How about after each clan gets their first clan pack there is a separate "deluxe conflict pack" that includes all the conflict cards from that series?

For example:

Core set

Clan pack series 1 (includes dynasty and conflict cards of specific clans)

After each clan has gotten a series 1 Clan pack, then the "deluxe conflict pack" gets released with only the conflict cards from all clans in series 1.

Then move to series 2 and repeat

After a couple series have been released then maybe have a "deluxe dynasty pack" that only includes cards from the dynasty deck for a specific clan from series 1 and 2.

This way someone looking to catch upon a particular clan would buy the dynasty deluxe and both conflict deluxe packs.

Leave neutrals for the big expansions

At least that would be my lame attempt to please everyone, which most certainly would piss everyone off instead.

2 hours ago, JRosen9 said:

I don't have the figures but I'm sure FFG does. I'm sure there is a sharp decline in sales of a chapter pack some time shortly after its initial release as most of your current players have the pack. After the 6th chapter pack when this sharp decline happens you stop making the chapter packs and switch to clan packs. Maybe to alleviate shelf space you offer a buy back (i.e. for every 6 chapter packs of a cycle you send us, we'll send you a set of clan packs for that cycle). This way they could simply repackage the cards. This keeps the number of SKUs and shelf space relatively equal.

Sadly, what you suggest is impractical. Here is why:

Lets assume they go with your idea (This gets past the fact that no company wants to "buyback" any of their product unless they absolutely have to).

How would you repackage the cards? Build a specialized complicated robot (Versus just a printer that they already have)? Have people do it by hand? Both of these risk damaging the cards, which then increases the cost to either sort or prevent mistakes since no one wants to buy damaged cards for a 'new' product or didn't have the right cards. Also they'd have to setup and manage the whole buy-back program, which would be a logistical nightmare.

I think it would legitimately be cheaper for them to just print new packs (They'd have to do at least half of process anyways to repackage the cards), and just pay to throw away the old cards.

Solution 2: If a particular dynasty pack runs out, run a new order. No additional overhead needed. Let people decide what they want to buy. No additional cost to FFG.

A better solution might be to have a slightly discounted "Buy one Cycle" box that has the deluxe + 6 dynasty packs. But even that might be more than they want to deal with. Price it so stores could reasonable sell it at $80 ($20 for Deluxe (Which I think is right), $10 each for 6 Dynasty).

Another week, another thread about the cost of CCGs versus LCGs.

I don't know about anyone else, but I value replay-ability over many other things.

Netrunner.

$240 (3x Core, 4 deluxe expansions, if you pay full MSRP, and don't use amazon or find any bargains). It gets you 666 tournament legal cards, and you will always have plenty of cards to make multiple decks from, and due to the Corp/Runner split, you'll always be able to have a buddy playing the other side and never run into card scarcity.

Can you buy a single deck for MtG for $20? Sure. Are you going to enjoy playing that lone deck for 2 years? Not very likely. $40 and you and a friend have a lot of decks to play around with and try out and see if you like it and easily get your moneys worth if you like it without buying other decks.

Just like new Magic the Gathering players don't need to go out and start buying Power Nine cards, new LCG players will not need to buy 3 core boxes.

Do I wish FFG would just do a full set of cards in the core box? Yes.

One thing FFG does for AGoT2.0 that they could do for L5R is the champion packs. They have a complete copy of the deck used to win the world championship. While it is faction specific, it would probably serve as a good on-ramp for a new player that wants a competitive deck.

35 minutes ago, AkodoD said:

One thing FFG does for AGoT2.0 that they could do for L5R is the champion packs. They have a complete copy of the deck used to win the world championship. While it is faction specific, it would probably serve as a good on-ramp for a new player that wants a competitive deck.

I have little doubt they'll do that. However... when this is published usually the meta has already changed. Regardless, it is a way to get extra cards for multiple decks, and they are full bleed, too!

I think there's a difference between what would be nice for customers, and what would be optimum in terms of profit for FFG. There's a balance to be struck here of course, as if any company takes the mickey we can vote with our wallets and walk away.

However, I don't think the needing multiple core sets is really a big deal. It's generally been the case that 1 set gets you enough to play the game casually and for fun, 2 sets gets you to a stage where you can start actually deckbuilding, and 3 sets gets you to a tourney-ready cardpool. No CCG will ever get you to a tourney-ready cardpool for that small an amount of cash, let alone in a position where you own sufficient copies of every card in the game.

As for packs dedicated to each clan, I think it also makes good business sense for FFG to encourage all competitive players to but every pack, at least initially. The nature of LCGs is that you lose players over time, as the cost to catch up in card pool becomes a bigger and bigger barrier to entry. It doesn't make sense for FFG to produce packs that don't sell to the whole fanbase, as the pool of customers is pretty small to start off.

For me as a player, it might be a little annoying to have cards for factions I never use, but I accept that as reasonable for the game to be a viable concern for FFG. If there's no viable path to profit, then the game dies, and we players get nothing at all.

I'd personally also advocate a shorter cycle, maybe allowing only the last 10 or so packs (plus the core) to be tourney legal for the standard format. Older cards could still be used for open format casual games, but a shorter cycle would keep the game accessible to new players as time goes on, and as a tourney player I know that the real determinant of a game's longevity is not just how well it retains its original players, but also if it can continue to pull in fresh blood.

I will freely admit that I've been put off several LCGs because my interest in them started at a point when it would have been prohibitively expensive to join the fun. Even AGOT2, which interested me somewhat from the start, didn't really start to appeal to me fully till they reintroduced Valar Morghulis, and now it feels too expensive to buy back in to catch up, so I'm not bothering.

To ensure long term existence for its lcgs, ffg should be really more agressive on the rotation thing. Waiting for the 8th cycle before rotating is almost the same as waiting the game to die. :-/

3 minutes ago, MrMenthe said:

To ensure long term existence for its lcgs, ffg should be really more agressive on the rotation thing. Waiting for the 8th cycle before rotating is almost the same as waiting the game to die. :-/

To some extent, perhaps. But being too aggressive isn't good, either. As soon as the new cycle hits, the oldest cycle(s) rotate out, removing a lot of cards from the legal pool, while the new cycle will still take several months to add its cards back in. By waiting until several cycles are already in place, FFG ensures that a large amount of cards are still available to pull from, so we're not going back to Core every single time we rotate.

Also, with how much money I'm going to be spending on cards, I guess I don't really see how it's a bad thing for them to be usable for longer, but maybe it's different for the competitive crowd.

At 1 pack every month, it takes 3.5 years before rotation first kicks in (after 7 full cycles) and 1 more year (2 full cycles) before each new rotation. The only LCG that has lasted more than that is AGoT1 (it was rebooted because it was too late for rotation). The oldest still-running LCG, Netrunner, is due for its first rotation soon (it's halfway through its 7th cycle).

57 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

At 1 pack every month, it takes 3.5 years before rotation first kicks in (after 7 full cycles) and 2 more years (2 full cycles) before each new rotation. The only LCG that has lasted more than that is AGoT1 (it was rebooted because it was too late for rotation). The oldest still-running LCG, Netrunner, is due for its first rotation soon (it's halfway through its 7th cycle).

2 full cycles should be 1 year, shouldn't it? So, we'll still have cards cycle out every year once we get to that point, only we'll also have a couple years worth of cards to make sure that the card pool doesn't dry up completely every time it happens. With some people complaining that at two cards per clan per month it'll take forever to build up a decent card pool, why are others so insistent that the card pool shrink as often as possible?

4 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

2 full cycles should be 1 year, shouldn't it? So, we'll still have cards cycle out every year once we get to that point, only we'll also have a couple years worth of cards to make sure that the card pool doesn't dry up completely every time it happens. With some people complaining that at two cards per clan per month it'll take forever to build up a decent card pool, why are others so insistent that the card pool shrink as often as possible?

You're right, I've fixed my post. As for your other question, I have no idea.

I don't think people are insistent that the card pool shrink, so much as they are trying to minimize the burden on bringing in new players as the game matures. That does matter -- games naturally lose some players as they age, and if they can't bring in new players, they die off. New players, whether realistically or not, tend to look at the cost of the game to become competitive. If that requires hunting down rare packs from 3 years ago, they're less likely to join in, even if they had fun playing their buddy's decks.

Not saying I have a solution to this, but that's what people talking about faster cycling are probably most concerned with.

10 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

2 full cycles should be 1 year, shouldn't it? So, we'll still have cards cycle out every year once we get to that point, only we'll also have a couple years worth of cards to make sure that the card pool doesn't dry up completely every time it happens. With some people complaining that at two cards per clan per month it'll take forever to build up a decent card pool, why are others so insistent that the card pool shrink as often as possible?

Short answer... so the game can have the chance to attract new players 18+ months after launch. More generally, the "rotation policy" is not relevant if the game is longer profitable due to player attrition (combined with inability to attract new players). FFG will simply discontinue the game in this case.

As for taking too long to "build up a decent card pool" that is primarily a function of too few cards in each pack (relative to the number of factions).

Thaddok

10 minutes ago, agarrett said:

I don't think people are insistent that the card pool shrink, so much as they are trying to minimize the burden on bringing in new players as the game matures. That does matter -- games naturally lose some players as they age, and if they can't bring in new players, they die off. New players, whether realistically or not, tend to look at the cost of the game to become competitive. If that requires hunting down rare packs from 3 years ago, they're less likely to join in, even if they had fun playing their buddy's decks.

Not saying I have a solution to this, but that's what people talking about faster cycling are probably most concerned with.

I get that, at some level, but I fear that too many people aren't looking at the cost to be competitive, but rather are looking at the cost to have every single legal card, which is not necessarily the same thing.

For instance, some people have talked about how the cost of buying three core sets may be off-putting to a newbie. This completely ignores the fact that after a couple cycles have been released, you won't need three cores to be competitive! You'll still need three cores if you want a full playset of all the cards in the core, but by then there should be enough cards to make a perfectly viable deck with just a single core plus the expanded card pool.

My experience is that to be properly competitive in an LCG at a tourney level you do indeed need to have every single legal card.

Of course, you don't need that just to be able to participate in and have reasonable fun in a tourney, it just seems unlikely to get anywhere near the final cut with anything less than a full set of all cards.

Just wait till the first deluxe hits and everyone freaks cause their clan isnt one of the first represented

38 minutes ago, Prepare for War said:

My experience is that to be properly competitive in an LCG at a tourney level you do indeed need to have every single legal card.

Of course, you don't need that just to be able to participate in and have reasonable fun in a tourney, it just seems unlikely to get anywhere near the final cut with anything less than a full set of all cards.

Demonstrably untrue. There's a hard limit of 45 cards per deck. Eventually, between the Core set, Deluxe sets, and several cycles, we're going to reach the point where you couldn't even include every copy of legal clan cards for your deck, not even taking into consideration neutral cards or multiple copies, and I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of decks will have at least a couple duplicate cards and/or neutrals (not to mention splashing other clans).

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Demonstrably untrue. There's a hard limit of 45 cards per deck. Eventually, between the Core set, Deluxe sets, and several cycles, we're going to reach the point where you couldn't even include every copy of legal clan cards for your deck, not even taking into consideration neutral cards or multiple copies, and I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of decks will have at least a couple duplicate cards and/or neutrals (not to mention splashing other clans).

Logically sound, what you're saying, but my experience has been that when you are looking to master a game you have to be intimately familiar with the full card pool, and that means having played every card of importance at least a few times within a working deck. Until you get that experience, it's not possible to tune your decks and make decisions of one card versus another. Theorycrafting is no substitute for practice, and unless you have a full cardpool, you haven't fully practiced the game.

For sure, you could netdeck, and just buy the packs you need for a tourney-level deck, but folk who do that tend not to have the deep understanding of the game needed for tourney wins.

Likewise, you could gain full familiarity with the full cardpool through game clients like octgn, but personally I don't feel morally comfortable playing on octgn with cards I don't physically own. If I've bought the cards IRL, I feel like I've paid the game's creators enough to use their ideas and concepts within a virtual space, but it seems bad for the game and unethical to use their work without having financially compensated them.

As I say though, your logic is sound. It's just that in reality, people without full card sets don't win LCG tournaments.

1 hour ago, XCoconutMonkey06X said:

Just wait till the first deluxe hits and everyone freaks cause their clan isnt one of the first represented

To my mind, the problem there is a lack of LCG mindset. In CCGs faction loyalty is a thing because of the way you collect cards. You get random cards, then you swap or purchase your way into a tourney-ready position in your clan of choice. This makes for a strong sense of factional identification and loyalty.

In an LCG, you've purchased all the cards for all the factions. It makes no sense to be overly loyal to one faction, and if you want to be a top tier player it makes sense to always read the meta and decide which faction is most likely to be dominant at any given time.

Asymmetry of clan strength is problematic in other ways, of course, as it can lead to a very homogenous competitive scene. However, I think it's not sensible in a Five Rings LCG to get too attached to a single clan. If a clan falls behind, then either play a different clan for a while, or be happy to be a casual player content with a smaller card pool.

52 minutes ago, Prepare for War said:

Logically sound, what you're saying, but my experience has been that when you are looking to master a game you have to be intimately familiar with the full card pool, and that means having played every card of importance at least a few times within a working deck. Until you get that experience, it's not possible to tune your decks and make decisions of one card versus another. Theorycrafting is no substitute for practice, and unless you have a full cardpool, you haven't fully practiced the game.

For sure, you could netdeck, and just buy the packs you need for a tourney-level deck, but folk who do that tend not to have the deep understanding of the game needed for tourney wins.

Likewise, you could gain full familiarity with the full cardpool through game clients like octgn, but personally I don't feel morally comfortable playing on octgn with cards I don't physically own. If I've bought the cards IRL, I feel like I've paid the game's creators enough to use their ideas and concepts within a virtual space, but it seems bad for the game and unethical to use their work without having financially compensated them.

As I say though, your logic is sound. It's just that in reality, people without full card sets don't win LCG tournaments.

I guess I wasn't reading "in order to be competitive" as "in order to be the number one player in the entire world, with an unbeatable deck". In that case, yes, expect to spend some money.

48 minutes ago, Prepare for War said:

To my mind, the problem there is a lack of LCG mindset. In CCGs faction loyalty is a thing because of the way you collect cards. You get random cards, then you swap or purchase your way into a tourney-ready position in your clan of choice. This makes for a strong sense of factional identification and loyalty.

In an LCG, you've purchased all the cards for all the factions. It makes no sense to be overly loyal to one faction, and if you want to be a top tier player it makes sense to always read the meta and decide which faction is most likely to be dominant at any given time.

Asymmetry of clan strength is problematic in other ways, of course, as it can lead to a very homogenous competitive scene. However, I think it's not sensible in a Five Rings LCG to get too attached to a single clan. If a clan falls behind, then either play a different clan for a while, or be happy to be a casual player content with a smaller card pool.

You know, it is possible to have clan loyalty simply because you like a clan; regardless of whether that clan is particularly powerful at the moment. Even among tournament-goers, some people are out to bring glory to their clan rather than merely get the top prize. Not everyone can be the top player, but everyone can have fun if they choose to; win, lose, or draw.

House loyalty is very much a thing in AGoT, and it has been an LCG longer than it has been a CCG (I've been playing Stark since I started AGoT a few years ago). "Mercenary' players were already there in the CCG, they just needed more money than in the LCG model.

13 hours ago, JJ48 said:

I guess I wasn't reading "in order to be competitive" as "in order to be the number one player in the entire world, with an unbeatable deck". In that case, yes, expect to spend some money.

You know, it is possible to have clan loyalty simply because you like a clan; regardless of whether that clan is particularly powerful at the moment. Even among tournament-goers, some people are out to bring glory to their clan rather than merely get the top prize. Not everyone can be the top player, but everyone can have fun if they choose to; win, lose, or draw.

Yes, exactly. Storyline prizes are a big draw in L5R, and what is the point of competing over them with a clan that is your favorite clan's rival? Any glory you win goes to the clan that you played, but yay for you! You won with the clan that's dominant. That makes zero sense, IMO.

Well, I guess I understand that, liking Crane more than any other clan.

Personally I found that with AGOT1 and Conquest, while I had favourite factions, the only way to know the game was to play with every faction a little, at least in the practice games. I'd still be Lannister and Chaos in tourneys more often than not, but I wouldn't have been able to play those factions well without seeing every other faction from the inside.

2 hours ago, Prepare for War said:

Well, I guess I understand that, liking Crane more than any other clan.

Personally I found that with AGOT1 and Conquest, while I had favourite factions, the only way to know the game was to play with every faction a little, at least in the practice games. I'd still be Lannister and Chaos in tourneys more often than not, but I wouldn't have been able to play those factions well without seeing every other faction from the inside.

I am with you as the above makes total sense. But a good deal of people are coming from the CCG where clan loyalty was king. I have had my fav factions and what not in all my other LCGs but my gamer ADD keeps me from sticking with 1 deck for too long. Gonna try to stick with Crab for as long as I can

Gamer ADD vs Gamer OCD is my cognitive battle of choice too.