Dash and Freeholders was released in the beginning 2014, meaning they were developed in 2013. So unless you think that I meant Destiny has been in development for over 3 years, which no sane person would conclude, then wouldn't that be something that occurred prior to Destiny stealing resources from the SWLCG as you allege? Even if you assume Destiny started development in early 2015 that would mean everything up to and possibly including Imperial Entanglements would have been developed prior to Destiny syphoning off resources. All of those restrictions and errata would be confined to sets created pre-Destiny.
So even excluding where all of that falls, you will not find a serious player of the SWLCG that will assert that the game is not in a better place now then at any prior point. Even with the need to restrict and errata, which pretty much most products of FFGs require at some point. The game is better balanced then it ever has been, more sets and affiliations are seeing play, and overall releases have been timely and interesting. The games only issue is lack of players which was caused by the delays and poor quality of the Core Set, Edge of Darkness, and Hoth Cycles. All of which were completely unbalanced or outright boring and unuseable. All of those things were developed at a point in time when only X-wing, RPGs, and the LCG existed for FFG Star Wars products. Essentially the point in time where the LCG had the least competition from other Star Wars products was it's absolute weakest from a stand point of development and production. And that weakness has likely crippled the game overall. Destiny wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye when they made the Scum sets in EoD, which might as well be thrown out for the most part.
I find it really odd that you are going to act as if the SWLCG and Destiny occupy the same market space, despite distribution differences and a clear gap in complexity even with what limited info we have, while acting as if FFGs Star Wars miniature lines aren't in competition with each other. Have you ever played any of the dice card games out there already, none of them play like any of the LCGs.
No gaming company has tried to have both a collectible model pseudo-card game and non-collectible with the same IP, but I can show you a company that has been able to sucessfully produce 3 miniatures games with the same IP by differentiating them just enough as to not completely canabalize each other. All of them are top sellers too.
But you bringing up AGOT really highlights how just off you are on the the topic. FFG never ran or intended to have both a AGOT CCG and and an AGOT LCG. The LCG concept was introduced as a way to save the CCG which was failing. It wasn't a question of whether they could support both concepts at the sametime, they couldn't continue to make the CCG regardless of what else they decide to do.
Edited by ScottieATF