7 hours ago, Klawtu said:

They want the game to make money more than just about anyone else out there.

While you're certainly right in theory, I can scarcely imagine anyone being more desperate to see this game take off like a rocket than I am.

Not trying to straw man, or say you dislike the format. I'm saying it's a petty argument in my opinion. I have literally hundreds of cards from the old game that I couldn't possibly have ever used if I built dozens of decks for the same clan. Having 2 is such a meaningless number I can't even fathom complaining about it.

21 minutes ago, llamaman88 said:

Not trying to straw man, or say you dislike the format. I'm saying it's a petty argument in my opinion. I have literally hundreds of cards from the old game that I couldn't possibly have ever used if I built dozens of decks for the same clan. Having 2 is such a meaningless number I can't even fathom complaining about it.

You are absolutely entitled to that opinion and luckily for me I'm not even playing Crab so pretty much all the Crab cards are dead to me unless that changes some day. I'm also not saying that I'm not going to buy because of the decision to include some cards I'm not going to need. I was just talking about what I'd prefer to see and getting mildly annoyed that both the fact that I had a preference that was different than what we're getting was treated as heresy and that the old "Don't like don't buy" defense was getting trotted out again. In the end whether or not I'll buy this or any pack depends on if any of the cards look like ones I'll need for my current decks. Thus far I'm not seeing anything I need but who knows what'll happen when everything is spoiled.

Also the only point I was really trying to argue with you was that there is a difference in my eyes between buying one of a product and ending up with extra cards (as in what the destiny pack will give you), and buying multiple of a product and getting extras (like buying multiple cores to get a full playset.) It may not be enough of a difference to you to mean anything but that's all I was trying to say. It is entirely possible that I'm going to want more than 3 of a specific neutral card in this or a later dynasty pack so I can include it in multiple decks. When that happens I'll have to buy additional packs and that's on me. **** just with the clans I don't intend to ever play I'm going to end up with hundreds of extra cards as well but I'm not mad about that in the least. Even still it's not the end of the world or me thinking FFG are being greedy, just not my own preference for how card distribution would work. It's less of a complaint for me than a trying to figure out how I'd like it to work.

15 hours ago, Ide Yoshiya said:

While you're certainly right in theory, I can scarcely imagine anyone being more desperate to see this game take off like a rocket than I am.

Ahhh that's why the key "than just about anybody" was included. I will not doubt your own desires to see this game surpass all others and take it's rightful place as Emperor of all card games.

The thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is printing logistics. The way they print the sheets make printing one-offs difficult/expensive.

Absolutely, they could make a set with 3x19 cards, and 1x3 uniques. Totally doable. And that pack might end up costing MSRP $20 instead of $15.

Are the cards surplus? Yes. But there are real logistical issues with how sheets of cards are printed that make printing one-offs unfeasible. So for every solution I've seen presented, realize what you're suggesting is a real bump in price.

I'd rather they just always print 3x20, even if some are redundant, rather than another solution that drives the price up.

2 hours ago, CitizenKeen said:

The thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is printing logistics. The way they print the sheets make printing one-offs difficult/expensive.

Absolutely, they could make a set with 3x19 cards, and 1x3 uniques. Totally doable. And that pack might end up costing MSRP $20 instead of $15.

Are the cards surplus? Yes. But there are real logistical issues with how sheets of cards are printed that make printing one-offs unfeasible. So for every solution I've seen presented, realize what you're suggesting is a real bump in price.

I'd rather they just always print 3x20, even if some are redundant, rather than another solution that drives the price up.

That's actually a really interesting point. I'm not aware of exactly how the sheet printing goes but I'm assuming this means that they just run a sheet with all the cards and include 3 of those sheets in each of the packs? If that's the case then going with a plan that would include multiple uniques would have a good chance at raising the cost to produce. I don't know if it would be enough for a 1/3 cost bump but at that point we're just quibbling over how much more it would cost. I've always been able to grasp that having the 3X of one unique would be more efficient and cost effective for FFG and am in no way saying the solutions I mentioned are perfect. Just some musings on how I personally would have liked to see things turn out but in the end if a few dead cards are what is needed to make the transition to an LCG which is way more affordable than the CCG model I'm more than happy to make that trade. I can also agree that I'd rather keep it cheeper with some redundant product than see a price hike just to increase the number of cards I get.

They do more custom stuff in other games, especially the coop ones (LotR and Arkham). But the thing is, in those games, scenario cards take up over 50% of each pack, so they have to deal with varying numbers of copies all the time. They also did something like that for SW, putting 1-of pods as 1-ofs (pods are 6 cards each), and Conquest (each warlord took up 9 cards in the pack, because it came with its 8 signature cards). But again, those were pretty predictable. They have never done it for AGoT since they switched to the full 3x model for packs and I doubt they'll do it for L5R.

13 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

They do more custom stuff in other games, especially the coop ones (LotR and Arkham). But the thing is, in those games, scenario cards take up over 50% of each pack, so they have to deal with varying numbers of copies all the time. They also did something like that for SW, putting 1-of pods as 1-ofs (pods are 6 cards each), and Conquest (each warlord took up 9 cards in the pack, because it came with its 8 signature cards). But again, those were pretty predictable. They have never done it for AGoT since they switched to the full 3x model for packs and I doubt they'll do it for L5R.

Yeah. In Lord of the Rings LCG, at least, there are a lot of singles for the scenario, so it's probably much more feasible to have an entire sheet just of singles to add to the 3x sheet set.