1 hour ago, HamHamJ2 said:

There are just over 20 unique new cards in most packs, not counting the nemesis and identity card. 5 more on top of that is closer to a 25% increase, not 8%. Probably relatively more as like half of those are hero specific and thus less complicated as they can only be used all or none as a set.

Whether you're going by total cards or total distinct cards is fine, but use the same numbers for both. I was using total number of cards for both to be consistent. 5 cards being replaced wouldn't necessarily be 5 distinct cards. It could be only 2 if it's 1 card in triplicate and 1 with 2 copies.

On 8/24/2020 at 1:32 PM, Supertoe said:

Am I alone in feeling this way?

Probably in the minority. Just to be clear, your gripe is that there's a tiny handful of cards in each pack you don't want doubles of? Honestly, this seems like a very inconsequential thing to be concerned about.

They design a bunch of new cards for a hero deck, add in some existing cards that fit with that hero, then they throw in 2-3 filler cards to get the hero deck up to 40 cards. They also ensure there is a completely new playset of cards for each aspect. Makes sense to me.

11 hours ago, IceHot42 said:

Not necessarily (depending on your method of counting), it could just mean more copies of the same new card.

The back of the box is misleading in this way... Black Widows box says 27 new cards but with dupes there is really only 26 "new" cards to get to 27 they have to count Counter Intelligence 3 times.

Where as with Dr. Strange we really get 33 new cards but the back box only says 24 because they dont count the identity cards, invocations, and the 1 Iron Man only counts once.

That's a fair point. When I said that each hero pack has the same number of cards, I was referring to total number rather than number of distinct cards. Going by distinct cards does change the math a little bit, but as long as the same method is used consistently, I think either way of counting them is valid.

Just to add a little clarity, here's the numbers for the Hero Packs so far:

* also have 2 reprints in their Nemesis set.

So Black Widow does have the largest proportion of reprints.

20 hours ago, IceHot42 said:

Im actually glad Hawkeye is in caps deck a second one is good for my deck building (2nd leadership deck). I have more than enough Hellicarriers and Av Mansions, I also prefer Mockingbird (I have 6-8 decks that can go in) over Make the Call which gets less play the more useful allies they make.

Really you don’t have ‘too many’ of a non unique card until you’ve got more than 12 copies (enough for 4 players to each run 3 of).

11 hours ago, Jonathan4290 said:

Probably in the minority. Just to be clear, your gripe is that there's a tiny handful of cards in each pack you don't want doubles of? Honestly, this seems like a very inconsequential thing to be concerned about.

They design a bunch of new cards for a hero deck, add in some existing cards that fit with that hero, then they throw in 2-3 filler cards to get the hero deck up to 40 cards. They also ensure there is a completely new playset of cards for each aspect. Makes sense to me.

I believe the gripe was he didn't want triples. More variety of the reprints. Could be wrong.

8 hours ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

Just to add a little clarity, here's the numbers for the Hero Packs so far:

	Hero		Deckbuilding
Set	Distinct	Extras	Distinct	Extras	Reprints	Info
Captain America	10	6	12	16	9*	1
Miss Marvel	11	5	11	18	8	1
Thor	10	6	14	16	7	1
Black Widow	10	6	11	16	10*	1
Doctor Strange	16	5	12	12	8	1
Hulk	10	6	12	18	7	1

* also have 2 reprints in their Nemesis set.

So Black Widow does have the largest proportion of reprints.

Thanks for doing that. Always nice to have the data cleanly organized like that.

The numbers are pretty interesting. The overall number of reprints is slightly higher than I thought it was.

Doctor Strange having the least cards for deckbuilding matched my expectation, but I didn't realize that he actually still had more distinct cards for deckbuilding than two of the others.

Btw, minor nitpick--Kamala's name is Ms. Marvel, not Miss Marvel. (Some people are very particular about their titles. )

38 minutes ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

Thanks for doing that. Always nice to have the data cleanly organized like that.

The numbers are pretty interesting. The overall number of reprints is slightly higher than I thought it was.

Doctor Strange having the least cards for deckbuilding matched my expectation, but I didn't realize that he actually still had more distinct cards for deckbuilding than two of the others.

Btw, minor nitpick--Kamala's name is Ms. Marvel, not Miss Marvel. (Some people are very particular about their titles. )

I had most of the data already, it was just a case of rearranging it.

You're quite right - I was expanding from MM on the Google sheet and got it wrong.

15 hours ago, Jonathan4290 said:

Probably in the minority. Just to be clear, your gripe is that there's a tiny handful of cards in each pack you don't want doubles of? Honestly, this seems like a very inconsequential thing to be concerned about.

They design a bunch of new cards for a hero deck, add in some existing cards that fit with that hero, then they throw in 2-3 filler cards to get the hero deck up to 40 cards. They also ensure there is a completely new playset of cards for each aspect. Makes sense to me.

I think it comes from having played many LCGs where they didn't do this. It's really a minor, inconsequential thing, but it seems pointless given that they've never had to do that before, and while I appreciate the effort to make them playable out of the box, there's a lot of choices that just are random reprint cards thrown in for no real reason.

Coming from Arkham, there are so few punishing cards per pack. I'm used to getting racked over the fire and only having 14-20 player cards. These things have been releasing with 55 player cards each! 😝

1 hour ago, Duciris said:

Coming from Arkham, there are so few punishing cards per pack. I'm used to getting racked over the fire and only having 14-20 player cards. These things have been releasing with 55 player cards each! 😝

I feel you, I stopped buying Arkham after Dunwich because I didn't really need another campaign but I still desperately want more player cards!

22 minutes ago, Supertoe said:

I feel you, I stopped buying Arkham after Dunwich because I didn't really need another campaign but I still desperately want more player cards!

The investigator decks come out this week! They'll have a few reprints, but are otherwise entirely new player cards (and investigators).

16 minutes ago, Duciris said:

The investigator decks come out this week! They'll have a few reprints, but are otherwise entirely new player cards (and investigators).

AWESOME I HADN'T SEEN THOSE

That gives me something to spend the rest of my store credit on after Red Skull ha.

1 hour ago, Duciris said:

The investigator decks come out this week! They'll have a few reprints, but are otherwise entirely new player cards (and investigators).

Mine are on the way and I'm so excited to get them.

18 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

That's a fair point. When I said that each hero pack has the same number of cards, I was referring to total number rather than number of distinct cards. Going by distinct cards does change the math a little bit, but as long as the same method is used consistently, I think either way of counting them is valid.

For me at least I need to count distinct new cards, but I would be willing to count the uncounted cards as well (Nemesis, Obligation, and Identity).

The reason is once they give me the card the other 2 are dupes, they dont add anything to my expanded pool of cards as far as new options go.

A good example of this is Invulnerability...I got 3 copies of the card but only 1 option. I would rather have Lockjaw x1, Hercules x1, Falcon x1...with the 3 options I at least get a playable card.

Also do we really count "The Sorcerer Supreme" as a "deckbuilding" card?

16 minutes ago, IceHot42 said:

Also do we really count "The Sorcerer Supreme" as a "deckbuilding" card?

Yes - although no one else can currently use it, Scarlet Witch will be able to use it and presumably so will others at some point...

Seems like a whine to me.

Not everybody buys every pack, so they have to have some mechanism to bulk the card count for various cards I would assume.

As well as the points made by others here that I won't parrot.

5 hours ago, IceHot42 said:

For me at least I need to count distinct new cards, but I would be willing to count the uncounted cards as well (Nemesis, Obligation, and Identity).

The reason is once they give me the card the other 2 are dupes, they dont add anything to my expanded pool of cards as far as new options go.

A good example of this is Invulnerability...I got 3 copies of the card but only 1 option. I would rather have Lockjaw x1, Hercules x1, Falcon x1...with the 3 options I at least get a playable card.

Also do we really count "The Sorcerer Supreme" as a "deckbuilding" card?

They don't add "new options," but every copy of a card up to the maximum number of that card allowed does still give one an option of whether to include it or not. And usually, if one wants a card, one wants multiples of that card for consistency. Personally, my decks usually have a bunch of cards at 3x, some unique or just "max 1 per player" cards at 1x, and maybe a couple cards at 2x if I'm still on the fence about them.

What definition of "deckbuilding card" would you use that would exclude Sorcerer Supreme? My definition is "a deckbuilding card is a card that players can choose to include or not include while building a deck." The other type of player card would be a hero card, which I would define as "a card that must be included with a given hero and cannot be included in a different deck."

3 hours ago, Deathseed said:

Seems like a whine to me.

Not everybody buys every pack, so they have to have some mechanism to bulk the card count for various cards I would assume.

As well as the points made by others here that I won't parrot.

I don't think calling it a "whine" is helpful to anyone. Probably better to just say that you disagree with it.

9 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

I don't think calling it a "whine" is helpful to anyone. Probably better to just say that you disagree with it.

I don't think you telling someone what they should say or not say is helpful to anyone. Probably better to just say that you disagree with him.

....Never change, Internet 😂

I wonder if they will use the filler card positions to subtly reprint cards that get an errata down the line. Would make the normally filler cards more useful for sure.

On 8/26/2020 at 2:51 PM, Supertoe said:

I feel you, I stopped buying Arkham after Dunwich because I didn't really need another campaign but I still desperately want more player cards!

I'm always fascinated by how differently people can approach games. This is the exact opposite of my take. I got bored with Champions after Black Widow was released (I've said it often enough in other threads, but replaying the same villains just doesn't cut it anymore for me) so I stepped into the larger world of Arkham LCG while waiting for the Red Skull box, and I was pleasantly surprised (and relieved) to see I had a lot less player cards to use -- new investigator decks notwithstanding. That being said, although I egoistically wish that Champions had been the same, I do know that the idea is absurd and unrealistic, because they are more heroes to play than villains to face, and that's what people likely want to see. It's fine, it's how it is. But today I know better what I want and where to expect it.

4 minutes ago, Ascarel said:

I'm always fascinated by how differently people can approach games. This is the exact opposite of my take. I got bored with Champions after Black Widow was released (I've said it often enough in other threads, but replaying the same villains just doesn't cut it anymore for me) so I stepped into the larger world of Arkham LCG while waiting for the Red Skull box, and I was pleasantly surprised (and relieved) to see I had a lot less player cards to use -- new investigator decks notwithstanding. That being said, although I egoistically wish that Champions had been the same, I do know that the idea absurd and unrealistic, because they are more heroes to play than villains to face, and that's what people likely want to see. It's fine, it's how it is. But today I know better what I want and where to expect it.

Yeah, I think I'm definitely in the minority here. It's just hard for me to justify dropping $130 to get another cycle of Arkham for the new scenarios, because everything has to be linked in a campaign for it to work. Plus coming from a Netrunner/Lord of the Rings background the deckbuilding is my favorite part of LCGs

5 minutes ago, Supertoe said:

Plus coming from a Netrunner/Lord of the Rings background the deckbuilding is my favorite part of LCGs

It's funny because in that case I think we both shall be eternally unsatisfied with Marvel Champions, but for opposite reasons. 😂 This doesn't imply we will ever dislike the game -- in any case I know I won't. But the game clearly tries to fit a newer kind of middle ground between deckbuilding and story-driven gaming, with simultaneously less of both. But aiming for wider audiences does force you to compromise. I think FFG is doing a fine job. The game is what it is. We can't fault them for our itches that needs more scratchin', so to speak.

14 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

They don't add "new options," but every copy of a card up to the maximum number of that card allowed does still give one an option of whether to include it or not. And usually, if one wants a card, one wants multiples of that card for consistency. Personally, my decks usually have a bunch of cards at 3x, some unique or just "max 1 per player" cards at 1x, and maybe a couple cards at 2x if I'm still on the fence about them.

I agree with you when I am at home deckbuilding, but since playing 2-player is an option as is 3-player, and 4-player and since the designers stated its originally a co-op game 4th , 5th , and 6th, etc. copies of cards are all deckbuilding options they just dont feel like it. This is why I stated I was happy to get a second copy of Hawkeye.

But in many of these discussions we arent talking about the options for purpose of deckbuilding, we are discussing that more content gives us more things to explore, and that is why for purposes of discussions like the one the OP started I think its more relevant to discuss distinct cards, not deckbuilding copies.

Quote

What definition of "deckbuilding card" would you use that would exclude Sorcerer Supreme?

It would actually be the "deckbuilding card" subcategory that places the card firmly in the " Future-Deckbuilding-Sorcerer-Staple-Cards/Are-You-Nuts-For-Contemplating-Not-Playing-This-Card? " subcategory which by any Douglas Adam's definition is not actually a definition at all, nor an actual subcategory, but rather a comment about how much vexing during deckbuilding decisions the card merits . ( ie. dont take my rhetorical question to seriously )