FFG isn't exactly a company that changes that often. Trust me on this.

rings said:

Let's be real about the LCG model.

The LCG was never designed to be 'cheap' or affordable. A cheap or affordable card game model is Illuminati:NWO in its current form or Munchkins from Steve Jackson games.

The LCG model was simply meant to reduce the variable cost of a game with randomized boosters by making standard monthly boosters with static card lists. So people could predict how much they would spend a month. That doesn't mean those monthly costs don't add up over time.

The LCG model was always a large escalating cost model. I think many people might not have really understood this.

On the first topic, power creep vs. no useable cards is a problem that any game with as many different "buildable parts" is going to have to some degree. No game that expands as frequently as collectible games do (and LCG model is still a collectible games model) has ever completely figured out a solution to this.

LaughingTree said:

Amen.

Of course, that doesn't alter the fact that many gamers perceive LCGs to be significantly cheaper to participate in than traditional CCGs (and to some degree, they might well be right). Hence, having a competitive option that offers completists a relatively affordable entry price-tag is still an important goal for the game to have.

It might look like a lot of money to get into the game right now, but its not that bad compared to the old CCG model. During the CCG you would have two base sets, two expansions for each set, and a premier starter for each set. So you would generally get three boxes of the base sets and two of the expansions and you would probably still be missing a few rare cards to get you to 3x of everything. So you'd be spending 1400 on the boxes and then like another 40 on the premium starters. So 1450 and you'd probably be spending more to get the singles of the missing cards off ebay. Right now you can spend, was it 1200 or something?, to get a guaranteed 3x of every card. Plus you won't have 30 of random common card #34.

Staton said:

You can spend about 900 I think and be pretty much set.

even better! and is that including the new 3x for shadows and nw/wilding?

Staton said:

120 for 3 core sets
150 for 6 expansions (including lions)
360 for 1x of the 3x blocks (4)
360 for 3x of the 1x blocks (2)

Comes out to about 1000 if you buy 3x of every pack in ToR and CoA blocks (which I didnt need to).

You know, that's really not that bad for a group of friends. Wreckingball, Cman, and I started playing this game when it came out and we shared the cost and cards by house. If a group of players do that now and split the houses in half, they'd only be spending around 300-330 per person. That's not bad for getting every card int he game.

Hell, it's even cheaper if you buy through some of the online stores around with lower prices. Cool Stuff Inc. and Miniature Market are two sites I know've that sell the 60-card packs at $10 (of course, their shipping is pretty steep unless you order $100 for free shipping); I added it up, and through them it'd be about $700 to get a complete set.

It's just a real pain to obtain every expansion & chapter pack because half of the stuff is sold out for months.

If they phase out blocks, they''ll buy themselves some time to reprint certain cycles, because of low demand on the phased out stuff.

I totally dig rotation (remember the chosen few deckbuilding contest). It helps new players to get tournament ready fast. It works against auto-includes and let cards shine, that usually don't get much attention. Rotation just means several cards are excluded for some time, not that you'll never play those cards again.

LaughingTree said:

That is WAY to cerebral my man!

Yeah it is $1,000 to get in the game now. That is still a chunk of $$. Again, it isn't broken now, but what about in 2 years? Three?

No one asks what they expect the 'LCG model' to look like. They ask 'how much to get in the game' or even 'how much for a playset'. That is going to get more an more onerous over time, and as you said, power creep gets worse and worse. Either rotation or restriction of competative play is the figured solution (see: every successful card game still in existance, including an FFG aGoT one you might remember - both basic rotation and even the reset button to LCG).

On two different formats, that just doesn't usually work. Even in games with 50 times more players (say, MTG), it is hard to have multiple formats when the company involved does a fair job of supporting them all. Substitute Hasbro cash-tourneys w/ FFG and I doubt it is possible *shrug* Obviously multi-player vs. single player barely is the same game, and they are both doing well - but two different single player formats would be different (see: Highlander).

P.S. usual disclaimer that I don't think this is a problem yet. Just something when we see Season 4 of aGoT on HBO

Is there anyone here who believes that you need to have a playset to build a competitive deck? I understand the desire to make any deck at all, but in my experience most new players who want to compete ask what houses are strong and the cards needed to make a competitive deck. They go right for the competitive deck and then expand outwards. The non-competitive players are happy with a core set or two and an expansion and slowly work their way towards acquiring whatever the newest stuff is.

The completionists and the long term competitive players are the ones that look at getting a full playset.

Penfold said:

I agree, but you would be surprised at how many people are this way. When I owned a game store the # of legal cards was directly related to the number of new players you could get to try the game. I don't know if it is the overwhelming part of things (go to the FFG store right now, imagine you are a new player, then see how many LCG 'products' you have to buy), or the fact that people want to be able to choose, or what.

All I know is the relationship between # of cards legal, and # of new players willing to get into a game, have an inverse relationship. *shrug*

I agree that the "buy in" cost is a barrier for some new players. And I agree with Rings that there are a lot of players who either know that they're completionists, or they're not wholly comfortable with the idea that they couldn't afford to be a completionist if they wanted to.

My suggestion would be to repackage the oldest chapter packs into big box sets -- for example, 3x of all the cards in the Clash of Arms cycle, packaged in a single box. I don't know what FFG's cost for printing cards is, but we know they can afford to sell cards with a retail price less than $0.18 per card. (That's the retail cost per card for a deluxe expansion.) If FFG charged $60 for a Clash of Arms super-expansion, that would be $0.16 per card. Since R&D is already paid for, I suspect that's a price they could live with. And it would be a 33% savings for a new player trying to catch up on old chapter packs (compared to $90 for six chapter packs).

Penfold said:

No. But we're not really the people who matter.

It's the new " Hai, I just saw this game and what do I buy? I might get the core first, will this let me build a strong Night's Watch deck? " players that a rotation policy (of whatever kind) would work for.

Sure, if people do overcome the initial " Whoah! Lot of stuff! " feeling, buy some stuff, get their head around the rules and start posting on the forums; then a more experienced player can help them identify a sensible set of purchases that'll give them a single competitive deck... but giving those people a very simple 'Small Format = This Stuff' instruction (which can be done by FFG in its marketing) takes away a big psychological (and, perhaps even cost) barrier to them taking that plunge.

Also, if you go cruise around forums like BGG for a bit, there are a significant number of potential new players who say (you may think slightly insane) things like " I hated the fact that in CCGs I couldn't buy all the stuff. LCGs are designed to change this. How much is it to buy everything at once so that I can start playing a card game with all the cards? ". In other words; nuts though I may think they are, there's plenty of people who are completionists before they even buy their first pack.

Finally, just to say, once FFG have given everything a whirl as a 3x pack, I am well up for the 'rereleasing old cycles as big boxes approach'. Whether it's financially viable or not, I have no idea. But it'd be fantastic for new players looking to get started; wading through those enormous lists of in stock/out of stock chapter packs and trying to figure out what is in each pack must be a complete nightmare for them (unlike us, they didn't get introduced to them one by one, etc).

LoneWanderer said:

Yes. Yes it was.

Starblayde said:

Reminds me of my few weeks where i was reading spoiler lists and thinking Red Warlock looks cool so I'll need 3 packs of song of summer ouch and even made whole lists what to buy how many times