Well... In LOTR lcg I use those extra cards as on backround of home made scenario cards, so they are not completey useles, but yeah.. More evenly distributed cards would be nice or then there sould be some deck building rules where some cards can only be ones, in the deck and some other more times. So one icon would mean one in deck, and two icons two in deck, three incons three in deck and so on... If only starter distribution would be the same. But that would be too good to be true... would it?

For example, if Gandalf would have had "only one is allowed per deck" mark, it would have been just fine, to have only one starter set... and so on... Or maybe "two allowed" would have been better, because one core set was mean to be two player set. But when the rules says that there is 3 card limit in each deck, It makes game balancing harder, because now some player groups have one Gandalf in deck and other have three. It is like putting Range Rower, and Nissan micra in the same ofroad race... other has no change of surviving the race trough!

I second this. I love Lord of the Rings and after buying 2 base sets I am still short a some cards. If they had done that with the expansion packs I would have quit playing the game. I doubt I start another LCG from FF if they do that again. Too much money, and the cost to them to print enough the first time is small. I would rather pay $45 for the first set and get everything, than $40 each and have a ton of stuff I don't want.

If not 3x for each of the cards in the base set, at least make sure there are no 1x ones, so the 2nd copy would complete it, or come out with a completer pack of just the cards you are missing for the same cost as one of the expansion sets. It wouldn't cost them much to make available and would make fans very happy.

I wouldn't mind it so mcuh if it was limited to 2-3 of each card per set because then I can split a set with a friend. Having just one of a card in the core set(excluding heroes and scenario cards) is just bologna.

Ya, I'm guessing the core set will not contain 3 of. I think FFGs idea is to put a faux rarity in the core set to give deckbuilding a bigger variety. I've accepted that multiple core sets will be required to have 3per.

Hellfury said:

MarthWMaster said:

Wishful thinking, I guess.

Yep. It is a shame that FFG do not understand that more people would buy more of their products if they didn't seem like it has a hidden cash grab agenda attached to it.

That may seem like I am attributing malice to FFG's marketing mindset, and it isn't.

It just boggles the mind how they can ignore how lossleaders produce more money in the face of their change of the LCG expansion packs to include 3x of each card.

Hanlon's razor applies here:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

The marketing approach is shortminded for the short term. The "quick buck" so to speak.

It would be wise to remember this when pursuing this as a gaming investment for the long term when the stewards of that license think in such short term ways.

Dude, what are you talking about here?

Having every card x3 would be awesome for people who plan on buying into this game heavily and deck building and buying the expansions and supplemental packs. It would royally suck for the casual players who just want a game they can grab out of the box and have some star wars themed fun immediately. There is a reason why starter decks are sold for pretty much every CCG and CCG style game ever produced.

The idea is to give players an out of the box experience that carries across the flavor of the game, has good replay value for the hobby enthusiast. HArd core gamers are much more likely to buy the same product x2 or x3 to get a play set so they can build every deck under the sun than someone who has never played a CCG before is to figure out how to build a playable deck out of three identical stacks of cards.

Given the numbers that I've heard dropped about the success of the LCG design and the expansions and deluxe expansions that have x3 versus core sets, it certainly indicates that the Core Set out performs every other product in all the lines. A highly playable Core Set is much more likely to turn a casual player into a dedicated player.

@ SystemIsDown: Sorry I don't get the point

If you want more challenge do not ues cards as Gandalf or so

The point here is just to avoid to buy multiple core set, as lot of players (and that's a shame I'm in) also like to have a "complete game" (*3 cards of each)

When you see the drawback of LotR, most players are complaining about the need to buy multiple coreset and would be ready to spend more money if the game was complete.

Have you guys seen the new LotR deluxe expansion? It has 165 cards and 3 of each player card! Maybe FFG is listening to the customers after all. All we can do is wait to see where they take SW.

Budgernaut said:

jhaelen said:

Yeah, I was afraid that was gonna be the case after I posted. I really know nothing about LCGs, but a lot about SW.

PVP with a 3rd deck of events might be fun and would be significantly different from previous incarnations. If it's going to be PVP anyway

pocoyo_joe said:

I do hope not, I'm hoping for something with a bit more strategy.

You can have both a finely tuned experience for casual players with cards at x1 x2 and x3 frequencies, and not annoy the players who want to have x3 of each card.

Simply make the difference available as an expansion. You want the casual experience, don't buy the expansion. You want 3 of each card, the expansion contains just enough to do that without a bunch of cards you don't need. Everybody wins. No one has to buy stuff they don't want to get the stuff they do want. How can there be any logical argument against this?

I would actually be buying 2 copies of the lord of the rings game if FFG had done this, but I simply cannot justify buying 6 copies of the base set to get every legal deck for two players without competing for cards. FFG made a little more from me on my initial purchase of 3 base sets, but in the end they are losing out because I am only buying 1 of each expansion instead of 2.

I remember someone saying it will never happen because it costs too much, but that is simply rubbish, it would not cost more than any other expansion. In fact, it would cost less because no new artwork is needed.

In response to:

jhaelen said:

Great, what is that FFG reasoning? I can't find it. Is it that an expansion with just the missing cards costs to much to produce? How is it possible for that to cost more than a regular expansion? The artwork and design for the cards had to be done for the base set anyways so how can it be argued that it costs more?

I seriously don't see how there exists any "reasoning" that leads to the conclusion an expansion that makes up the difference can't or shouldn't be done. Shortsighted cash grab that costs FFG in the long run maybe, but not reasoning. If anyone knows please enlighten me.