|
11 months ago ::
Jul 30, 2012 - 12:06AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 30, 2012 - 2:45PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 01, 2012 - 9:05PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2011
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 10:05AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 10:46AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2002
|
>>>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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 9:48PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
>>>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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 10:01PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 03, 2012 - 4:28AM
#18
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 03, 2012 - 5:07AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2002
|
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.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 03, 2012 - 7:00AM
#20
|
|
|
I bought a copy of each and am a happy camper.  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.
|
|
|
