On 2/11/2017 at 8:48 AM, MrRed said:

I am really interested in this game then I saw you needed two core sets to play with 3 or 4.

Would you have bought the game if it was 1-2 players only? I mean, it practically is as the game doesn't scale well.

On February 9, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Grimwalker said:

I said "I know of one potential example that's far from directly compatible," and I was referring to Mage Wars. One example, and I asked for others and that was apparently the only one you could think of either. The core set for Mage Wars is $60, so right off the bat it's a higher bar to ask consumers to purchase multiple core sets. Mage Wars' core set isn't designed for multiple purchases; FFG does design their core sets for multiple purchases. It's not the greatest optimization for AH, but their design philosophy is definitely established when you look at Conquest and AGOT 2nd Edition. I'll bet any amount of money you care to name that L5R core set will likewise be a mile wide and an inch deep.

And no, it's not absurdly extreme to suggest that a company would discontinue a game if it's showing itself to be unprofitable--it's not even absurd to suggest a company would discontinue a game if it were profitable, if the time and resources spent producing it could be more profitable on other projects. The number of out-of-print games out there could just about fit into the Grand Canyon, and among them are FFG LCGs for Warhammer: Invasion, A Game of Thrones (first edition), and Call of Cthulhu.

You realize that's not actually what I said, right?

I'm not saying it's absurd to discontinue an unprofitable game. I'm saying it's absurd to assume that a game becoming so unprofitable it will be discontinued is the only possible outcome of changing the card counts.

Oops, double post.

On 13/02/2017 at 6:09 PM, Hedgehobbit said:

the game doesn't scale well.

I disagree with that.

11 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

You realize that's not actually what I said, right?

Given that every time you restate my position you make it more extreme than what I said I really don't give a goddamn about your position anymore.

Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to *themselves* to make profitable decisions. Propositions which undermine profitability are non-starters. That's all, except some people can't absorb that simple principle and so it's necessary to use reductio ad absurdam, except some people are so thick that they then come back with "that's absurd!" Yes, that's the point.

On 2/20/2017 at 2:21 PM, Grimwalker said:

Given that every time you restate my position you make it more extreme than what I said I really don't give a goddamn about your position anymore.

Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to *themselves* to make profitable decisions. Propositions which undermine profitability are non-starters. That's all, except some people can't absorb that simple principle and so it's necessary to use reductio ad absurdam, except some people are so thick that they then come back with "that's absurd!" Yes, that's the point.

That's not what I did. But clearly we're not going to come to any sort of understanding here.

I know this thread is crazy old, but just wondering of the “useful” cards, how many of those would actually see play in 3 or 4 player?

1 hour ago, jd-ia said:

I know this thread is crazy old, but just wondering of the “useful” cards, how many of those would actually see play in 3 or 4 player?

That depends on how many other expansions you own. If none, then most or all of them. With more expansions, fewer of the extra player cards will remain useful.