Because most of us- whether thread OPs or responders- are too lazy to look them up and link them. This is not completely unjustified as even with a search function, it's easy for similar topics to be buried by time.

It's also because we usually expect a quick reply to suffice and not escalate into a larger and more heated debate. There are various reasons for this, but in general it's because we assume that the other person is reasonable, and is interested enough in the topic that the replies we give will easily tilt their opinions in the same direction ours is.

Keggy said:

Because we are idiots and think we can sway somebody's negative opinion in the hope of growing the community, not realizing they are not interested in a discussion but simply want to impose their point of view on the forum members who can do nothing about it instead of taking his beef to FFG by contacting their customer service and leaving us the hell alone to enjoy the game.

Saturnine said:

Do you think that's even a fair comment? Telling someone they aren't interested in discussion when they have made the effort to post in the first place.

I would be very interested in playing the game. I haven't once said anything about the game itself. If i wasn't interested in it I wouldn't have posted at all. But the distribution is obviously a factor - that's why it gets mentioned a lot. It bothers people. Criticising people for that seems entirely churlish and quite unfair. I see no reason why things couldn't have been done differently. Unless the game has lots of search engines, you need the multiples. Cardgames are about the deckbuilding more than the actual play. Consequently you need those options unless the game's mechanics mitigate this. It's just arbitrary and frankly self defeating to do things as FFG has: it is either a blatant cash grab which makes it all seem like double dipping which is grubby and not entirely honest imo, or it's ill thought through. The only option to get the cards you need to is through an economy of loss. Trading isn't really going to be much of an option because pretty much everyone, i imagine, would want all the cards anyway which means everyone is after the same cards. That's the problem here. With traditional starter decks you are buying a smaller pool of cards and so paying less. That could have been the case here: two starter sets one which, say 2 runner and 2 corporations (lets assume you have 4 runners and 4 corps, not 3 runners) with 3x. That way the package is smaller and costs less and so butying both isn't necessary for a complete set of 3x and people who want everything can buy everything. That's just one suggestion. This distribution really spoilt the LotR lcg experience which is why i sold the game on after about a week; I didn't want to but my options were completely curtailed because of this arbitrary decision making which was a real shame.

And iv'e just looked at Esdevium Games' latest release sheet (as i do each week) and there is no ANR expansion listed for next week.

signoftheserpent said:

Probably because it already released this week. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=3800

Not in the UK it didn't.

signoftheserpent said:

Well yes anywhere outside of the US will take longer for it to arrive of course. I don't think it has arrived here locally either but I am not in the US. Full spoiler has been up for a couple of days.

signoftheserpent said:

Ignoring what other people are saying and continuing to rant based on your notions on how to publish and promote an LCG is not a discussion. What are you hoping to get out of this? You disagree with FFGs way to publish their game, take it to FFGs customer service or start a petition if you really feel strongly about it and expect you'll be able to change their business model with enough support. This thread is accomplishing nothing.

Then don't read it.

So sign, what would you have done differently with the Netrunner core set? 

Would you have had less unique cards in the set, but had them each at 3 copies each?  While this would keep the price point about the same, it would have limited variety for both deckbuilding and its lasting ability as a stand alone product (many buy it as a standalone product).  The stunted card pool would definitely hurt the launch of the game as a collectible game.  There is also a decent possibility that the decks included wouldn't be properly balanced at 3 copies of each card contained.

Would you have left the same number of unique cards in the set, but had all at 3 copies each?  Would you include 3 copies of the identity cards as well, since that seems to be a touchy subject for many people.  Keeping the same card list but bumping all to 3 copies (with or without the identities) would definitely increase the cost of the core set, pushing it beyond the justifiable budget range of more casual players.  Lower sales put the future of the game into jeopardy.  The problem of balancing starter decks remains.  Since people don't like to read the rulebook to figure which cards to put in and which to leave out, the few casual players that do pick it up will be put off and/or confused by having a pile of cards they are "not supposed to use" (its not hard to find threads of people not sure how to assemble the starter decks already).

Or would you have done something else entirely?

signoftheserpent said:

@signoftheserpent

I don't think it's accurate to call the core set distribution either arbitrary or self-defeating.

a) Arbitrary: The core set distribution represents (in my opinion) an attempt at offering both a diversity of options with a consistency of play. So the core set decks contain 3x of "staple" cards (Sure Gamble, Diesel, Cyberfeeder, Easy Mark, etc) and 1x of cards which tended to have lower utility in multiples (over half of them are unique, so can't be played in multiples). This demonstrates a very intentional design towards creating an out-of-the-box experience, which you can critisize, but I don't think you can rightfully call it "arbitrary."

b) Self-Defeating: If the mark of "defeat" is poor sales, then this the Core Set is obviously not self-defeating. It's sold far better than they ever expected it to (judging by the Gencon rush). Of course, if you define "success" by "providing a complete playset in a box," then the Core Set is self-defeating, but I don't think that was FFG's criteria for success.

I was curious if you had any answers to the question in my previous post: is there another collectible/customizable card game that offers a complete playset in a box?

signoftheserpent said:

signoftheserpent said:

If you don't want us to read it if we don't agree with you and you are not willing to see any other side of the debate then I fail to see what you are trying to accomplish at this point. This is the Netrunner forums, of course those of us here like the game already. You don't you have made that abundantly clear so let's all just move on.

How do you define 'complete'?

Each anachronism game purchase came with exactly as many cards of that pack / release that you could use (1 of each).

Also to accuse a company of 'money grubbing' reeks of socialism or anti free martket philosophy… This is a company. It has to make money somehow. It is not its requirement to provide you with the cards. It is its requirement to make money in the process of that product. Just my opinion.

But I am interested in your model for this game's alternative distribution.

And how would you distribute Vampire the Eternal Struggle, which has NO deck limit for cards?

What other side is there? FFG made an arbitrary decision and the consequence is that the only way to get those cards is to buy another, entire, core set. I don't understand how that is something to be happy about. It's a bad decision. If they released those extra cards as a separate pack for a few bucks more that would be something, but they don't even do that. Even if you brought the cards separately online (if there's anywhere selling singles) the prie would be the same because that's what they are worth, if not more. There is no rationale that explains why you would just include fewer multiples than the maximum. The game would be no less playable if it had 3x everything and you could easily have done so for no more than an extra ten dollars. If this is about the size of print sheets then do as I suggested earlier and have a smaller core set at a smaller cost. That way companion sets would not be prohibitive. Asking me what I'd do is really moot however since I have no influence and cannot undo what FFG has decided. We are also not talking about other games so it's irrelevant what Vampire does. I doubt veery much whether i'd countenance a design allowing for unlimited multiples. That's what the original Star Wars ccg did and having to acquire multiple ultra rares or powerful mains was utterly ridiculous.

It's also what the original Netrunner CCG did.

Guys, it's not worth it.