Edwin20er said:

He didn't say that. In fact, no one in this thread said that. He said the exact opposite.

People can say what they wish, but you only have a choice to buy the game as FFG makes it, or not at all.

It's like the stupid $8 hot dogs at the ball park.  Nobody wants to pay $8 for a hot dog, but your alternatives aren't that great either.  You can tote in your own food which probably won't be hot, or go hungry.

Face it, FFG can pretty much publish it however they like and if you want the game you'll buy it the way they give it to you.  Not enough people will take a hard stance against the mixed distribution to put much dent in the bottom line so if they feel this adds their casual sales enough to offset a few lost sales to the serious fans plus the lost sales to competitive players who decide to only get 2x Core sets because of diminishing returns then they'll do it.

And, they've already made that call, probably months ago.  All we want to know is which one they picked so we can start rationalizing how we're going to live with it.

dboeren said:

This could be both true and false.

There is no way they can tell if people who refuse to buy a product that they otherwise would simply because of distribution unless they get feedback that says so. Since most consumers who refrain from buying products do not tell a company why they chose not to, then we are left with a self fulfilling prophecy by FFG.

Apparently, plenty of people call those who prefer a rational distribution to be the "overly vocal minority" (as if they have any evidence that they are the minority) yet those very same voices may be for those who refrained from purchase.

No telling either way.

But your greater point of "love it or lump it" still stands.  And I agree. But I doubt anyone from FFG will comment in this thread short of "The Spaniard" (Peterson) commenting directly.

Best bet is to email FFG and ask them directly since the likelihood of a reply on their own forums is next to nil. They read it, make no mistake. But their employees are muzzled pretty tightly on public fora.

Hellfury said:

That is exactly what he said. He said he will not buy it if "doesn't match the individual card limit "

Toqtamish said:

Shelfwear said:

Hellfury said:

I agree.  Sales that never occur leave zero feedback about WHY they never occurred.  This is why the often touted "vote with your wallet" doesn't really work very well.  You only vote when you buy something, and you can only vote Yes.  When you don't buy something, you are abstaining.  There is no entry on the ballot for "I won't pay for this and here's why".

Hellfury said:

He said in reply 12 that if the core set distribution does not match the limit and distribution model that the exansions do he won't buy it, that's all I was saying.

EDIT: I was merely pointing out that he's contradicting himself and I hope he does get into it as that's one more player in a game I'd love to play.

dboeren said:

Yes. IMO also 1x is the best trade-off between card diversity and the demands of completionist players. 1x of each card allows new players to buy 1 core set and test the game, while they are looking at a big card pool, thus making the game more attractive for the casual/indetermined player. And it allows long-term-players (and I hope FFG realizes that they are getting a lot of money from them accululated over time) to complete their card pool without buying cards for the trash bin.

In LotR, there have been some rants just because of the distribution model (when you're buying the 3rd core set, you're doing this for just 13 cards!) and Christian Petersen even made a statement about it. So I hope FFG is aware of this issue for A:N. For a competitive game, card pool completeness is much more important than in the cooperative LotR…

 Everybody is saying what distribution system makes the most money for FFG. I don't think it so simple. FFG already can have a bit bad reputation with some players and it is sometimes seen as McDonald's of game industry. If you want to redo a classic game you want to make it good and plan it carefully. Otherwise your games won't be taken very seriously. This is especially bad for LCG. But anyway I am super excited of this new game because I didn't have chance to play original game much. 

Something else I'd like to add…  It's entirely possible to serve both ends.

One group says that 1x is the best because of no wasted cards and the end user gets to see a greater variety of cards in the box.

The other group says that mixed distribution is best because it's more like a built deck, providing a smoother gameplay experience.

There is no reason that you cannot have both.  As I've stated in another thread on BGG, in any CCG/LCG there are usually multiple cards which provide a similar function.  The bigger the pool, the more of them there are, but even starting out there will be cards with roughly similar uses, or FFG can choose to select more cards with roughly similar uses.

Therefore - for every instance of a card where you were thinking about putting 2x or 3x copies of that card in the Core set, this may be replaced by using only 1x copy of that card supplemented by different cards of similar function.

The original description is I think then a false dichotomy.  You can provide fully 1x cards in the set AND still provide a better semblance of a tuned deck by using cards which are similar but not identical.

What say you, gentlemen?

 I'm buying 3x core set!

Put me down for preferring x1 copy per card for the Core set.  It's just cleaner and easier for collecting, and offers the widest variety of cards.

With this model, players who are more competitive or who enjoy deck-building can buy multiple Core sets without owning a bunch of less-than-useful duplicates, and those players who don't like to deck-build (and there's a surprisingly large number) end up with a greater diversity for casual "highlander" play.  In the end, it makes the decision of how many Core sets to purchase, as well as recommend to newer players, more straightforward.

I play both W:I and CoC.  I own x3 Core sets for Call of Cthulhu, but only x1 for Warhammer: Invasion due to the mixed x3/x2/x1 card distribution.  And it's another reason I decided to pass on the LotR LCG.  Having said all of that, I will be surprised if Netrunner doesn't follow the same model as W:I and LotR.

 Buying more than one core set does not give as many "useless" duplicates as some of you seem to think. A lot of cards can go in multiple decks and having extras comes in handy especially if you build as many decks as I did for AGoT

I'll be buying a single copy of the core set and playing it. If it provides a good out-of-the-box experience, I'll probably buy a second or third set as needed or justified depending on how much play it sees. If it's not a good out-of-the-box experience, then I've got a lot of other games on my shelf.

The highest priority for me (and, I think, for Fantasy Flight) is that the core set be a fun, self-contained game: that it be accessible, easy to teach, and that the included decks are consistent enough to follow a strategic theme. If they can provide that out-of-the-box came with a 1x 252 distribution (or even a x3 distribution), then I'll be fine with that. But if they prioritize ease of collectibility over out-of-the-box fun, they'll run the risk of failing to capture a wide enough pool of players, which will cut the game's life short.

I think a Core Set with a mixed distribution can still present a quality compromise between completists and casual gamers. If it provides an enticing, quality experience, casual gamers are more likely to become completists, fueling the development of the game. As for the out-of-the-gate completists, even assuming that the distribution is x1 of 42 cards, x2 of 42 cards, and x3 of 42 cards, it would still be $120 RSVP for a full playset of 126 cards, which is still cheaper, more reliable, and less wasteful than randomized boosters.

My two cents.

Toqtamish said:

I have heard the "Multiple deck" excuse quite a few times. I don't buy it.

My own experience doesn't match yours and I build quite a few CoC decks to be ready to play at any single time. I also play in tournaments whenever I am able to. I never felt the need to have 9X of cards, or even 6x for a single players pool to choose from.

And on the very rare occasions that I did need 6x of a card, it was maybe 2 or 3 cards in the entire pool of call of cthulhu cards. That still leaves the majority of cards that I have sitting in a box from before FFG went to the 3x distribution in their expansion packs.

So the 3x/2x/1x distribution model has not illustrated anything other than wastefulness to me.