In the upcoming dynasty pack, it says three of each card -> a full playset. But some of the cards can't be included more than once (like the crab holding which is a one-of per deck) so are they giving us three cards that we can't even use in a deck or will they only include one? This sucks if I get 3 of a card i can only use in one deck.

They will give 3 of each card. It seems like this makes production easier.

It also means you have spare cards for multiple decks!

6 minutes ago, Oliveira said:

They will give 3 of each card. It seems like this makes production easier.

Yeah, but in LOTR and Arkham they have no problem printing plenty of uniques. I don't really need 3 provinces or 3 limit 1 cards or 3 strongholds. Just a little disappointing that when I get the pack I can add 4 total cards to all my crab decks, not six like everyone else. I would rather they add 3 "one of" cards a pack.

If you don't feel a pack is worth your money, you're free to skip it.

It's much better than having 300+ commons in a box that are completely redundant, so it's fine with me, especially if it's cheaper or easier to produce.

Seriously the few annoying things I hear about LCG set up is nothing compared to boxes and boxes of useless cards I spent too much money on to get enough copies of a few rares and uncommons I needed for a deck. I spent a grand on a set of VS and still had to buy singles and trade. I'll take the occasional extra unique holding for $15.

If you don't want any extra copies of single-include cards, feel free to give them away. I'm sure others won't mind having more.

So, you're complaining that they're giving you extra cards? Would you prefer they only give you one copy of such cards, and give you fewer cards overall?

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

So, you're complaining that they're giving you extra cards? Would you prefer they only give you one copy of such cards, and give you fewer cards overall?

I'm pretty sure the preference would be to not have a *limit one per deck* card be included in the very first expansion pack meaning that unless every other clan is also getting one like that in this pack Crab will have a smaller card pool early on. Funnily I'm not seeing anything that I'd definitely be including in any of my deck ideas so I may give this one a pass or at least wait to pick it up until the strategies they support shape up a bit more.

7 hours ago, wolfien8 said:

Yeah, but in LOTR and Arkham they have no problem printing plenty of uniques. I don't really need 3 provinces or 3 limit 1 cards or 3 strongholds. Just a little disappointing that when I get the pack I can add 4 total cards to all my crab decks, not six like everyone else. I would rather they add 3 "one of" cards a pack.

I play both Arkham and LOTR - both of those games include a full playset (2 copies for Arkham, 3 for LOTR) of every single player card except those in the Core Set. Even if the card is Unique or Limit 1 per deck.

20 hours ago, Hinomura said:

It also means you have spare cards for multiple decks!

Or spare cards in case you plan on collecting (which is why I'm planning to do).

I love the LCG setup over the CCG and will get the pack. For me I probably won't have multiple Crab decks since it is a dynasty card. I am not asking for fewer cards overall, I am asking to get more cards to fill up the pack with more variety. Extra copies of a single include means that 2 copies will always go unused unless at some point far in to the game I suddenly am able to build 3 different Crab decks at the same time, which seems a little unlikely. I don't know, just seems kind of weird to me, but also sounds like people want extra copies, so I won't fight the crowd. Also in comparing to the coop LCG cards, there are single copy cards, but they are mostly encounter cards and it is more likely that one-of cards may get used by another investigator too since the roles have much more overlap in Arkham.

It's going to be useless for most players, you're totally right. But I just don't think it matters much in the long run. Especially if every clan ends up with a limit 1 dynasty card by the end of the cycle. I'd love more cards, but I also get that means more art, more play testing, slightly more complicated printing and packing, more room for misprints and other errors. All of that adds to cost. So long as it's consistent for the cycle I don't see it as a big deal. I mean, If I buy 3 cores I'm getting 3 strongholds for 7 factions, that's 14 useless cards too unless I build multiple decks for each clan.

18 minutes ago, llamaman88 said:

It's going to be useless for most players, you're totally right. But I just don't think it matters much in the long run. Especially if every clan ends up with a limit 1 dynasty card by the end of the cycle. I'd love more cards, but I also get that means more art, more play testing, slightly more complicated printing and packing, more room for misprints and other errors. All of that adds to cost. So long as it's consistent for the cycle I don't see it as a big deal. I mean, If I buy 3 cores I'm getting 3 strongholds for 7 factions, that's 14 useless cards too unless I build multiple decks for each clan.

That's kind of the point though. If you buy 3 cores you will have dead cards that you just don't need but there is a difference between buying 3 of a thing and ending up with extras and buying only 1 and still getting more than you can reasonably use. It also hurts that this is a dynasty card so it's not even like you could potentially splash it in another clan's deck if you wanted to.

If you buy 1 core you get 1 copy of lots of cards you want 3 of. 3 cores is how the game is intended to be played. So it stands to reason that if you're getting 3 of everything that you get 3 of everything, even cards you can't play.

I mean the core set is really$120 split into 3 easy payments of $39.99, and the dynasty set cycles are 1 set split up in however many installments. May suck when your first card is limit 1, but the next 5 sets probably won't be. It's a waiting game, and a much faster one than the old CCG was.

Most likely, every clan will end getting one Imperial District, so it will even out at the end of the cycle.

I remember the dark days of AGOT and Call of Cthulu where they had 40 Card Boosters, where you got 3 copies of 10 cards, and 1 copy of the other 10 cards.

So if you wanted a play set of a single card, you would have to buy 3 of the 40 Card Boosters, and now you had 60 Dead Cards that you did not need.

1 hour ago, llamaman88 said:

If you buy 1 core you get 1 copy of lots of cards you want 3 of. 3 cores is how the game is intended to be played. So it stands to reason that if you're getting 3 of everything that you get 3 of everything, even cards you can't play.

57 minutes ago, llamaman88 said:

I mean the core set is really$120 split into 3 easy payments of $39.99, and the dynasty set cycles are 1 set split up in however many installments. May suck when your first card is limit 1, but the next 5 sets probably won't be. It's a waiting game, and a much faster one than the old CCG was.

You may want 3 cores to have full playests (and I definitely will) but buying a single core set didn't leave me with more cards than I could include in a single deck for a clan. It would be like if they did give you a full playset of everything in the core box but the champs were all limit one per deck and they still included 3 of them in said box. You're paying for cards you're almost certainly not going to need. All that said while having 3 copies of a limit one per deck card in a pack may be a waste of cards it's by no means the worst idea ever.

You seem to be assuming that thinking a decision is sub optimal means that I hate the LCG format or FFG. I'll also gladly take a few dead cards in a pack that costs less than 4 packs for MTG rather than all the chaff and filler you'll get there. I'm nowhere near the grabbing the pitchfork stage even considering the issues I've seen.

I will say that if saying I'm not a fan of a specific decision will be constantly met with people either telling me that my opinion is invalid or to just not buy it if I don't like one thing about the pack

On 8/29/2017 at 3:20 PM, player2636234 said:

If you don't feel a pack is worth your money, you're free to skip it.

it kind of makes discussion of issues I see hard. I get that the game isn't even out yet, and that a lot of the issues I've seen (inconsistent and rapidly changing rulings as to card functionality, a Thursday tournament where many things that could go wrong did, over-promising on the number of boxes of the core set that would be available at the con, the fact that several local stores hadn't even heard about the OP kits for the Launch Program, etc) are due to a combination of an overwhelming amount of interest in a new game and the lack of time to build up the numbers of people to support what is a massive player base. These are also all issues that can easily be solved in both the short and long term but if people are constantly told that bringing up issues is the same as wanting the game to fail (something you admittedly stopped short of but a sentiment I have seen when others have brought up issues they've had here) then you're going to find a rapidly shrinking number of people are willing to try and fix things.

3 minutes ago, Cambeul no Oni said:

I remember the dark days of AGOT and Call of Cthulu where they had 40 Card Boosters, where you got 3 copies of 10 cards, and 1 copy of the other 10 cards.

So if you wanted a play set of a single card, you would have to buy 3 of the 40 Card Boosters, and now you had 60 Dead Cards that you did not need.

Oof see now that is the kind of decision that I would be looking for the torches and pitchforks about. Thank you for giving me some perspective on just how bad it could have been.

9 minutes ago, Klawtu said:

These are also all issues that can easily be solved in both the short and long term but if people are constantly told that bringing up issues is the same as wanting the game to fail

You misunderstand. Getting 3 of each province and unique card is not an issue.

Imagine, for a second, what a pack would look like if there weren't 3 of each. What would you put in those 2 slots you now have left over? Other clan uniques? Cue people whining that some clans get more in a single pack than others. Imagine if they found a solution that satisfied the former whingers. Cue people whining that some packs contain more cards, and the "typical" 20 new card packs are price gouging. We could go on forever, but the point here is that no matter what "solution" you try an unreasonable amount of people will continue to feel as though they're being ripped off.

People need to see the big picture, sometimes.

1 hour ago, Mon no Oni said:

Most likely, every clan will end getting one Imperial District, so it will even out at the end of the cycle.

idk about that - Karada is specifically a Crab district. They built the wall, and run the town. Its very thematic that Crab would get this district as a card, and its also thematic that it is a limit 1 per deck (considering you can't control unique holdings the way you control unique characters, so limit 1 per deck is the most logical way to make a holding unique). I doubt that each clan will get one. It is possible Crane get Chisei though.

40 minutes ago, player2636234 said:

You misunderstand. Getting 3 of each province and unique card is not an issue.

Imagine, for a second, what a pack would look like if there weren't 3 of each. What would you put in those 2 slots you now have left over? Other clan uniques? Cue people whining that some clans get more in a single pack than others. Imagine if they found a solution that satisfied the former whingers. Cue people whining that some packs contain more cards, and the "typical" 20 new card packs are price gouging. We could go on forever, but the point here is that no matter what "solution" you try an unreasonable amount of people will continue to feel as though they're being ripped off.

People need to see the big picture, sometimes.

First off please look up Straw man arguments or follow this friendly link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man seeing how you managed to change things from what I said in my argument of my point i.e that it would be like the champions (Clan specific cards that can not be splashed in the conflict decks of other clans) being 3 ofs in a box and limited to one per Clan deck and transferring that to provinces which are neutral cards. I actually agree that having 3 of each province is a good idea seeing how off the 3 cores I'm going to be picking up I will be making multiple decks and *gasp* some of the provinces I've already got are showing up in multiple of them.

The issue with a Holding is that as a Dynasty Deck card the only way for me to make use of all the ones I'll get in the pack is to have multiple Crab (or any future Clan with cards having the same restrictions) decks that are all using that specific holding. Not impossible but not too likely.

I absolutely can imagine a scenario where they don't have the 3X uniques want to hear them or would you rather also continue with "Begging the Question?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Scenario 1: They do include multiple other clan's worth of uniques in the same pack. You would be right about people upset if some clans got more in a single pack than others but that also precludes the possibility of still having the same ratio of clan cards. Just because you include multiple clan's getting unique cards you don't have to mess up that ratio.

Scenario 2: A 1X/2X solution. Rather than have 3 of a clan specific unique they have 1 clan specific unique and 2 neutral unique holdings. This would be my own preference as it would ensure that while the unique holdings are still included in multiples you're not going to have to make a second deck of a specific clan to get their use.

Those are off the top of my head in the short time I have pondered this, I may or may not be able to come up with other examples later on but that's not the point. The point is that while I mat have my own preference for how they would manage card variety in the expansion packs I'm not the one in charge of these things. I am however a person who likes the game and wants to support it. I want to buy the core set at my LGS so they feel like investing time and money in running tournaments is a good investment. I want to see the community grow to the point where it rivals any existing LCG because the quality and heart of the people behind the game has made people playing it feel that they are being rewarded for playing. I want this game to blow away the financial and enthusiasm expectations of everyone at FFG and for this to be the beginning of a dynasty I can share with generations to come. What I don't want is for this to be another flash in the pan, gone once the next big LCG is announced, killed off in it's infancy game. I want people to be able to hold critical discussions about decisions and not be told that they "hate" the game or that they are being "whiny" because they had the temerity to actually bring up their concerns. If voicing concerns counts as whining these days then I'm not sure what you want people to do other than just not give them money which is a great way to have your game die a quick death.

You can absolutely have the opinion that this was a fine way to handle things, I disagree but I haven't even seen the full card list so I have no idea if this pack is just one I'll skip for the moment or will be a day 1 buy. I may not think this was the best way to handle the pack but as has already been pointed out this is nowhere near the worst example even for a LCG and the worst LCG is still a load better than CCGs as far as duplicates of unneeded cards.

I think a large issue in this discussion is the assumption that by us getting 3x of a single-include card we're missing out. There's absolutely nothing to say that if they only included 1x of that card in a pack they would replace it with two different, unique cards. The far more likely scenario is that they would simply cut it down to 1x of the single-include card and have a slightly smaller pack. Likely at no decrease in cost, because it's only a couple of cards.

5 minutes ago, Malraza said:

I think a large issue in this discussion is the assumption that by us getting 3x of a single-include card we're missing out. There's absolutely nothing to say that if they only included 1x of that card in a pack they would replace it with two different, unique cards. The far more likely scenario is that they would simply cut it down to 1x of the single-include card and have a slightly smaller pack. Likely at no decrease in cost, because it's only a couple of cards.

Ohh no question that would be the more likely result and I'd much rather have the useless to me piece of cardboard than less cardboard per pack. I'm just saying what I'd personally prefer not what I'd guess would happen. All told I'm sure this is the option FFG has figured would cost the least while giving the most benefit to them, as they should. They want the game to make money more than just about anyone else out there.