I think all of this debating has clouded the core ideal behind the distribution method.  Everyone is hung up trying to either demonize or defend FFG's distribution method for the starters.

When I looked at the game I ask myself "Is this distribution method is better than the CCG model"?.  It may not be the "best" model from either the perspective of the player (who wants a full playset) OR FFG's perspective (who wants to create a product to accomplish specific goal and maintain profitability).  But I don't think any of us could argue that the CCG model is better.

And in that regard I think the product is a huge winner.

So far, this thread has taken the exact same direction that every other of the dozens of thread on this topic has taken.  So far, no one has put forth any new arguments or explanations.

Nor has the complaining been qualitatively different.

Can we put these threads to rest?

People will discuss what they see as worth discussing. Noone has been rude or offensive so I don't have a problem with it.

Anyway I have decided on balance to try the game. I do not care for FFG's decisions, they are a company that continually shoots itself in the foot in this way (great ideas but always with a sting in the tail unfortunately), and I do not stand by whatever motivated the distribution of this game, however.

Whatr is interesting is that you claimed this distrubution was arbitrary. I highly doubt that that was what it was. Your continued negative comments regarding things that can be explained logically (arbitrary and the previous comment you made about them trying to steal our monies or some such) is what bothers ME about this thread, and it seems that you are being rude. However, it is likely that you are just letting your disdain for this distribution model cloud your discussion and what words you chose.

Your alternative solution was what then? Do what they have just done here (core set) and then have one additional pack of cards where in which they can buy the extras needed to 'complete' the collection? Have you discussed this with FFG yet?

And how are other models of distribution irrelevant? We are talking about distribution here, and comparisons are often a key point of argument formation.

My buying the game does not invalidate my opinion on the distribution. It sucks, plain and simple. There is no reason to short change customers and to not at the very least make the extra cards available in some way.

I've played card games for many years including against world champions and people far better than I. I know how these games work and I can tell you that if you want it to succeed there will need to be the kind of interest in the game that informs people wanting 3x every card. Not providing that is short changing the player. All this means is there will be people that will happily buy 3x core sets just for 20 extra cards. That is not a good thing for the community at all; you talk about the core set designed to provide an 'in' for new players, but if people buy 2 or more copies of that set you then have a small 'elite' hoarding copies of the game that would and should otherwise have gone to expanding the playerbase. I've seen this happen before; the people i used to play with would ruotinely buy 4 or more boxes of every expansion as soon as possible. They would hoard cards for theior collection and not trade (as you might with the core set, though frankly that's not a good way either to encourage new players - they might miss out on the faction they'd be best suited to in order to trade for something else).

LCG players buying excessive core sets to hoarde the cards and keep them from other people?  I actually laughed out loud.

Keggy said:

They will buy, at most, two extra core sets. It is highly unlikely that they or that this technique will break a community and make other core sets unattainable.

You keep using biased words like 'short change'. They are not short changing people. They are offering the product as advertised.

You haven't addressed some of the concerns and questions I asked.

I did not say your purchase invalidates your concern.

I agree with Messenger. Lets all stop feeding the troll. 

Toqtamish said:

About 50 replies too late, but I wholeheartedly agree.

vermillian said:

Why for instance include 3 copies of an 8 cost piece of ice, but only 2 copies of a card that costs zero?

Why even include cards in a single multiple? Two cards? Ok that's not the end of the world, but why include 1 copy of a card that really isn't much use alone.

There are 4 corp factions, but only 3 runners. They could have saved one of the corps for an expansion and used those 28 cards to beef out the remainder.

They could have done lots of things.  They chose not to.  Your points have either been noted or not by the powers that be.  Dragging this out is a waste of everyone's time and energy.  You seem like a reasonably analytical and intelligent person, outside of this debate.  Please direct your energies towards useful discussions of the game.

I do see what you are saying about the corporation though. However, what FFG appeared to want was a core set that was playable with easily understood rules on how to make the decks such that they'd be balanced on creating. Apparently 3X each card copied into the core set made a game that wasn't as good……?

Have you emailed any of the designers or employees of FFG on this matter? Several of them are on face book…

I haven't emailed anyone, I don't use facebook. Unfortunately FFG don't ever seem to read the feedback given on their own forums.

I can't imagine they would change their minds: obviously they feel they made the best decisions and certainly wouldn't admit to anything less than honest.

Corporation decks would have greatly benefitted from there only being 3 factions IMO. As it stands, all of them have to rely on a much leaner choice of cards and I'm not convinced, from what I've seen, that they can exploit their specialties as well as they should. I bet most people ignore the one or two cards that their faction only has one of completely and give that space to something else. None of the corps have enough factional agendas to build a deck (you can't use other factions agendas). That's a big deal. IT's not unplayable, but it loses what makes it special. For instance the Weyland deck uses transactions to generate income, but there are only 4 transaction cards available to it. I therefore would overlook Weyland for another choice until such time as enough transaction cards become available. That's a shame. So why include Weyland? Why not retask those cards and spread them across the other 3 facrtions? The smaller corp decks also mean that building a strong 45 card deck (the most they can include is 20 points worth of agendas so deck size is limited) is harder which waters them down. That's a shame, because fewer of the game's mechanics shine through.

signoftheserpent said:

You don't have to send email or use facebook to give FFG feedback, there is a link at the very bottom of this page called "User Support".  Please use this link to send your opinion to FFG, as this is the official way to do so.  This forum is not the proper way, as stated in the agreement presented to you when you use this forum the first time.