TheRealLeo said:

Haha yes! When I play, half the time I catch myself saying old names like Score! and Virus Test Site.

SiCK_Boy said:

Only if these three cards are all you care about (and then I'd argue the tutors aren't even worth putting into your deck). The point of the tutors is that it's as if you suddenly have three additional copies of _every_ card you're interested in. Cluttering up your precious 'deckspace' with an additional three copies of a card (that you could get via a tutor) is something I'd consider suboptimal.

DeathByLiche said:

That said, I'm mightily surprised and seriously disappointed the rulebook calls them "ice" rather than I.C.E. for intrusion countermeasure electronics.

The original game didn't capitalize ice in the rulebook either.

Messenger said:

Once an acronym is in common usage, it's perfectly acceptable to drop the punctuation and make it a word in its own right (the same way nobody writes L.A.S.E.R any more). In the context of the game and the background, I'd have been mildly annoyed if it had stayed as I.C.E.

Messenger said:

I had it in my head until recently that it was just Intrusion Countermeasures and "ice" was more of a nickname for I.C., rather than an actual acronym. I don't know where that idea came from, though.

I own 3 copies of core..

… but I think that you can play very well with 2.. though anyone interested in competitive torny play will probably have to get 3 at some point.. you may not need to but many of us like collecting. I know that not having a "full" set just bugs me.

Also I think the numbers worked out that the last set of cards costs 30 bucks. I know it is kinda unfair to compare LCG to CCG but 30 bucks for 20 cards is still super cheap in comparison to many other card games out there.

What I did with Lord of the Rings was just buy 1 to start with then keep an eye on ebay. It wasn't long until I could pick up a 2 and 3 super cheap (about the cost of a single pack).. so this might be a option for some.. buy one.. see if you like the game… then if you do get a 2nd and then if you want a 3rd… and keep an eye on ebay for deals.

I find "YOU HAVE TO GET 3 SETS" comments stupid, and I find "YOU DO NOT NEED 3" just as stupid. There is no argument.. 3 of a card IS better. It all just comes down to how much you play and how seriously you take collecting. As you will be able to build many fun decks with less than 3.. will they be as powerful… probably not.

In short… it is a personal taste thing for casual players… still I think anyone doing serious torny play will pick up 3 and not even read such threads.

booored said:

3 of a card is not always better. It depends on the card in question. It depends on what it does. It depends on how it interacts with the rest of deck.

There are cards that you definitely need 3 of in the game, the bread and butter cards that powers your deck and strategy whether you're playing Corp or Runner. And, very thankfully, almost all of them (if not all of them) come in threes in the core set.

That's not to say that there aren't cards that come in twos or ones that are powerful and useful, but as I asked previously:

What cards are we specifically talking about? What cards do we need 3 of for tournament-level purposes that only come in twos or ones in the main set?

TBH, being bothered by not having a full set is really not about being tournament ready but about being OC. I've been in that place before with other card games and it's taught me the very hard way that having a full set of a particular card in a deck isn't always a good idea. They can turn into dead cards when you don't need them. They take up slots that would otherwise be occupied by a card that would actually serve your deck better. They can just get you to spend more without actually making your deck and playing better.

Your suggesting of monitoring eBay is wise. It's equally wise to share the cost and contents of extra core sets with friends. However, that's only if you actually need the extra cards.

But definitely 3 or a card is not always better. To acquire in whatever manner those extra copies based solely on that idea is simply not pragmatic.

I say 4-6 of each card is better, because then you can let your friends jump into the fray too!

you are completely miss understanding what i am trying to say.

It is so obvious that instantly putting in 3 cards doesn't make a deck stronger that it shouldn't even need to be said. Though as you say some times it makes the deck worse sometimes it makes the deck better though .. all putting in the max cards dose in increase draw chance.. deck tech should tell you if the deck functions better with or with out 1 or 2 or 3 copies of any given card.

We are not talking about deck tech here, we are talking about deck building options. Having the max copy of each card allows you to test deck techs for any build you wish to you use.. and allows you to find new decks as new cards come out that suddenly make that card you only had one copy of suddenly be awesome if you only had 3.

what i was trying to say by "there is no argument" is that there can be no argument that having 3 copies of each card gives you more deck building options as there is no restrictions affecting your builds besides the rules themselves… in every other case this is true.

TheRealLeo said:

totally, This is a real plus of multi sets of core…

booored said:

You can argue that for some cards like Archived Memories or Account Siphon, but most of the cards that comes in twos and ones not only have very specific uses but also restrictions and penalties that are wasteful in mass numbers. Getting up to 3 copies of them will indeed, to use your words, "give you more deck building options" but not good ones that any player would use. And you don't have to experiment by buying up to a third copy of these to know it- part of the game is card assessment and planning.

Take unique cards, for example. I already know that I can only have one of them in play at any time. Having a 2nd or 3rd copy may make them easier to draw, but it's also likely for me to draw them later on when I don't need them.

For non-uniques: What do I do with, say, that extra copy of Data Dealer in my Grip when I already have one out? Putting it out doesn't improve my economy. That would have been a card that I shelled out real world cash for that isn't even benefiting me. For that matter, the cost is pretty high since it sets me back an agenda each time; the set provides other sources of credits without compromising whatever gains I've made. One in a deck may well be enough, and only if the situation really demands it.

For that matter, even the more easy to use cards in the set that come in twos (such as the two I just named) aren't even the cards that will directly lead to victory but just give you options or help you towards winning. They are not ends to themselves. Archived Memories is only good if something actually useful is already in my Archives. And you don't win the game by bankrupting the Corp but by stealing their Agendas; Account Siphon is only there to support that but is not an end in itself nor is it so good it demands a 3rd copy.

You are actually divorcing what you call "deck tech" from deckbuilding. Getting 3 copies of cards just to discover what works and what doesn't is wasteful as far as you can already read and see what each card does. It's also wasteful as far as playing the game involves strategy even before you sit down before an opponent. "Deck tech"- which includes pre-game card evaluation- goes hand-in-hand with deckbuilding right from the start.

I ask you: What cards that only come in twos or ones from the core set do you need so much that you have to buy a 2nd or 3rd copy of the game just to get your additional deckbuilding options?

booored:

The topic I'm addressing is not whether it's good or bad to have 3 copies of cards. You can be sure that cards like Diesel, Easy Mark, Beanstalk Royalties and the like will be in the decks I build in threes.

The topic I'm addressing is the OP's which is "Why buy more than one set?" The answer to that is to get 2nd and 3rd copies of cards that only come in twos and ones in a core set. At which point, we have to discuss if those specific cards are worth buying entire additional sets for. From what I see, the answer is "Not really".

Reading through this topic got me thinking about precisely which 2x cards in the core set justify buying a second copy. For the record, I think two core sets are essential for competitive play. The purchase is also worthwhile because it allow you to have more than one Corp or Runner deck assembled at once. I don't believe any 1x cards are worth having in triplicate. Anyway, here's a list of the 2x cards that I consider to be important enough to at least one deck-type that they justify a second core.

Account Siphon

Aggressive Secretary

Archived Memories

Astroscript Pilot Program

Bank Job

Breaking News

Datasucker

Djinn

Heimdall 1.0

Medium

Precognition

Rabbit Hole

Red Herrings

Rototurret

Scorched Earth

Shipment from Kaguya

Viktor 1.0

Of course, this list is purely my own opinion, but looking through it I would say that if you want a full range of options for NBN (agendas), Haas (ice), or Anarch (viruses), a second core set is desirable.

THANK YOU, mothchoir, for looking up the cards in order to discuss this topic.

Personally, I'm not too keen on bumping up ice and icebreakers that come in twos to three. I find that there's ample draw, search and deck manipulation cards in the set put together. Sure, some of those comes in twos, but used together, they should fit the bill.

Some cards here are redundant or distracting with a 3rd copy, like Archived Memories, Bank Job or Red Herrings. Scorched Earth, for example, already deals 4 meat damage; Private Security Force can then complete the job and it's permanent as well once scored.

I do agree that it's a good idea to get 3rd copies of Autoscript Pilot Program, Breaking News, Djinn, Precognition, Rabbit Hole and Shipment from Kaguya. For 5 cards, buying an entire new set still seems wasteful- I'd say you're best off coming to an agreement with some friends to buy and split a box among yourselves besides looking through eBay for singles like what booored said.

That said, they just announced the first data pack, so I'm going to stick to just one core set and will eagerly be looking into the new stuff.

Messenger said:

Hi Messenger, just thought I'd respond to a couple of your points.

While there are some draw/search options available to the Corp, they're either expensive to use out of faction (Precognition), or unreliable (Aggressive Negotiations). Considering that there isn't much choice of ice in the core set, I'd say that getting the extra Viktor, and possibly Heimdall is worth it. As for icebreakers, I didn't list any. If the virus cards were what you referred to then I'd say that having 3x of Medium and Datasucker is worthwhile even with the ability to tutor for them with Djinn, because their abilities stack, and are more effective when played in multiples.

Archived Memories probably isn't a 3x at the moment, you're right. However, recursion cards tend to be integral to combo decks, so if something like that emerges its usefulness may increase. I have to disagree with you on Red Herrings, this is the best defensive card in the corp arsenal. If you're advancing agendas, you'll be happy to see any number of these during a game, particularly as you can stack them. Same with Scorched Earth because yes, while you can win with one copy in hand and a Private Security Force, having two copies in hand almost guarantees victory. Having 3x increases the chances of seeing two at once, and makes you less reliant on having the runner tagged AND having already scored the correct agenda.

What I didn't mention in my initial list are the cards that come as 1x, of which several are well worth having as 2x. I'm thinking in particular of the runner consoles, but arguments could made for most of the rest of them.

All I can really say is that choosing whether or not to buy a second core is entirely subjective. I think it's worth it, you think not. Whatever the value to deckbuilding, I think a second core remains a good buy if only because it allows me to have 2x runner decks and 2x corp decks ready to play at the same time, which is something I appreciate.

What I'm sure we can agree on is how exciting it will be to see the new cards when they're revealed!

this is what i tried to say but lack his writting skills

Just to be clear: I'm coming from the perspective of a guy only building a single deck of each side. If the goal is to make more than that, then getting more than 1 copy is justified. At the same time, if this allows a particular deck to have more than what a single copy of core can give, then that's no problem.

Sorry about the ice mix-up. I remain confident about being able to use only what the core set provides, even despite Influence limits and having less than 3 copies of certain cards. In fact, that the core provides 2 copies of these cards can even be seen as a challenge to improvise, while their limit can keep a player going overboard, either with their wallet or in deck construction. You mentioned Precognition's high influence cost- anyway, there are only 2 in the set and supplementing them with Anonymous Tip should be enough. Drawing 3 cards for each use in a 45 card deck is pretty powerful.

As for the 1-copy cards, most have limitations, specific uses and drawbacks that, in my assessment, makes it better for them to be used sparingly. Unique cards, including the consoles, are an example of that. Even if I wanted to have an extra Desperado, The Toolbox will suite me just fine as an extra. Personally, I'd only be after Corporate Troubleshooter, although relying on him by getting 3 copies seems more a weakness if deckbuilding and playing than a strength.

Yes, I ultimately agree and concede that perhaps the matter is more subjective than anything else. But besides watching how much I spend on this hobby, I'm sure it's possible to play competitively with just 1 core set. And with Genesis on the horizon, even if I'm wrong, more cards are on the way.

I just do not understand that perspective.

For me the thing that makes these games good is the deck building.. I think that is a major part of what I love about card games. The idea of making 4 decks or w/e and nvr modifying them completely astounds me. It really seams like you are missing the entire point of this type of game..

I pretty much have used a different deck every time I have played so far… and I have still got entire factions to explore as the base deck yet… that is only from splashing!

To each their own.

Messenger said:

The only aspect that remains subjective is "waching how much you spend on this hobby". On that account, nobody can judge anyone else and each has their own limits and budgets to follow.

For the rest, nobody said the game would be less fun or that you couldn't play a competitive deck with only a single Core set.

But trying to find tricks and playing on words to justify that less option is a must in a deckbuilding card game seems to me to be somewhat bad faith.

Yes, you can play with the "challenge" of not owning a full playset of card. Yes, you can pretend that you would not need those extra cards anyway. The thruth is, and we can pull multiple examples from other games, that we do not know if and/or when those extra cards could or would become useful later on (if they aren't useful in the immediate). But what is for sure is that having access to those give you more options, period. The only question that remains is how much you are willing to pay for those options.

It still raises the question of why FFG stubbornly refuses to consider making a "filler" pack that would provide a full playset of cards. I know their main argument for the Core set distribution is that they want to include a large number of cards in it, and I can understand. But seeing as this is their 5th LCG, and all of them (except maybe for CoC with it's 1-of only distribution) have seen this issue rises..

Can we please not start the number of cards in core set argument again. It ha been done to death for every LCG.

I plan to get two core sets assuming I like the game. Same thing I did with AGoT. The extra core set opened up a lot of options.

SiCK_Boy said:

Maybe a filler wouldn't be cost-effective? I'm fine with the filler being part of a deluxe expansion, too.

booored said:

SiCK_Boy said:

As for not knowing if a card can become useful later on if it's not now, that's just part of strategy and deck building. You have to weigh how likely you'll need that extra card in the near future, especially in light of your goals. Again, we're going back to card assessment. If the chances are pretty slim that you'll need an extra copy of card during a game, then you're just better off slotting in something else.

I have to concede that the budget and how willing a person is to spend on their hobby is their decision alone and no else's. But as someone who knows what it's like to spend on cards in a CCG that turn out as either useless or unnecessary, especially insofar as acquiring a maximum number of copies is concerned, I stick to the perspective of being cautious and reserved with one's purchases.