@Staton: Out of curiosity, how is it that you are privy to FFG's accounting records to know whether or not, and to what degree of financial success the LCG is? You threw that statement out there without much evidence, just curious where you are getting that info.

EDIT: and @Dan: nice post. agree with 99% of it.

I consider myself good friends with people who are privy to such information. I apologize for not providing direct, detailed evidence for my statements. I will refrain from making such statements in the future so that no one has to waste their time asking for evidence and proof.

Hey Josh, I can notarize a statement like that for you if it helps!

I mean, a statement that you're not going to make more statements, that is.

Kennon said:

I mean, a statement that you're not going to make more statements, that is.

Kinda like toasting to your sobriety

Staton said:

~Frankly, I'm left questiong whether you _have_ friends… not whether they have information.

Although, it seems foolhardy to make such a deal about secrecy when your intimation implies a small pool of people who might be in a position to share.

I'm in agreement with Dan, the nature of corporate communications can be tricky. As more than one person has pointed out, it's not really in the businesses interest to imply a reprint (modified to a preferred product in this case) when they still have product to move. On the other hand, the tragedy of the commons is going to keep most people from buying because they're waiting for the new product… and until enough break down and buy out the inventory. FFG has a history of silence, at least until the uproar gets loud enough to demand a response… sadly this doesn't really recognize the fact that silence in the face of questions can be considered its own answer, and its meaning is determined by the audience.

Certainly there have been plenty of hullabaloos that have finally been met with a FAQ or an answer, but try to think about times of player upset that has never gotten a reply and was merely addressed by the passage of time. I think the real issue (and this is across the years, dating from the release of Westeros… a _decade_ ago, is that we don't know what fraction of the product is actually in the hands of tournament players/internet community. That, to some extent can determine how much need FFG sees in communicating with "our" audience. The anemic state of OP over the last several years seems to imply that FFG feels that this segment of the market is growing on its own, without much aside from Regionals, GenCon/Stahleck, and Worlds.

That the Core Set was clearly marketed to entice a board gaming audience is clear, I'm curious as to whether that group buys many chapter packs, or they stick to the House Expansions (and even then, I could see them limit themselves to the Martell & Grejoy). My guess is this group buys additional cards as a group. After that, we have the collectors, who may not even open their product, but "gotta catch 'em all." And then there is "us:" the chattering class (and sometimes nattering nabobs of negativity) who make the most noise… I'm just curious what percentage of the chapter packs are purchased by, say, the population of tournament players that attend regionals. (I know we started trying to calculate a total number of unique NA regional attendees, but even then, the Colorado and Texas regionals didn't involve anyone who's a board regular)

Maester_LUke said:

I agree with most of your post but not sure what the "Tragedy of the commons" has to do with anything.

First, I've heard two explicitly different versions of what "the tragedy of the commons" even refers to. One narrative has the "tragedy" being that when a resource is available for free, a small minority of people will over-consume that resource and deplete it even though depleting the resource is in no one's interest.

The second narrative refers to the macro policies of governments and business "enclosing" common space resources (like public gathering forums) that were a 'free resource' since the heyday of Rome in order for specific groups to profit off of those formerly public resources.

I think you are sort of basing your statement on the first narrative but even that doesn't make sense to me since both narratives explicitly deal with free "common' resources that are available to all. I think you are trying to say that people will not purchase the inventory if they know a future release will come up that provides better value yes? Thats not really a "tragedy of the commons" at all but a basic economic argument based on rational self interest. One thing that argument misses is timing. Many people will not wait until a product gets reprinted because they want to use the cards now during Regionals. Also there are other ways for a business to clean out inventory. Clothing companies do it every year. Simply offer discounts (IE, shop at Off Sacks rather than Sacks Fifth Avenue or join something like Gilt group to get huge discounts).

In outdated economic choice models, FFG's decision making makes total rational sense. However, when you take into account the last 30+ years of economic research (from game theory to behavioral economics to neuroeconomics), you understand that FFG could have cleaned out their inventory with possibly less profit per unit on the old products but done so in a way that produced 1000 times better PR and customer service and possibly built up a stronger and more loyal customer base that is more willing to purchase any of their products for years to come. Personally I will never spend a penny on any other FFG product other than Thrones which I only support monetarily ATM because of Dormouse being a designer and the community.

IMO, from studying more recent economics, that would have been the wiser choice and built up better customer loyalty. I realize I am one person and not representative but I think they make common, outdated errors in business decisions that have cost them more total profit than they gained by just clearing out some extra inventory. If they have pull some smoke and mirrors to deceive people into clearing out their inventory why should I ever trust anything the company says or does? Even if the customer service rep never lied intentionally, I have a very, very hard time believing that some of FFG's C-levels did not plan this out on purpose (the fact that it happens over years time illustrates this).

LaughingTree said:

That is assuming they are also basing their decision on their own inventory. If they are basing their decisions on FLGSs and online store inventory, they may not be getting those stores on board with taking those losses. If they reprinted too soon, they may lose some potential recurring or loyal vendors that sell some of their products. I know lost loyalty is probably a long shot.

Disclaimer: I don't know **** about running a business.

The problem with most 3D movies is that the effect leaves the screen slightly blurry, causing headaches and retinal damage.

Bomb said:

Im not familiar with the acronym FLGS.

But thats a fair point. Not sure what their agreement with online retailers is and if online retailers already sell product for cheaper than a brick and mortar then that could be an issue. Either way, that doesn't change the fact that to me FFG could easily have handled the situation better. For instance with teh CCG switch, if they just kept 5KE and ITE legal as they said they would the inventory would have been cleared out naturally. But it seems like their goal was to target a different market (casual boardgamers) and they didn't want to potentially scare those buyers away with having CCG cards legal. Their overall idea makes sense but how they went about implementing it was an example of some of the worst PR and customer service I've ever seen in a company (only Comcast is worse).

For the reprints on chapter packs, they wouldn't necessarily have to force their online retailers to cut prices (that was just an obvious option). Other options would include simply providing more value to customers who purchased the chapter packs.Maybe something like their old gold dragon program where you could sent in labels from the 1 card per pack chapter packs and if you sent in enough you get something like a free house card (doesnt even have to be as nice as the old glass or stone ones). In short, they could have provided something of value to the consumer and communicated their plans to everyone up front. That might *seem* like it would lose a wee bit more revenue but the customer loyalty it would have built could be worth far more revenue in the long term than they way the seem to not care one iota about a minority of their customer base who they just want to milk a few more dollars from by clearing their inventory.

Bomb said:

Im not familiar with the acronym FLGS.

But thats a fair point. Not sure what their agreement with online retailers is and if online retailers already sell product for cheaper than a brick and mortar then that could be an issue. Either way, that doesn't change the fact that to me FFG could easily have handled the situation better. For instance with teh CCG switch, if they just kept 5KE and ITE legal as they said they would the inventory would have been cleared out naturally. But it seems like their goal was to target a different market (casual boardgamers) and they didn't want to potentially scare those buyers away with having CCG cards legal. Their overall idea makes sense but how they went about implementing it was an example of some of the worst PR and customer service I've ever seen in a company (only Comcast is worse).

For the reprints on chapter packs, they wouldn't necessarily have to force their online retailers to cut prices (that was just an obvious option). Other options would include simply providing more value to customers who purchased the chapter packs.Maybe something like their old gold dragon program where you could sent in labels from the 1 card per pack chapter packs and if you sent in enough you get something like a free house card (doesnt even have to be as nice as the old glass or stone ones). In short, they could have provided something of value to the consumer and communicated their plans to everyone up front. That might *seem* like it would lose a wee bit more revenue but the customer loyalty it would have built could be worth far more revenue in the long term than they way the seem to not care one iota about a minority of their customer base who they just want to milk a few more dollars from by clearing their inventory.

In my eyes the issues boils down to 'Maximize short term profit even if it pisses off your long standing biggest spending customers' VS. 'building brand loyalty by demonstrating that you actually appreciate your biggest spending customers'.

I completely agree with you. Like I had said, I don't know much about running a business so I'd take anything I say about it with a grain of salt.

FLGS stands for "friendly local game store". It's an acronym that is used a lot over at the Steve Jackson Games forums that I assumed was used more universally than in just a few places. My bad!

It's not just Steve Jackson. It's a commonly used acronym on at least a dozen other game forums I've been on, seems pretty universal. I think it's just coincidence that this one person hasn't come across it before.

dboeren said:

<------- never heard of it either (not a board gamer though and thrones is the only card game i play besides poker).

dcdennis said:

Same here. Perhaps thats why we never heard the acronym. No big deal really…always good to learn new acronyms.

Saying there are no current plans to reprint something and saying that it will not or never be reprinted are two different things. Until I see a CnP of the email exchange, or ideally a forwarded version of the email with all header information attached, I'm calling shenanigans on the OP.

I suspect he got an answer almost if not exactly identical to Staton's and read into it, speculated on the cards in the secondary market and is pissed because he paid too much. Now he wants someone to blame that isn't himself and FFG's policy of silence makes them an easy target.

Penfold said:

My dislike of the secondary card market is the primary reason I stopped playing CCGs.

I have yet to be given a reason to regret this policy

Penfold said:

Yes plans change, but you have to take into account the timing. At the time of the announcement FFG said to expect these chapter packs, "to arrive to your local retailer within several weeks." It takes 1mo or more for product to reach here from China on the boat (FFG even says when product is on the boat it takes 4-6 weeks to reach their warehouse). Add in printing and distribution time (7-10 days according to FFG website), and the decision was likely made 2-3 weeks ahead of the announcement. People are saying it was within 2 weeks of the announcement that they were told by FFG representatives there were no plans to reprint the packs. It's possible "within several weeks" really means 7-10 weeks and the decision was just made between the email requests and the announcement, but then you have poor communication about expectations on how soon to expect to be able to buy product (something FFG tries to keep to a minimum given frequency of delays between factory and in stores that are out of their control)

I find it hard to believe that in 2012 it takes 4-6 weeks to get anywhere.

In 2012 it still takes 4-6 weeks and a great deal of luck for anything to get anywhere using the cheapest possible method available.

Reading things carefully and coming to terms with the language used to answer questions officially is key to understanding the risks you are taking by acting on the information or refraining from acting. "No plans to reprint" is not the same as "will not be reprinted". Recent example is the Infernal Dice promo item for Ghost Stories that was provided to Board Game Geek to sell in their store, but with a limited quantity of 550 items. The announcement stated that the demand was higher than the items available with "no plans for a reprint". Needless to say, it was nearly impossible to get into the Geek store at the time of release, so many missed out on the item, and it was immediately announced that BBG "may" be able to get more from the publisher at a future date. Again, "no plans" does not mean "never to happen".

My question is; many of these first 2 cycles packs were no available for those who wanted them, forcing some, like the OP, to seek them through alternative means, such as ebay with inflated prices. If this is the case, and FFG was sitting on original stock, why not release them to the public where they were still in demand? I think the "not to betray the retailers" theory is more likely.

I did not play this game as a CCG, and was not inclined to get into it when I first heard about it being an LCG because I was also told that the CCG cards were part of the game. No thanks, I'm done with CCGs! My first LCG was Warhammer: invasion, which I got at the GenCon 2009 pre-release since there was no FFG pre-existing CCG of it. It continues to be a favorite game of mine, and because of that, I also grabbed the Lord of the Rings LCG upon release. After the AGOT television series was released, local interest in the LCG surged, and I learned that the CCG cards had no bearing on the LCG game, so I re-evaluated my desire to jump in. By this time, I had also learned that the pre-2010 cycles and boxes were being reissued in the new full play sets of everything format, with the understanding that the first two cycles "were intended to be redone as well" when stock was depleted. I thought this a lousy way to present the reprint possibility, as anyone with patience and no dire need of the older cards would simply wait for the reprints, which would stunt sales of the original format packs, delaying the reprints… So there was no knowing when to expect the new format packs.

I am glad we are finally at the stage where I can complete a collection of this LCG and start anticipating new releases/cards. I currently only have 3x core sets. I also like that all cards will now be white-bordered, and that hopefully the cover layout of the first two cycles will match that of later cycles. I think the OP feels betrayed, but really, he should have focused on FFGs wording, and if he needed the packs badly enough to pay extra on ebay, there should be value in having them before the reprints as they let him stand a chance against his friends' decks or position better in a tournament.

Even though I own 3x of the first Warhammer box expansion and each pack in the first cycle, I still hope FFG will reissue these in the new format; it'll still be convenient for me to have the full packs and make the game that much more accessible to newer players. Note that I know it's not a parallel situation to the OP's since I bought the packs as they were released and not a week or two before a new format reissue statement after paying exaggerated prices for the them.

dcdennis said:

Cargo ships aren't really any faster than they were 60 years ago.

Also, I wonder if the OP still has at least one of the "no plans for a reprint" emails from customer services that he was sent. I think it might have proved fruitful if he replied to it with a statement that he got the packs just a few weeks ago off ebay based on the information and now sees an announcement to the contrary and asks for a resolution. Perhaps he'd get an apology and some sort of solution?

KristoffStark said:

KristoffStark said:

got my last ipad shipped from xiahchuong china, arrived in 36hours.

dcdennis said:

But when FFG says "on the boat," they actually mean a boat. With water and everything.