Dark Young said:
BloodHelmet said:
Cons of not allowing black bordered versions of currently legal cards:
Goes against the grain of every other CCG/TCG/Deckmaster game I'm aware of.
I just wanted to comment on this specific point made by Bloodhelmet as it has occured now in unquestionably the biggest CCG, Magic: The Gathering.
Their (Magic) most recent core set reprinted cards that they had previously but the new ones are EXACTLY the same as an old card but with a new title. Thus forcing their older players to purchase the new cards if they still want to use them in tournament play. So, that wouldn't suprise me.
Ex. Grizzly Bears now = Runeclaw Bears
That's true that they have reprinted some old cards (not just in the newest set) with different names, thereby rendering the older versions unplayable. Fortunately though, at least to my knowledge this has only happened with commons and infrequently uncommons. I can't really think of any non-vanilla rare that has been renamed in that way.
On the topic of Magic though, Wizards has a very strong stance about maintaining the aftermarket value of its cards. For instance, most, if not all, of Magic's high dollar rares are on the Reserve List (won't be reprinted) and when Magic sets reprint medium-dollar rares, they tend to include different flavor text, art work, etc. so that they don't flat-out replace the old version or render it useless.
As I think about it though, I'm not sure that Magic is the best analogy as its player base is so vast that even when old cards are reprinted, their value doesn't GENERALLY fluxuate too much (see Wrath of God, Pithing Needle) as the demand is met by the number of players who never owned the card in the first place.
Last, let me state that FFG certainly doesn't need to pattern itself after Wizards, but Wizards is a strong example. Further, you really don't need to cite a specific company when making the observation that "rewarding your longtime fans is good and punishing your longtime fans is bad." Well, at least I think you don't.