ulrik wemmenhed
Sweden
flag msg tools
what do you think about the fact that expansions always come with a complete playset of three copies of each player card?

I only have a single core set, and have never cared about that some cards only come in pairs or even singletons. for me, this adds variety to the decks, makes deck building more interesting and strongly overweights the fact that decks are less consistant.

one thing that therefore bothers me just a bit, and i wonder if others feel the same, is that with all cards in the expansions coming in complete playsets, we lose out on variety in sake of completeness.

consider this: in a single expansion, the 27 player cards are divided into two types of cards for each sphere and a neutral card. 3 copies of each card, for a total of 27 cards (but only 9 different kinds of cards). say instead, that some of the cards came in only pairs or singletons. maybe like 5 singletons, 5 pairs, and 4 complete sets. thats still 27 cards, but 14 different kinds of cards.

in the best of worlds, i would prefer variety of player cards much more than having three of's of all cards. i find i have in my collection quite a few cards that i dont really need or want three copies, and would gladly trade for singletons or pairs of card that i dont have, just for the sake of more variety.

i suppose for others it is great to get the full playset all at once, and never feel the "need" to buy multiples of the same expansions.

what do you think?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick
United States
Saint Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Btȝ patrem nrum, Benedictum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think more variety in the expansions (i.e. more than 9 player cards per AP) at the expense of incomplete (i.e. less than 3 cards) sets of cards would only lead to more coasters (unplayable) being produced. The greater amount of art needed would also probably raise the price. Most of all that would push the game away from the LCG model and more toward a CCG model (buy more packs if you want multiples).

So no, I'm happy with the existing model.
21 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R B
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
I'm glad each pack has 3 of each player card. I feel that it's one of the things that defines this LCG against CCGs. If I needed to buy multiples of the same expansions for just a few extra cards, I'd consider it quite a waste, materially and monetarily.

I feel the same way about multiples of the core set. I wish a "core booster" would be released that has the few cards with only 1 or 2 copies in the core set, a set of 2 extra threat dials, and a set of health/travel/damage trackers. Personally, I'd pay an amount equal to the core set for that.

13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wayne Walker
United States
Chuluota
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the full playset in the expansions.

I dream of a world where an affordable core supplement exists to round out the core set without all the wasted money and materials.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brendan
United States
Somerville
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
John85 wrote:
I think more variety in the expansions (i.e. more than 9 player cards per AP) at the expense of incomplete (i.e. less than 3 cards) sets of cards would only lead to more coasters (unplayable) being produced. The greater amount of art needed would also probably raise the price. Most of all that would push the game away from the LCG model and more toward a CCG model (buy more packs if you want multiples).

So no, I'm happy with the existing model.

Since I can only thumb your actual post once...

thumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsup

Ulrik, I understand where you're coming from (I don't have plans to buy a second core set for playing with 1-2 players; I'll just view the limitations as a kind of added challenge [e.g. only two Gandalfs per deck instead of three]), but I think the benefits of a standard three of each card per expansion pack is preferable by far.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick
United States
Saint Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Btȝ patrem nrum, Benedictum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Biarien wrote:
Since I can only thumb your actual post once...

thumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsup


Wow, thanks Brendan. Rather generous of you to say.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brendon Russell
New Zealand
Auckland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The first LCGs (Game of Thrones, Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer Invasion) all started out with monthly packs that contained a mix of 3-ofs and 1-ofs. This proved unpopular as people needed to buy multiple copies of a pack if they wanted 3 copies of certain cards, so all of them were changed to 3 copies of everything.

I'm very much in favour of the 3-of model. I agree that the rate of new player cards being introduced is very slow, but this is mainly due to LotR's unique (among LCGs) situation where you have both player and encounter cards. IMO changing the distribution is not the solution though.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Griffiths
United Kingdom
Wrexham
Wrexham
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm just going to echo the mood of everyone else, and say that 3x player cards in the APs is much better than a variety of distribution.

HOWEVER, I do dream of seeing APs that are entirely encounter cards. Sometimes it bothers me that there are so few encounter cards, and that we inevitably see the same generic stuff in each quest per cycle because of the reliance on the deluxe expansion stuff. Having bigger encounter sets unique to that encounter would be, for me, a wonderful development. I thought we might have seen a breakthrough when On the Doorstep looked like it might be going this way, but alas, not yet. Soon, though, I hope. Even if it were only one pack per cycle? Or a completely unique event, akin to the GenCon packs but bigger, maybe.

Well, anyway, this thread is about player cards, so I'll shut up now...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ulrik wemmenhed
Sweden
flag msg tools
interesting replies, seems most is happy the way it is. cool!

a new rhetorical question, (because it will never happen anyways):
what if the number of cards you could have in a deck would be restriced beforehand, based on what cards they were? say, that all cards were either common, uncummon or unique. and you could only ever have the amount of copies in the deck that they came with in the expansion pack

(for example, unexpected courage, since it only comes as a single, you are only allowed it as a single copy in your deck. any cards that come in pairs, would only be allowed to be two of's in your deck.)

the game would be as complete as it is now, but with larger variety of player cards.

ah, but i suppose that would make decks less consistant. and as already mentioned, would just make FFG produce worthless player cards to fill up. which would bother some. probably even me.

i guess its best the way it is. i really like this game. but the somewhat limited variety of player cards does strike me as unfortunate.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelly B
Finland
Vantaa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is an interesting discussion.

I wonder if there is a difference in the psychology of 'want' between those players playing competitively and optimizing their decks for such play and those players playing cooperatively. Given the cooperative nature of LOTR I think more players are willing to proxy. In a competitive game, proxying isn't usually an option and players are thus 'forced' to buy multiple packs in order to get the best decks.

The negative reaction to the mixed numbers of cards in CoC, AGoT, and W:I might have stemmed from this whereas LOTR has many solo players who want variety.

I remember bemoaning the lack of variety when we were in the first cycle, my moaning was reduced with the second cycle. Now I'm pretty happy with the mix of cards, there are still player decks I've not tried yet (haven't made an Outlands deck, for example). But then I probably don't play as much of this game as some others up here.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Alabaster Smitty
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One of the major things that bothers me in LoTR LCG versus the other LCGs is that, as the OP points out, since there are encounter cards AND player cards in each pack, we don't get that many player cards. As another post noted, we also don't get as varied encounter decks.

Although it might not make marketing sense for FFG, I would prefer to see some sort of division of these, whereby there are new packs of just player cards AND new packs with scenarios (obviously with encounter cards in them). This would mean no increase, technically, in the amount of art needed or production costs, but it would give us, the buyers, more options in terms of wanting more diversity in our decks or in our scenarios.

All that being said, I am definitely in favor of 3x card supplies for the player decks. As others have noted, giving only one card in each expansion would be making this LCG more of a CCG, even if you knew what you got in each expansion, because you would either need to buy multiple, go without, or buy those singles on-line.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Redheaded Pharmacist
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If anything I am more annoyed that the core set doesn't have three copies of every card. I'd like more variety per expansion pack too but they come out so often that it's hard to complain. As it is there is a ton of card variety and deck building options with the existing format FFG has chosen for this LCG. I don't even have half of the currently available cards. I'm hardly in a position to complain that there needs to be more.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thanee
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jollrikk wrote:
what do you think about the fact that expansions always come with a complete playset of three copies of each player card?


Perfect, and shouldn't be any other way.

Quote:
one thing that therefore bothers me just a bit, and i wonder if others feel the same, is that with all cards in the expansions coming in complete playsets, we lose out on variety in sake of completeness.


Well, in past days, there have been expansions like this, where cards not always had 3 copies, but some had only 1 copy and some had 3.

That was never done for Lord of the Rings, but other LCGs, that were around before, like Warhammer: Invasion or A Game of Thrones.

Those packs had the same amount of new cards, though, as there were only 40 cards instead of 60.

This was REALLY bad, forcing completionists to buy three of each expansion pack and having numerous useless cards that way.

The change to 3 copies of everything was a good one for sure.

Also, the more different cards they make, the more effort it will be to create an expansion. This would increase the price for the expansions.

In the end, you simply won't get more different cards for the same money, regardless of how you look at it.

Bye
Thanee
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.