100 replies to this topic

[Tragic]

I noticed the Duniwich Horror box says "arm them with fifty-nine new player cards (including a complete playset of each)".

 

Dose anyone know if there is a full set in the Core Set or is FFG going to screw us into buying 2 or more copies again?

[ErsatzNihilist]

You need two core sets, and you're not being screwed.

[DarthMonkey]

Maybe one day people will understand why FFG make their core LCG sets the way they do and we can top getting these threads about how many sets, we're being screwed, etc etc.

 

Core sets are introductions to the game. Designed to give new players, off the street with no LCG experience, the chance to get into a game. if they want to take it further, they can buy more. If not, they stick with what they have.

 

I would rather get an affordable starter set, to give me a chance to try the game out, than pay more on the chance I like the game enough to keep playing. Consider how much you'll spend on an LCG that you 'get into', the second core set is nothing.

[mnBroncos]

Maybe one day people will understand why FFG make their core LCG sets the way they do and we can top getting these threads about how many sets, we're being screwed, etc etc.

 

Core sets are introductions to the game. Designed to give new players, off the street with no LCG experience, the chance to get into a game. if they want to take it further, they can buy more. If not, they stick with what they have.

 

I would rather get an affordable starter set, to give me a chance to try the game out, than pay more on the chance I like the game enough to keep playing. Consider how much you'll spend on an LCG that you 'get into', the second core set is nothing.

 

agree thousand times, i do get annoyed that this gets asked for every new lcg. What should ffg do have core sets that have half the number of cards at full playsets, charge double prize for core set, or do what they do. to me what they do is the best way to do it. 

[Tragic]

You guys have to stop drinking the cool aid. 

[Toqtamish]

[theamazingmrg]

You guys have to stop drinking the cool aid.

Ashes has a complete playset in one core and people complain that deckbuilding variety is lacking (only 4 'factions')

FFG release cheaper core sets that have a wider range of factions, but the downside is that, to do that, you need multiple cores for a complete playset.

It's not drinking the Kool Aid, it's just a different design and business strategy. Both have their pros and cons, and there's no doubt that FFG have improved their offerings.

Seeing the same complaints again and again is definitely tiresome.

[theamazingmrg]

EDIT: Double post.

[Ironswimsuit]

Tragic,  you of all people should know that FFG only releases LCGs that need multiple core sets.  Keep griping and FFG will make sure all your monthly packs are formatted like Thrones, Cthulhu and Invasion of old!

[jalf]

You guys have to stop drinking the cool aid. 

How many cards are in a core set?

How much do you pay per card?

 

Is that bad value for your money?

 

Those are the relevant questions if you want to accuse FFG of "screwing us".

 

Ashes (which only requires 1 core set) and Conquest (which requires 3) both have about the same number cards in a single core set box (around 250). The Ashes core set costs a bit more, but I think you'd find it difficult to argue that one of the two is significantly better value than the other. If FFG "screws us" with the amount of stuff they put in a core set, then Plaid Hat does the same with Ashes, because you get roughly as much stuff for roughly the same price.

 

The real difference is simply that Ashes shipped *as a smaller game*, with fewer different cards, in exchange for having more copies of each.

That's perfectly valid, but it hardly makes the alternative a ripoff. And preferring a larger base game is hardly "drinking the koolaid".

 

if they followed the Plaid Hat approach of requiring only 1 core set, then the base game would be smaller, which means that to get the same amount of content, you'd have to buy more expansions instead of the second core set. You'd end up spending just as much.

[Ironswimsuit]

Those questions aren't really as relevant as you think.  Yeah, it's good to know how many cards you're getting for your money, but there's a question of wasted cards that needs answering. There's not really a need for additional encounter cards. To get a full play set of LotR, a player needed to buy 3 cores. The third core had maybe a dozen cards required to complete the play set with about 200 being unneeded(though some were convenient for multiple decks).  The encounter decks made up around 40% of total included cards.  The original CoC LCG wasn't much of a core set, so buying two or three copies was necessary to really play the game. Netrunner had some waste issues, too.  FFG has gotten better about balancing a legitimate play experience with a reasonable card pool over the years, but those of us who've been around LCGs for a while know.   I haven't played Ashes, so I don't know how comparable it is to the general LCG model.  Upper Deck's Vs System and the now defunct AEG Doomtown may be better comparisons.

[MightyToenail]

I noticed the Duniwich Horror box says "arm them with fifty-nine new player cards (including a complete playset of each)".

 

Dose anyone know if there is a full set in the Core Set or is FFG going to screw us into buying 2 or more copies again?

You are being screwed.

[MightyToenail]

Ashes has a complete playset in one core and people complain that deckbuilding variety is lacking (only 4 'factions')

FFG release cheaper core sets that have a wider range of factions, but the downside is that, to do that, you need multiple cores for a complete playset.

It's not drinking the Kool Aid, it's just a different design and business strategy. Both have their pros and cons, and there's no doubt that FFG have improved their offerings.

Seeing the same complaints again and again is definitely tiresome.

Deckbuilding is lacking because of the sloooooowwwwww release schedule, not the core. If it had taken less than half a year to get out the first packs, this problem wouldnt be happening.

[theamazingmrg]

Deckbuilding is lacking because of the sloooooowwwwww release schedule, not the core. If it had taken less than half a year to get out the first packs, this problem wouldnt be happening.

That's a discussion for elsewhere. I only mentioned it because it's the perfect example of the "full" core set that people insist is better than FFGS and the limitations that such a set brings.

Admittedly, Ashes mostly gets away with it because of the 30 card decks and the lack of explicit 'faction' (I.E. Dice types) restrictions.

Looking at previous FFG offerings, Arkham Horror will be cheaper than Ashes and have a huge portion of the cards will be tied up in non-player cards. A core with a full playset would either be expensive, or contain very few cards. FFGs model makes perfect sense in that context.

[phillosmaster]

This again.  There is like 20 threads on BGG about this so I guess it's about time the argument has migrated over to here.  I wonder why do the complainers keep playing these games if they hate this practice so much?  Yeah it's not the ideal solution for the consumer, but it is a minor hurdle to jump over in the beginning of an LCG's life and a drop in the bucket when you consider how many packs you'll be buying over the life of the game.  I believe they want a target size for their card pool and they want a target price for an entry point for people who just want to try the game or play it as a boxed game (and not buy into all the expansions).  My guess is this price point doesn't cover the cost of producing the game so they build in the price of the second core to cover the start up costs for the art, design etc... 

 

For anyone who doesn't know they only do this with the core.  Everything after the core historically has supported a full playset.  Also there is nothing stopping you from just buying one core if you only plan on playing two players max.  You'll have everything you need to play the game, and this game isn't competitive so you can always just proxy dupes of must have cards.  So if you are on a budget it's not the end of the world.

 

That all said they've gotten better about reducing wasted cards in the cores for their newer LCGs.  Conquest for example had very little waste in it even at the third core so that was nice.  This is going to be impossible for this game.  You'll want all the player cards from the second core and the non-card components are needed for a 3+ player game.  I guess you could even use the redundant investigator cards to play doppelganger games with dupes of the investigators (I don't see how that would break the game) so that's not so bad.  Though the scenario cards are always going to be redundant as they were in LOTR.  Though I did find a use for some of my LOTR encounter cards from my second set in that I prebuilt both the regular and nightmare version of the first quest to test deck builds.  So I always have a quest all constructed to playtest with, which is nice.   Not sure if there is an option like that in this game, but you can always use those extra cards is as proxy backs. 

 

I do play Ashes by the way and even with that game buying a second box is not unreasonable considering they don't give you enough dice to cover overlaps if using one collection and constructed decks with the same collection will cause some issues because there are cards that are definitely better than others.  Though Ashes does suggest drafting for cards if doing multiplayer deck building in that game which was smart.

[jalf]

Those questions aren't really as relevant as you think.  Yeah, it's good to know how many cards you're getting for your money, but there's a question of wasted cards that needs answering. There's not really a need for additional encounter cards. To get a full play set of LotR, a player needed to buy 3 cores. The third core had maybe a dozen cards required to complete the play set with about 200 being unneeded(though some were convenient for multiple decks).  The encounter decks made up around 40% of total included cards.  The original CoC LCG wasn't much of a core set, so buying two or three copies was necessary to really play the game. Netrunner had some waste issues, too.  FFG has gotten better about balancing a legitimate play experience with a reasonable card pool over the years, but those of us who've been around LCGs for a while know.   I haven't played Ashes, so I don't know how comparable it is to the general LCG model.  Upper Deck's Vs System and the now defunct AEG Doomtown may be better comparisons.

That's true, but with recent LCG's, the amount of "wasted" cards has been pretty low.

[Friman]

I bought 3 copies of LOTR because I wanted 3 Unexpected Courage, 3 Celebrían's Stone. Those cards were included just once, while Power in the earth was x3. If they included Power in the earth at x1, and Unexpected Courage at x3, I'd never bought any additional core sets at all, plus that would make seem the core deckbuilbing more faithful to the real deck anyone would build. It is not a problem about the amount of cards they can afford to include, but about the distribution of said cards. Same with Netrunner, including just 1 Desperado, while lots of crappy cards were at x3.
I found the distribution of Conquest (just x1 and a few x2 of every card) a big, nice improvement over LOTR and Netrunner.
So I guess yeah, FFG know what they're doing, cause they kind of forced you to get additional cores if you wanted the best cards at x3 (it was not a completionist thing) but I won't complain a lot because 1, they have improved a bit, and 2, I find their card games awesome, so there's that: they're worth every penny you spend on them IMO.

[phillosmaster]

In fairness since LOTR is a co-op game you could just proxy that last Unexpected Courage and Celebrian's Stone.  LOTR was co-op with very little OP support. 

 

LOTR was the worst offender for this practice.  That last core was purchased for just a handful of cards of which probably only the two Friman mentioned were really worth it.  Netrunner's card distribution was also really annoying though each faction in that game did have a perfectly playable prebuilt deck in that core, which was nice.  AGOT 2.0 and Conquest were much much better about offering value for each core set you purchased.  I didn't feel like I was wasting my money picking up three cores for those games and I've gotten so much use out of them that it didn't feel like a rip off.  Still cheaper than building as many competitive constructed decks for a CCG or paying for draft packs for every tournament in which I choose to participate.

 

I agree they absolutely do it on purpose to sell more core sets to the die hard players/collectors ,but (as I said above) I think that is factored into the price of the core set to make it a more affordable entry point.  Also I'm willing to forgive this practice since yeah the games are really good. 

[Libor]

There´s no problem with more coresets in other games - with my son we have 6 core sets of AGoT. But I surely won´t buy second core of Arkham (I didn´t with LotR too), because in these cooperative games there ARE a lot of wasted cards - scenarios, heroes, their unique attachments and so on. I will just proxy few cards I will need and replace them later with cards of expansions. There´s no point in buying something like full core set for only Steward of Gondor, Feint, Test of Will and Unexpected Courage (and sometimes Celebrian Stone) - if I shall use Lord of the Rings examples. I believe that I never needed another card of the missing ones after maybe a year. I understand that some people don´t like proxies but in this case I find them necessary and "fair". 

[honorsadam]

My input on this is that yes, requiring us to buy additional cores is gouging the player base.

 

It honestly doesn't matter if the value/$ is good for the 2nd or 3rd cores, it is a matter that as the publisher they could release a "Deck Builder Companion" that only has the cards needed to make full playsets of each card name. The fact that we are paying for wasted content is the insult, when they could very well just make a modified product to sell to the market of players who first purchased the core set to try it and now want to experiment with adjusting the deck around with cards they understand.