCG like Conquest. The release schedule is always the most volatile for these LCGs in their first year or so. There was a very significant break in the LotR release schedule early on, during or after its second cycle (I unfortunately can't find anything online that lists when everything for that game was released). There was nearly a year gap between the first and second cycles of Star Wars packs, during which time two expansions were released.

 

And maybe that's what's happening here. They don't want to leave the Necron and the Tyranids out of the war packs for too long, so they'll push out both their boxes before doing more packs. Or maybe there's just a delay somewhere in the design or production or shipping process. Or maybe they're just a bit behind on communicating what's happening. That happens (see: everyone who had to sit around waiting to hear what they planned to do with AGOT).

 

I don't think anyone is denying that it's unfortunate we haven't heard anything about the next cycle or anything more about The Great Devourer. We're just not attributing it to the game's imminent demise. Because that's not what it is: it's Conquest's growing pains.

 

There are no "new LCG" like Conquest since Conquest is the newest one. I was asked to deliver a consistent release schedule and that's what I did. Being a new or old LCG doesn't matter. All LCG have the same structure: cycle of 6 packs with Deluxe Expension and it didn't change since Lord of the Rings since it's the oldest one and that's why I picked it.

[Kingsley]

There are no "new LCG" like Conquest since Conquest is the newest one. I was asked to deliver a consistent release schedule and that's what I did. Being a new or old LCG doesn't matter. All LCG have the same structure: cycle of 6 packs with Deluxe Expension and it didn't change since Lord of the Rings since it's the oldest one. 

 

I believe alpha5099's post is that comparing the LotR release schedule far into its lifecycle is not a good way to judge the Conquest release schedule early in its lifecycle, and that it would be a more apt comparison to look at the release schedule of other LCGs soon after their release, when they were themselves new.

[TimeZero]

Like I said, it doesn't matter being old or new. They have the same structure. It would be another story if Conquest wouldn't follow the 6 packs per cycle followed by a Deluxe Expension, but it does.

[Kingsley]

Like I said, it doesn't matter being old or new. They have the same structure. It would be another story if Conquest wouldn't follow the 6 packs per cycle followed by a Deluxe Expension, but it does.

 

Despite these games having the same structure, there seems to be a pattern of more disruptions to the schedule early in the game's lifecycle. For instance, IIRC Netrunner took six months after the core set was out to release the first pack of the Genesis cycle and there was a two-month delay between the fifth and sixth pack in the cycle, followed by another two-month delay between the first big box and the first pack of the next cycle.

 

These kinks have now been ironed out, and releases come around once a month, but the period in which a game is new seems to have much more inconsistency in the release schedule. (This holds true for both LCGs and non-LCGs - Wave One of Star Wars: Armada was supposed to be out at release but has yet to appear.)

[Wessex]

I mean, let's not forget that the port problems could mean a ton of stuff sitting in a boat, and they don't want to announce anything because they don't know when it will get out of port.

[Leventa]

Being a new or old LCG doesn't matter.

 

It really does matter. A lot actually.

[taijibear]

Like I said, it doesn't matter being old or new. They have the same structure.

They really really don't.

LotR, which was the card game you chose, not only has the 6-pack cycles interspersed with big box expansions, but also 2 different saga side-stories, as well as a constant "upgrade" work of Nightmare packs. In the list of announcements you quoted pages back 8 of the 18 related to the Saga expansions, which not only has no equivalent in Konquest, but not in any of the other LCGs either. Additionally LotR is a game with much less player-created content, as it has no tournament scene, and therefore a far less avid base for deck construction discussion and meta analysis. As such it necessitates a greater effort by FFG to keep players engaged.

I think at this point it's clear that you aren't asking the community whether we think the game is dying, but rather attempting to prove it is. Why not just enjoy playing the game as we have it, and interpret future announcements as they come, rather than trying to read something (undesirable) into the cadence of them?

[Killax]

Additionally this LCG is based on a popular miniature game that allready has it's own following and isn't as influential as the populairity of certain series or even movies (altough Star Wars obviously is beyond that) such as Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones.

 

For sure the following of Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones has grown but since the series/movies are out all merchandise comes from everywhere and is more bound to the continuation of the series/movied.

 

In that sence Warhammer Conquest is more like Netrunner, it had it's own fan-base but FFG was allowed to create something different and arguably better. Because of this however the fan base isn't as fluctuating as say Lord or the Rings and Game of Thrones granted these will be picked up initially much more by players who are "newer" to the boardgame scene because of the populairity.

 

But again there is no need to worry about being plugged fast. Wowtcg also had a nice and long run before they eventually decided to do it. So unless something horribly goes wrong between (the contract) GW and FFG we will see more and more cycles. Again the game just started but allready turned out to be one of the best LCGs created (imho). Stopping now would only be very foolish. In special when FFG will decide to release "smart buys" such as Tyranids Deluxe set or Necrons Deluxe set who will allow new players to grab a single Core, a Deluxe set and head onto tournaments.

[Scottie]

Conquest's release schedule is proving no different then that of it's two recent predecessors in regards to thier initial offerings.

Both Netrunner and Star Wars saw significant delays between Core and Cycle, or Cycle and Deluxe, and/or Deluxe and Cycle Two.

I think you are overreacting and making untenable comparisons in order to validate your overreactions.

You compare the WoW TCG to Conquest despite the fact that they were made by different companies (with different agendas behind the games), follow a different business/release model, and you also compare one at it's onset to the other after a long run. You also compare to LotR to Conquest, and though they are both made by FFG LotR differs in release structure to all the other LCGS (as it is a single player game) and again is years into it's production not months like Conquest.

You choose not to delve in to the two more recent lines from FFG, the above mentioned Netrunner and SWLCG. I can only assume because they both invalidate your stance.

You are jumping at shadows.

[Scottie]

And this is really a coming of age moment for the Conquest LCG. You aren't truly one of Fantasy Flights Living Card Games until someone claims the game is dying because of FFGs wonky release schedule.

[TimeZero]

And this is really a coming of age moment for the Conquest LCG. You aren't truly one of Fantasy Flights Living Card Games until someone claims the game is dying because of FFGs wonky release schedule.

 

Again, another exemple of something i'm not even saying. I'm not talking about the release schedule, i'm talking about the announcement schedule.

[Kaic]

Again, another exemple of something i'm not even saying. I'm not talking about the release schedule, i'm talking about the announcement schedule.

 

Ok, take that post and replace the world release with the word announcement.  The statement is still true.

 

 

And this is really a coming of age moment for the Conquest LCG. You aren't truly one of Fantasy Flights Living Card Games until someone claims the game is dying because of FFGs wonky announcement schedule.

 

(bolded part changed by me)

[TimeZero]

Despite these games having the same structure, there seems to be a pattern of more disruptions to the schedule early in the game's lifecycle. For instance, IIRC Netrunner took six months after the core set was out to release the first pack of the Genesis cycle and there was a two-month delay between the fifth and sixth pack in the cycle, followed by another two-month delay between the first big box and the first pack of the next cycle.

 

These kinks have now been ironed out, and releases come around once a month, but the period in which a game is new seems to have much more inconsistency in the release schedule. (This holds true for both LCGs and non-LCGs - Wave One of Star Wars: Armada was supposed to be out at release but has yet to appear.)

 

In your exemples, every products delayed were already announced. This is what i'm talking about: the announcement schedule.

[Kaic]

There's nothing to worry about, LCG's have had bigger announcement gaps than Conquest currently does.  FFG are not going to drop this game is less than a year.

[Kingsley]

In your exemples, every products delayed were already announced. This is what i'm talking about: the announcement schedule.

 

That's not the case. In Netrunner, the Genesis cycle wasn't announced for 3 months after release and it took another 3 months for the first pack to actually come out.

[Scottie]

Truly a coming of age moment.

[taider54]

Guys, this is not a thread of facts. We are hear to rage and vent our frustrations so stop with the rational thoughts and opinions. I for one welcome our new paranoid and oversensitive overlords!

[Craken]

The sky is falling!