Dungeon Command: So, so close to buying, but won't

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
Just got done reading the rules, and found one thing incomprehinsible.  I thought I must have read it wrong, so I came here to check it out, but sadly it turns out to be true.

The rules make it possible-- even probable-- that someone who is willing to buy 4 sets of a faction or maybe 2 sets of two different factions in order to get 4x a particular creature or command card will have a competitive advantage over someone who doesn't.  They had no reason to do this.  They could have, for example, allowed only customizing by having the contents of a single copy of each set.  This would still give an advantage to someone who is willing to spend more money, but at least you'd be getting unique content; at least the money you spent on each set would be giving you a bunch of new options and flavors, and almost none of the money spent on a given faction would be redundant with other factions.  The number of combinations would still be enormous, more than enough to remain interesting.  With staggered releases of the factions, it's a reasonable expectation.

Seriously?  Four copies of the same faction to get at a few command cards and miniature will give you a competitive advantage over someone else?

And yes, I know they are going to have Limited tournaments.  But they're also going to have Unlimited tournaments, and if I shell out close to $1,000 to go to a convention to play this game, I expect to be able to play on equal footing in every tournament there; needing to sit out of tournaments because I didn't spend enough money to have a chance of winning is completely unacceptable. 

I was ready to drive to my local game store to spend $60 on the first two sets; instead I'll be home reading.  Wizards is never going to see a dime of my money for this game.

(Oh, and to forestall the invevitable "you can buy cards or creatures individually from retailers that specialize in breaking up sets or buying used copies from players": either the game catches on or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, it's hardly an issue either way, since there will be no competitive tournament scene.  If it does, then the creatures and cards that are best are going to be commanding a premium, and it's going to be a significant outlay of cash to get them.)

(And to head off the "it worked for Magic" argument: there were very good reasons that Magic went with randomized packs, and it actually had nothing to do with any expectation that cards would have any significant monetary value; they were completely surprised when this happened.  But given the random nature of the packs, it's not really possible to have a "baseline" for what would be in a given set; no matter what you choose, someone somewhere didn't get any of those cards in his booster packs, and needs to spend money.  It's inevitable, there's no clear, fair way to avoid it.  But when you have set content in a box, it's completely avoidable.)
I for one am shocked that a company that sells items would design something in such as way as to encourage one to buy more of their items.

Shocked, I say.

Also, I picked up 3 of each Order deck alone online for less than the cost of one additional faction pack, and extra creatures for around $2 each. So I wouldn't say I broke the bank.

Your argument is that this will become some terrible thing, therefore you are going to refuse to enjoy it as is.
I for one am shocked that a company that sells items would design something in such as way as to encourage one to buy more of their items.

Shocked, I say.




At a rough estimate, I have a minimum of 150 games in the room I'm in right now.  I've got others in the garage, but let's ignore those.

I have a minimum of 1,000 miniatures I've painted, and another 2,000 or so unpainted (and probably always will be).

I have lots of games that have expansions-- Commands & Colors, Descent, Neuroshima Hex, Blue Moon, etc.

I have games that allow customization of decks, such as Flash Duel, Blue Moon, and Battleground: Fantasy Warfare. 

You know how many of those games provide any incentive whatsoever to buy mulitple copies of the same game, let alone providing a competitive advantage for someone to do so?

Zero.  Nada.  Zilch.

So yes, I do find it shocking that a game company would provide incentive for me to buy extra copies of the same product, much of which would be useless.  I find this particularly surprising given that there is absolutely no need for it.



Also, I picked up 3 of each Order deck alone online for less than the cost of one additional faction pack, and extra creatures for around $2 each. So I wouldn't say I broke the bank.




Yes, right now, before there's any competitive scene, you can do that.  Given what's happened in CCGs that have competitive tournaments, do you seriously think that's going to remain the case if this game catches on?  Really?  Do you have even the smallest suggestion of the hint of a reason why that would be the case?  Either the game creates a tournament scene or it doesn't, and it's obviously going to be the case that if it does, the better creatures and command cards are going to cost more, perhaps a great deal more.  Citing how much they cost less than a month after release is meaningless, and I suspect you know it.




Your argument is that this will become some terrible thing, therefore you are going to refuse to enjoy it as is.



My argument is that if I purchased the game, it would be with the hope (if not the expectation) that it would do well enough that I could go to Origins or Gen Con and play in tournaments.  And I would expect to be on equal footing with everyone else in those tournaments.   And this method of customizing warbands requires that I outlay a ridiculous and unecessary amount of money in order to do that.


Also, I picked up 3 of each Order deck alone online for less than the cost of one additional faction pack, and extra creatures for around $2 each.


Not to derail things too much, but... where'd you get these online?
Also, I picked up 3 of each Order deck alone online for less than the cost of one additional faction pack, and extra creatures for around $2 each.


Not to derail things too much, but... where'd you get these online?




auggiesgamesonline.3dcartstores.com/Mini...
Also, I picked up 3 of each Order deck alone online for less than the cost of one additional faction pack, and extra creatures for around $2 each.


Not to derail things too much, but... where'd you get these online?




auggiesgamesonline.3dcartstores.com/Mini...

Thanks! That place looks pretty awesome.
I have to agree with much of the sentiment of the original post.  Why a non-randomised game that requires the purchase of multiple faction boxes?

I like the game, having played the 'first time playing' style games several times with friends.  But I cannot justify purchasing more than one of each faction.  Also, there appears to be very little uptake of the game at my FLGS ... took a back seat on the D&D game day with very little promotion.  Perhaps a lack of prize support???

What is also putting me off is the non-commitment to grow the game after the Undeath faction release in November.  I have a room full of plastic from gamesthat've burst onto the scene then rapidly died a death with zero support from makers.
I'm still stuck on the $1000 dollars to go to a convention, but offended that buying 4 copies will give a competitive advantage.   Buying 1 copy is $30, buying 4 copies would be $120 dollars -- is the problem really that you're okay with paying $1030 dollars, but not paying $1120?  And, even if the game only allowed 1 of each set, having all 4 sets would give an advantage over having 1 set -- so $1120 is always going to be better than $1030.

Now, to be fair, there's a good argument that says that games should never be played where spending more money than another person gives an advantage.  And, there's a good argument that says "games are more fun when they're even".  For me though, I don't play magic with "My cards against someone elses cards" -- we always have 1 person supply all the cards.  That makes sure money isn't an object.  And, I expect similar rules when I play this game.   Of course, I don't play conventions competitively though, so I can't really help the OP.   

Except to say that if the OP doesn't like a particular tournament set, pick a different tournament?  
Yeah, I disagree as well.

A big part of deck design in Magic is choosing whether to design for reliability (i.e. 4 copies of 9 spells for 36 non-land cards) or for flexibility (i.e. 2 copies of 18 spells). The current system lets players choose to expand their warband with extra copies of the same set (reliability) or by buying different sets (flexibility). Either option will allow for more powerful warbands than a single copy of one faction box.

The other approach would be for WotC to include the maximum number of every creature and order in the faction box. That would either result in a much more expensive box with lots of components beyond what a "starter" requires, OR a greatly reduced variety - 4 copies of 3 creatures rather than 12 models that encompass 10 designs.

There's also theme to consider. The upcoming factions feature goblinoids, undead, and orcs. That definitely gives the Drow players something to work with, but a Cormyr player who likes the idea of "good guys" might balk at incorporating those into his warband. Allowing that player to buy additional Cormyr sets gives him something to tinker with while he waits for another heroic faction.

 
I'm still stuck on the $1000 dollars to go to a convention, but offended that buying 4 copies will give a competitive advantage.   Buying 1 copy is $30, buying 4 copies would be $120 dollars -- is the problem really that you're okay with paying $1030 dollars, but not paying $1120?  



Reading my original post and followup post, I can see that I was imprecise and perhaps even misleading in how I phrased it.  So your argument is actually quite valid if it's responding to the exact words that I wrote.  My bad.

I would never pay $1000 to go to a convention solely for the purpose of playing in a tournament or even several tournaments for any game.  There are many other reasons I like going to Origins or Gencon or BoardGameGeek Con or the World Boardgaming Championships (I usually make 1 or 2 a year).  I have friends that I only see at these conventions, some of whom I've known for a long time; I enjoy wondering around the dealer room several times, talking to small publishers about their game and seeing new releases; I like getting some time to myself; and so on.

What I meant, and what I should have said more clearly, is: part of my calculation as to whether or not to go to a particular convention in a particular year is what games I'm looking forward to playing.  If I'm currently interested in a particular game, the ability to play that game, particularly in a tournament, is a plus for me, and I might very well only play that game for the course of a weekend, spending the rest of my time eating out and socializing and looking at demos and such.

That's what I meant when I said "going to a convention to play this game".  

So the $1000 is in some sense already a sunk cost; I'm probably going to spend it  most years going to one convention or another, it's just a matter of which one, and which game I'm most interested in playing there.

In contrast, how much I spend on a game is never a sunk cost, in any sense.  It's a pure calculation of how much the game is worth to me.  If I value it at the price it's selling for or less, I might buy it; otherwise, I won't.  

It costs 4 times as much to play this game as it could have if a different (arbitrary) set of construction rules had been adopted.  Furthermore, I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation, given my prior (rather extensive) experiences with board games and miniatures games; requiring someone to buy multiple copies of the exact same game, accumulating useless duplicates of commander cards, boards, counters, as well as some creatures and command cards that will never be used, is not normal practice in this hobby.  I have never encountered it before.  Perhaps it's standard in Magic, which is a game I've never played; but this game is not Magic, it does not have randomized packs, it is played with miniatures and a board which are many times as expensive as playing cards, etc.

So yes, $120 vs $30 is not a large difference compared to $1000, and I can easily see how you would (correctly) make that argument, if I was truly prepared to go to Gencon for no other purpose than playing in Dungeon Command tournaments.  I might very well go with the desire to play Dungeon Command and little or nothing else, but there are significant payoffs to me outside of that.


And, even if the game only allowed 1 of each set, having all 4 sets would give an advantage over having 1 set -- so $1120 is always going to be better than $1030.



Yes, but I think I addressed this in my OP.  If I need to buy one faction box every couple of months or so to be competitive, that seems reasonable to me, because my return on investment is high enough: I'm getting an entirely new set of creatures and cards, and an entirely new theme, so as a game in and of itself it's going to pay off a lot more.  It's fun just to sit in bed and look through material you've never seen before, try to figure out how you could build a warband around it, see what new mechanics have been introduced, etc.  I think almost everyone enjoys that exploration phase.  So $30 spent on a new faction box is a much better investment for me than $30 spent on duplicates and useless materials that I already have, and much much better than spending $90 on many duplicates and a lot of useless material I already have.

You are (again) correct that spending more gives you a competitive advantage in either scheme; however, in my judgment the amount you need to spend, the frequency you need to spend it, and the fun you get out of the money spent is significantly better by buying a new faction box rather than 1-3 duplicates of existing faction boxes.  It is also my judgment that it's not unreasonable to expect that someone who likes the game enough to want to play in a competitive tournament would be willing to buy a faction box once every couple of months; I recognize that is purely subjective, but I suspect a lot of people would agree.


Except to say that if the OP doesn't like a particular tournament set, pick a different tournament?  



Assuming I'm at a convention and want to play Dungeon Command, I don't think I should need to make the choice WotC has left me with: play in only the Limited tournament, which doesn't allow any customization of creatures and barely any customization of order cards, thus nullifying one of the fun and interesting parts of the game that presumably got a lot of people to buy in the first place; or also play in the Constructed tournament, which requires a truly significant amount of extra money, which is only necessary because they wrote a few lines of text that has nothing to do with how the game is played, and could have easily been written in such a way as to require a fraction of the outlay of money while still allowing a great deal of customization.

In additon to the calculation of my ROI, there is the irrational (but still almost universal) desire for "fairness".  Study after study has found that humans are almost always willing to "bite off their nose to spite their face" if they percieve that another party is treating them unfairly.  Although this is irrational in the economic sense, it does make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, and serves quite a good purpose; so the fact that my brain is wired to rebel at the notion of someone charging 4x as much as I think they need to in order to give me the same amount of fun shouldn't come as a surprise, isn't rare, and isn't something I can really do much about.

Also, I think there's a line between complaining and whining, and I'd rather not cross that line; so I think I'll leave off writing any more lengthy posts, and most likely won't write anything more in this thread at all.  However, I'd be perfectly happy to continue this conversation privately, so feel free to PM me if you like.
My take:

1. Until you've actually had the opportunity to run a stock set at a convention against a custom warband, you don't really have a basis to say that its not competitive. I'd argue that the stock sets we've seen so far offer a good number of options, and that if I bought all 4 sets released this year I'd be more than prepared. I'd furthermore argue that a lot of this game comes down to your opponent wondering what you're going to do than what you actually do, and the actual nature of the cards in your hand are secondary.

2. There are plenty of tournaments that don't guarantee fairness or equal footing. First seat in Puerto Rico? You're getting shafted. Dominion with a 5/2 split and no 5 or 2 cost cards on the board worth buying? Shafted again.

3. If you *seriously* wanted to play this competitively, you wouldn't have an issue with the costs associated with it and you'd be used to sourcing what you need in the aftermarket. I'd wager it'll be possible to assemble a seriously competitive band out of single components for about the same cost as a basic set, without ever buying said basic set.

Anyhow, you've made your decision... and good luck to you. I'm certainly happy with the game as is and look forward to playing in many DC tournaments next year. Do I expect to win all the time with my superior spending? No, I expect to lose a fair amount to players who spend a lot less but have a better sense of the game's tactics than I do. I just get enough enjoyment from the theorycraft in the pre-game that I like having all the bits.
I see a "triple value" in DC:
1. Themed mini sets for the RPG.
2. Additional allies and monsters for Adventure System.
3. The skirmish game itself.

Looking at it this way, each set is a great value to someone like me. For reasons 1 and 2, I could see myself buying one duplicate set, but never a third copy of the same set. For warband building, I can also see an extra set, but the idea if three or foyr of the same set doesn't seem to offer any real advantage in building a custom warband; you sacrifice needed variety to pull off repetitive combos... which your opponents would anticipate. Perhaps time will prove me wrong, but I seeno sense of value in buying 4 copies of these sets.
For reasons 1 and 2, I could see myself buying one duplicate set, but never a third copy of the same set.



Definitely not. If I needed additional pieces past 2 sets, I could get what I needed in the aftermarket/Ebay rather than buying a full set with parts I don't need.

>>>Why a non-randomised game that requires the purchase of multiple faction boxes?

Why don't you ask Game of Throne LCG, or Call of Cthulhu LCG, or the Warhammer LCG, or Summoner Wars (all of which requires multiple purchases of a single faction's expansion packs to have the full breadth of customizability possible), or Warmachine, or Warhammer/Warhammer 40K (where you don't even get a playable army for what you get in a 40$ box) or... well, you get the point. There are absolutely no customizable games that are a full purchase out of the box that I know of.
>>>Why a non-randomised game that requires the purchase of multiple faction boxes?

Why don't you ask Game of Throne LCG, or Call of Cthulhu LCG, or the Warhammer LCG, or Summoner Wars (all of which requires multiple purchases of a single faction's expansion packs to have the full breadth of customizability possible), or Warmachine, or Warhammer/Warhammer 40K (where you don't even get a playable army for what you get in a 40$ box) or... well, you get the point. There are absolutely no customizable games that are a full purchase out of the box that I know of.



This isn't a card game.  If it were a CCG or LCG, requiring the additional purchase of multiple packs would be much more understandable.  

This is a board game.  Requiring the purchase of extra copies of a board game, complete with extra useless boards, extra useless tokens, extra useless commander cards, and extra plastic figures that you'll never use isn't the same thing.  At all.

Miniatures games are different insomuch as part of the hobby is buying what you enjoy painting, and most people are not buying multiple copies of the same units; in fact, you almost never see multiples of the same units in most miniatures games that I'm familiar with.  That being said, if WotC aspires to be considered in the same bucket as GW, then they are dead to me more completely than my dislike of the distribution mechanism for this game could even begin to imply.

But, FYI, the customizable games I own are:

Blue Moon, which does not allow more than 1 copy of any card, thus making purchasing the same faction pointless.

Omen: A Reign of War, which has enough cards to play various customization schemes, including a draft format.  With the Shattered Aegis expansion, you have more combinations than you know what to do with.  In theory you could play with 2 sets, but I've never heard of it being done, and it certainly isn't encouraged or part of the distribution model.

Battleground: Fantasy Warfare, where buying the base and expansion deck for any given faction gives more than enough copies of every card to make buying an additional pack of either completely pointless.

Summoner Wars, where you have no incentive to buy multiple copies of the same game or deck.  You buy non-randomized expansion packs, which is no different than buying expansions to Dominion or Race for the Galaxy or Commands and Colors or Combat Commander or Ascension or any other game that has expansions.  You'll note that none of those games give you any incentive to buy extra copies of the same game or same expansion.

The worst thing about this distribution model is that it's going to discourage boardgamers who haven't played Magic from playing.  It's apparent that all the CCG players are perfectly fine with the idea of paying for the same product over and over in order to get multiple copies of pieces so they can play; that concept is completely, utterly alien to boardgamers such as myself, and bringing us into the hobby would probably have been much better for the long term success of the game than taking more money from a smaller pool of people.  Your game nights and tournaments are going to live and die by the number of players, so I can't see where discouraging a lot of people that would have otherwise been interested can possibly be a good thing.  But that's just IMHO.

One idea that occurred to me that would go a long way towards easing my frustration:

Currently, the Limited format doesn't allow any customization, other than choosing 6 command cards to get rid of.   Since customizing warbands is a big part of the draw for many people, that's not really a format to look forward to.

The Unlimited format has the problem that, in theory, you could need up to 4 sets of every faction in order to field 1 optimal warband.  Obviously this is highly unlikely to be the case, but there will certainly be cases where owning more than 1 copy of a faction, maybe as many as 4, as well as extra copies of other factions would be required.

There's a logical in between format, which since I mentioned it as a possibility in my OP I have noticed WotC is using for their internal league: customize your warband using only a single copy of each faction box.

I think that format would be awesome for sanctioned tournaments.  You'd still have a lot of customization options, but you wouldn't be at a disadvantage if you find the idea of paying for the same product multiple times distasteful, or if you don't have the money to do so.  I also think it would have an interesting and different set of design constraints, and particularly after more factions are released, I think people might actually find the design process for that format much more interesting, as you wouldn't just be taking 4 copies of a bunch of good cards to build your deck around.

Adding that format would definitely ease my complaints about the distribution scheme.  I'd still be annoyed at not being able to play in all the tournaments at a big Con like Gencon, but if the game is really fun, I could probably bring myself to swallow that pill.  If the game is fun, I'd buy one copy of each faction box anyway, sight unseen, so it's a format that's not asking me to pay any extra money to be competitive.  

The current choices of No Customization or Expensive Customization are pretty unpalatable; a 3rd format that has interesting decisions and constraints in its own right that is midway between the two seems like a Really Good Idea to me.
I haven't bought the game yet, but I plan to here shortly. My guess is each set has a few orders or creatures that are "more useful" than others. What's the difference if I have 4 of the same great cards from the Lolth set or 4 different great cards from each set? Either way gives you a competitive advantage.


This isn't a card game.  If it were a CCG or LCG, requiring the additional purchase of multiple packs would be much more understandable. 



This is basically the first LMG. A game is a game is a game, it doesn't matter if it's cards or minis.

This is a board game.



It's basically the revival of a CMG line as a LMG.

Miniatures games are different insomuch as part of the hobby is buying what you enjoy painting, and most people are not buying multiple copies of the same units; in fact, you almost never see multiples of the same units in most miniatures games that I'm familiar with.



Pretty much all miniatures games incentivize you to buy multiple copies of a same unit, including all GW games, to be competitive.

That being said, if WotC aspires to be considered in the same bucket as GW, then they are dead to me more completely than my dislike of the distribution mechanism for this game could even begin to imply.



"The same bucket as GW" being "a miniatures game". Or are you completely unfamiliar with the basic economics of creating a miniatures gaming line?

But, FYI, the customizable games I own are:

Blue Moon, which does not allow more than 1 copy of any card, thus making purchasing the same faction pointless.

Omen: A Reign of War, which has enough cards to play various customization schemes, including a draft format.  With the Shattered Aegis expansion, you have more combinations than you know what to do with.  In theory you could play with 2 sets, but I've never heard of it being done, and it certainly isn't encouraged or part of the distribution model.

Battleground: Fantasy Warfare, where buying the base and expansion deck for any given faction gives more than enough copies of every card to make buying an additional pack of either completely pointless.



A bunch of no-names basically. Such a great business model, that these games are basically unknown to the general public.

Summoner Wars, where you have no incentive to buy multiple copies of the same game or deck.  You buy non-randomized expansion packs, which is no different than buying expansions to Dominion or Race for the Galaxy or Commands and Colors or Combat Commander or Ascension or any other game that has expansions.  You'll note that none of those games give you any incentive to buy extra copies of the same game or same expansion.



The iOS Summoner Wars gives you everything. For the physical game you will need to purchase multiple copies of decks to be able to field the maximum of 10 units of one common (and you will thus have a bunch of useless extra Champions) which is necessary for competition.

Your arguments are basically "well if you're competitive for these other games you COULD buy multiple copies of one product but I've never seen it happen" which applies as much to DC. For Dungeon Command I doubt you will see many people buy more than 2 copies of each, and the only alternative that would have made the customization options better out of the box would have been to have sets that have double the amount of figures at 80$ *anyway*, or to release more SKUs at once (which for some reason was not feasible in their business plan, or they would have done it).

More importantly, this is the first card-based game I've seen where there is an actual *disincentive* from using 4x of each card. You are better served with variety than consistency at any cost in this game.
I bought a copy of each and am a happy camper. Cool

If there should ever appear a tournament scene in Germany, I would gladly buy some extra copies of minis and cards I need on the secondary market. Right now I am happy that I bought an enjoyable game. Probably the original poster should consider it from that perspective rather than the tournament view.
"There's a logical in between format, which since I mentioned it as a possibility in my OP I have noticed WotC is using for their internal league: customize your warband using only a single copy of each faction box."

I like this option a lot. I hope WotC listens and adds this format to their tournament rules.
I really don't see the benefit of that 'in-between' format, especially in light of how much more difficult it would be for organizers to enforce that format compared to Limited and current Constructed rules. For Limited you just need to check that there are only one copy of a card per set symbol color and that all set symbols match. For Constructed you check you don't have more than four copies of any one card.

For that format you'd have to have your judges basically learn by heart how many of each cards are in each set, which will only become more and more unmanageable as new sets come out. Not worth the hassle when there already is a Limited format that fulfills all the needs that that format is supposed to fulfill.

At least I could get behind an enforcement of 'at most 2 copies of a card' as a format, which is close enough to the spirit of what the OP is asking without being a pain for judges. Though I suspect our OP will still be indignant at all the people who are going to spend a whopping 120-160$ (roughly half of what it costs to have a competitive collection for most CCGs/CMGs/LCGs) to have a second copy of Copper Dragon and Umber Hulk or whatever op piece we find that has one copy in the box.
Did anyone here play the World of Warcraft miniatures game? 

Dungeon Command is very similar.  Cards were used to customize your miniatures and or warband.  Differences, WoW did use dice to resolve combat.  Also, WoW suffered from a poor combat system no where near as good as DDM.  WoW also had a lack of map options.  Furthermore, I did not like that figures from your warband could come back "to life" and re-enter the battle after being killed.  WoW did offer some very nice competitive warband combinations and you did not have to "get" every figure and or card and or in multiples to be competitive.  And it seemed like by the time the second set launched there was little support for the game.  I tried and played many games of WoW, but in the end I never really lliked the game. 

For Dungeon Command I do see a better game.  There seems to be more opportunity for growth and it seems to be a better designed combat system.  Plus the miniatures are better, and there are no "rotating" bases to keep track of creature stats.  I play tested Dungeon Command many times and I kinda liked it.  My problem is that I still like the previous game better despite its demise. 

One thing I would like to caution here, there are only TWO sets for Dungeon Command.  There is only a very small pool to build competitive warbands with.  So it makes sense to me that 1 or 2 figures and or 1 or 2 cards will combine to make the most competitve warabnds.  In my opinion there will be many more competitive warband options with the release of 3 more sets over the next 7 months (bringing the total to 5 sets for Dungeon Command):

1) Sting of Lolth [Jul '12]
2) Heart of Cormyr [Jul '12]
3) Tyranny of Goblins [Aug '12]
4) Curse of Undeath [Nov '12]
5) Blood of Gruumsh [Feb '13]

This IMO would then be a large enough pool to have really cometitive warbands with multiple creature and card options. 

I have not purchased either set yet, but I have played the released game a number of times.  I like the deckbuilding (on of the things I did like about WoW), but there is room for improvement to make it more competitive (hopefilly with the additional sets).  And if the deckbuilding is improved it could lead to a very fun and competitive game.  I also like the battlefild map for Dungeon Command as it has IMO almost unlimited options and huge potential for growth.  On the other hand I'm not sure I like the Sequence of Play, in particular moving all of your creatures.  Dungeon Command so far for me does not have the flow nor the strategy challenges of DDM.  But there is room to improve the game and time will tell if the game can catch on as DDM did.  
 
If Dungeon Command does catch on, there are new miniatures produced, and WotC can make it a competitive game (with future sets) with support and tournaments, then I may join in and break down and by the sets.  Until then, I will keep my eyes on the Dungeon Command scene to see how well it grows.  I am very interested in seeing where this goes over the enxt year. 

Cheers. 

Sirohk

Cool      
Also, I picked up 3 of each Order deck alone online for less than the cost of one additional faction pack, and extra creatures for around $2 each.


Not to derail things too much, but... where'd you get these online?




auggiesgamesonline.3dcartstores.com/Mini...



Not to be negative, but I think you may have ordered a 12 pack of the expansion cards for the D&D Adventure System board games and whatnot that come packaged with DC and not the actual order cards.

Atleast that is what I understood from reading the information from the site you linked.

"For Limited you just need to check that there are only one copy of a card per set symbol color and that all set symbols match."

This isn't really true. There are doubles of some cards, so the judge will have to either know what cards are doubled or rely on the card numbering within the set to know if the deck is legal. The same applies to the new format except there can be multiple set symbols.

"there already is a Limited format that fulfills all the needs that that format is supposed to fulfill."

This is not true really either. If the Limited format really fulfilled all the needs we wouldn't be discussing this would we?

The proposed new format would allow much more customization than the Limited format but keep the expense to be competitive below that of the Constructed format. Additionally I would limit the format to sets released within the last year otherwise the cost of competing in the new format would rise over time. It also allows new players to come into the format without having to buy a lot of older hard to find sets.

I'm actually running that format for the first tournament I'm doing in-store.  Obviously it isn't sanctionable with those rules, but MTG Commander and lots of other popular formats aren't sanctionable either, and some others that now are started off as fan formats.  If it turns out to be an awesome format, it's possible WOTC will add it as something we can sanction.  Personally I think the current "limited" is kind of pointless and could be replaced with "no more than box contents" if format bloat is a worry (which it should be).

It's also quite easy to enforce; every indvidual card has a unique set number, so as long as you don't have more than one card with the same set symbol and number, you're fine.  (For those who don't know what I'm talking about: the two-of's in each box have two different set numbers, one for each copy, so the two copies of say Faerie Fire in Sting of Lolth have two different set numbers on the bottom of the card.) 

I do think ultimately most tournaments are going to end up rule-of-4, and that if the game takes off a singles market will develop, but I think a Limited format that's a bit more freeform while still limiting spending would be a big deal. 
Did anyone here play the World of Warcraft miniatures game?



Second place in a Realms, two DMF top 8s, invites to National Championship and Worlds, four Spectral Tigers won total.

Yeah, I'm familiar with it. 

Also, WoW suffered from a poor combat system no where near as good as DDM.



Dice pool systems are inherently better than a Hit/Miss on D20. More dice rolls causes a regression to the mean over the length of the game (reduces luck) while still allowing for the occasional spike in variance. Also, the time system (where different actions cost different amount of time before your next activation) was genius. DDM in contrast was a game of maxing out the number of figs in your band to make sure you have, at worst, as many activations as your opponent, and hopefully more, so you could end up playing actions last on the turn.

WoW also had a lack of map options.



The deluxe starters came with a customizable map allowing infinite maps. Each DMF and Realms also would take place on a different map which would be distributed to players to keep (and sell, if you were collecting many like yours truly). That's an obvious false statement.

Furthermore, I did not like that figures from your warband could come back "to life" and re-enter the battle after being killed.



That's basically what happens in Dungeon Command, with a bit less of a 'this is a simulation of a MMO Arena game where the players respawn' justification to it. Minis games where you just lose your figs wholesale basically revolve around being the first to kill your opponent's mini so that they're in a downward spiral where they can't come back into the game because they have less activations on the board. All the best minis games I've played have a comeback mechanism for players who lose a fig: Dreamblade gave you a spike of spawning points on the next turn, WoW lets you respawn after a short time penalty, DC frees up your Leadership so you can respawn another creature card.

And it seemed like by the time the second set launched there was little support for the game.



Their supplier basically increased their price on them to a point releasing sets for the game was unsustainable so it was on limbo where they didn't release any new set (and thus had ZERO revenue from that game) and yet they provided an extra year worth of DMF tournaments for it, with awesome prizes (i.e. the aforementioned Spectral Tigers, as well as PS3s and Apple products). Contrast to how WotC handled Dreamblade, where they killed the Organized Play right after releasing Night Fusion so that we would still buy the figs before we were told there would be no OP. Classy. And here I'm talking just your basic Edge tourneys (FNM for Dreamblade, basically) where the prizes we could expect on the first few weeks were... extra repaints from previous months they were getting rid. I have friends who basically boycotted Magic:TG and are now not buying into Dungeon Command because they never want to buy a WotC product again based on that...

Not to be negative, but I think you may have ordered a 12 pack of the expansion cards for the D&D Adventure System board games and whatnot that come packaged with DC and not the actual order cards.

Atleast that is what I understood from reading the information from the site you linked.



Nope. I ordered an additional Order Deck and map tiles for each faction, and the total came to $13.50 (including shipping). And that's what I received.
FWIW, I'll eat a little crow here.

I still find the distribution model just as offensive as I made it out to be.  I stand by everything I said about that.

However, after seeing some people playing at the local game store, I will now grant that allowing my strong oppostion to how WotC is making money on this game should be largely independent of whether I buy a copy, which should be evaluated on my enjoyment/dollars ratio; and that I will have plenty of opportunities to play outside of tournaments. 

I still think it sucks that if I go to Origins or Gencon, I won't play in either tournament (limited because it doesn't have enough customization to hold my interest, and Unlimited because of the cost).  However, that does constitue a small fraction of my expected number of plays, so weighing it too heavily doesn't make sense.

So, based on how fun it looked, and reading the rules online, I purchased a copy of each set.  I've played 3 times now, and other than a strong suspicion that out of the box the Drow are flat-out better than Cormyr,  I'm very pleased with my decision, and believe I will easily get $60 worth of enjoyment out of the game.  Following an earlier suggestion, I also spent $8 + shipping on extra decks, which I found quite irritating, but the irritation passed quickly enough that I'm pretty certain it was the correct decision.

So, a bit of eating crow, though I do stand by most of my objections; I just think I was giving them way too much weight in my purchasing decision.

[Edited for a one-character typo] 
To offer a little support for the OP, I do feel that Wizards droped the ball just a bit.  I would have been much happier if they had made the custom design rules in such a way that buying 2 of any faction pack would meet the requirements. I would have liked to have seen 2 copies of each order card in a box so you wuld have no card redundancy to get the full playset you may want. As for limits on minis, a very simple "rarity" system could be established where if the set comes with 2 then you can have a max of 4 and if 1 is in the box you could have 2. Promos such as the Drow wizard should actually be something unique and ony allowed 1 per WB, card promos would simply be alt art as they are now.


I believe someone referenced FFG LCG systems as an equivilant to this and to a certain extent that may be fair but I believe that person also forgets the backlash for that strategy which spured FFG to change their later supplement releases to provide FULL playsets in one purchase. I only bring this up to point out that the random, as well as redundant, purchase model has increasingly left a very bad taste in the mouth of the gaming community at large and while hardcore devotees to games such as Magic, L5R, WOW CCG may not be seeing it directly in their communities it is nonetheless still a concern with a great deal of other gamers, new and old alike.  Success of a new game can pivot on pleasing the largest possible market. So, if one portion is apathetic (hardly excited) to having to buy multiple sets or bits on the secondery market and another portion is strongly against the unnecessary redundant buy, than why would you not go with a model that would piss the least amount of people off? Just saying.
To offer a little support for the OP, I do feel that Wizards droped the ball just a bit.  I would have been much happier if they had made the custom design rules in such a way that buying 2 of any faction pack would meet the requirements. I would have liked to have seen 2 copies of each order card in a box so you wuld have no card redundancy to get the full playset you may want.



So you want 4 arcane portals and 0 invigorating smashes, just so you can get a full playset of Arcane Portals out of 2 boxes? ;)

There are precious few cards I find myself wanting 4 of, as most cards are only going to get used in conditional circumstances. I am happier getting variety in a single box, customization from a second box, and tournament-complete sets where needed through the secondary market. Getting 2 copies of each card in a box = less variety = fewer net options available in the game on a whole.