Recommend
10 
 Thumb up
 Hide
39 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Warhammer: Invasion» Forums » News

Subject: LCG Format Change rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Alan DeHaan
United States
Noblesville
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Next year, after the 6 Battlepacks for the Corruption Cycle are released, all future Battlepacks for Warhammer Invasion will be at 60 cards for USD$14.95 That will be 20 cards per pack, all in triplicate.

FFG has finally listened to all the people who said they want every card in triplicate, or else "it's almost the same as a CCG anyway".

ETA: Here's the link with the news: http://new.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=1022
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Horton
United States
Birmingham
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just finished reading this as well. Another great move by FFG to further refine the LCG format and make it much more attractive to those of us that are sick of throwing money in the CCG pit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Olson
Australia
Darlington
WA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As someone who intended to buy casually, but has hardcore tendencies; part of this sounds great and part of this makes me wary, because it may lead me down the hardcore path. Plus, will I now be satisfied having only x1 of many of the corruption cycle cards?

I think it's a good move, I only wish it happened from the start. I do commend FFG on being able to adapt their model though.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For all the people who stupidly said, "we want our cards in triplicate in each pack or else it JUST LIKE A CCG ANYWAYS."

There's no way this game is remotely like a CCG - it's still FAR, FAR cheaper overall to purchase than a normal CCG. Not even close.

This is a great decision and of course it makes the LCG format even more viable and appealing but even had they stuck to the original format, I'd not complain as it still saves us a TON of money over any normal CCG.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Wene
United States
Unspecified
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
So, what happens with the truly unique cards? Like the special characters that are limited to having only 1 in play at a given time. Generally you would never put 3, and usually not even 2 in your deck. Now I guess we will have extras of those cards.

I understand this is probably better for a lot of people. I don't see it being the best solution.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Board games addict
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with the above comments. ^

Yea, I don't get this either. I thought the point of giving only one of the powerful heroes and so on was that you should only have one of them in your deck, now they will always provide 3 copies of even the most powerful cards. I thought the logic of giving only one copy of certain powerful cards and three copies of other cards was to facilitate the balance of the game.

Not sure I like this change, I am also playing this game casually and not all that interested in the collection or deck building aspect.

I guess I could limit the copy of the most powerful cards to one in my decks, but it seems like this change is aimed towards the hardcore players and leaves the casual players behind.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rex Gator
United States
Apopka
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quinnox wrote:
I agree with the above comments. ^

Yea, I don't get this either. I thought the point of giving only one of the powerful heroes and so on was that you should only have one of them in your deck, now they will always provide 3 copies of even the most powerful cards. I thought the logic of giving only one copy of certain powerful cards and three copies of other cards was to facilitate the balance of the game.

Not sure I like this change, I am also playing this game casually and not all that interested in the collection or deck building aspect.

I guess I could limit the copy of the most powerful cards to one in my decks, but it seems like this change is aimed towards the hardcore players and leaves the casual players behind.


Not sure that I follow your logic.

1. The game rules allow you to have 3 of each card in a deck.
2. You can only have one copy of any particular unique card in play at any point in time. Still plenty of times when you are going to have a replacement on hand when the other guy zots that unique card.
3. Under the current model, the only people who will have 3 per deck are the "hardcore players" who are spending more buying duplicate sets.
4. With this change you buy one of each pack and you are done. Kind of hard for someone to out hardcore you when you are on equal footing.

So in summary, this should be good news to those out there who really only wanted to buy one of each as it came out.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Haesendonckx
Belgium
Antwerp - Schoten
Antwerpen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What this does is simple:

It makes sure everbody fights with the same weapons. Great for organized play. Less great for casual play.

To me, it signals that FFG wants to take this LCG to a competition level game.

You might say that they 'listen' to their players but the result is that they conveniently make more money. It does increase the price of your monthly purchase by 50% is you just buy 1 of each (which is what caual players do).

To me it makes no difference either way, except that I don't really like this tendency to try and make the killer-deck. I had the same problem with MtG. It also cost me 50% more. Considering that I play all 3 LCG's, that makes for 15 dollar x 12 months = 180 dollars in a year...

Do we all need to have killer decks? Or is making fun decks that create tight battles more the idea...?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J S
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So I was thinking about getting this game, but the OP makes it seem that you currently need to buy multiple expansion packs, hence why they are going to give three of each card going forward. Is this true, do you now buy more than one of each expansion pack? I have absolutely no interest in power-gaming, and prefer to play a casual card game as opposed to tournament bound.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan DeHaan
United States
Noblesville
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you want to play casual, you only really need the Core set. If you want to buy the Battle packs, you only truly need one of each for casual play.

I don't get where people tend to think that for casual play, you need to buy multiples of everything.

How it stands RIght now, for all 6 of the Corruption Cycle Battlepacks is
10 cards 1x, 10 cards 3x, for a total of 40 cards in BP.

If you bought two packs, you'd end up with 10 cards 2x, and 10 cards 6x, which is overkill, and not necessary for casual play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mike Wene wrote:
So, what happens with the truly unique cards? Like the special characters that are limited to having only 1 in play at a given time. Generally you would never put 3, and usually not even 2 in your deck. Now I guess we will have extras of those cards.

I understand this is probably better for a lot of people. I don't see it being the best solution.


To add onto Rex Gator's excellent response to this remark, there other thing you seem to be totally missing here, Mike, is that it's very much a valid strategy to have multiples of a potent unique card in your deck so that you'll have a better ratio for drawing that card into play. It's very much worth having multiples.

Furthermore, most gamers create multiple decks so I don't know about you but I'd like to have copies of a LOT of cards. My only issue with the game right now is that there are too few copies of some VERY important, very KEY cards in the Core Set right now. The three best examples I can think of are: Waaaaaugggh! (the potent Orc Tactic), Innovation (powerful Neutral card), and Flames of Tzeentch (Chaos Tactic). Hopefully future Battlepacks will include more copies of these.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Booker Hooker
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sounds like they just need to bring out a battlepack that has the missing copies of what wasn't in the core set. Either that or ammend the rules so that we can only have one of each hero in our deck. That would be the cheaper way (for us players).

Doesn't really matter much to me I guess. It's a great game and I'll have fun with whatever cards I end up with, even if I never get any chapter packs.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Wene
United States
Unspecified
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
wytefang wrote:
Mike Wene wrote:
So, what happens with the truly unique cards? Like the special characters that are limited to having only 1 in play at a given time. Generally you would never put 3, and usually not even 2 in your deck. Now I guess we will have extras of those cards.

I understand this is probably better for a lot of people. I don't see it being the best solution.


To add onto Rex Gator's excellent response to this remark, there other thing you seem to be totally missing here, Mike, is that it's very much a valid strategy to have multiples of a potent unique card in your deck so that you'll have a better ratio for drawing that card into play. It's very much worth having multiples.


Oh, I'm not missing it. In other games with unique cards, you will occasionally have a second copy in the deck to improve your chances of drawing one. But, you will not include a third because you are then running the risk (or decreased efficiency) of drawing a dead card. I know in this game you can say that you can just use the card as an Improvement play, but it is hit to your overall efficiency to not have other options for a drawn card.

Then as far as creating multiple decks, you will need more than 3 copies of many staple cards. So, you end up back to the point of needing to buy multiple battlepacks anyway. Then you have even more of an excess of the unique cards.

As I mentioned, I am sure this new packaging strategy works well for many people. My point is just that it still isn't quite as good as it could be. Not that I have the answer myself....cause I don't.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Wene
United States
Unspecified
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Scratches wrote:
Sounds like they just need to bring out a battlepack that has the missing copies of what wasn't in the core set. Either that or ammend the rules so that we can only have one of each hero in our deck. That would be the cheaper way (for us players).


I like this second thought. It is actually similar to what I had envisioned from the start of the game. If the card is deemed "Unique" then require it to be limited to only one copy per deck. Then when including a card that is "Unique" in a battlepack or other expansion, print it as only one copy in the pack and print any non-uniques as three copies.

Or carry it a step further and release "Unique only battlepacks" with 1 copy of each card and "Non-unique only battlepacks" with 3 copies of each card. Maybe make the 1st or last pack in the cycle be a "Unique only pack".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mike Wene wrote:
Oh, I'm not missing it. In other games with unique cards, you will occasionally have a second copy in the deck to improve your chances of drawing one. But, you will not include a third because you are then running the risk (or decreased efficiency) of drawing a dead card. I know in this game you can say that you can just use the card as an Improvement play, but it is hit to your overall efficiency to not have other options for a drawn card.


The thing is, though, is that imho, this game doesn't require quite the same slavish attention to card ratios as other CCGs (something I have disliked about other card games at the more competitive level) do. Since you can ramp up your card draws rather quickly, it's not tough to get to the cards you need at any given time. And, like you've said, since you can use those extra Unique as Development cards, it doesn't really affect your deck's potency. At least not from what I've seen after playing a butt-load of games now.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Fowler
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dont know if all of the casual gamers have the same attitude as me, but the system I think would be ideal would be:
20 unique cards in 1 $5 pack
I hesitate to pay $10 for the current 40 card decks (1x10 + 3x10) but would be more likely to buy a single $5 20 card deck (1x20)

For the hardcore gamers - they could still buy 3 20 card packs for $15 (the same rate they are currently predicting for the 60 card deck).

So the best of both worlds it seems to me.

If cost of packaging is a problem -they could still do the 3x20 60 card decks for the hardcore gamers, and once a quarter could offer a 1x60 pack for the same price. They might rather have the $15/month customers than the $15/quarter ones, but with both the current system, and with the new proposed system I end up being in the $0-20/year category.

And even at $5 for a 20 card deck (or booster pack if you want to call it that) this doesnt seem to be a steal to me (with magic at around $4 for a 15 card booster)

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Board games addict
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought the 40 cards for $10 was perfect. You got multiple copies of some cards and one copy of some uniques. I wouldn't want 20 unique cards for $5. But I also don't need 3 copies of everything for $15.

After they do this new system, I will have extra cards that I don't need taking up space. 20 extra cards that I have to store for every battle pack. And as someone remarked above, it is a change where they make more money because of the popularity of the game, this is probably the main motive behind this change. soblue But of course they will pretend its all about service to the customer. ninja
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You are waaaay in the minority.

Many of us were in the opposite boat, wanting 3x of all the cards, but being unwilling to spend $30+ for each expansion pack, and being unwilling to then have 60 cards that could never be used in a deck.

To each their own I suppose, but I'm happy with this change.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ville Halonen
Finland
Oulu
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
quinnox wrote:
After they do this new system, I will have extra cards that I don't need taking up space. 20 extra cards that I have to store for every battle pack. And as someone remarked above, it is a change where they make more money because of the popularity of the game, this is probably the main motive behind this change. But of course they will pretend its all about service to the customer.


Umm, but there is way less than 20 truly unique cards in each battle pack. So far there have been 4 uniques in the first pack and 3 in the second and I doubt that ratio will change too much in the future. You'll end up with 6-8 cards useless cards per battle pack if you really want to keep uniques only 1 per deck.

I don't think where will be anyway to distinquish which cards from the non-uniques were supposed to be one-off cards in the old system once this change gets through.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Lewicki
United States
Milford
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What the naysayers may be missing is that this move will actually open up a secondary market for the cards.

The current distribution makes a secondary market very unlikely, since if you buy 3 packs, you're going to get *6* extra cards of some cards. But the problem is, if anybody else has bought even one of that expansion pack, they'll already have 3 of that specific card, so the market for your 6 useless cards is essentially zero.

In the new system, you'll be able to buy 1 pack for $15, and any cards you don't want will be in sets of 3s. This may make it viable for some people to not buy the pack at all, and just trade or purchase the cards from an auction site.

A secondary market would make the game much more approachable to future players, and more lucrative to current players.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
AxonDomini
United States
Smithtown
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quinnox wrote:
And as someone remarked above, it is a change where they make more money because of the popularity of the game, this is probably the main motive behind this change. soblue But of course they will pretend its all about service to the customer. ninja


Considering this is exactly the change that many long time LCG players have been asking for I find little to support your cynical view.

One of the biggest complaints about the battle/chapter/asylum packs for the games has been the 1x/3x model and how it would be so much better if there were 3x of every card. I never saw a single person disagree that having 3x of every card would be better for the consumer. Most people agreed that 1x/3x was a better financial model for FFG since it encouraged players to buy multiples of the same product.

Now that FFG has finally switched to the model that the majority of players have asked for they're being accused of being disingenuous about their motives. Given FFG's history of listening to their customers regarding how they distribute their LCG's (that and the fact that, once again, customers did in fact ask for this change), I'm willing to take them at their word.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Castillo
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Mike Wene wrote:
wytefang wrote:
Mike Wene wrote:
So, what happens with the truly unique cards? Like the special characters that are limited to having only 1 in play at a given time. Generally you would never put 3, and usually not even 2 in your deck. Now I guess we will have extras of those cards.

I understand this is probably better for a lot of people. I don't see it being the best solution.


To add onto Rex Gator's excellent response to this remark, there other thing you seem to be totally missing here, Mike, is that it's very much a valid strategy to have multiples of a potent unique card in your deck so that you'll have a better ratio for drawing that card into play. It's very much worth having multiples.


Oh, I'm not missing it. In other games with unique cards, you will occasionally have a second copy in the deck to improve your chances of drawing one.
Quote:
But, you will not include a third because you are then running the risk (or decreased efficiency) of drawing a dead card.
I know in this game you can say that you can just use the card as an Improvement play, but it is hit to your overall efficiency to not have other options for a drawn card.

Then as far as creating multiple decks, you will need more than 3 copies of many staple cards. So, you end up back to the point of needing to buy multiple battlepacks anyway. Then you have even more of an excess of the unique cards.

As I mentioned, I am sure this new packaging strategy works well for many people. My point is just that it still isn't quite as good as it could be. Not that I have the answer myself....cause I don't. :p





A dead card is a perfect development.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Stoker
United States
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Finally! This will make me take a more serious look at the LCG's. I wish they had done this initially, and hope that they follow it up by creating decks with the "missing" copies of the cards in the earlier sets. Go FFG!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Wene
United States
Unspecified
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
DRunk9 wrote:
A dead card is a perfect development.


Yes, since there is no other option at that point. In that case there is no difference from including a worthless unusable quest card in your deck.....just so you can have a perfect development card.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
AxonDomini
United States
Smithtown
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mike Wene wrote:
DRunk9 wrote:
A dead card is a perfect development.


Yes, since there is no other option at that point. In that case there is no difference from including a worthless unusable quest card in your deck.....just so you can have a perfect development card.


Not true. An unusable quest will not increase the chances of drawing a unique hero card. Having two or three copies of that unique hero will. Including multiple copies of certain unique cards is a viable strategy in this kind of game. In fact, it's often a preferred strategy in competitive environments.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.