Julia said:

Ahh I think I understand now.

You are looking for either a standalone product or something with few, if any expansions?

I can see that and can agree. Only because I have collected call of Cthulhu LCG to the point where there are 2 complete playsets. The monthly thing while great, can get a bit overwhelming and doesnt have enough deluxe expansions (which are more economical) to ease that monthly pressure.I am undergoing that monthly buy burnout even though OI only purchase a cycle once it is complete as op[posed to every month.

So yeah, I can definitely understand empathize with what you are saying.

But on the bright side, once the Revelations cycle is fully released I am stopping and considering my collection complete.

By that I mean you can collect as much or as little as you like and your collection will be as complete as you make it. If you can get past the feeling of needing to be a completionist, which admittedly FFG is relying on everyone to be, then once free of that yoke you can view collecting such games in a new, freer light.

So friggin' stoked about this one.  The original game is prohibitively expensive, so any alternative is welcome.  I just scored an original Netrunner starter pack off Ebay for $35.

TO ANY MODERATORS OUT THERE:  Any way to pre-order this puppy?  I got the "jones" for this one.

Personally I think the LCG model is worlds better than the CCG model, which I wouldn't touch at all.

Is it perfect?  No.  I've got my complaints.  The need to buy multiple starters to get a complete set and ending up paying for a bunch of duplicate stuff you don't need is one.  I'd also rather see the releases bundled up in bigger (but less frequent) chunks to save some money.  A quarterly big expansion would suit me just fine.  But, these are mainly nitpicks.  The starter issue is a one thing thing to get past, and monthly packs aren't that big a deal.  You can wait and buy several at a time if you want, you just don't get the discount you'd get if they were bundled.

Now, I love boardgames too - I've got a bit over a hundred of them on my bookshelf downstairs.  But, that's a different sort of game.  For Netrunner, I think the LCG model is a good fit.  Deck design is fun and I'd miss not having it in this type of game.

Hellfury said:

Yeah, that's the point. I'd be more comfortable with a standalone game, with let's say 1 to 2 expansion / year, rather than something growing constantly.

And you're certainly right when you say that you can buy whichever expansion pack you want (that's a *huge* great thing in the LCG system); on the other side, I'm rather enthusiast of this kind of games, and I'm always curious to look into "what's new" and see how the equilibrium of the different decks change.

So, I guess I'll consider Star Wars as a stand alone game (stopping the series after buying the core set), and go a little further with this one (the idea of playing two different roles within the same setting sounds really appealing to me :-) and it's kinda new in the LCG world - not having played WH: Invasion, I'm not 100% sure)

Sigh. One should live at least three different lives: one for working and housecleaning, one for games and friends, one for family and books ::scratching her head and wondering about human clonation::

Julia said:

Heh. So many cool distractions yet only so many years to live.

This is why once netrunner is released I doubt I will collect anything for CoC LCG again. Not that I hate the game (in fact I love it) but there is only so much I can stuff into my life. I have enough cards to play CoC for many many years without buying a single other pack.

I want to play every LCG they make, but I am forced to pick and choose how I spend my leisure time and money and I am actually ok with that.

Then you mention books…oy vey.

Hellfury said:

::laughter::

Back in the day, this was one of my favorite CCGs; I was hampered in playing only by a lack of opponents at the time who were interested in its universe.  Most of my friends then preferred fantasy and M:tG.  Times change.  Now I'm really jazzed that FFG is resurrecting this classic game. Can hardly wait to make a run!

[quote]Heh. So many cool distractions yet only so many years to live.  I want to play every LCG they make, but I am forced to pick and choose how I spend my leisure time and money and I am actually ok with that.[/QUOTE]

I know what you mean.  I've got plenty of hobbies, and gaming is just one of them, and CoC or Netrunner is just one game within that.  Plus I have a job, and a family.  There's not enough time for everything I want to do NOW, and now they want to add on one more game to follow?

In a sense, it's a bad idea to try to get into a new LCG, but I have to at least try it.  I don't know if it will replace Call of Cthulhu for me.  At some point I might need to choose just one to follow, but unless I taste both how can I know which one that is?

Star Wars… Originally I wasn't interested in it when it was going to be a co-op game.  Now, I don't know.  I'd like to try the demo at Gencon this year if they're showing it - I just don't have a good understanding of what kind of game it is right now.  Maybe they've revealed something about the rules, I haven't been watching it.  But overall, I think Netrunner will likely be more interesting to me so I don't think I'll have much trouble skipping this game.  I believe that I can manage to collect two LCG's but three would probably be over my limit.

Penfold said:

Good point there. One which I completely forgot about.

I trust FFG with their reprints for the most part. The Android background is a decent if not compelling dystopia, so the retheme doesnt seem to be a prob.

But if FFG's LCG precedent is anything to go by, one could assume that the 3x model will be maintained. Which I do not have a problem with either.

Julia said:

I'm not sure I understand, you want a game where you have to buy a single product every three to six months to stay current.  The business model is weak, Magic:the Gathering has the best limited format of any CCG out there, and has lived off it for a number of years.  Drafting is the reason that competitive players buy new cards between sets, and without that market Magic would have gone the way of most CCGS.

Netrunner can be played easily limited, but the LCG Model does not make it profitable to do so. Without either limited play or constant evolution, a Customizable Card Game will die.  

Adam said:

Corp deck followed a rule that tied deck size to agenda points; runner deck was any size, but both had a minimum of 45 cards. There was no limit on the number of card types which led to some interesting deck builds. Especially with tournament decks you could build glass cannons that were build for a sole strategy in mind, ultimately flopping if countered early. This is especially true of the Corp and the infamous "Tag n' Bag" builds, whereby the corp flatlines the runner within the first few turns.

Whilst both sides could be milled, the Corp lost if he exhausted R&D (his deck). If a Runner drew the last card from his stack then he simply couldn't draw anymore. The reason for this is that, unlike the Corp who must draw every turn, drawing for the Runner was by choice, costing an Action to do so.

Indeed, there was a virus card that seems bizarre at first as it seemed to give the Corp an advantage in drawing, "Scivviss". Now virus play is funny at the best of times when played aggressively, so the look of alarm on a Corp players face when they're quickly drawing 8+ cards from their dwindling R&D was delicious.

wormhole surfer said:

Sour grapes? Do you really think that you are going to influence anyone on here with your BS negative attitude? Nope. Keep trolling though.

mi-go hunter said:

I feel the same, but I doubt this will change. The incentive just isn't there, from a business standpoint. Anyone who cares about being competitive is going to follow the game's monthly packs anyway, and so the design intent is for more casual players to have what they need right out of the box. I'm the worst of the bunch, though, in that I don't really care about being competitive, but since the game is built around fixed product, I still want to have all of the competitive player's resources at my disposal.

Honestly, what bothers me more is all the extra crap that tends to be included in the core sets, y'know, the stuff you don't really need in order to play the game - let alone three core sets' worth of - that ramps up the price tag. I wouldn't mind buying three copies if I was only paying for the cards and nothing else. Never have I played a game of CoC that had both players requiring a total of 18 domain markers, or 72 success tokens. Maybe I'm just not facing the right deck.

 One of the things that was always amazing about Netrunner was the playskill involved, Runners winning games they by all means shouldn't have with a well timed run, Corps scaring off Runners while they attained victory with next to no actual defenses, and all of these with cards that came in a single deck.  The variation of decks allowed for the most flexibility.  It seems to me that the game went downhill when player where a player could run multiple copies of a single card.  The core set will be fine for casual play.  I'd love to see a popular singleton format as well, 1 set should lead to many decent decks, and a lot of skill based play.  Hopefully the game retains that aspect.

Edwin20er said:

I didn't know that the possibility existed for a game to be better in Highlander format. But I would definitely prefer that over having to pick up three copies of the core set when it comes out. I would invest much more readily in these LCGs if the initial moneyblow wasn't there.