So, the LCG model removed the need for blindly buying booster packs in the hopes of chasing the cards you wanted.

Mid-way through Warhammer Invasion, they improved the booster decks by putting 3 of every card in a set and no longer having 1 of any card (saving countless extra purchases of booster decks.)

Unfortunately, the Core Set was already established and never got an update to help new players only have to buy 1.

But what doesn't make any sense is that for all future Core Sets, FFG continues to require people to buy 3 to have full deckbuilding options.

Can L5R finally be the set that introduces a common sense Core Set? I'd also be happy with a compromise that lets people only have to buy 2 sets. But that 3rd set, with all the useless extra cards and tokens is really frustrating on the wallet.

And if this isn't possible, can we at least be offered a "Core Set Complete" booster deck? Have it include the 3rd copy of any cards that they only give you 2 of and the 2nd and 3rd copy of any cards they only give you 1 of.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT:
To be clear, the reason Core sets exist in their current form is to lure people in to the game making it financially feasible to continue producing the game.

I wish. That's the main reason why I have trouble getting into new LCGs. But FFG continues their idiocy.

Oh good it is this thread again. How I didn't miss it.

The core sets are made to create maximum variety and a good out of box game for those that only buy one core set etc. This is and always has been the way.

Also you do not need three for every LCG. Star Wars and Arkham both "require" two. Netrunner it is pretty easy to go with two since you only get a third for a very few cards.

Also you do not need three for every LCG. Star Wars and Arkham both "require" two. Netrunner it is pretty easy to go with two since you only get a third for a very few cards.

Plus with the new Championship decks out, you can get those if they have duplicate core set cards you need.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT:

To be clear, the reason Core sets exist in their current form is to lure people in to the game making it financially feasible to continue producing the game.

It isn't financially feasible for FFG to throw 30 more cards into a Core Set? Offer a "DELUXE" Core and charge $10 more and include the full variety of the cards.

EDIT:

are you really trying to tell me that you honestly believe FFG is taking a LOSS on core sets to try and get people into the game?

Oh good it is this thread again. How I didn't miss it.

The core sets are made to create maximum variety and a good out of box game for those that only buy one core set etc. This is and always has been the way.

Did you read my post? Until they increased booster decks to 3 of every card, "having 1 of certain cards in a booster WAS and always HAD BEEN the way." They changed it to make sense. Change the starters to make sense.

I'm bringing this up now with a year until release so they have time to actually make a smart choice this time. This topic comes up often because its a common complaint.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT:

To be clear, the reason Core sets exist in their current form is to lure people in to the game making it financially feasible to continue producing the game.

It isn't financially feasible for FFG to throw 30 more cards into a Core Set? Offer a "DELUXE" Core and charge $10 more and include the full variety of the cards.

Because what an LCG needs is more SKUs, right?

Look, they make the uneven cores so that there is a decent game out of the box. Is it annoying to have to buy 2, sure. But it is the model that has worked for FFG in the past, and it sure isn't changing (this thread literally pops up everytime there is a new LCG).

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT:

To be clear, the reason Core sets exist in their current form is to lure people in to the game making it financially feasible to continue producing the game.

It isn't financially feasible for FFG to throw 30 more cards into a Core Set? Offer a "DELUXE" Core and charge $10 more and include the full variety of the cards.

No. Shipping weight is a factor, as is lost revenue on multiple Core purchases. Plus, the slight increase in confusion on the part of new customers looking to get into the game figuring out which product to buy.

I know a lot more people playing AGoT 2.0 than people playing VS 2.0, and the price point is probably one of the differences.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT:

To be clear, the reason Core sets exist in their current form is to lure people in to the game making it financially feasible to continue producing the game.

It isn't financially feasible for FFG to throw 30 more cards into a Core Set? Offer a "DELUXE" Core and charge $10 more and include the full variety of the cards.

Because what an LCG needs is more SKUs, right?

Look, they make the uneven cores so that there is a decent game out of the box. Is it annoying to have to buy 2, sure. But it is the model that has worked for FFG in the past, and it sure isn't changing (this thread literally pops up everytime there is a new LCG).

This thread pops up because their model sucks for players and they should fix it. Are the defenders of this logic really going to be upset if they only have to ever buy 1 Core Set? Honestly?

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT:

To be clear, the reason Core sets exist in their current form is to lure people in to the game making it financially feasible to continue producing the game.

It isn't financially feasible for FFG to throw 30 more cards into a Core Set? Offer a "DELUXE" Core and charge $10 more and include the full variety of the cards.

No. Shipping weight is a factor, as is lost revenue on multiple Core purchases. Plus, the slight increase in confusion on the part of new customers looking to get into the game figuring out which product to buy.

I know a lot more people playing AGoT 2.0 than people playing VS 2.0, and the price point is probably one of the differences.

So you are admitting that gouging players into buying multiple core sets is part of their business model for LCG's?

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT:

To be clear, the reason Core sets exist in their current form is to lure people in to the game making it financially feasible to continue producing the game.

It isn't financially feasible for FFG to throw 30 more cards into a Core Set? Offer a "DELUXE" Core and charge $10 more and include the full variety of the cards.

No. Shipping weight is a factor, as is lost revenue on multiple Core purchases. Plus, the slight increase in confusion on the part of new customers looking to get into the game figuring out which product to buy.

I know a lot more people playing AGoT 2.0 than people playing VS 2.0, and the price point is probably one of the differences.

So you are admitting that gouging players into buying multiple core sets is part of their business model for LCG's?

Of course; they're a business. Their interests do not always align with what their customers want.

Oh good it is this thread again. How I didn't miss it.

The core sets are made to create maximum variety and a good out of box game for those that only buy one core set etc. This is and always has been the way.

Did you read my post? Until they increased booster decks to 3 of every card, "having 1 of certain cards in a booster WAS and always HAD BEEN the way." They changed it to make sense. Change the starters to make sense.

I'm bringing this up now with a year until release so they have time to actually make a smart choice this time. This topic comes up often because its a common complaint.

No the reason this comes up so often is because some people seem to think there is a problem where none exists and that they know better than the company that has successfully created and sold LCGs for 8 years!

I would rather have 300 different cards than a complete core set with 100 cards in max quantities. It's that or the cost increases.

The core set is designed for a good out of box experience that for a minimal investment allows players to try out the game first.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT:

To be clear, the reason Core sets exist in their current form is to lure people in to the game making it financially feasible to continue producing the game.

It isn't financially feasible for FFG to throw 30 more cards into a Core Set? Offer a "DELUXE" Core and charge $10 more and include the full variety of the cards.

Because what an LCG needs is more SKUs, right?

Look, they make the uneven cores so that there is a decent game out of the box. Is it annoying to have to buy 2, sure. But it is the model that has worked for FFG in the past, and it sure isn't changing (this thread literally pops up everytime there is a new LCG).

This thread pops up because their model sucks for players and they should fix it. Are the defenders of this logic really going to be upset if they only have to ever buy 1 Core Set? Honestly?

I have no delusions about FFG. They are my chosen drug dealer. Their sales model may not be perfect, but it is still one of the best there is. I mean, look for the constant complaints in the X-wing section from people who want card only expansions. You can't please everyone.

And from experience, only having one Core isn't THAT big of an issue. Especially as the game matures.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT:

To be clear, the reason Core sets exist in their current form is to lure people in to the game making it financially feasible to continue producing the game.

It isn't financially feasible for FFG to throw 30 more cards into a Core Set? Offer a "DELUXE" Core and charge $10 more and include the full variety of the cards.

Because what an LCG needs is more SKUs, right?

Look, they make the uneven cores so that there is a decent game out of the box. Is it annoying to have to buy 2, sure. But it is the model that has worked for FFG in the past, and it sure isn't changing (this thread literally pops up everytime there is a new LCG).

This thread pops up because their model sucks for players and they should fix it. Are the defenders of this logic really going to be upset if they only have to ever buy 1 Core Set? Honestly?

They will when the game is discontinued or only gets 1 expansion a year because it isn't financially feasible for the company to throw more money at it.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT:

To be clear, the reason Core sets exist in their current form is to lure people in to the game making it financially feasible to continue producing the game.

It isn't financially feasible for FFG to throw 30 more cards into a Core Set? Offer a "DELUXE" Core and charge $10 more and include the full variety of the cards.

No. Shipping weight is a factor, as is lost revenue on multiple Core purchases. Plus, the slight increase in confusion on the part of new customers looking to get into the game figuring out which product to buy.

I know a lot more people playing AGoT 2.0 than people playing VS 2.0, and the price point is probably one of the differences.

So you are admitting that gouging players into buying multiple core sets is part of their business model for LCG's?

Oddly enough, the only claims of "gouging" players comes from players who seem to believe that you need a full playset of cards to play the game. Which isn't the case, and thus the problem would seem to stem from those players who think that completionism is the same as playability.

Not that this hasn't been dealt with the last ten thousand times this subject has come up on the LCG forums, but, once again:

FFG is one of the few collectable card game companies large enough to run customer satisfaction and data studies on their products (Wizards, obviously, is the leader here). They have done so. As they've told us, time and again, market data has shown that the vast majority of customers who buy their core sets *never buy anything else* in that game line. They buy one box, that's it. Most LCG players don't even deck build. The premade (and certainly competitively lackluster) decks that come in the starter pack is how they experience and enjoy the game. Game night comes around, someone says "Hey, let's play Netrunner" (or L5R, or whatever), they crack open the box, pick decks, play, fun is had, they put the starter decks back in the box. In a few months, they'll open the box again, or maybe it will be Settlers night, or Pandemic.

Given this nugget of market data, FFG decided, back when they started the LCG format of collectable card games, to give the majority of their buyers of the base set some starter decks with higher variability (and thus more replayability). They do so by not filling the premade starter decks with maximum card numbers. This means the lack of consistency keeps their players (who are happy, again, with never deck building) experiencing new card combinations more frequently than if the decks were reliable 3x of all the standard cards. Their base set player base *loves* this. This is what their players of the base set wants. *You*, who likes deckbuilding and metagames and tournament play, will have access to complete play sets from all their tons of booster packs, deluxe expansions, and so on. You are a player of the whole card game, which is considerably larger than just the base set. You love more control or options over your LCG, but that doesn't mean that the people who crack open A Game of Thrones only once every three months to enjoy a little Stark/Lannister throw down and then put the same decks away year after year aren't playing the game the right way.

And yeah, that also means that those players who insist they cannot play the game without a complete set of the base cards (a stricture they put on themselves) have to fork out more money for multiple copies of the base set. FFG admits that's a bonus in their bottom line from the non-completionist base sets they put out, but also says that their concern with the base set has always been to attract new players and to have a fun, replayable experience for the majority of their buyers, who will never buy a single expansion pack or deluxe set ever.

If they get hooked and want to buy more expansion packs, hey, great, happy to make more money. If they don't, at least they're getting a base box where each game will most likely play vastly different, due to the high randomness of each deck.

I suppose you could say that FFG has been lying to us all these years (despite nothing we've seen in their other PR releases or GenCon previews which leads us to believe otherwise). I guess the onus would be on you to show the evidence of actual lies and deception in their statements over the years.

Nobody's gouging you. This is not a life-sustaining necessity that FFG is holding a monopoly on. If you believe you need three copies of the base set to play the game the way you want to, that's a psychological restriction you've put on yourself. Hell, for years, the Netrunner core set was good enough that even tourney winning decks often got by with only one copy, or perhaps two if you really wanted two Desperados. The rule of thumb back then on nearly all the podcasts and websites was that one was fine for casual or even basic tourney play, two was sufficient for tourney play, and three was only required for hardcore players who insisted on a complete playset available at all times.

Despite your apparent belief that you are showing a unique and insightful challenge to FFG's production strategy in this, the ten thousandth and first reiteration of this thread, I would be very surprised if the L5R base set changes from the distribution model they currently follow for all their LCGs (it is possible, as they haven't released any production details yet, but given that would presumably impact the production defaults for their other LCG lines at the shop, I'd find it very unlikely that L5R would be the special butterfly that would get their own unique distribution layout). Despite your squawking and grumbling, they've made the smart choice. The majority of their base sets go to players who never buy another card from that game line again (Netrunner might have been their first and perhaps only game that changed that; haven't seen any good data to contest that). They get happy, positive feedback from the players who only buy base sets with their current model. I find it very unlikely that they're going to change what is a winning production standard, for them, just to hammer clean the annoyance fractures of on-line completionists (again, it's possible, but let's wait to see their release plans).

And of course, in the end I'll note that even buying three copies of the base set, which would be a completionist move, puts the price range, at least in the U.S., to around $120, which is about what you pay for a box of Magic (or even L5R back in the day), unless you're using one of those deep-discount web order sites, which lowers the cost of some of the more recent Magic boxes I've seen occasionally down to around $85. Even then, you're not getting anything close to a playset of Magic or the old L5R from just one box, let alone being guaranteed to get the cards you need to build the deck you're thinking of. So the buy-in for those who insist on being LCG completionists is still cheaper than getting set up in Magic, and after that it's full playsets for the packs and deluxe boxes from then on out.

This recurring complaint seems to be a non-issue except among players who apparently think their way of collecting multiple copies of all cards in a LCG is the only way to play the game.

well said Gaffa.

I think the only disadvantage the LCG model has is that if you are late the the party the entry cost can seem really really steep (experiencing this myself with netrunner atm). If you are fortunate enough to get on board with it from the start, then it feels like a pretty cheap hobby.

When I was playing L5R, I was buying singles of all the cards I wanted from a set. Every 3 months or so I was spending around 150 euro. To take netrunner as an example, the first batch of expansions cycle out after 5 years. In that time you end up paying approx 540 (36*15) euro on data packs, which is around 110 euro a year, then add in the initial cost of the evergreen core set and deluxe expansions and you are talking another 240 (3*40 + 4*30), which you wont need to spend again on the next cycle. That's 780 euro over 5 years, which is 160 a year. To keep up with l5r at the same pace, to play 2 clans, even if you just buy singles you are racking up around 2875 over 5 years, which is 575 a year (depending on whether we would get 3 or 4 expansions in that year) plus two starters adding around 50 euro on top. That doesn't even get you a playset.

To break it down the cost over a 5 year cycle starting from scratch and assuming to be tournament competitive to as high a degree as possible

CCG (l5r case example, two clans tournament ready)

• Euro 2875 5 yrs
• Euro 575 p/a

LCG (Full playset)

• Euro 780 5 yrs
• Euro 156 p/a

What's more is that your proposed change will not affect your pocket as much as you make out. Again assuming you play for five years, and forgetting that the core sets never go out of legality, you are accusing ffg of gouging when they are taking an extra 16 euro a year from you assuming you will be playing their game for 5 years.

The LCG netrunner model is approx 4 times cheaper than the CCG counterpart over a 5 year period.

Core sets in l5r also cycle out, whereas netrunner ones don't, so once you've invested in them you have a core set of cards for life, which is great. Personally 156 euro a year is not a huge investment into a hobby when I am playing it several times a week. I feel I am spending an awful lot less now on netrunner than I was on l5r, and that's even while aggressively collecting a backlog instead of just keeping up.

CCG's are where the real price gouging is at, not lcg.

L5R LCG will be my third LCG, Doomtown and AGoT v2.0 being the first two.

I like the model where a Core Set box is enough to build four premade decks that you can get out and play with.

I'd much rather go on with a core set with around 200 cards as x1 than a core set with 3x of around 70 different cards. Specifically with L5R, where I hope there will be around 8 factions.

As has been said numerous times, why change something that works so well?

The LCG netrunner model is approx 4 times cheaper than the CCG counterpart over a 5 year period.

CCG's are where the real price gouging is at, not lcg.

LCG costs less becasue it's mostly much, much smaller game comparing to CCG.

Imagine MMO where you have one medium size dungeon to explore but you have access to all classes/races for one (not so cheap) entry fee and monthly subscription (LCG), and another one with 5 big dungeons but where you can choose only one class/race and you could customize it by buying equipment as singles. You just spend your money in different way.

Yes, L5R CCG is completionist's nightmare, but for many owning whole collections is much more satisfying than "completing" LCG by one visit in your local store.

Really money you spent on your game LCG or CCG depends only on you. Your cheapest tournament LCG deck costs you at least 3x CS (A:NR and SW maybe were exceptions, but it's true in AGoT 2.0 and WH40K:C).

And when i'm talking about CCG i'm talking about L5R not MtG.

Sorry for replying myself, but i'm still tired of all "LCG is cheaper than CCG" when someone forgets to mention differences in both formats, scale of game, playing formats, OP environment etc.

As has been said numerous times, why change something that works so well?

Probably we could will be still in stone age if all people will think same way.

Well, aren't CCGs bigger because of the rarity system?

I've never been a completionist during the many years I played L5R CCG, I only cared about 2-3 factions at a time, with a main one where I wanted every personnality as a 3x.

But considering the CCG model had nonunique rares that were really must-have (I will not talk about the promos, as it's even worse, but not relevant to the LCG/CCG debate) and you had to either buy a couple boxes, to get a playset, or spend even more money to get them as singles.

For the same competitivity, you had to spend money on either 2-3 boxes per set, as there were lots of crappy rares that no one wanted or needed. I think the "CCGs are more expensive" line comes from this. Even if you didn't want a playset of everything, you had to spend a lot to get all the rares needed to stand a chance in the field of competition.


With LCGs, you get a lot less unusable cards. For 120€ you got a box of 48 boosters of 11 cards each, which meant 48 rares (out of the 50 of the set, most of the time you got few or no duplicates), 144 uncommons (nearly a complete playset), and 336 commons (roughly 2 completes playsets and a half).

Honestly, every CCG has many coasters. because what makes people buy boosters is the search for the rares (or mythic rares, or legendaries, foils, etc.), which means that from a certain point, 10 of the 11 cards in your booster were trash-worthy. Once they got to a 36*15, it got even worse.

And this is just the extensions, the core sets were a nightmare. To get a playset of all your faction cards, and the neutral cards needed in most decks (Productive mine anyone? A staple as a 3x in most decks apart from Lion).

I have seen people leaving the game because it became too expensive to get a good deck, and because you also got no return from the investment. You couldn't win much apart from more boosters (which meant even more useless cards).

I'm sincerely convinced the investment for a game with the LCG model will cost less in the long run for the players who want to play it competitively.

Three core sets, a Deluxe box, and 8 chapters so far is still less than 300€, and it's been more than a year. That's nearly what I spent every six months for a CCG.

The LCG netrunner model is approx 4 times cheaper than the CCG counterpart over a 5 year period.

CCG's are where the real price gouging is at, not lcg.

LCG costs less becasue it's mostly much, much smaller game comparing to CCG.

Imagine MMO where you have one medium size dungeon to explore but you have access to all classes/races for one (not so cheap) entry fee and monthly subscription (LCG), and another one with 5 big dungeons but where you can choose only one class/race and you could customize it by buying equipment as singles. You just spend your money in different way.

Yes, L5R CCG is completionist's nightmare, but for many owning whole collections is much more satisfying than "completing" LCG by one visit in your local store.

Really money you spent on your game LCG or CCG depends only on you. Your cheapest tournament LCG deck costs you at least 3x CS (A:NR and SW maybe were exceptions, but it's true in AGoT 2.0 and WH40K:C).

And when i'm talking about CCG i'm talking about L5R not MtG.

Sorry for replying myself, but i'm still tired of all "LCG is cheaper than CCG" when someone forgets to mention differences in both formats, scale of game, playing formats, OP environment etc.

I don't think that mmo comparison is really accurate.

Netrunner is a complete game with 7 main factions, each with sub themes. You'd get about the exact same from a ccg.

The only difference between ccg and lcg is the distribution model, how you obtain the cards, this does not limit creativity or the potential size of the card pool in a negative way. There's nothing stopping ffg releasing the same size core set as l5r did in ivory. (370ish cards in a base set, with at a guess approx 50% being reprints)

CCG's suffer from a huge amount of glut. They need to keep a certain pool size of cards to fill up boosters and encourage rarity and variance. The symptom of this is a lot of cards are pretty much unusable. There is also the issue of reprints. You would buy a booster of a core set, and end up with a rare, uncommon or common of a card you have hundreds of already from collecting a previous edition. Whereas the core sets are larger, a fair chunk of those cards are reprints.

There's also the need to make boosters draftable. This led to more redundant cards in the card pool. At the creation of a new expansion set, there were already 15 or so cards that have to be in the set, just to sustain draft. Every expansion needed a straighten card, a bow, send home, favor hate and a suite of holdings. Each LCG card directly addresses the environment without these extra considerations. You don't end up with the same repetition.

You are essentially arguing quantity over quality. An lcg version of l5r won't need 6 different favour hate cards in one edition. A CCG does. It really bloats the card pool.

Let me say this way:

1) Blind buying boxes is for loosers unles you're doing it in large playgroup and you split costs among 3-4 players/per box. CCG works much better (cheaper) in largest groups wher're options for instant trading. In CCG you can easily change time into money, if you want to do some tradings. And as meta doesn't change every 3-4 weeks like in LCG there's enoug time to to find some stuff you need for this one, most important tourney.

For many years i was blind buying in L5R and that was a big mistake. When i've changed my mind 3 years ago and started to hunt singles I was so surprised how many money i saved and my fun from game was same, but my room was cleaner without tons of C/UC.

LCG is stand alone, you always pay same amount of money, number of players doesn't matter.

2) Whatever you say, LCG (all of them) are full of coasters if we talk about competetive scene. In some examples (SW or Conquest) this is hidden in so smart ways (deckbuilding restrictions of SW or "signature" cards in Conquest). I saw it in A:NR, i see it in WH:C becasue ther're LCG games i spent most time with. There's so many situation that after some tests you finally need exactly TWO, ONE or maybe even ZERO cards from pack becasue rest is completly useless unless you play so called "fun" deck. But you buy automatically everything becasue 15$ "subscription "is not a really cost. When you look back and confront with your LCG collection you notice how many pack were useless or how many you paid 15$ for three copies of one card. Not to mention deluxes. Yeah, deluxes, especially if it's about fraction you don't like to play, but there's something to splash. You want to play Elite deck in Conquest, you must buy Necron box. You just buy whole deluxe for literally 6 cards (2x3). There's no other way.

I have already said so on another thread, but FFG do change their model. The OP is right in that up to the Netrunner Core Set., the composition of the same was really frustrating. If you wanted a playset, you had to buy that third core set just for the final copy a small handful of cards, and it feel really wasteful. However, for the Core Set of their next game (AGOT 2E) they changed it in a very simple manner... Most cards were only one off, in a game where the maximun is 3 per deck. The result: your target is still buying that third box, but it doesn't feel like you are throwing your money. You get only a few dupliicates, but most of them are the generally useful cards that will go in more than one deck. Also, it gives the additional benefit of having a bigger initial pool of cards: AGOT2E supported all factions, seven, from the very start.

Consider it this way: the core set is the entry point to the game, and it must be as affordable as possible in order to be a good sell for the casual buyer. So you cannot make the set too big, or the price will be too high, so multiple sets for the commited players it is. I see it as a good tradeoff as no new players is what ended killing the game the first time. And buying three core sets is still way cheaper that buying one single CCG booster display of a base set ever was, and that would not even net you one each of the rares, much less a full playset.