Penfold said:

Those two players will still need to invest more if their enthusiasm for the game, which is presumably something you wanted to see, compels them to explore their options. So why should that enthusiasm by penalised by a lack of foresight on the part of FFG? if buying a second core set meant not getting any repeat cards then there's a better argument for making that investment, but it doesn't. So not only are you spending the kind of money that approached the cost of a standard ccg booster box (which the lcg model is supposed to beat), you are deliberately getting a lot of repeated product that you cannot do anything with.

I didn't say the game was unplayable or that you couldn't play it. That is a straw man.

signoftheserpent said:

If he could have done so profitably, he would have. There are many reasons why such a product would not be (a) profitable or (b) a good idea. Lots of people have spelled out these reasons on BGG (and I think on this forum, too, if you care to search).

radiskull said:

We will never know how profitable it is or isn't since it's not going to happen, unfortunately. That only leaves players with one choice and it's a very clumsy choice. For £30 I could buy another core set or I could give the SW lcg a go, which I would like to do. But in order to play ANR fully, the missing cards are important.

Not cool.

Strawman? You realize your entire argument is based on a set of logical fallacies don't you? Wait, no, of course you don't…

The point being if the decks are playable at a level for easy enjoyment, and that the core set by itself allows for the building of competitive decks that can beat decks made with multiple core sets you have absolutely no leg to stand on from a logical POV. What you are left with is an emotional plea which frankly rings false for so many reasons.

The arguments about why no completion set have been made a dozen times. I'm not going to go into them because they wouldn't convince you because in the end you don't care. You care about you. That is it. You want the entire company to bend to your will regardless of whether or not that means more or less profits (it means less) even if that dampens their enthusiasm and that of casual players for the game (it does).

But in case any was wondering I was not addressing your points or pointing out the flaws in your "reasoning" to persuade you. I recognize someone who is emotionally invested in "being right." I addressed the topic solely for anyone else coming across this thread.

Penfold said:

Penfold said:

I haven't presented any logical fallacies. If you think I have then tell me what they are, because all you are doing, like your friends, is trolling.

You are free to post on this thread and this forum, or not to. I am not forcing you to respond. If you don't like this discussion, which is entirely clearly labelled, then choose one of the other 20+ threads on this page alone to contribute to, or start one of your own. Constantly spewing your high minded insults is not going to imbue your arguments with win, anymore than just throwing around labels such as 'logical fallacies', where none have been preented.

I have not been rude to you so knock it off.

I have made several suggestions as to how FFG could have proceeded and I don't really care to have those views rubbished by people who are doing nothing more than trolling. You are not magically validated in your bejhaviour just because this subject has been raised before; in fact that it has been raised before should alert you to the fact it's a problem.

If it wasn't, no one would have responded.

Again, as I have already explained: no one has said you can't play games with the core set.

Noone has said that you can't bu8ild decks with the core set either.

That is not the point.

The point is that if you want the most out of the game, which presumably is what FFG want (otherwise why bother?), you have to invest in multiple core sets, which is a wholly wasteful inefficient process. If I buy a second core set that at the very least is one set denied to a potential newcomer (and the print run sold out, remember). If you think that approach is the best way to do things then you are entirely and wholly wrong, and resorting to hyperbole ('you want the whole company to bend to your will') is immature and provocative.

signoftheserpent said:

I only bought one Core Set.

Does that mean I'm not getting the most out of this game?

Messenger said:

I'm not asking whether you want to. That's entirely your choice. I'm not telling you what decks to build or what cards to use. Nor am I -again - saying that you can't play with one core set, nor even play well.

But you cannot deckbuild without limit. So no you can't get the most out of the game. Whether you want to is a matter for the individual player to decide. I personally would like to have the freedom to build any deck, in fact i'd be willing to compromise to only having 2x the cards that appear 1x in the core set (ie two coresets at most).

But to do that, I must buy a second set and then toss out half the cards that I cannot use.

@ signoftheserpent

I'll try asking it again: what existing game are you basing your expectations on? What collectible/customizable game offers you a complete playset in a single box?

You've repeatedly said that FFG distribution choice is "bizarre and ill informed" and "a very flawed decision." But the game seems to be a commercial and critical success; it's repeatedly sold out and is the #1 ranked customizable game on BGG.

You're saying it could have been even better, but I think if you're going to argue with the level of success they've had, you should be able to point to some examples of games that did exactly what you're claiming is the right decision. What game gives you a complete playset in a box?

Eldil said:

Sorry for the divergence but what is BGG?

papy72 said:

My bad; "Board Game Geek." It's a board-gaming website, but the Netrunner forums there are pretty active.

Eldil said:

signoftheserpent said:

Good dialogue.

Well, I think I'll be hitting that old dusty road.

Cheers, everybody.

signoftheserpent said:

You cannot divorce what's provided in the Core Set from what a player will actually make with it , signoftheserpent. At the end of the day, what matters is not what's provided but what's needed and used by the player. The cards FFG provides in the Core Set only matter inasfar as they allow a customer to build playable decks.

What you don't get with your line of argument is this:
As they are , whether coming in the 3's that you want or the 1's, 2's and 3's that they actually do, they're just cards in a box .

Now, your argument is based on the idea that each player needs 3 copies of every cards in the Core Set in order to "get the most out of the game". I can only speak for myself, but I do say:

I don't need 3 copies of Desperado . It's Unique and not even game-breaking.

I don't need 3 copies of Ice Carver . It's Unique and not even game-breaking.

More powerful and useful than either of those, I don't even need 3 copies of Account Siphon . It's almost game-breaking were it not for its heavy penalty and the fact that once you use it, you won't need another one for awhile. The 2 provided is just right.

Here you are, complaining about incomplete card sets that force you to buy a second set wherein you will "toss out half the cards I cannot use"- despite the fact that the change you're arguing for will produce the same results .

That's the problem with arguing generalizations: they don't reflect the honest and specific reality of the situation .

Thus, you don't get to say "I'm not asking whether you want to… I'm not telling you what decks to build or what cards to use. Nor am I… saying that you can't play with one core set, nor even play well."

Because that's exactly what matters! That's the bottom line! That's the "in the end" and "at the end of the day! Not having 3 copies of a cards to deckbuild with to begin with!

You keep overlooking this in this discussion. The question that now occurs to me is whether it's intentional or not .

From experience, wanting 3 copies of a card is more often than not a rookie mistake. It's to overvalue a card, to go for sheer quantity in fear that having less is more disadvantageous than having too much .

However, given your recognition of the difference between what a player puts in his deck and what's provided by the Core Set, I'm inclined to think it's the former .

For that matter, your immediate attempt to exclude the very real and true reason why your reasoning is faulty in your reply lends credence to this conclusion. As far as Android: Netrunner is a game , it's the playing that counts .

Thus, penfold- and practically everyone else here- is right . You're not arguing for something better for the game; you're just arguing because you can't stand to be wrong . You just can't stand the idea to the point that you can't even consider the possibility and have to believe so, so much in your position.

By the way- and this is important - I am trolling you.

As someone who has done his fair share of arguing on the internet, I tell you that the utter best way to troll someone is to speak the truth . Nothing else hurts or gets up a person's nose more than forcing him to deal with a fact he doesn't like .

Given what you've shown and what you've said, I don't care what you have else to say . I'm now going to start watching this thread with glee rather than annoyance to see if either:

a) You don't buy the game , at which point we'll be rid of you - or you render yourself irrelevant because you're not even a real member of the Android: Netrunner community because you're not even playing no matter what else you post here; or

b) You actually buy the game despite all the arguments you've made, all the people you've pissed off and ultimately make all of it meaningless and yourself a hypocrite .

Lastly, you calling everyone else a troll while completely ignoring what they have to say regardless of their actual merit : that's called psychological projection - placing your own faults on other people so you don't have to deal with them. It's a very common defense mechanism .

I actually thought Sign said he bought or was buying the game…

You mentioned earlier that you can't 'fully' play the game. And that depends on your definition of fully. Shoot: Can it be 'fully' w/o every card in the first cycle? Or can inividuals define fullness as they see fit? In YOUR opinion, the core set is not 'full'. Your problem. We thank you for voicing it.

You have suggested alternatives. I do like the idea of being able to buy an extra pack to flesh out the extra 2x and 1x of cards that weren't 3x in the core set, however, I'm not sure of the cost, profit, sellability aspect of it. 1.) you'd have to already own the core set 2.) you'd have to be interested in purchasing the 'extra' cards 3.) you'd have to care about the 'fullness' of the game enough to spend the extra money on it. 4.) There'd have to be enough of those people to make it worthwhile for FFG to print it. 5.) Those that are willing to do so are not also willing to just buy an extra core set 6.) people that buy extra core sets use the extra cards (that you want to throw away) to make demo decks / give away decks (like that I like doing).

Chances are some of those aspects in the previous paragraph are the condition why the core set has not been supplemented in the way you've suggested (releasing a pack that has the extra 2x and 1x of the cards).

Until we ask a marketting officer (?…. perhaps Horvath?), which I'm not entirely in the mood to do because I suspect the reasons for this decision (see above), we'll never 'know' for sure. And yes, some of those reasons include FFG making money. Less QQ, more pew pew. It is a company with worker's wages and insurance to pay. Or should everyone also be provided a table and chair and snacks and an apartment and a car and pens and paper and a lighting source and a voucher for future expansions free of charge and… for the game ot be more full? (ok yes this last bit was trolling. Sorry. Can't help myself!).

YOu can't play the game completely out of the core box because you cannot build decks with 3x all cards.

So your game experience is limited.

This is surely obvious; you don't get 3x every card so you do not have all the options you might want to build a deck you want.

Messenger said:

You haven't actually read what I wrote have you. Instead you've decided to lose your lunch. I can't help you if you won't listen, and I'm not really interested in being shouted at by someone that doesn't even extend me the basic courtesy of reading my posts before going off the deep end.

I didn't say you needed anything. I made that point abundantly clear more than once.

I didn't say 'card x' was gamebreaking. The reason for including three copies, if you so choose, of something like Ice Carver is so you can get it out quickly. Certainly you would want 2x that card. Would I use 3x? Probably not. 2x? Almost certainly; you can't search for it.

I've already said that I've brought the game. Doing so does not invalidate anything nor have you demonstrated otherwise. I brought it for the game in spite of the flaws in design.

I haven't called everyone else a troll. I called the people that are trolling trolls.

If you can't be bothered to read what other people write then that makes you a troll as well.

If you have no intention of buying the game, why are you here?

It's an honest question.

signoftheserpent said:

You are a troll. You are a troll of the worst kind - the guy who just believes he is so right and beyond reproach that he refuses to listen to what other say and is willing to ignore their replies or even twist words and logic to suit themselves. (See below for the most important example of all in this discussion.)

Now, the only thing FFG promised by definition of their LCG format is that " A Core Set provides everything you need for a complete and self-contained game experience … " It's only you here who demands that they provide 3 copies of each card when the only thing that FFG promised is enough game components to play- something which you don't deny they've done .

Furthermore, you've already admitted explicitly that you don't deny that they can even play well with just what's in one Core- where it doesn't have 3 copies of each and every card in it anyway.

Are you that seriously blind about the absurdity of your own complaint? Are you truly that petty to miss that crucial point?

The game isn't "complete" because it doesn't have 3 copies of each card in it but people can play full and amazing games with it. They can even have tournaments with it without having to modify any of the basic rules and official tournament rules to make up for its "incompleteness".

The game is not incomplete. You just think so and for the lamest reason a nd you can't stand being called out for it .

And let's get this straight: you did go back on your own words . You started off with:

• "Based on this information I will not buy this game. FFG show a clear lack of understanding of ccg's or a crass desire to milk your customer. Either way it isn't for me." followed by
• "Not unless I am prepared to buy 3 core sets which, IMO, is a pretty tall order and quite unreasonable on the part of FFG. It didn't need to be this way, but it is and so I am not prepared to get on board. " and
• "This may be a great game, but since it's publishers have made what I consider to be a very flawed decision and since it can be played online without need the actual product…" and
• "I will not countenance any game that operates in that way, whether it's 3x or 4x or whatever, that doesn't give you any way to get those cards but to buy multiple copies of the core set like this, especiall when that means buying increasing amounts of cards you won't use. It's not even as if you could trade for these cards."

Finally you have: "Anyway I have decided on balance to try the game. I do not care for FFG's decision, they are a company that continually shoots itself in the in this way (great ideas but always with a string the tail unfortunately), and I do not stand by whatever motivated the distribution of this game, however."

In other words:

• I'm not going to buy it.
• I'm not going to buy it.
• I'm not going to buy it.
• I'm not going to buy it.
• I'm sticking to my reasons but I just bought it .

Which is a really funny way of "not standing by" the distribution of the game which renders you and all your arguing until this point all the more surreal.

Lastly, there's a real simple way to get the extra cards you need without the expense of buying additional Core Sets. This is paraphrased from a conversation I had:

Messenger: Hey, man. You got any (card X)s and (card Y)s you don't need? Can I buy them from you?
Messenger's friend: Oh, sure. (Insert small price here).
Messenger: Okay, that's fair. Deal.

Let me guess: you didn't think about that, did you?

Oh, man. The entertainment value of this thread just skyrocketed. XD

photogasm said:

Read the post again.

signoftheserpent said:

I read this post and a few others and then stopped to write this.

You could just answer me instead of being snarky.

photogasm said:

And once again, buying the game does not invalidate criticism about its flaws. If i buy a loaf of bread from a shop that pays its staff poor wages, does that make paying poor wages acceptable? Of course not. I didn't design the core set. If you think life is this simplistic you are going to be sorely disappoiunted.

Messenger said:

You are not listening.

signoftheserpent said:

As I said before, I read your first post and a few others when I asked my question. I would clearly not have seen the post 'right above mine' at the time of asking.

In any event, you're clearly looking for some kind of contest, so I'm out.

I'm new to LCGs with A:NR but I'm certainly happy with a distribution model that has a fixed completionist premium attached to it rather than an essentially open-ended and random completionist premium.

I don't know of any CG distribution system that has no completionist premium at all in the implied pricing structure (and in most it is a considerable premium). While I think it's reasonable and fine to object to the notion of completionist premiums, I can't see that it is fair to heap special opprobrium on FFG over this. They promised fixed distribution and pricing out of the LCG model. That they've given anyone who buys in.

The argument about limited experience is a bit moot as it folds into wanting to be a completionist. Fine if you want that but the deal is you have to pay extra. It's not some outrageous infringement of the principles of game play.

Now assuming, signoftheserpent, that you will accuse me of not reading your posts or 'listening', I will address what on my reading (reading by its very nature is an act of interpretation) is your issue here.

You seem to take the position that a core set should provide as many copies of a card as it is legal to build into a deck. As A:NR rules make it legal to include up to 3 copies of any card in the actual deck (identities aside of course) your position is that the core set should therefore include 3 copies of every deck-building card OR that there should be a 'completionist expansion' that can be bolted onto a core set to make up the 'gaps' your perceive there to be in the core set as a result of 1x and 2x issued cards in the box.

This is a perfectly reasonable position.

It is also one I disagree with. I do not honestly see that it is necessary to include as many legal copies of every core set card in a 'core set'. I especially do not see that it is necessary when the core set is explicitly designed to permit quick and easy deck builds for the beginner. Indeed, I see completionism in the core set as conflicting with one of the primary purposes of the core set in the case of this game.

The core set has been constructed and balanced so that each faction's total number of core set cards as provided can be shuffled into the total number of faction type neutral cards as provided in order to produce a reasonable balanced and efficient deck build.

This is consideration that plays with the FFG approach to building this core set box. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with the business and balancing decisions underpinning this. But this is how it is.

I hope you enjoy this game as much as I am enjoying it and perhaps come to see that in reality there are not many operative limits on your gameplay and enjoyment arising from the core set box build.