"Rethink their policy" entails the premise that this isn't their third LCG core set to be mostly 1x cards. They know what the **** they're doing, and a "Core Set Booster" pack's only reason to exist is to UNDERMINE SALES OF THE CORE SET. They never have and they never will.
The value of card variety out of the core set far exceeds the value of exceeding the $40 price point in order to either include more copies of cards or reduce the overall number of cards-by-title.
16 hours ago, Grimwalker said:One more thread to say it in: there is no reason on earth for them to publish a set that contains only redundant cards that are already available in the Core Set. From a production, distributor, and retailer perspective it's dead product that only serves to depress sales of the flagship item of the game line. And the cost savings to the consumer would be modest at best.
FFG is a for-profit company and if they don't maximize the best solution to problems of supply and demand vis a vis Price Points, then we don't have a game to play at all. Bemoaning that the company makes money is a perverse complaint.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameaccessory/128029/mage-wars-core-spell-tome-1
Not saying that FFG will do this, or even that I think it's necessarily in their best interest to do so, but it is a thing that card companies have done.
5 hours ago, Grimwalker said:"Rethink their policy" entails the premise that this isn't their third LCG core set to be mostly 1x cards. They know what the **** they're doing, and a "Core Set Booster" pack's only reason to exist is to UNDERMINE SALES OF THE CORE SET. They never have and they never will.
The value of card variety out of the core set far exceeds the value of exceeding the $40 price point in order to either include more copies of cards or reduce the overall number of cards-by-title.
That is not its reason to exist. Its reason to exist would be to get the sales of people that don't want to buy a 2nd core set. Undermining sales of another product would be a potential side effect, not a reason for its existence.
18 hours ago, ForAiur said:Did they ever officially mention if 3 will stay "enough" or it might go up to 4? I just got Dunwich and realized that I need to sleeve all the encounters for 1 scenario the same so I can switch out the rats and that other set without resleeving anything. There go my 150 or so sleeves that I don't have enough of to sleeve it all the same ...
I plan to use identical sleeves for all scenarios, except the standalone ones (and encounter sets that stay separate, like the Cult in Midnight Masks). With 2 core sets, I need to swap only 2 sets (Ancient Evils for Extracurricular Activity and Striking Fear for The House Always Wins), for a total of 10 cards. The other 3 reused sets are Rats, Locked Doors and Agents of Yog-Sothoth (for a total of 9 cards). Though if you have only 1 core set, you need to swap a lot, since 5 of the sets are used in 2 scenarios (Ghouls, Striking Fear, Ancient Evils, Chilling Cold and Dark Cult). I'll probably print proxies later.
1 hour ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameaccessory/128029/mage-wars-core-spell-tome-1
Not saying that FFG will do this, or even that I think it's necessarily in their best interest to do so, but it is a thing that card companies have done.
That is not its reason to exist. Its reason to exist would be to get the sales of people that don't want to buy a 2nd core set. Undermining sales of another product would be a potential side effect, not a reason for its existence.
Well, I guess they did the math and it turned out more money is made on people who buy the 2nd set, than could be mad by going through the costs of producing the "supplement set" (and it's not just printing extra cards, you need a design and producing of the different package etc., of some costs we might not be even aware) and selling them to guys who woul have bought 2nd set AND those who wouldn't. Or do you assume, that FFG team that just cannot into sales strategy?
1 hour ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameaccessory/128029/mage-wars-core-spell-tome-1
Not saying that FFG will do this, or even that I think it's necessarily in their best interest to do so, but it is a thing that card companies have done.
That is not its reason to exist. Its reason to exist would be to get the sales of people that don't want to buy a 2nd core set. Undermining sales of another product would be a potential side effect, not a reason for its existence.
What percentage of people do you think want more cards but don't buy a second code set?
Now what percentage of people who buy a second core set would buy this instead?
This product would cost FFG money to spin up, just to get packaging, paying for it to be printed, packed, shipped, etc. Take up shelf space, sell for less money than core sets, and make people buy fewer core sets. I wouldn't buy a second core set, I'd save money and get this. Now FFG made less money off of me. I can't imagine I'm the only one. This product would be terrible for them, no matter how good it is for us. And since the savings would only be $10-15, at most, it's not even that good of a deal for us.
You haven't shown a picture of 4 mates having a blast playing this great game - that would be a visual of the use of 2 core sets 
I'm using my extra cards from a second core set as decor on my "organizer" (mahogany wood case). I'm still working on the design but I think the back of the cards are awesome. Perhaps a single encounter card back lacquered in to the front face of the case.
On 1/26/2017 at 7:49 AM, Eruantalon said:
Well, I guess they did the math and it turned out more money is made on people who buy the 2nd set, than could be mad by going through the costs of producing the "supplement set" (and it's not just printing extra cards, you need a design and producing of the different package etc., of some costs we might not be even aware) and selling them to guys who woul have bought 2nd set AND those who wouldn't. Or do you assume, that FFG team that just cannot into sales strategy?
I think you forgot a verb or something, because I have no idea what this is supposed to say.
On 1/26/2017 at 7:50 AM, SuperMarino said:What percentage of people do you think want more cards but don't buy a second code set?
Now what percentage of people who buy a second core set would buy this instead?
This product would cost FFG money to spin up, just to get packaging, paying for it to be printed, packed, shipped, etc. Take up shelf space, sell for less money than core sets, and make people buy fewer core sets. I wouldn't buy a second core set, I'd save money and get this. Now FFG made less money off of me. I can't imagine I'm the only one. This product would be terrible for them, no matter how good it is for us. And since the savings would only be $10-15, at most, it's not even that good of a deal for us.
None of this disagrees with what I said. Did you read the part where I specifically said that I don't think it's necessarily in FFG's best interest?
4 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:Did you read the part where I specifically said that I don't think it's necessarily in FFG's best interest?
It's pretty easy to miss given that everything else you say belies that statement. In the same breath you said other companies have done it anyway (I know of one potential example but it's far from directly comparable, I would love to know what other games supposedly prove your point.)
But if it's not in their interest, why should they? There would have to be some benefit to offset the time and expense and redunancy, but if there were a sufficient benefit, then necessarily it would then be in their net interest.
I want Magic the Gathering to release all the old sets as LCG type packages, putting 4 of each card in a cycle in a box for me. It would be easy and not cost Wizards of the Coast much of anything, they have the card assets, the printing supplies, and can just spin the product up with relative ease. They won't ever do it though, because it wouldn't be in their best interests. They could actually make a boatload of money doing this, but the ill will they would make towards a small segment of their core customer base makes this product something that would never exist.
So Vlad, you want FFG to do the opposite, do something that would gain a little good will with a small segment of their fanbase, but cause FFG to lose money in the long run, and doesn't effect most of their fan base. If FFG was to do anything, they would have added the fabled "core completion set" to the core set box, but they ran their analysis and didn't find it worth it. They made $80 MSRP off of me and my 2 cores, and $40 off of someone else who only got one. If that other set existed for $20 they would have only made $60 off of me, and likely would still have only made $40 off the other person. Across the boards, maybe some of those $40 sales would convert to $60, but all $80 would convert to $60. You would literally need 100% of the 1 core set group to buy this product for it to make balance out (big assumption: 50% of people buy 1 core, and 50% buy 2 cores).
So I saw when you said "it wouldn't be in their best interests", but with everything else you stated, I wanted you to see just how not in their interests it would be. I wasn't disagreeing with you, because honestly, I want this product too. We all do. Giving the customer what it wants would be in our best interests and make us happy, but it would be detrimental to FFG.
yeah, this notion of "I want this, I would buy this, therefore it's in the company's interest to print this" is a non sequiter.
On 2/7/2017 at 11:06 AM, Vlad3theImpaler said:I think you forgot a verb or something, because I have no idea what this is supposed to say.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Can't Into
Hope this helps.
9 hours ago, Eruantalon said:
Uggh, it just makes it worse that 90 people on this planet consider that a valid interpretation of English. 
15 hours ago, Eruantalon said:
Wow. That hurts my brain.
On 2/7/2017 at 9:44 AM, Grimwalker said:It's pretty easy to miss given that everything else you say belies that statement. In the same breath you said other companies have done it anyway (I know of one potential example but it's far from directly comparable, I would love to know what other games supposedly prove your point.)
But if it's not in their interest, why should they? There would have to be some benefit to offset the time and expense and redunancy, but if there were a sufficient benefit, then necessarily it would then be in their net interest.
I didn't say it IS in their best interest. I also didn't say it ISN'T. I'm not even trying to argue either side of that. I'm only arguing against the absurdly extreme postilion that if they did, that would kill the game, and "then we don't have a game to play at all."
I pointed out Mage Wars as an example of a game that has done this, and lo and behold, the game still exists. Sure, it's only a single counter-example, but really one is all that is needed to point out that doing such a thing wouldn't necessarily cause the sky to fall.
30 minutes ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:I didn't say it IS in their best interest. I also didn't say it ISN'T. I'm not even trying to argue either side of that. I'm only arguing against the absurdly extreme postilion that if they did, that would kill the game, and "then we don't have a game to play at all."
It would probably not kill the game. But running a business is about doing what is prudent, not what is possible.
In hindsight, it is always easy to say what could have worked and what could have been done with the game being so successful. But assuming as much would have been a huge risk months ago when the game was still in development and FFG were planning the product lineup and the prices.
And they'll only know if they've been right if the game is still profitable five or ten years from now.
I said "I know of one potential example that's far from directly compatible," and I was referring to Mage Wars. One example, and I asked for others and that was apparently the only one you could think of either. The core set for Mage Wars is $60, so right off the bat it's a higher bar to ask consumers to purchase multiple core sets. Mage Wars' core set isn't designed for multiple purchases; FFG does design their core sets for multiple purchases. It's not the greatest optimization for AH, but their design philosophy is definitely established when you look at Conquest and AGOT 2nd Edition. I'll bet any amount of money you care to name that L5R core set will likewise be a mile wide and an inch deep.
And no, it's not absurdly extreme to suggest that a company would discontinue a game if it's showing itself to be unprofitable--it's not even absurd to suggest a company would discontinue a game if it were profitable, if the time and resources spent producing it could be more profitable on other projects. The number of out-of-print games out there could just about fit into the Grand Canyon, and among them are FFG LCGs for Warhammer: Invasion, A Game of Thrones (first edition), and Call of Cthulhu.
On 1/25/2017 at 10:10 AM, ForAiur said:Did they ever officially mention if 3 will stay "enough" or it might go up to 4? I just got Dunwich and realized that I need to sleeve all the encounters for 1 scenario the same so I can switch out the rats and that other set without resleeving anything. There go my 150 or so sleeves that I don't have enough of to sleeve it all the same ...
I only sleeve my active deck. I don't feel the encounter deck cards see enough abuse to justify the cost of sleeves.
@Grimwalker I won't take that bet (it's a loser's one). However, I wouldn't say AGoT first edition was discontinued because it wasn't profitable enough, at least not in the short term. And unlike the other games you mention, it has been replaced by a thematically identical and mechanically similar game (immediately, to boot).
elsewhere on the thread I pointed out that profitability is not just making money, but also opportunity cost of not doing something better with your time and money. AGOT was a mature, slowly-growing game that couldn't justify the upheaval of rotation, with all the balance and mechanical issues that would bring.
Yeah, so instead of putting rotation into effect or letting the game die slowly, they decided to restart the game from scratch, while keeping the theme and the core mechanics intact (someone who played the first edition or even the CCG would recognize the game very quickly). This is not at all the same as Warhammer Invasion or Call of Cthulhu being discontinued.
Putting rotation into effect would have resulted in the game dying slowly--again, profitability is not just "is it making money now" it's also "what are its future prospects" and "could we do something different with our means of production." I would describe that as not being profitable enough. The relaunched game, while the theme and core mechanics remain, is an entirely different beast due to the total card pool rollover.
I think we're talking past each other.
To all the people not agreeing with FF on this business model, let me give you my example:
I am really interested in this game then I saw you needed two core sets to play with 3 or 4. FF could've made more money out of me (already own Rebellion, Imperial Assault and warrior knights) instead they made zero. I refuse to buy this game with this business model and I am looking for alternative LCG. This is a terrible business model that is allowed to continue by people's inability to just not buy a product if they disagree with the policy. Vote with your wallets. You know what you are getting into when you buy the game, don't complain afterwards. Alternatively, scan and print copies of the cards you need. You can go to a decent printing company and print them in proper card paper then sleeve them. It is not rocket science. But don't buy into something and then complain.
On 2/11/2017 at 7:48 AM, MrRed said:To all the people not agreeing with FF on this business model, let me give you my example:
I am really interested in this game then I saw you needed two core sets to play with 3 or 4. FF could've made more money out of me (already own Rebellion, Imperial Assault and warrior knights) instead they made zero. I refuse to buy this game with this business model and I am looking for alternative LCG. This is a terrible business model that is allowed to continue by people's inability to just not buy a product if they disagree with the policy. Vote with your wallets. You know what you are getting into when you buy the game, don't complain afterwards. Alternatively, scan and print copies of the cards you need. You can go to a decent printing company and print them in proper card paper then sleeve them. It is not rocket science. But don't buy into something and then complain.
So your interest in this game is really worth $40? Because it's only the Core Set you need 2x of for 3- or 4-player. After that, every expansion is a one-of. Literally every single LCG is this way. If they wanted to include full playsets for 3 or 4 players in one Core Set, it would either be $80, or a terrible product. Providing a wider variety of cards without a complete playset ensures you get to experience the game in a wider, deeper fashion, than (by comparison) a CCG starter deck.
But hey, if $40 is your breaking point, you do you.