Week ago I was trading with my pal and he pointed out that he values x1 cards from chapter pack a little more than those x3. He said "something like rare".

Now two thougths:

1) Sometimes you don't remember which card was x3 in pack and you don't know if you want to trade for other card (quantity of which of course you also don't remember). Solution to this (as you don't have internet access all the time) would be a number or a little dot next to card's collector info. For example:

F1 34 and F3 25.

Or

F* 34 and F 25.

Or something different that allows you to tell quantity. This is no big problem, but if FFG could do it without big work, then it would be nice.

2) I'm so glad with "Princes of the sun" that I thought: wouldn't be great if chapter packs was all x2? You could split it with friends without problems and easily collect playset. What do you think guys? Would it be better/worse for players? Would it be better/worse for FFG? After all it shouldn't be rarity in LCG

Rogue30 said:

I would say that if you can't remember which cards are 1 per pack and which are 3 per pack, you don't really "value" the 1 per pack cards any more or any differently. If you did, your perception of value would identify them as "something like rare" without having to look up what the copy number was when you bought the box.

Ok so you remember all cards' quantity?

You know that this "F 34" is completely unimportant information? And it is still there. Why?

For example in SWCCG there was no R/U/C info on cards and still players knew very well which one is rare. But other games (like AGOT in past) have this info - it's just the small thing that makes your life easier.

So why to waste ink for printing "F" letter? We all know that all the cards now are fixed.

Rogue30 said:

All? No. But the ones that I place actual play value on I remember because I'm either glad of or mildly frustrated by the count. My point was that if you don't remember the copy count, then you probably aren't really valuing the 1x card more than the 3x cards based on the fact that they are 1x cards. I think playability and usability are better indicators of value than copy count. I mean, in the CCG days, there were "rares" that I placed absolutely no play value on and would have traded easily or just given away. And there were some commons and uncommons that were so good, I'd hardly trade them at all.

Rogue30 said:

To be quite honest, most people from the CCG were pretty well aware of what was R/U/C without the "ink." It could be argued that it was wasted then, too, rather than something there for collector's convenience. I don't know what FFG continues to print the "F" on the cards now that everything is fixed. Perhaps to maintain the overall numbering convention for people who collected in the CCG era and are still maintaining a "collection" (despite the difference in distribution).

ktom said:

That's true.

Funny story: Last month I bought "The battle of Ruby Ford" pack and I got by mistake "House Umber Berserkers" x2 and "Herald of the King" x2. As you know there is no official information about content of any FFG product.

As I said it is just a little, almost unimportant thing to make your life easier...

ktom said:

I think Rogue's idea is a good one; it wouldn't add any real clutter to the card and does provide information that is useful. And I would say that (a) I do value 1x more than 3x and (b) I would not be able to, just from my own recall, always remember if a card was 1x or 3x. The thing is, I may be building certain decks today and so am more familar with the relevant cards (and there quantity per pack) but not for others. But I wouldn't likely want to trade away a 1x, even if I've never once given it consideration for inclusion in a deck, because I don't want to handcuff myself for future decks. Another reason it would be useful is for running an evening using FFG's League rules where the quantity per pack impacts deck building. I may know my deck's cards, but if I see two copies of random card X played by my opponent, I may have little clue whether he was permitted to have that second copy.

Rogue30 said:

~That´s a lie. ;-) It took me forever and a hundred years to find out which cards from Premiere, A new hope, ...etc. are rare, uncommon and common. If you really managed it to tell very "playable" rare cards like Utinni!, Smugglers blues apart from good commons/uncommons, you still had the challenge to differ if the darkside or the lightside version of the space slug is a rare. ;-)

"But I wouldn't likely want to trade away a 1x, even if I've never once given it consideration for inclusion in a deck, because I don't want to handcuff myself for future decks."

But that's not intrinsic value placed on the card because of its copy number within the pack; it's value placed on the card because of how many you own.

For example, let's say that in the CCG days, I opened a whole bunch of packs and, for some fun quirk of random packaging, got 6 copies of a particular Rare (even a good one) and only 2 copies of a particular Uncommon. Following the "I don't want to handcuff myself for future decks" reasoning (something I whole-heartedly understand, BTW), I'd be far more willing to trade copies 4-6 of the rare than I would be willing to part with either of the 2 copies of the uncommon. So the value perceived and my willingness to trade has nothing to do with the "intrinsic rarity" of the cards; only with their relative rarity as far their availability to me.

Turn it around. Let's say that I have 6 copies of the Refugees of War CP (don't ask why...). I give them all to you. Now you have 9 copies of Gilly (the 3 you bought and the 6 I just gave you). Now that you have so many, are you still as hesitant to trade away a couple of copies of her from your excess? I'm guessing no. She's still a 1x card though, right? So what's changed? Again, I'd say the value isn't really coming from the card's availability in the purchased pack, but rather the availability in your personal card pool. It's not exactly the same thing (although the two are closely related).

Now don't get me wrong. I totally agree that a card's status as 1x or 3x in a Chapter Pack approximates "rarity" from a CCG and that it might be nice to indicate this on the cards in some way, just as rarity was. I get the impulse. All I'm trying to say is that there is nothing intrinsically more valuable about a 1x card than a 3x card. LGR demonstrates that it has more to do with availability in your card pool - cards we have an excess of are seen as less valuable. I just think that the "excess" is a subjective thing, related not only to how many playsets you have, but how likely you think you are to ever use the card. (Littlefinger's Meddling, anyone?)

If I only had 1 copy of the Rookeries, I'd think I had an excess of them. And if there were 3x of The Hand's Judgment in the pack, I'd still probably think I didn't have enough.

Old Ben said:

Believe me or not I learned every new list by heart (I started when New Hope came out).

ktom said:

But I don't need "weak" cards (x1 or x3 irrelevant).

Now, if I buy two "good" cards and one is x1 and the other x3, then seller knows about it and he wants greater price for the first one.

Rogue30 said:

~ But wasn't that the original point; that the seller may not remember which is 1x and which is 3x (i.e., may not "know about it") without looking it up? If the only reason the seller wants a greater price is because the card was a 1x, shouldn't he be able to remember that without prompting?

Seriously, though, what I have been arguing against is the original blanket statement that all 1x cards are "more valuable" than all 3x cards for no other reason than the copy number makes the "something like rare." Sure, with "all else being equal," in terms of card quality, playability and usability, I'm probably going to want (or be willing to pay) a premium for a 1x card because I am far less likely to have an excess of 1x cards over 3x available to me. But again, this is a function of availability within my personal card pool, not availability within the purchased pack (once I have 3 of each 1x card, I'm a lot less likely to pay the greater price).

I think you're wasting a lot of time an effort defending something that's a very simple fix. I certainly have not played enough lately, and there are plenty of LCG cards I probably wouldn't recognize. But a lack of any sort of official list is kind of irksome. And arguing the semantic value of quantity owned versus in quantity supplied when those are intrinisically linked seems pedantic. This is not some nuance of Moribund.

FFG has shown an ability to respond to feedback. If enough people feel that this is an issue, I don't see why you need to argue against it. They're just expressing their preference. I would find it helpful (I had Host of Karhold sorted as an uncommon, since I'd opened 4 of them, even though it was clearly labelled rare) to keep track of, not just for trading and sorting, but knowing what I need to buy/obtain more of. And as a corollary to this discussion, it is usu. tougher to get someone to trade a 1x. So I am likely to buy another... you would think that marketing would see this as an oppotunity to sell, by showing us contents/quantities.

Maester_LUke said:

~You know, FFG could make all chapter packs 2x each card rather than 1x and 3x, solving this problem.

I think some sort of indication would be useful, though it's not a huge issue. I actually think it's a little odd that every LCG card has an "F" for "fixed" when all cards are now fixed. (The "F" doesn't really explain/convey anything anymore.) The Core Set's lettering made sense to keep track of which neutral card was from which deck, but a "S" and "M" for single and multiple wouldn't be a bad thing.

By the way, I agree with the original author of this thread. Despite the relative frequency with which our local meta played before the Kingsmoot tourney, there are some (crappy) 1x cards that we never even really considered putting in our decks. For this reason, when I come across them, I'm never 100% sure whether they are 1x or 3x. And even though I do not value them highly, I would likely not trade them away, as it's possible at some later date they might become useful.

And what about second thought (x2 each card)?

No opinions? Or maybe you already discussed this in the past?

Well, I think the conclusion I reached (with dormouse's help, in the princes of the sun thread) regarding the card distribution of the neutral/unique cards applies here with the 2x idea as well...

Namely, that the distribution model is based on financial, not practical reasons. Essentially, it's probably more lucrative for FFG to distribute the cards like this.

Although, I have to say the model of distribution chosen for Princes of the Sun is phenomenally wonderful. Or just simply great. =)

Yes, FFG's goal is to make money, but it's the responsibility of the company to find a middleground between consumer satisfaction at the cost of profit or company profit at the cost of the consumer's satisfaction and goodwill. After all, without the support of the consumer, there's no one to buy FFG's products and thus no money to be made in the first place -- something particularly important in a field as niche as hobby games in these trying financial times, where many people find their entertainment budgets dwindling greatly.

Honestly, Kings of the Sea failed to find said middleground, with the results being an asking price of $30 for a mere single copy each of a fairly small card selection and a resin house card that not everyone wanted, made even worse if you were trying to get a full play set (total cost: $90). Beyond any loss of consumer good will, many of us want to buy FFG's products but could be rendered UNABLE TO due to the financial climate, when prices are as high as that of Kings of the Sea.

On the other hand, note the announcement of Princes of the Sun. Clearly, FFG learned from their mistakes, to the degree where two friends can even go in on three copies of the set for $75 total and have enough cards for a full playset for BOTH of them. Proof that a happy medium can be found when the attempt is made. Hopefully pricing will remain a major point of consideration from FFG's end for future releases, including any potential reprints or rereleases.

But don't forget that chapter pack is somehwat different. Some players buy only 1 CP and they might be happy that they got some x3 and some x1 (mostly unique cards anyway).

So the question is: if x2 would be a definitely good thing for everyone? Maybe x1/x3 is good compromise? Maybe solution is to ask FFG to better handle which cards are x3? I'm not sure, that's why I wanted to know what you all think.

Personally, I'd rather they do $20 3 of every card chapter packs and $40 3 of every card "expansions" like Kings of the Sea / Princes of the Sun, but I know not everyone is the "get 3 of every card type" like me.

Amante's idea of 3x chapter packs is quite good, and would definately be worth the higher price tag. Also I'd say that the 2x idea is solid, and would be better than the current distribution model (cheaper for players buying several chapter packs, but still shouldn't harm people that buy only one copy of each chapter pack).

Still, I think the 1x/3x model isn't that bad, just needs better handling of the 1x/3x choices. (ie. non-uniques and neutrals should be the cards that are 3x)

Now why should FFG do it? By all apparent feedback that would decrease the number of Chapter Packs an individual is buying more often than not. Even the higher price point would end up with them making less money per player (based again on what people have said so far).

The price point for a Chapter Pack is pretty low. Those people who cannot afford to pay $10 once a month on a game are actually in a better position to recieve some cards x3 rather every card x2. Those who can afford to buy 2-3 chapter packs a month are in a position where they end up with many extra cards some of which are important staples (though not necessarily the most powerful card, or even staples for houses they play). So wht do you do with those staples? I personally give them away to entice new players. "Oh you just bought the core set? What is your favorite House? Oh here have a couple cards from an older CP that you might not be able to find. See how nice we are? We are much more friendly and caring than the players of those other games you play, stick around and put your money into this product instead."

The point I'm trying to make is that if changing the distribution model of a product leads to both a happier player and more product moved it is a win/win decision for FFG. If they end up selling less product but have some players happier, that is not a win/win, that is a win/lose. The next thing to consider then is how much of a monetary impact is taken? Sometimes a brief dip in sales is justifiable if it increases the brand recognition, customer loyalty, and/or increases sales in the long term. So can we come up with a credible argument how changing the distribution away from the 10 x1 - 10 x3 model is a good thing from FFG's perspective? And why are we only looking at 20 x2, or a modification of which cards are x1/x3? I'd like to hear some discussion about 40 x1. I mean 40 new cards per chapter pack would increase the over all number of cards avbailable to us per cycle and further explore the themes and mechanics the Houses have giving them greater depth/breadth thn they currently have, and making it possible to not have to run every power card x3 but maybe several cards that fulfill similar purposes x2. Those people who have the disposable income could buy x3 or more, have not just a playset but some extras if they chose t maintain multiple decks. Those who play only a single house could easily go in with their meta-mates and end up with playsets of more cards, all encouraging the purchase of more chapter packs. Those who can only afford to buy one Chapter Pack a month would get a greater variety of cards for their single purchase, spuring more interesting and varied decks, and lastly for FFG it should probably eliminate entirely the people who skip some Chapter Packs completely because their is nothing good for their House.

~ Well, since it's "pedantic" to discuss copy number as the primary indicator of value, I'll give you a break LUke.

I find the 2x vs 1x/3x discussion interesting. As discussed at the very beginning, it is the 1x/3x distribution model that creates certain cards that are "something like rare." And to me, the "something like rare" status of half the cards is the last hold-over to the CCG model. So all the support for the 2x distribution model tells me just how completely the LCG model has been embraced - and is even becoming preferred - to the old CCG model.

That said, I have no problems going over to the 2x model. I will say, though, that the game ceases to be a Living Card Game and becomes a Customizable Card Game in my eyes. It has always stunned me that people are so dedicated to customizing the 4 Core Set decks "equally" so that they are "balanced" at all times. In my opinion, they aren't balanced out of the box! And part of the idea of a "living" card game to me is that the balance, relative strengths, emphases on House personalities and mechanics, etc. are always evolving. The 1x/3x model feeds that because (assuming I don't want to buy 18 of each Chapter Pack - 3 for each House on 1x neutrals and uniques) you'll have to make decisions about who best exploits or benefits from the use of certain cards that simple numbers stop everyone from using. (Plus, you know, there were times in the CCG when certain neutrals, events and plots were so good in any House that every player used them and there wasn't much House flavor at all.)

Anyway, to me, the relative scarcity creates some of the "living" tension in the card pool and metagame. If you go to a distribution model where there is no relative scarcity (meaning every fixed pack has the same number of each card, whether that copy number is 1, 2 or 3), constructing your deck becomes like customizing in certain other miniature and card games. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it will change the way the game is approached and played.

You are right of course. I do think the "living" aspect of it is still maintained albeit on a different level, that of each Chapter PAck and each cycle has it's own focus and some Houses will get cards that give them more versatility while others will get cards that strengthen an established theme, but either way the cards being put out even in the same numbers will affect the card pool and the decks being built in an ebb and flow manner.

That said, I am just fine with the 1/3 model.

ktom said:

You are right that the CS are imbalanced right out of the box. But i think there are two different approaches about the idea of balancing decks.

1. You are a player that wants at least one deck for every house. And you would like to have a at least halfway competive deck for every house. Some players use the word competive and balanced alike, in the broader sense of every deck fulfills at least some minimum requirements (e.g. some sort of charachter/location control, card draw...) and thus is balanced/competive for gameplay.

2. You "only" want at least the 4 CS decks halfway balanceds, so that every player got about the same chances to win the game with every house available. I guess that´s very important especially for the typical board gamers and we know that this group should be adressed by the LCG concept. One reasons could be that the card game is used like a board game, that means not every player has his/her own deck, but plays with cards from the same card pool. If the decks are apparently imbalanced playing will become uninteresting after a game or two. Just imagine you would play diplomacy with 5 people and the players which gain Russia and Germany will loose 90 % of all the games and the players which gain Italy and France will win about 80% of all the games. That would be boring and i bet you wouldn´t play the game too often. So it´s good for board gamers if they could have at least halfway balanced decks, which doesn´t imply that one or two houses couldn´t have a small advantage till the next cp releases. But the overall feeling should be "you can win with every house if you are playing smart". This statement was never true for any CCG model on the market.

A 2x or 3x model doesn't seem counterproductive to a "Living Card Game" environment for a few reasons.

ktom made the point in a way . . . probably from a different perspective than mine, but here goes: even at 3x of every card, you won't have enough to play every house at full strength simultaneously (unless you buy six 3x packs, I suppose, in which case you're a bit bonkers, and you still would be unable to make multiple decks per house). There will always be a number of cards that are useful for any house (neutral or otherwise), and so unless you get ridiculous amounts of cards (and spend ridiculous amounts of money doing so), you'll never be able to do everything at once. This fits the LCG model just fine to me . . . even were chapter packs (or expansions) to start coming with 3x of every card, this dynamic wouldn't change.

It stands to mention that both CCGs (and obviously LCGs in particular) are different things to different people. Some people want a full playset of every card, some people don't. Some people play for competition or to win, some just for fun . . . some a combination of the two.

Personally, I got over rarity in CCGs a long time ago. A card being rare holds no more intrinsic value to me, and something's only rare until you get it anyway. If anything, a rarity scheme probably means I'll end up having to spend more if I want a full selection of cards to work with (and if it's a card game I enjoy, that's what I aim for). Generally, my enjoyment stems from deck building, having options and potential customization, and the interplay in action of different factions and the different styles of the individual players running them. I could care less if this or that card is "rare" or not, my goal is to get all the cards with as little trouble (and money spent) as possible, because THEN things unfold for me and I can relax and enjoy the game more.

That's just for me, though. It can differ for other people, obviously.

From a fiscal standpoint, I understand why the chapter pack model is at 1/3x as it is, and making the ONLY option being 3x packs for $20 would lose them some money from people who would normally just buy one pack and would reconsider that at a $20 price point. I think the best thing for everyone, generally, is options. My vote would be toward something like the $10 chapter packs there are now (either with the current 1/3x distribution of cards, or a flat 2x distribution), and then an option of a $15-20 pack that has 3x of every card, for the people like me.

As far as expansions go, a 3x option for around $30-35 would be cool but isn't necessary if FFG sticks to the upcoming Princes of the Sun model, where it's 2x of every card for $25. I hope that model hangs around for future expansion releases, as it seems as close to ideal as you can get. I really like the idea of two friends being able to put in around $37 each to get enough cards to make full 3x playsets for both of them.

Amante said:

On the other hand, note the announcement of Princes of the Sun. Clearly, FFG learned from their mistakes, to the degree where two friends can even go in on three copies of the set for $75 total and have enough cards for a full playset for BOTH of them. Proof that a happy medium can be found when the attempt is made. Hopefully pricing will remain a major point of consideration from FFG's end for future releases, including any potential reprints or rereleases.

I was also happy to see the reforms made in the announcement to Princes of the Sun.

Regarding x1/x3 notation on the cards, I would find it helpful. It's not necessary, but I'd appreciate having a symbol or something indicating the x1/x3 rarity of the card.

I find the idea of 'relative scarcity' as a way of keeping the game a truly living one quite interesting, gotta think on that a bit more... Still I think it should be natural, not forced - you shouldn't force people to get 3x copies of a card that they'll never need in such amounts, just to retain the relative scarcity, it should come naturally. Here I think there's two things that need to be taken into account, usability and need for consistency.

On actually re-looking at the lists of cards for KLE, I think there aren't that many badly handled choices, only one or two spring to mind on a quick glance. So I'll discuss one of those, for the sake of argument.

3x Tunnels of the Red Keep (3 gold, unique location relying on having cards in shadows VS. 1x Fistful of Coppers (2 gold card to fuel the Lannister need of keeping cards in shadows).

Tunnels of the Red Keep is an archetypical bad choice of a 3x card in my mind. A high cost unique location, that requires the deck to be built in a certain way, and if you buy several copies of the chapter pack it's just waste of cardboard - since it's not a component that you can easily squeeze into most decks (at least in several copies), there's plenty of better locations lanni has for that. Fistful of coppers on the other hand is a card you might want to have 2x or 3x of whenever you use it, for the sake of consistently having a card that you can keep in shadows to power Cersei, Tunnels of the Red Keep etc.

I think straying further away from doing 3x of high-cost unique characters (Stormcrows, anyone?) and locations would be a good way of keeping the relative scarcity natural instead of artificial. Actually, there's one more option for the card distribution, in case the expansions don't naturally fit into the 1x/3x scheme - having 20 cards of 1x and 10 cards of 2x in a chapter pack. Not sure if this would work though.

And as a last comment:

~ If we start getting all the reprints people were pining for in the expansion thread, should the game be called a Reanimated Card Game instead?