How ridiculous is this , you get the maximum number of copies in expansion packs , but not in the Core Set , which is much more expensive ?

Isn't the whole idea of LCGs to nut buy extra packs/boxes to get everything ?

Disappointed, thought I wouldn't get milked in the same insulting way as LotR LCG ...

This discussion is well-discussed for every LCG. The reasons for it are sound. I cannot be bothered to get into it again.

This discussion is well-discussed for every LCG. The reasons for it are sound. I cannot be bothered to get into it again.

I genuinely don't know the reasons, but would be interested in a quick overview. I always thought it was a bit strange though.

This discussion is well-discussed for every LCG. The reasons for it are sound. I cannot be bothered to get into it again.

I genuinely don't know the reasons, but would be interested in a quick overview. I always thought it was a bit strange though.

Yes indeed it is strange and as I said a bit insulting. I cannot think of any sound reasons to pay two or three times the price when for your second and third copy (as in LotR LCG) you get to use only a tiny fraction of the complete product. I thought the whole idea of LCGs was to differentiate from TCGs and here we are doing the same thing again - buying stuff we don't need only to get to what we actually need.

This discussion is well-discussed for every LCG. The reasons for it are sound. I cannot be bothered to get into it again.

I genuinely don't know the reasons, but would be interested in a quick overview. I always thought it was a bit strange though.

This discussion is well-discussed for every LCG. The reasons for it are sound. I cannot be bothered to get into it again.

I genuinely don't know the reasons, but would be interested in a quick overview. I always thought it was a bit strange though.

Yes indeed it is strange and as I said a bit insulting. I cannot think of any sound reasons to pay two or three times the price when for your second and third copy (as in LotR LCG) you get to use only a tiny fraction of the complete product. I thought the whole idea of LCGs was to differentiate from TCGs and here we are doing the same thing again - buying stuff we don't need only to get to what we actually need.

The quick explanation is as follows. FFG can only include so many cards at any given pricepoint, for their LCG core sets this price point is $40. FFG now has the choice of giving players a wider variety of cards, or more duplicates of cards. FFG has decided that a larger variety is a better option for a core set to an LCG.

I, along with most others, agree that this is the correct choice.

Ah right, so you are saying that FFG don't want to price the core set too high, so put fewer cards in it (and opting for a wider variety)? Makes sense I suppose, although I'm sure a lot of people would probably rather pay a bit more for a full set of cards.

This discussion is well-discussed for every LCG. The reasons for it are sound. I cannot be bothered to get into it again.

I genuinely don't know the reasons, but would be interested in a quick overview. I always thought it was a bit strange though.

This discussion is well-discussed for every LCG. The reasons for it are sound. I cannot be bothered to get into it again.

I genuinely don't know the reasons, but would be interested in a quick overview. I always thought it was a bit strange though.

Yes indeed it is strange and as I said a bit insulting. I cannot think of any sound reasons to pay two or three times the price when for your second and third copy (as in LotR LCG) you get to use only a tiny fraction of the complete product. I thought the whole idea of LCGs was to differentiate from TCGs and here we are doing the same thing again - buying stuff we don't need only to get to what we actually need.

The quick explanation is as follows. FFG can only include so many cards at any given pricepoint, for their LCG core sets this price point is $40. FFG now has the choice of giving players a wider variety of cards, or more duplicates of cards. FFG has decided that a larger variety is a better option for a core set to an LCG.

I, along with most others, agree that this is the correct choice.

I, along with most others, agree that this is a questionable choice.

It is very prohibitive to new players to have to drop usually around 120 dollars on a game. This is especially true for people who haven't played the game before and don't know if they will like it. Plus it hurts brick and mortar stores, in that they have to carry so many copies of a game, and it makes it a little weird for people who see it on the shelf at a store and are interested.

"Oh, that game? You have to buy three copies to play it." is generally not good marketing.

At least you only need two for Arkham, that's why I'm not too upset.

I, along with most others, agree that this is a questionable choice

Source?

I'm sure a lot of people would probably rather pay a bit more for a full set of cards.

These people buy additional Core Sets.

This discussion is well-discussed for every LCG. The reasons for it are sound. I cannot be bothered to get into it again.

I genuinely don't know the reasons, but would be interested in a quick overview. I always thought it was a bit strange though.

Yes indeed it is strange and as I said a bit insulting. I cannot think of any sound reasons to pay two or three times the price when for your second and third copy (as in LotR LCG) you get to use only a tiny fraction of the complete product. I thought the whole idea of LCGs was to differentiate from TCGs and here we are doing the same thing again - buying stuff we don't need only to get to what we actually need.

I get not liking it, but how is it insulting? FFG is making a marketing decision, not dissing your mama.

This discussion is well-discussed for every LCG. The reasons for it are sound. I cannot be bothered to get into it again.

I genuinely don't know the reasons, but would be interested in a quick overview. I always thought it was a bit strange though.

This discussion is well-discussed for every LCG. The reasons for it are sound. I cannot be bothered to get into it again.

I genuinely don't know the reasons, but would be interested in a quick overview. I always thought it was a bit strange though.

Yes indeed it is strange and as I said a bit insulting. I cannot think of any sound reasons to pay two or three times the price when for your second and third copy (as in LotR LCG) you get to use only a tiny fraction of the complete product. I thought the whole idea of LCGs was to differentiate from TCGs and here we are doing the same thing again - buying stuff we don't need only to get to what we actually need.

The quick explanation is as follows. FFG can only include so many cards at any given pricepoint, for their LCG core sets this price point is $40. FFG now has the choice of giving players a wider variety of cards, or more duplicates of cards. FFG has decided that a larger variety is a better option for a core set to an LCG.

I, along with most others, agree that this is the correct choice.

I, along with most others, agree that this is a questionable choice.

It is very prohibitive to new players to have to drop usually around 120 dollars on a game. This is especially true for people who haven't played the game before and don't know if they will like it. Plus it hurts brick and mortar stores, in that they have to carry so many copies of a game, and it makes it a little weird for people who see it on the shelf at a store and are interested.

"Oh, that game? You have to buy three copies to play it." is generally not good marketing.

At least you only need two for Arkham, that's why I'm not too upset.

New players don't go out and buy three copies to play the game, they buy one core set and then move on to the expansions. Only the diehard competitive types need complete playsets from the core set.

The current setup is in new players best interest, while your solution would be worse for new players. Variety is far more important in making a good first impression than "competitive" playsets. Sorry if you disagree, but this is not new territory that you are treading on, the argument has been made and put to bed a long time ago.

I'm sure a lot of people would probably rather pay a bit more for a full set of cards.

These people buy additional Core Sets.

Ha ha. I seem to fall into the group that would be happy to pay a little more for the initial core set, but find it hard to justify buying an entire second set.

It appears to be one of those situations where there is no perfect answer - adding all the cards makes the entry price too high for some people, removing some cards means additional purchases for the more hardcore gamers.

I've managed OK so far with LotR having only one core set (although I recently struggled on one scenario where the additional cards would certainly have helped), but I only play that solo. I'm planning on playing AH with others, so I will have a few games and see if a second set is needed.

The point here is pretty easy: cards coming in core set are often improved over time by more packs being released. It's in the nature of the game: had new cards not been an improvement, there won't be need to add those to the decks, and the game would become static. In some games you could simply go for a "let's add the new stronger cards to the mix, but keep my original deck, and as long as I can boost drawing, I should be fine", but this strategy is killed in games like this (or SW: Destiny, for example) where you have a limited number of slots in your deck. So, what in the beginning seems so fundamental, in the end it's not that much.

I still don't like this format tho, even if probably getting one core is enough: they could have divided the set into two smaller subsets: a pack 1, featuring Encounters, and a pack 2 featuring player cards, so that the public could buy 1 copy of the Encounters set and N copies of the player cards. If I have to buy two core sets, then I'll end up having all Encounters duplicates, which is something I don't need at all.

Anyhoo, back to the original question: characters have a main sphere, and a secondary sphere, and spheres (or whatever they are called in this game) are chosen from a pool of 5 (let's name it A to E). So, if you play 1 character, 2 core set allows you a complete card pool. If you play 2 characters, 2 core sets are perfect IF you play combos like A+B for character 1 and C+D for character 2 (or any other combination as long as you accept that the card pools for different characters are different; if you wanna go with A+B and A+C then well, 2 cores are not enough). If you wanna play 3 characters, you may still be good with 2 cores as long as you accept that the third character somehow specializes in the niche between spheres already taken by others (you could go as main sphere the fifth one for a complete card set, and get a few more leftover cards or neutrals for your second sphere). I don't see how you can play 4p without getting a third core set, tho.

Two core sets are technically enough to support two playgroups of two players each. You could build three mono-class decks and one dual-class deck. Granted, it probably won't be as good as four dual-class decks, but it is possible.

Add The Dunwich Legacy expansion, and you can build five decks, each splashing cards from other classes.

I find acceptable to have limitations in the game, with one core set we can play a two player game and we have to get our act together as a team of investigators. I have no issue with all cards not being available to both player as there will not be enough of those. Wishing otherwise it's a bit like playing the Witcher and wanting to have two Geralt on the board.

I suppose part of the issue is that because it's a card game, it's rather easy to buy additional core boxes and so people do that because they can.

May be Fantasy Flight Games is counting on this to sell more core boxes but I suppose many players that we will never see in this forum will be happy with one core box for 2 players and 2 core boxes for four.

What I mean is that I have the feeling that one core box seems to provide enough fun for two players and at the same time will ensure that we will crave for the first expansion.

It's quite possible that it will be more fun for some people to have two core boxes for 2 players but I am not convinced that it's mandatory. I suppose it depends more of a completionist play style. Of course, this is without having played the game.

The best suggestion is the one by Julia, just have a "core-add-on" set which includes only the additional player cards. I hate the waste of getting a game and using just 40% of the cards... But FFG refused to do it for other games, so proably won't happen for AHLCG as well. Which is a shame... If they price add-on set at 25$ MSRP or such they will still make a very nice profit but will allow players to save money and help the environment...

I would prefer to pay $5 or $10 more for a full core set than to buy a 2nd core set which doubles my investment. I dont buy a 2nd core set of anything...

Except you probably aren't looking at $5-10 more, it's likely higher than that. Then factor in that you're likely to be a statistical outlier; the current price point is about average for a boxed game. In reading that makes it likely FFG will attract less new players.

As for completion sets, one has to assume that if they made good business sense then FFG would print them. Again, this is another argument that's been well gone over. You now have another product requiring regular print runs, than stores need to find room for, which only a relatively small percentage of the player base will actually buy (most people actually do only bit single cores from what I've picked up on other threads, but they're the silent majority who don't engage with the community).

This discussion is well-discussed for every LCG. The reasons for it are sound. I cannot be bothered to get into it again.

I genuinely don't know the reasons, but would be interested in a quick overview. I always thought it was a bit strange though.

This discussion is well-discussed for every LCG. The reasons for it are sound. I cannot be bothered to get into it again.

I genuinely don't know the reasons, but would be interested in a quick overview. I always thought it was a bit strange though.

Yes indeed it is strange and as I said a bit insulting. I cannot think of any sound reasons to pay two or three times the price when for your second and third copy (as in LotR LCG) you get to use only a tiny fraction of the complete product. I thought the whole idea of LCGs was to differentiate from TCGs and here we are doing the same thing again - buying stuff we don't need only to get to what we actually need.

The quick explanation is as follows. FFG can only include so many cards at any given pricepoint, for their LCG core sets this price point is $40. FFG now has the choice of giving players a wider variety of cards, or more duplicates of cards. FFG has decided that a larger variety is a better option for a core set to an LCG.

I, along with most others, agree that this is the correct choice.

I, along with most others, agree that this is a questionable choice.

It is very prohibitive to new players to have to drop usually around 120 dollars on a game. This is especially true for people who haven't played the game before and don't know if they will like it. Plus it hurts brick and mortar stores, in that they have to carry so many copies of a game, and it makes it a little weird for people who see it on the shelf at a store and are interested.

"Oh, that game? You have to buy three copies to play it." is generally not good marketing.

At least you only need two for Arkham, that's why I'm not too upset.

New players don't go out and buy three copies to play the game, they buy one core set and then move on to the expansions. Only the diehard competitive types need complete playsets from the core set.

The current setup is in new players best interest, while your solution would be worse for new players. Variety is far more important in making a good first impression than "competitive" playsets. Sorry if you disagree, but this is not new territory that you are treading on, the argument has been made and put to bed a long time ago.

Honestly, you can't even play with one core of Conquest, face it. Actually I believe that you can't even build a legal deck for many factions with just the single core. So the whole "needing three is for competitive players" only works with distributions like that of Netrunner or Lotr. It's not "competitive playsets" that most people are looking for, it is "actually usable" playsets. Arkham, seeing as it has 1/2 of the cards rather than 1/3 and only five factions as oppossed to seven and smaller deck sizes is okay with this method. Other games (i.e. Conquest, Agot, L5R) aren't.

I think it's possible FFG is losing money by not offering a supplemental card set to "complete" the core LCG boxes. These games have a decent wash out rate, so it is usually easy to buy or trade cheaply for used Core sets. However I suppose there might be even more outrage if FFG would release something like that, since it would call more attention to the fact that their Core boxes do not have full sets of everything.

I think it's possible FFG is losing money by not offering a supplemental card set to "complete" the core LCG boxes. These games have a decent wash out rate, so it is usually easy to buy or trade cheaply for used Core sets. However I suppose there might be even more outrage if FFG would release something like that, since it would call more attention to the fact that their Core boxes do not have full sets of everything.

That's actually a good point. If they go this way, they'd set a new standard, and raise a lot of critiques toward their other LCG lines. Don't know, honestly.

We could also argue this: we know that some smallish packs will be coming, right? How many copies of neutral cards will be in them? If they go like they did for LotR, it means 2 copies of each card (LotR has 3, but you can have 3 in your deck). If you're playing the game 2p or 3p or 4p, you'll always get that 2 copies of neutral cards while technically you could use up to 8 (2 copies of the card in each deck when playing 4p). What happens then? Do you get 4x the expansion pack only to max out the neutral cards? Or do you plan on economy, get 1, and you know only 1 character will use them?

I'd love to see a game like this one structured in a different way:

- 1 core set with encounters and locations and all what's needed for the Mythos side

- 1 core set with player cards and all what's needed for the player decks

- deluxe expansions containing all the adventure cards and locations for all the packs of the cycle (costing more than the 30 bucks retail price, I don't care)

- small packs where each pack has all the cards coming out in a cycle for 1 player (so 2x all the Guardian cards, for example, in one pack; then another pack with the Survivor set; and so on)

in this way, everyone can buy exactly what s/he needs, without wasting resources.

Clearly, it'll be *a lot* less profitable, so, no one will follow this route, I think.

Honestly, you can't even play with one core of Conquest, face it. Actually I believe that you can't even build a legal deck for many factions with just the single core. So the whole "needing three is for competitive players" only works with distributions like that of Netrunner or Lotr. It's not "competitive playsets" that most people are looking for, it is "actually usable" playsets. Arkham, seeing as it has 1/2 of the cards rather than 1/3 and only five factions as oppossed to seven and smaller deck sizes is okay with this method. Other games (i.e. Conquest, Agot, L5R) aren't.

You absolutely can play with a single Core of Conquest, I did for ages. The decks will be high variance and far FAR from optimised, but legal and playable.

AgoT 2nd Ed is a different matter; you do need 2x Core for legal Constructed play, but the rules give you some 'out of the box' decks to learn the game with.

Personally I'm much happier with the Conquest distribution method to the Netrunner distribution method as the amount of needlessly duplicated cards is MASSIVELY reduced.

Having played multiple LCGS I completely understand why they don't make the core sets a one time buy. One being cost efficient, by putting essentials in one box so they don't have to make multiple different packs and different quantities for packs to make it more efficient for the customer. The other is the design of the game. LCGS are expected to rotate for competitive play this may not apply to Arkham but it is an LCG and that's just the model they're accustomed to. By making a good Core set that has all the essentials, so that if and when there is a rotation it will be balanced. I highly doubt there will be a rotation because its a coop game and people are going to do whatever they want anyways but its definitely a good enough reason for their other LCGS.

I have always liked the idea of having 2 different core sets. They'd have the same 1-of cards but different 2-of cards. It would be like taking the first deluxe and making it a core set in it's own right.

Then casual players can pick up either core set, have a good time, and never purchase another box, while completionists can get a full playset without redundancy by simply buying both core boxes.

As for completion sets, one has to assume that if they made good business sense then FFG would print them. Again, this is another argument that's been well gone over. You now have another product requiring regular print runs, than stores need to find room for, which only a relatively small percentage of the player base will actually buy (most people actually do only bit single cores from what I've picked up on other threads, but they're the silent majority who don't engage with the community).

This is a big issue with so-called completion sets. FFG loses out on economies of scale for not only the completion set, because only a certain percentage of core set buyers will buy it, but also on the core set, because they're carving into repeat sales on the core set for the completion set.

Even with 100% conversion -- every player buying core + completion -- that means you're printing (for the sake of argument) 10,000 cores + 10,000 completions instead of 20,000 cores. So you lose money just for doing smaller print runs, even if you sell just as many units. And that's before you introduce the uncertainty of your actual conversion rate. An advantage for FFG of just doing a single product is that if they guess wrong on how many people will buy a second core box? If it's, say, 25% instead of 100%? They can still turn around and sell unsold core boxes to brand new players. Not so with completion packs. They just eat those.

Same problem goes for doing stuff like packaging mythos and player cards separately. FFG doesn't have perfect knowledge of group sizes, so it's very difficult to know what the ratio of player boxes to mythos boxes should be. Do they need to print one mythos box for every 4 players? 3? 2? 1 to 1? Guessing wrong here means FFG eats unsold product, and again loses out on economies of scale -- the latter even if they get the numbers exactly right .

People often seem to assume each card FFG prints has the same cost to FFG, regardless of packaging and volume, and basic economics indicates that just isn't so. The price point on core boxes is as low as it is because they sell in the volume they do. When you start splitting core boxes across multiple products, both risk and cost go up.

I think it's possible FFG is losing money by not offering a supplemental card set to "complete" the core LCG boxes. These games have a decent wash out rate, so it is usually easy to buy or trade cheaply for used Core sets. However I suppose there might be even more outrage if FFG would release something like that, since it would call more attention to the fact that their Core boxes do not have full sets of everything.

That's actually a good point. If they go this way, they'd set a new standard, and raise a lot of critiques toward their other LCG lines. Don't know, honestly.

They already have different standards across their various LCG lines. Some are 2 boxes for a playset, some 3. Some have lumpy distribution (like netrunner), some are 1 of each card (like AGoT).

They are not losing money by not doing "completion sets," and they are not afraid of backlash for doing things differently if it's the best call for a specific game. They already do things differently on almost every LCG.

They don't do completion sets because it would be a terrible business move. That's the long and the short of it.

I think it's possible FFG is losing money by not offering a supplemental card set to "complete" the core LCG boxes. These games have a decent wash out rate, so it is usually easy to buy or trade cheaply for used Core sets. However I suppose there might be even more outrage if FFG would release something like that, since it would call more attention to the fact that their Core boxes do not have full sets of everything.

That's actually a good point. If they go this way, they'd set a new standard, and raise a lot of critiques toward their other LCG lines. Don't know, honestly.

They already have different standards across their various LCG lines. Some are 2 boxes for a playset, some 3. Some have lumpy distribution (like netrunner), some are 1 of each card (like AGoT).

They are not losing money by not doing "completion sets," and they are not afraid of backlash for doing things differently if it's the best call for a specific game. They already do things differently on almost every LCG.

They don't do completion sets because it would be a terrible business move. That's the long and the short of it.

It would be a good business move for the lumpy distribution games like Netrunner. Because most people just buy one core. If they had a completion set, that would be free cash all day long!