Great discussion! On the topic of longevity and double sided tiles/cards, this has the disadvantage of increasing complexity. My first published design, Cloudy Kingdom, has casual gamers as target audience. In this route building game every player starts with 3 special ability cards they can use once each. These cards are open information, and with similar thoughts as you express in this video, we made them double sided. During each game you only use one side, but when demoing the game many players flipped over the cards/looked at the other side. This caused many extra questions and sometimes a bit of confusion. So, for the reprint we made each of these special ability cards one sided (all powers are still in the game, but we reduced card count of the route cards). This leads to far fewer questions. The lesson being, when your target audience is casual, it is not always better to use double sided cards/tiles. As having single sided components eases the barrier of entry and reduces non-essential information.
Thanks for sharing that UI insight, Joeri! I've seen those double-sided cards in Earth (and I like them), but I can see how it may be a challenge for more casual games.
yes, to storage for expansions. I recently got an expansion that had a lovely box insert (though this is only because the box itself was much larger than necessary (only added cards to the game). Do I just keep it all in two boxes or throw the expansion into the old box and throw away the new box that came with an insert in order to save space, or do I keep them separated so they don't get mixed up?
Longevity - I used to love seeing big thick books of scorepads but now I realize I'm not playing this game 200 times. Accessibility - We played Tapestry yesterday and I really LOVE the efficient design of the player boards, and how the income turn steps are printed right on the board. I also love that Viticulture has the end of round sequence printed on the board (Tuscany too). I like player aids, but when it is possible to cue the information on the main game components, that's even better. I've mentioned this before, but Ex Libris is a game with really well-done graphic design. At the end of the game you've collected something like 15 cards and have to count 6 different icons separately across all cards, but the icons pop so well that the counting is very easy. Deluxification - it's funny that Jamey doesn't put a big premium on this for his own collection given that Realistic Resources was one of the first Stonemaier products (and maybe started the trend of 3rd party deluxe components?). I agree with Mitchell that metal coins are terrific, though I just have 2 sets (Expeditions, West Kingdom) that I use for multiple games (deluxifying on the cheap). My buddy with Tapestry had the geekup set of premium track markers and they were pretty cool (they are Azul-like materials). Realistic resources are really nice, but I also think tracks work fine (again Tapestry) and I'm surprised more publishers don't use that system (then you need a premium single track marker per resource per player, rather than 20 or 30 realistic resources per type). A comment on solo modes: One sneaky advantage of no solo mode is that someone in the community will design one. This is probably the biggest domain of homebrew design. I'm wondering - how many pro designers began their careers as a hobbyist making a homebrew solo mode? Seems like most of Automa Factory has gone on to gain other design credits. I'm not sure if David Turczi started this way? I think designing your own solo mode (I've tried this, somewhat successfully with Artemis Project and The Voyages of Marco Polo) could be a good way to cut your teeth as a game designer. You might add that to your list of suggestions for would-be designers (I've heard you say to start by designing a new faction or mini expansion for an established game - and you also can learn a lot by designing a bot that balances realism with efficiency).
Many games try to do this (all of ours do). The bigger challenge is that there are many different sleeve thicknesses, which can result in the stack of cards being as much as twice as tall as an unsleeved stack.
@@jameystegmaier my experience is that it’s almost triple … because of all the air that gets caught in between the cards. If you only use a tray for storage , it’s fine to press the sleeved cards together. But if you have a tray that holds cards that need to be used all the time , you need so much space than with unsleeved cards. What I sometimes wonder is …. Why not use PVC cards ? Those don’t need to be sleeved.
@@equinox64 Yeah, I've seen triple too. As for why not use PVC, I'd instead say: Why not just not sleeve cards? I like the feel of cardstock, and in the vast majority of games you're shuffling exactly once per game. It's only in deckbuilding games that I prefer sleeved cards. PVC and sleeves add more plastic to the world; I'd like less plastic instead.
@@jameystegmaier I was thinking more of the edges around the cards getting more room--I think that's what you meant in your first comment. That's definitely helpful. Some inserts fit the cards like a glove, and that was what I wish were different. But you're right that if the cards become too thick, it's a moot point 😉
@@jameystegmaier I actually prefer card stock too, but my point is that accommodating both types of users (those who do/don't sleeve their cards) makes it more difficult to design a proper insert. If you design it for sleeved cards (which makes sense), you end up with a lot of empty space fro those who do'nt sleeve them. but i guess it's better to have too much room than not enough.
This was a fantastic video and gives some great insight into why publishers do or don't offer different things in their games. One thing that I've seen a few games do (Like Paverson Games with Distilled and Luthier) - is offer not just an introduction scenario, but a walk-through of how the different pieces of the game will all interact with each other. For more complex games, this would be WONDERFUL to have!
@@jameystegmaier A full sample turn is great, depending on the complexity of the game. The "First Taste" in Distilled actually goes through the entire first round, so multiple turns, to let each player know why the book is suggesting getting x in the first action can impact your 3rd action.
One feature that I just saw in a board game that I really like is from Amalfi Renaissance. The central map is a dual layered board for a variety of reasons. And the outer victory point track has been recessed below the board with scalloping along the inner side. The scoring markers are hexagonal columns. It makes it really easy to count along. You run a lot less risk of a tangle jostle moving those too. I enjoyed both of these videos. Good stuff!
Another idea is does the game allow for player house rules or player mods, player add-ons? This is a common feature in many computer games and some table-top games also have this as a common feature of gameplay (thinking Gloomhaven , uno, and monoply here). I have even wished for this in some games ("Oh, why doesn't this mechanism do this too?" Or "Could we change this to do something else?" or "What's the point of this ability, seems a waste/costs too much/is OP/needs to be changed." or "Wouldn't it be way cooler if we did xyz here?") Some games have a huge aftermarket for add-ons, which is kind of cool, but also makes em think that such a large demand means something could have been added/made different in the original. (In fact, sometimes I look for people selling games that have aftermarket items included so I don't have to buy them outright. If a new game had these things, I would strongly consider that instead, provided that it's not too costly.) Does the game encourage or discourage player mods to the game/rules?
That's interesting. My take on it is that it's the responsibility of the designer and publisher to create the best version of the game. There's still nothing stopping someone from creating a house rule that's best for their preferences or circumstances, but that's beyond the responsibility of the designer/publisher (and I always recommend that people test out a house rule before proposing it online).
@@jameystegmaier I agree and understand that responsibility. Just an idea bc I have seen so much of it. To keep up the discussion (and get better algorithms for this video haha), assuming that every publisher has put out what they think is the best version of a game, why do you think people continually come up with alternate/"better" ways to play them? Obviously, normal human creativity comes into play, but from my own experience, it seems like people honestly think their way is best, for whatever reason. In some instances this has even resulted in the publisher adopting popular methods of play (like MTG Commander). I'm obviously no where near as familiar with all the different games out there and their production, but what would you think about making games that allow for some type of end-user modification? I've seen some games use this (notably certain card games that include blanks for users to add in their own ideas), but it doesn't seem to be very widespread. The deal with some card games probably comes down to extra space on the print before the cards are cut, but I've also seen games have blank spaces meant to be filled in by the users. It seems like the younger generations prefer more open-ended, choose-your-own-adventure play-style as opposed to more rigidity in games. (I'm speaking this from the viewpoint of a Xennial, who personally tries to go "by the book" when it comes to game rules, with few exceptions.)
@@brandonablack I agree that people often think they've created a better way to do something. I'd say in about 70% of those cases (for gameplay), it's either purely hypothetical or the person is missing the point of the design and that their idea will have unforeseen implications. Hence why it's so important to try a house rule. For the other 30%, people have different personal preferences. Like, when I play Lords of Waterdeep, I like to remove the attack cards if others agree. That doesn't mean the game is better without the attack cards; rather, they just don't fit with my style of play. As for the Commander example, I'd put that in the category (or very similar to) a fan-created expansion that becomes an official expansion. That has happened numerous times in Stonemaier's history: stonemaiergames.com/a-fan-designed-an-expansion-for-your-game-what-should-you-do/ We've included blank cards and tiles in some of our games, but I've hardly ever seen them used or shared.
Great pair of videos! I'd say some of my favorites of yours! I'm not sure if any games do this, but in terms of accessibility with reference cards, what about pdf versions of reference cards/sheets with a qr code in the rule book? I know there is some controversy with phones and devices at the game table, but it could just be an extra rather than a replacement.
How about scalability? I like to host game nights and often a concern for me is how many people can play a game and how long a game takes to play. I personally love a long complicated game, but often I have people who are not familiar with a game and it needs to be easy enough for a large group to learn quickly scalable enough for at least 6-8 players, short enough that adding players doesn't add a tremendous amount of time, and complicated enough that seasoned players enjoy it. (I know that's asking a lot, lol!) Most games that aren't labeled as party games and have some strategical element to them only work for 2-4 (or 5) players. I have 5 children, so my whole family can't even play most games all together. (Though this usually works out because someone isn't present or my wife pairs up with the youngest.) If we have friends over, I almost always have to tell someone they need to do something else because we don't have enough seats. It seems like many games could be adjusted for more players.
I agree that scaling well to the different player counts offered is important (and that it's okay for a game to feel different at various player counts). It's great that some games scale up to those higher player counts, and it's one of the reasons that all Stonemaier Games (except Smitten) must play at least 5 or 6 players.
My gripe is why does every game need a solo mode now. I never play solo mode because games to me are meant to be played with people! And I don’t want to pay for materials I’m not going to use. Offer the option as free digital download materials or a small print order price.
Adding solo mode components barely impacts the consumer price, if at all. People play games for a wide variety of reasons; please read this: stonemaiergames.com/the-compelling-power-of-solo-play-for-tabletop-game-kickstarters/
I play a lot of solo right now and appreciate when games offer it. I would love to play with others but that just doesn't fit where I'm at in life right now. Having a solo mode is sometimes a determining factor whether I buy a game or not.
Are you going to publish a post on your blog detailing the points you mention in these two videos? So publishers can reference it and start doing this. Every game should have the player aid per player, colorblind friendly, page number next to reference, and all the other good stuff
Loved these videos. How do you feel Forest Shuffle did in regards to accessibility? It's one of my most played and loved games this year but I'm curious if your experience has been similar to mine when playing with people for the first time. Deluxification: What hidden costs are tucked into Kickstarter, besides the percent you pay? We both work for a manufacturing company, so we are very familiar with the myriad of things that can go wrong when ordering packaging, art, logistics, space, ect. Are there surprise, Kickstarter specific, costs that arise? Is there anything Kickstarters need to know that has changed between when you wrote your Kickstarter book and now?
My onboarding experience with Forest Shuffle was very good. I do wish it came with player aid cards for each player, but having the icons on the back page of the rulebook helped. The only hidden costs specific the crowdfunding platform itself (Kickstarter) are the Kickstarter fee and the credit card fee. All other costs are independent of the platform and could apply to any game. Kickstarter has added features over the years, though my book is more about how to serve backers, not the specific functions of Kickstarter. I think the biggest difference since the book was published is the addition of the prelaunch page that people can sign up for.
RE: Reverence cards - could you offer a downloadable PDF for people to print, or have on their smartphones? The digital version could even link to the full rule book with just a click.
Is it unrealistic for publishers to offer specifically from their own website, so not a mass printing, but consumers could select the aspects they want in their game. Example, click for an insert or not, click for a solo mode, click for deluxe bits or not, click for colorblind pieces, and such. Probably means the publishers have bulk items and storing and then assembling them would require work, but a small percentage could be factored into the cost.
I wonder what the % of people is now that use the paper score sheets and keep them. As soon as I found BG Stats I never looked back. Even non color blind people can have a hard time seeing colors. I think more and more games are considering other ways to show colors now, which is good. For all the games you deluxify later, take all the redundant components and create a new game with those. No more waste 😅
Regarding extra sheets of cards. If you need 2 extra cards per game, can you not print a sheet of 100 and split those among 50 copies. Would that cost more or less than printing a whole sheet for each copy?
That is indeed something a manufacturer can do, but within reason. The machines typically cut the cards, stack them, and feed them directly into another machine that wraps them (e.g., in shrinkwrap). Wrapping 2 cards doesn't make sense, while wrapping 26 or 30 does (there are no card sheets for 100 cards).
@@jameystegmaier I used 100 as an example. The theory applies whatever the numbers actually are. But I see your point. It’s too automated for that to be practical.
Great discussion! On the topic of longevity and double sided tiles/cards, this has the disadvantage of increasing complexity. My first published design, Cloudy Kingdom, has casual gamers as target audience. In this route building game every player starts with 3 special ability cards they can use once each. These cards are open information, and with similar thoughts as you express in this video, we made them double sided. During each game you only use one side, but when demoing the game many players flipped over the cards/looked at the other side. This caused many extra questions and sometimes a bit of confusion. So, for the reprint we made each of these special ability cards one sided (all powers are still in the game, but we reduced card count of the route cards). This leads to far fewer questions.
The lesson being, when your target audience is casual, it is not always better to use double sided cards/tiles. As having single sided components eases the barrier of entry and reduces non-essential information.
Thanks for sharing that UI insight, Joeri! I've seen those double-sided cards in Earth (and I like them), but I can see how it may be a challenge for more casual games.
The achievement system in Cascadia!!!!!
Also, storage solutions for expansions (just got my nesting box last week! i love it
yes, to storage for expansions. I recently got an expansion that had a lovely box insert (though this is only because the box itself was much larger than necessary (only added cards to the game). Do I just keep it all in two boxes or throw the expansion into the old box and throw away the new box that came with an insert in order to save space, or do I keep them separated so they don't get mixed up?
Absolutely love Cascadia's achievement system! It feels incredibly replayable. It also reminds me of video game progression, which I love.
Longevity - I used to love seeing big thick books of scorepads but now I realize I'm not playing this game 200 times.
Accessibility - We played Tapestry yesterday and I really LOVE the efficient design of the player boards, and how the income turn steps are printed right on the board. I also love that Viticulture has the end of round sequence printed on the board (Tuscany too). I like player aids, but when it is possible to cue the information on the main game components, that's even better. I've mentioned this before, but Ex Libris is a game with really well-done graphic design. At the end of the game you've collected something like 15 cards and have to count 6 different icons separately across all cards, but the icons pop so well that the counting is very easy.
Deluxification - it's funny that Jamey doesn't put a big premium on this for his own collection given that Realistic Resources was one of the first Stonemaier products (and maybe started the trend of 3rd party deluxe components?). I agree with Mitchell that metal coins are terrific, though I just have 2 sets (Expeditions, West Kingdom) that I use for multiple games (deluxifying on the cheap). My buddy with Tapestry had the geekup set of premium track markers and they were pretty cool (they are Azul-like materials). Realistic resources are really nice, but I also think tracks work fine (again Tapestry) and I'm surprised more publishers don't use that system (then you need a premium single track marker per resource per player, rather than 20 or 30 realistic resources per type).
A comment on solo modes: One sneaky advantage of no solo mode is that someone in the community will design one. This is probably the biggest domain of homebrew design. I'm wondering - how many pro designers began their careers as a hobbyist making a homebrew solo mode? Seems like most of Automa Factory has gone on to gain other design credits. I'm not sure if David Turczi started this way? I think designing your own solo mode (I've tried this, somewhat successfully with Artemis Project and The Voyages of Marco Polo) could be a good way to cut your teeth as a game designer. You might add that to your list of suggestions for would-be designers (I've heard you say to start by designing a new faction or mini expansion for an established game - and you also can learn a lot by designing a bot that balances realism with efficiency).
That's a great point--designing a solo mode for an existing game is a great challenge for a designer who wants to work on their design skills.
I often get several of the score sheets laminated with dry erase plastic. The rolling realms markers work great with them.
I wish every game with an insert had just a little extra room in the card holder area in case someone wants to sleeve their cards.
Many games try to do this (all of ours do). The bigger challenge is that there are many different sleeve thicknesses, which can result in the stack of cards being as much as twice as tall as an unsleeved stack.
@@jameystegmaier my experience is that it’s almost triple … because of all the air that gets caught in between the cards. If you only use a tray for storage , it’s fine to press the sleeved cards together. But if you have a tray that holds cards that need to be used all the time , you need so much space than with unsleeved cards. What I sometimes wonder is …. Why not use PVC cards ? Those don’t need to be sleeved.
@@equinox64 Yeah, I've seen triple too.
As for why not use PVC, I'd instead say: Why not just not sleeve cards? I like the feel of cardstock, and in the vast majority of games you're shuffling exactly once per game. It's only in deckbuilding games that I prefer sleeved cards. PVC and sleeves add more plastic to the world; I'd like less plastic instead.
@@jameystegmaier I was thinking more of the edges around the cards getting more room--I think that's what you meant in your first comment. That's definitely helpful. Some inserts fit the cards like a glove, and that was what I wish were different. But you're right that if the cards become too thick, it's a moot point 😉
@@jameystegmaier I actually prefer card stock too, but my point is that accommodating both types of users (those who do/don't sleeve their cards) makes it more difficult to design a proper insert. If you design it for sleeved cards (which makes sense), you end up with a lot of empty space fro those who do'nt sleeve them. but i guess it's better to have too much room than not enough.
This was a fantastic video and gives some great insight into why publishers do or don't offer different things in their games.
One thing that I've seen a few games do (Like Paverson Games with Distilled and Luthier) - is offer not just an introduction scenario, but a walk-through of how the different pieces of the game will all interact with each other. For more complex games, this would be WONDERFUL to have!
I really like the idea of a walk-through. Would you compare that to a full sample turn detailed in the rulebook?
@@jameystegmaier A full sample turn is great, depending on the complexity of the game. The "First Taste" in Distilled actually goes through the entire first round, so multiple turns, to let each player know why the book is suggesting getting x in the first action can impact your 3rd action.
One feature that I just saw in a board game that I really like is from Amalfi Renaissance. The central map is a dual layered board for a variety of reasons. And the outer victory point track has been recessed below the board with scalloping along the inner side. The scoring markers are hexagonal columns. It makes it really easy to count along. You run a lot less risk of a tangle jostle moving those too.
I enjoyed both of these videos. Good stuff!
Thanks for sharing! Do you find that your game boards get jostled a lot when you play?
@@jameystegmaier Not much. However, that rare occurrence can cause a real interruption in the game.
Another idea is does the game allow for player house rules or player mods, player add-ons? This is a common feature in many computer games and some table-top games also have this as a common feature of gameplay (thinking Gloomhaven , uno, and monoply here).
I have even wished for this in some games ("Oh, why doesn't this mechanism do this too?" Or "Could we change this to do something else?" or "What's the point of this ability, seems a waste/costs too much/is OP/needs to be changed." or "Wouldn't it be way cooler if we did xyz here?")
Some games have a huge aftermarket for add-ons, which is kind of cool, but also makes em think that such a large demand means something could have been added/made different in the original. (In fact, sometimes I look for people selling games that have aftermarket items included so I don't have to buy them outright. If a new game had these things, I would strongly consider that instead, provided that it's not too costly.)
Does the game encourage or discourage player mods to the game/rules?
That's interesting. My take on it is that it's the responsibility of the designer and publisher to create the best version of the game. There's still nothing stopping someone from creating a house rule that's best for their preferences or circumstances, but that's beyond the responsibility of the designer/publisher (and I always recommend that people test out a house rule before proposing it online).
@@jameystegmaier I agree and understand that responsibility. Just an idea bc I have seen so much of it. To keep up the discussion (and get better algorithms for this video haha), assuming that every publisher has put out what they think is the best version of a game, why do you think people continually come up with alternate/"better" ways to play them? Obviously, normal human creativity comes into play, but from my own experience, it seems like people honestly think their way is best, for whatever reason. In some instances this has even resulted in the publisher adopting popular methods of play (like MTG Commander).
I'm obviously no where near as familiar with all the different games out there and their production, but what would you think about making games that allow for some type of end-user modification? I've seen some games use this (notably certain card games that include blanks for users to add in their own ideas), but it doesn't seem to be very widespread. The deal with some card games probably comes down to extra space on the print before the cards are cut, but I've also seen games have blank spaces meant to be filled in by the users.
It seems like the younger generations prefer more open-ended, choose-your-own-adventure play-style as opposed to more rigidity in games. (I'm speaking this from the viewpoint of a Xennial, who personally tries to go "by the book" when it comes to game rules, with few exceptions.)
@@brandonablack I agree that people often think they've created a better way to do something. I'd say in about 70% of those cases (for gameplay), it's either purely hypothetical or the person is missing the point of the design and that their idea will have unforeseen implications. Hence why it's so important to try a house rule. For the other 30%, people have different personal preferences. Like, when I play Lords of Waterdeep, I like to remove the attack cards if others agree. That doesn't mean the game is better without the attack cards; rather, they just don't fit with my style of play.
As for the Commander example, I'd put that in the category (or very similar to) a fan-created expansion that becomes an official expansion. That has happened numerous times in Stonemaier's history: stonemaiergames.com/a-fan-designed-an-expansion-for-your-game-what-should-you-do/
We've included blank cards and tiles in some of our games, but I've hardly ever seen them used or shared.
Great pair of videos! I'd say some of my favorites of yours!
I'm not sure if any games do this, but in terms of accessibility with reference cards, what about pdf versions of reference cards/sheets with a qr code in the rule book? I know there is some controversy with phones and devices at the game table, but it could just be an extra rather than a replacement.
I certainly don't think it hurts to offer PDFs of reference components, though I'd rather have them printed. :)
How about scalability? I like to host game nights and often a concern for me is how many people can play a game and how long a game takes to play. I personally love a long complicated game, but often I have people who are not familiar with a game and it needs to be easy enough for a large group to learn quickly scalable enough for at least 6-8 players, short enough that adding players doesn't add a tremendous amount of time, and complicated enough that seasoned players enjoy it. (I know that's asking a lot, lol!)
Most games that aren't labeled as party games and have some strategical element to them only work for 2-4 (or 5) players. I have 5 children, so my whole family can't even play most games all together. (Though this usually works out because someone isn't present or my wife pairs up with the youngest.) If we have friends over, I almost always have to tell someone they need to do something else because we don't have enough seats. It seems like many games could be adjusted for more players.
I agree that scaling well to the different player counts offered is important (and that it's okay for a game to feel different at various player counts). It's great that some games scale up to those higher player counts, and it's one of the reasons that all Stonemaier Games (except Smitten) must play at least 5 or 6 players.
My gripe is why does every game need a solo mode now. I never play solo mode because games to me are meant to be played with people! And I don’t want to pay for materials I’m not going to use. Offer the option as free digital download materials or a small print order price.
Adding solo mode components barely impacts the consumer price, if at all. People play games for a wide variety of reasons; please read this: stonemaiergames.com/the-compelling-power-of-solo-play-for-tabletop-game-kickstarters/
I play a lot of solo right now and appreciate when games offer it. I would love to play with others but that just doesn't fit where I'm at in life right now. Having a solo mode is sometimes a determining factor whether I buy a game or not.
Are you going to publish a post on your blog detailing the points you mention in these two videos? So publishers can reference it and start doing this.
Every game should have the player aid per player, colorblind friendly, page number next to reference, and all the other good stuff
Yes.
Loved these videos. How do you feel Forest Shuffle did in regards to accessibility? It's one of my most played and loved games this year but I'm curious if your experience has been similar to mine when playing with people for the first time.
Deluxification: What hidden costs are tucked into Kickstarter, besides the percent you pay? We both work for a manufacturing company, so we are very familiar with the myriad of things that can go wrong when ordering packaging, art, logistics, space, ect. Are there surprise, Kickstarter specific, costs that arise? Is there anything Kickstarters need to know that has changed between when you wrote your Kickstarter book and now?
My onboarding experience with Forest Shuffle was very good. I do wish it came with player aid cards for each player, but having the icons on the back page of the rulebook helped.
The only hidden costs specific the crowdfunding platform itself (Kickstarter) are the Kickstarter fee and the credit card fee. All other costs are independent of the platform and could apply to any game.
Kickstarter has added features over the years, though my book is more about how to serve backers, not the specific functions of Kickstarter. I think the biggest difference since the book was published is the addition of the prelaunch page that people can sign up for.
@@jameystegmaier thank you!
RE: Reverence cards - could you offer a downloadable PDF for people to print, or have on their smartphones? The digital version could even link to the full rule book with just a click.
Sure, publishers could do that. But why not just include such helpful components in the game in the first place?
Is it unrealistic for publishers to offer specifically from their own website, so not a mass printing, but consumers could select the aspects they want in their game. Example, click for an insert or not, click for a solo mode, click for deluxe bits or not, click for colorblind pieces, and such.
Probably means the publishers have bulk items and storing and then assembling them would require work, but a small percentage could be factored into the cost.
Yes, it would be a logistical nightmare for fulfillment centers.
I wonder what the % of people is now that use the paper score sheets and keep them. As soon as I found BG Stats I never looked back.
Even non color blind people can have a hard time seeing colors. I think more and more games are considering other ways to show colors now, which is good.
For all the games you deluxify later, take all the redundant components and create a new game with those. No more waste 😅
Regarding extra sheets of cards. If you need 2 extra cards per game, can you not print a sheet of 100 and split those among 50 copies. Would that cost more or less than printing a whole sheet for each copy?
That is indeed something a manufacturer can do, but within reason. The machines typically cut the cards, stack them, and feed them directly into another machine that wraps them (e.g., in shrinkwrap). Wrapping 2 cards doesn't make sense, while wrapping 26 or 30 does (there are no card sheets for 100 cards).
@@jameystegmaier I used 100 as an example. The theory applies whatever the numbers actually are.
But I see your point. It’s too automated for that to be practical.
I wish more games had a dry erase scorecard like Ex Libres.