So running some math on the starters and the boosters and it is definitely something that is mind boggling.

In order to get a full set, we will need to purchase two of each of the starters. This is a combined total of 14 rare cards combined in the 4 starter packs. Now, one of these can be excluded, in case you want to be crazy and run 3 or 4 FO Stormtroopers.

So lets run with some examples of both 6 and 7 rares being used to calculate some numbers for us.

Excluding the officially designated starter pack rarity cards, the set is comprised of the following:

Legendary - 17 cards

Rares - 36 cards

Starter Rares - 7 cards

Uncommon - 42 cards

Common - 58 cards

With the released information we have so far, the average number of Legendary cards in a booster box is supposed to about 6. With that assumption, we will then pull 30 rare cards out of each box. Rare cards for the set total 43, however that is reduced to 36 if we exclude those that make it in the starters.

This translates in to 16%(14% excluding FO Stormtrooper) of the rares that we blindly pull out of boosters will be those we don't need. In terms of actual pulls per box, this translates to 4.8 rares per box(4.2 excluding FO Stormtrooper) in to worthless cards.

Yes, it is the one glaringly bad choice FFG has made as far as the distribution structure of this game.

Either you don't include rares that can be found in boosters within the starter deck, or you don't create the need to buy multiple of the same starter.

I hope they correct it in subsequent sets.

Nothing against the math or your acquisition strategy but do think FFG really took into account large number of people purchasing anywhere between 2-5 booster boxes at a time? While this may be a strategy for elite players I'm pretty sure that FFG and the big box stores plan to make their sales $3.00 at a time.

Could easily be wrong on this. Just thinking out loud.

Nothing against the math or your acquisition strategy but do think FFG really took into account large number of people purchasing anywhere between 2-5 booster boxes at a time? While this may be a strategy for elite players I'm pretty sure that FFG and the big box stores plan to make their sales $3.00 at a time.

Could easily be wrong on this. Just thinking out loud.

I am sure they took in to account all factors. But that isn't the problem. In fact, I would say it is worse for those who are just buying the odd pack here and there, as there is a high chance they are going to get complete junk, which can turn them off the game.

I am a fervent supporter of FFG, but that's indeed disappointing to the point of stupidity. Because these 7 cards are actually more common than the 'starter'-fixed cards, this means that one in 7 packs you open is just missing a rare card. Not good for trading, not good for anything. Just a "You're screwed" post-it in a far-from-negligible fraction of your booster packs. For no reason, not even for a gain for them ! Just having "starter exclusive"-cards and a high dice & card content for their price would have made them a perfectly valid purchase anyhow.

This really does not look like the company I know, that has done so much to improve the standards of what you should expect from your board/card game purchases in comparison to industry giants in the collectible card game or miniature world.

I am a fervent supporter of FFG, but that's indeed disappointing to the point of stupidity. Because these 7 cards are actually more common than the 'starter'-fixed cards, this means that one in 7 packs you open is just missing a rare card. Not good for trading, not good for anything. Just a "You're screwed" post-it in a far-from-negligible fraction of your booster packs. For no reason, not even for a gain for them ! Just having "starter exclusive"-cards and a high dice & card content for their price would have made them a perfectly valid purchase anyhow.

This really does not look like the company I know, that has done so much to improve the standards of what you should expect from your board/card game purchases in comparison to industry giants in the collectible card game or miniature world.

This has been the only sore point for me with the game so far. Everything about it has been fun so far, the game is simple, elegant and yet complex. Which is perfect for Star Wars.

I do understand that building the starter packs and balancing them must have been a challenge, but it shouldn't have come at the cost of what we are expected to buy in order to continue collecting/playing. Hopefully they learn from this.

I am a fervent supporter of FFG, but that's indeed disappointing to the point of stupidity. Because these 7 cards are actually more common than the 'starter'-fixed cards, this means that one in 7 packs you open is just missing a rare card. Not good for trading, not good for anything. Just a "You're screwed" post-it in a far-from-negligible fraction of your booster packs. For no reason, not even for a gain for them ! Just having "starter exclusive"-cards and a high dice & card content for their price would have made them a perfectly valid purchase anyhow.

This really does not look like the company I know, that has done so much to improve the standards of what you should expect from your board/card game purchases in comparison to industry giants in the collectible card game or miniature world.

This has been the only sore point for me with the game so far. Everything about it has been fun so far, the game is simple, elegant and yet complex. Which is perfect for Star Wars.

I do understand that building the starter packs and balancing them must have been a challenge, but it shouldn't have come at the cost of what we are expected to buy in order to continue collecting/playing. Hopefully they learn from this.

I too really don't understand the CCG spin on this game. The LCG model is amazing and helps maintain an even game for all those wishing to play. They could have also sold this game in a CCG format, along side the (more expensive) complete sets.

I really want to like this game and plan on attending a launch party to try it out before I put down the cash.

I too really don't understand the CCG spin on this game. The LCG model is amazing and helps maintain an even game for all those wishing to play. They could have also sold this game in a CCG format, along side the (more expensive) complete sets.

I really want to like this game and plan on attending a launch party to try it out before I put down the cash.

I have no issue with the CCG format, in fact I prefer it to LCG.

There is an aspect of the LCG model that will never impact the gamer's psychology the way a CCG will. We will never see an LCG compete with Magic, it just won't happen. CCGs will drive some people away, but I think FFG is banking on the combination of this model, the relatively low cost to enter and the resurgence of Star Wars in the mainstream. I am hoping it is massively successful for them and for those of us planning to play it.

Some interesting numbers, so having said that is it just a better deal to go buy 5 more boosters than buying a starter set?

My first instinct is no because you get 7 "rares" instead of 5, though you are getting 1 less card overall.

But this could all get washed away if your intending on buying 2+ boxes so a bit of a moot point and your less likely to open "dead" cards as well so maybe a minor + to not buying a starter.

Of course if any of the starter only cards are tier 1 cards this whole discussion is moot and you just have to lump it, and I have heard that Close Quarter Combat and mind probe (pretty sure these are starter exclusives?) being good cards so it may be that we are stuck with a less than desirable situation.

This really does not look like the company I know, that has done so much to improve the standards of what you should expect from your board/card game purchases in comparison to industry giants in the collectible card game or miniature world.

With exception of this issue everything we know about this games distribution points to it being significantly more consumer friendly then other blind buy products. Small deck sizes, low per deck limits, limited rarities, and superior rarity ratio; Destiny has some or all of these advantages over other blind buy products. Yugioh, Pokemon, MTG, DBZ, Heroclix, DiceMasters, Cardfight Vanguard, My Little Pony to name a few. Except for the issues created by the starter decks every indication is that compared to other similar products this is oriented in our favor.

Moreover, how does FFG benefit from creating packs with extremely low value rares? Doing so simply decreases the overall expected value one would expect to get from a booster pack, which means players have even more incentive to buy singles instead. FFG does not make money from singles, they make money from players buying boosters. This silly oversight is FFG hurting themselves.

Make no mistake I think having rares that will by nature hold extremely low value to be a very poor oversight to make, however to cast it as something that benefits FFG to the detriment of the players is inaccurate. It benefits no one, making it extra foolish. Hopefully they will correct it in subsequent sets.

This really does not look like the company I know, that has done so much to improve the standards of what you should expect from your board/card game purchases in comparison to industry giants in the collectible card game or miniature world.

This is being a bit absurd.

With exception of this issue everything we know about this games distribution points to it being significantly more consumer friendly then other blind buy products. Small deck sizes, low per deck limits, limited rarities, and superior rarity ratio; Destiny has some or all of these advantages over other blind buy products. Yugioh, Pokemon, MTG, DBZ, Heroclix, DiceMasters, Cardfight Vanguard, My Little Pony to name a few. Except for the issues created by the starter decks every indication is that compared to other similar products this is oriented in our favor.

Moreover, how does FFG benefit from creating packs with extremely low value rares? Doing so simply decreases the overall expected value one would expect to get from a booster pack, which means players have even more incentive to buy singles instead. FFG does not make money from singles, they make money from players buying boosters. This silly oversight is FFG hurting themselves.

Make no mistake I think having rares that will by nature hold extremely low value to be a very poor oversight to make, however to cast it as something that benefits FFG to the detriment of the players is inaccurate. It benefits no one, making it extra foolish. Hopefully they will correct it in subsequent sets.

Great post.

I am a fervent supporter of FFG, but that's indeed disappointing to the point of stupidity. Because these 7 cards are actually more common than the 'starter'-fixed cards, this means that one in 7 packs you open is just missing a rare card. Not good for trading, not good for anything. Just a "You're screwed" post-it in a far-from-negligible fraction of your booster packs. For no reason, not even for a gain for them ! Just having "starter exclusive"-cards and a high dice & card content for their price would have made them a perfectly valid purchase anyhow.

This really does not look like the company I know, that has done so much to improve the standards of what you should expect from your board/card game purchases in comparison to industry giants in the collectible card game or miniature world.

This has been the only sore point for me with the game so far. Everything about it has been fun so far, the game is simple, elegant and yet complex. Which is perfect for Star Wars.

I do understand that building the starter packs and balancing them must have been a challenge, but it shouldn't have come at the cost of what we are expected to buy in order to continue collecting/playing. Hopefully they learn from this.

I too really don't understand the CCG spin on this game. The LCG model is amazing and helps maintain an even game for all those wishing to play. They could have also sold this game in a CCG format, along side the (more expensive) complete sets.

I really want to like this game and plan on attending a launch party to try it out before I put down the cash.

Are you really suggesting that they could have sold Destiny as both a blind buy and complete sets, all from the same pool of cards?

FFG can't support an infinite amount of LCGs, there just isn't the audience for it. LCGs have a fairly limited scope and reach to them, there becomes a point where introducing a new game is just shuffling around you existing customer base to that product from one of your others. At that point you are just stealing money from yourself and hurting both games in the end.

People are worried that Destiny, being a Star Wars card game by FFG is going to possibly harm the existing Star Wars The Card Game by FFG. That fear exists even with Destiny being a CCG, if it were an LCG that fear would be a panic.

Destiny being a CCG means it's going to reach a larger audience, but more importantly is going to reach past the limited LCG oriented crowd rather then pulling from that same well one too many times.

When I learned that Destiny was released as a CCG, I was sure that I would never buy into it. Then I learned about the small deck size, the deck limit for a card of 2 and the small booster packs (only 3 commons per booster means I won't drown in useless common cards like in other games). So I think we can savely say that this is more fair than most CCGs out there.

Of course, having to buy 2 copies of each starter just to get a few cards hurts. And the fact that you might get a rare in a booster that is useless because you and everyone else already has 2 copies of it hurts, too.

I really assume that these were honest mistakes by FFG and not a scam. Even with these 2 negatives, it's still more fair than most CCGs out there. Hopefully, they will fix it in the expansions.

well the speculation here is based heavily on you want 2 rey/kylo starters. I wouldn't do that just for finn or mind probe. buy a rey and kylo and you have what you need and buy boosters for the money you otherwise would buy the second starter you are well off with this game and as it turns out you can play light against light dark against dark just like X-wing.

Yes rares in a starter that canb be found in boosters as well is a bad choice but isn't that true for all TCG\ CCG. I think this is just trying to set your mind not to go all in and in fact you know you will because it is cool! just don't but the second stratre unless you really need that probe or finn or whatever. This game is set to be much more casual then any other CCG/TCG/LCG keep that in mind and the best deck isn't a sure win because of the dice.

I agree that it's a huge mistake, but it is worth to mention that if you don't want in your team any blue character or Finn, then you can save money: do NOT buy a starter.

I think they went with 3 starter rares and 3 booster raees to try and find a middle ground. Some people will buy 2 starters to get 2 copies of the starter rares making the booster rares "extra" copies. Sone people will only buy one starter, leaving the booster rares as only your second copy.

Had the made all the rares starter rares people would have complained even more that you have to buy 2 starters. Had they made all the rares booster rares, nobody buys the staters.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont. I personally think its a very small issue indeed.

I think they went with 3 starter rares and 3 booster raees to try and find a middle ground. Some people will buy 2 starters to get 2 copies of the starter rares making the booster rares "extra" copies. Sone people will only buy one starter, leaving the booster rares as only your second copy.

Had the made all the rares starter rares people would have complained even more that you have to buy 2 starters. Had they made all the rares booster rares, nobody buys the staters.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont. I personally think its a very small issue indeed.

Your argument is very weak. If you play blue you have to buy four starters anyway.

Think how would you feel when you open a booster and don't find a rare. That's a huge issue.

I think they went with 3 starter rares and 3 booster raees to try and find a middle ground. Some people will buy 2 starters to get 2 copies of the starter rares making the booster rares "extra" copies. Sone people will only buy one starter, leaving the booster rares as only your second copy.

Had the made all the rares starter rares people would have complained even more that you have to buy 2 starters. Had they made all the rares booster rares, nobody buys the staters.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont. I personally think its a very small issue indeed.

By trying to find a middle ground they've just creates an issue they ought to have avoided.

If they want to encourage a second starter purchase, which they clearly do, then they need to have that second starter have value to prospective buyers. Right now the only value is a for a second copy of 2 different cards. That's more annoyance then value. This comes up with every LCG Core Set as well. You often have to buy up to 3 Core Sets to get a full playset of cards but really that 3rd Core Set could be only for 3 or 4 specific cards (and a $40 purchase). FFG has done better with the newer LCGS at having more 1 of's so that 3rd Core Set has less overlap then in previous games. This is FFG making an old LCG error in the CCG.

Ultimately the last thing you want to do with a CCG is inherently tank the value of some of your packs, which this situation does. You want players to buy packs, despite the fact that buying singles is the better option for the most part, so you want packs to have decent value. Having a number of rares that will inherently be of little or no value means you are hurting player pereception of the packs value. You want players excited to open packs and having the rare be something they have 2+ of already and that they know they can't trade or sell because everyone also has 2+ of, harms that.

If you want people to buy 2nd starters you have enough starter only singles to give that second purchase value, or you just double up on all the starter cards so players only buy one. You don't opt for a middle ground that hurts the value of both your starters and booster packs.

You mean find a rare you spread have. Once you buy a box of boosters, that's gonna happen alot. So you spend a whole $3.00, open it and find a rare you already have. That's what you call a huge loss? Theres still a shot you got an uncommon you need. I think this is a small issue.

Theres 44 rates in boosters counting stormtrooper, 6 that are in boosters so that's 13% you pull one of those six. If its that big of an issue, just buy one starter.

The issue isn't that you already have 2+ copies of the rare, because as you stated that is bound to happen often once you've bought enough product.

The issue is that most other players also have 2+ of the card, even people that literally just bought their starters, so you have no hope of trading or selling that rare for any value. So your packs rare becomes essentially equilivent to a common. It's not a good thing to have packs with an extra common and no rare. No one benefits from that sillyness.

Telling people to buy one starter so that 1 out of 10 of their packs isn't a dud, despite the fact that the only way to get certain cards is through the starter, is being being hilariously obtuse on the subject. That isn't a viable option and you know it.

For casual players it is a viable option. As for pulling that dud, its an extra copy. I still see this as a very small problem in a big picture.

I'll still be happy to see a third stormtrooper, or a third tie fighter. I might have more then one deck on the go.

I also have friends who will not buy second starters. I can trade the "thirds" with them.

Consider this example.

A casual player, aka a player FFG really wants to woo into becoming more serious, comes out for a game night event. They skipped their morning Starbucks so they decide to buy a few packs. The open the packs pull some rares they need but others they don't. Maybe they already have them maybe they are Hero cards and they just play Villian, whatever. They decide to go try and trade those rares off for something they would use. Unfortunately someone points out that those rares don't have any value because they are in the starter deck and thus are pretty common, more common then an uncommon even. Is that casual player likely to splurge on some more packs next time or are they more likely to be a bit more tight fisted?

So you plan to trade your "thirds" to your friends that only buy one starter? Unless you plan on ripping them off what exactly are you going to trade those starter rares for? They certainly aren't equal in value to other rares, they are likely even more common then an uncommon. What are your one starter friends going to trade you when they will be able to find those starter rares for something as low as 50 cents?

In your example I would point out to the new player, yes there are some low value rates, 6. But you have a better chance of pulling a legendary then pulling op one of these.

And hey if my friend wants to trade a Jetpack for Jedi Robes who am I to say no??

Scum for life!

In your example I would point out to the new player, yes there are some low value rates, 6. But you have a better chance of pulling a legendary then pulling op one of these.

And hey if my friend wants to trade a Jetpack for Jedi Robes who am I to say no??

Scum for life!

The odds of pulling a legendary is roughly the same as pulling one of the starter rares. But this doesn't matter, because the legendary distribution is not the issue at hand.

Legendary ratio is 6/36 = 16.6%

Starter rare is 4/36 = 11.11%

Starter rare 6

Rares 43 = 13.9%

30 rares from a box. 30*13.9% =4.18

It matters in the above example provided. On this note, I am done on this discussion because I truly beleive it is a really small issue in a great game.

See ya on the other side