Thread title says it all really.

I was expecting, a slightly flimsy box, having read on BGG about it. But heavens! It really is awful! Totally useless. I'm not usually one to complain, but holy tentacles, FFG - this is really rubbish (

I used to store my delux/cycles in the the delux box, there is no chance of that now.

Really, really lame.

Come on FFG - you can do better than this.

i don't disagree. i do intend to get a long term kind of box for this game though. as soon as i got the core i decided on it, there's just no logical way to get the cards to stay in these boxes, and i think FFG is just moving away from the old style of boxes and going for something a little more print on demandish. They have always been known to have top notch components, i think they just need to make a better margin on their items.

that's business, and that's life.

Yes, we already knew of these boxes from AGoT 2e's deluxe releases. Welcome to Asmodee's world! FFG's quality & QC is now entering the netherworld. I've already experienced missing cards in shrink-wrapped LCGs.

My plan is to keep the characters, weaknesses and player cards in the core box using a Broken Token organizer. It'll be quite some time before I need to expand that storage. With the core set and The Dunwich Legacy, only about half of the box is full.

I'm keeping all of the scenario cards together in separate deck boxes. Curse of the Rougarou is in a deck box. Carnevale of Horrors is in a deck box. The Dunwich Legacy (Part 1) is in a deck box. All of the extra scenario cards that get added in are also in a separate deck box. My feeling is that I'll need to futz with the player cards pretty frequently, but the scenarios are more grab and go.

I applaud FFG for the decision since the boxes take up slightly less space in my recycling bin.

I applaud FFG for the decision since the boxes take up slightly less space in my recycling bin.

100% agreed. I feel like at least 50% of my total recycling is FFG packaging.

I applaud FFG for the decision since the boxes take up slightly less space in my recycling bin.

So having to throw out a box that could have been use for storage and then having to go out and buy more storage box is something we should applause them for? We are getting less for our money compare to what we used to get with the previous LCG.

I applaud FFG for the decision since the boxes take up slightly less space in my recycling bin.

So having to throw out a box that could have been use for storage and then having to go out and buy more storage box is something we should applause them for? We are getting less for our money compare to what we used to get with the previous LCG.

Seriously? Who the hell is storing their expansion cards separate from all of their other cards? Their old boxes were complete overkill.

I applaud FFG for the decision since the boxes take up slightly less space in my recycling bin.

So having to throw out a box that could have been use for storage and then having to go out and buy more storage box is something we should applause them for? We are getting less for our money compare to what we used to get with the previous LCG.

Seriously? Who the hell is storing their expansion cards separate from all of their other cards? Their old boxes were complete overkill.

100% agreed. When I opened the Dunwich Legacy, I commented to my wife that the packaging was overkill for three shrink wrapped decks and an instruction manual. The instructions could easily have been incorporated as a fold out or series of cards with the three decks packaged in a triple thickness clam pack. Of course, I don't know the ecological impact of plastic clam packs versus larger card stock boxes.

In either case, you're correct. The player cards would likely be incorporated into the rest of your collection.

If the choice is to either use a flimsy box or increase the cost of the expansion by 50 cents or a dollar, I'm very glad they chose the flimsy box. Most people use custom storage anyway.

If not for their desire to take up visible shelf-space, I'm sure they could distribute all the deluxe expansions in thick blister packs or tuck boxes.

If not for their desire to take up visible shelf-space, I'm sure they could distribute all the deluxe expansions in thick blister packs or tuck boxes.

It's also fair to say that some of their deluxe expansions have new mechanics that necessitate additional tokens. The Dunwich Legacy did not. Both of the Warhammer 40k Conquest boxes did. I'm not very familiar with the other LCGs, but I do know that the tokens would have made a thick blister pack a little awkward for the Conquest expansions.

I do know that the tokens would have made a thick blister pack a little awkward for the Conquest expansions.

Yeah, that one is special. People have wished for something extra other than regular cards in many expansions, but I don't recall any other LCG which had anything - or did Warhammer:Invasion have something? I dropped out too early, then the game died.

The investigator mini-cards might be harder to fit in blister packs too. The way they package things it's probably easier to make a larger box with bags for each type of component, I guess. I suspect blister packs are better for a fully automated machine-only process.

I do know that the tokens would have made a thick blister pack a little awkward for the Conquest expansions.

Yeah, that one is special. People have wished for something extra other than regular cards in many expansions, but I don't recall any other LCG which had anything - or did Warhammer:Invasion have something? I dropped out too early, then the game died.

The investigator mini-cards might be harder to fit in blister packs too. The way they package things it's probably easier to make a larger box with bags for each type of component, I guess. I suspect blister packs are better for a fully automated machine-only process.

That's my thought also. Then again, X-Wing and Armada blisters typically have thick token sheets, multiple sizes of cards and, of course, the ships. It's doable, but might not be worthwhile for what is essentially a basic deck of cards.

Where are the alleged savings people point out? Looks to me they have just increased their benefits.

When you spend thousands of dollars on their stuff, this kind of cheap production feels disrespectful to customers and to their own reputation.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the MSRP of LCGs has remained at $15 per small pack and $30 per deluxe box since they started doing LCGs nearly 10 years ago. There isn't much in this world that can maintain a price without a reduction in quality for 10 years. I recall hearing in an interview that they chose the cheaper boxes (and the clamshell packaging) because their other costs were increasing but they didn't want to increase MSRP.

I have to agree with Teamjimby. The box is perhaps the least necessary part of the game, so if they need to scrimp there to maintain price, I'm happy with it.

I have to agree with Teamjimby. The box is perhaps the least necessary part of the game, so if they need to scrimp there to maintain price, I'm happy with it.

They could send them in blister packs for all I care. Just gimme the cards, the box is meaningless to me.

Where are the alleged savings people point out? Looks to me they have just increased their benefits.

When you spend thousands of dollars on their stuff, this kind of cheap production feels disrespectful to customers and to their own reputation.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the MSRP of LCGs has remained at $15 per small pack and $30 per deluxe box since they started doing LCGs nearly 10 years ago. There isn't much in this world that can maintain a price without a reduction in quality for 10 years. I recall hearing in an interview that they chose the cheaper boxes (and the clamshell packaging) because their other costs were increasing but they didn't want to increase MSRP.

Then why do they reprint the cardboard boxes of old expansions? To lose money?

Also, compromising quality is a slippery slope.

I can argue than since I'm going sleeve the cards they could cut a lot there and force everybody to sleeve.

And since most people have internet and tablets, let's remove the manual and provide a pdf.

I accept inflation but not companies that abandon their principles.

When I open a GMT game I smell pride, from the box to the smallest component.

Where are the alleged savings people point out? Looks to me they have just increased their benefits.

When you spend thousands of dollars on their stuff, this kind of cheap production feels disrespectful to customers and to their own reputation.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the MSRP of LCGs has remained at $15 per small pack and $30 per deluxe box since they started doing LCGs nearly 10 years ago. There isn't much in this world that can maintain a price without a reduction in quality for 10 years. I recall hearing in an interview that they chose the cheaper boxes (and the clamshell packaging) because their other costs were increasing but they didn't want to increase MSRP.

Then why do they reprint the cardboard boxes of old expansions? To lose money?

Also, compromising quality is a slippery slope.

I can argue than since I'm going sleeve the cards they could cut a lot there and force everybody to sleeve.

And since most people have internet and tablets, let's remove the manual and provide a pdf.

I accept inflation but not companies that abandon their principles.

When I open a GMT game I smell pride, from the box to the smallest component.

They don't always. Some of the LOTR Adventure Packs that were originally cardboard became clamshells in reprints.

It probable had to do with the company that was printing the packs. If they had it setup for cardboard then that is likely the way they went till all were setup. I mean if you notice all the LCG starters from conquest on have been the smaller size.

I have to agree with Teamjimby. The box is perhaps the least necessary part of the game, so if they need to scrimp there to maintain price, I'm happy with it.

They could send them in blister packs for all I care. Just gimme the cards, the box is meaningless to me.

For me, the change is a big disappointment. Nothing to do now but complain I guess, and hope they do not make these same changes to LOTR. Since Arkham Horror LCG is a new game, we can see up front what the packaging is going be. Fair enough. I'll deal with it. However, if they do this to LOTR, with the many years of beautiful Deluxe and Saga boxes I lovingly have displayed on my bookcase… well, I really don't want to think about it.

FFG, please continue to use the older/better boxes for LOTR until you wrap that game up. Some of us have spent hundreds (and hundreds) of dollars on this product and have all of these boxes displayed in our homes for all to see. We are waiting on that last Saga box to slip in there to complete at least the Saga portion of our collection. Please don't do that to us.

Hate to disappoint, but this is very very unlikely. They've always had consistent packaging for their LCGs. Arkham may be at the leading edge, but the odds of others staying the same seem slim.

Hate to disappoint, but this is very very unlikely. They've always had consistent packaging for their LCGs. Arkham may be at the leading edge, but the odds of others staying the same seem slim.

You are not entirelly right. AGoT 2.0 has been using the new boxes for almost a year, while at the same time Netrunner, SWLCG and LoTR DE have kept the cardboard ones. If their plan was to transition all their LCG to the new packaging, they would have done that already.

I don't mind the new box for the new games, but I would hate them if they change the packaging for the older LCG's. My OCD would make me go nuts to the point I might just stop collecting them.

With the cluster**** FFG/Asmodee did on their idiotic stance for online retailers increasing the prices across the board, and now the lower quality boxes/clamshell, from my perspective, I'm paying more for less. At least the quality of the cards hasn't been compromised (yet), so there's that.