I would be interested in both, a booster or an enhanced core set (since I currently have my old german core set, this would provide me with an excuse to change it finally xD. Buying more regular core sets was never an option for me).

As much I would love a core set "booster", I really dont think its going to happen. This has been an issue for every FFG's LCG since the games came out, and there isnt that much incentive on FFG's part as the hardcore will (or already have) buy more core sets. And theres another population of players that just proxy the cards. So while the booster may sell, it assuredly wont make enough of a profit for them to be worth it.

FTFY

Just one point I wanted to raise - since nobody else did this - is about environmental / waste of ressource concerns: I will never buy a second or third core set just because it is such a waste of material. I know few people are concerned with this probably and one could argue that CCGs / LCGs as such are quite un-ecological (considering the ressources consumed for cards and that cards are printed in China and then shipped around the world a number of times), but for me there is at some point really an ethical question involved:

Can I reconcile sitting on /throwing away all the encounter cards, double heroes, extra box and threat counters for those comparably few extra cards that I again?

Personally I cannot. Because I think at some point I have to admit that even though I am not doing a favour to the environment by collecting cards per se, I just cannot get myself to buy additional cards that are attached to such a vast waste of resource.

i have just kept my extras from my 2nd core set. they are an excellent back up incase i lose/ damage my current ones

Just one point I wanted to raise - since nobody else did this - is about environmental / waste of ressource concerns: I will never buy a second or third core set just because it is such a waste of material. I know few people are concerned with this probably and one could argue that CCGs / LCGs as such are quite un-ecological (considering the ressources consumed for cards and that cards are printed in China and then shipped around the world a number of times), but for me there is at some point really an ethical question involved:

Can I reconcile sitting on /throwing away all the encounter cards, double heroes, extra box and threat counters for those comparably few extra cards that I again?

Personally I cannot. Because I think at some point I have to admit that even though I am not doing a favour to the environment by collecting cards per se, I just cannot get myself to buy additional cards that are attached to such a vast waste of resource.

i have just kept my extras from my 2nd core set. they are an excellent back up incase i lose/ damage my current ones

Well I've bought four core sets thus far, and have kept all of the encounter cards but sold everything else - even if I didn't have a use for multiple threat trackers, or wound tokens to the point where they're coming out of my ears, I suppose there is always someone who would want extra stuff. I've also got the three additional core boxes as back-ups, like Rich says, in case something happens to my "original" core box. Or in case the card pool expands beyond the limitations of being stored in that one box. So all that I've thrown away from these is the cellophane wrapping

Also, if you get three core sets you don't throw away the extra encounter cards. Now you can pre-build mane quests so you don't need to mix and sort the encounter sets so often

I agree that FFG are already profiting from the card distribution in the core set, so there might not seem to be any incentive to "fix" it. But they could gain a lot of goodwill by appearing responsive to fans of the game -- this is the ship that Paizo have been sailing so successfully, after all, which WotC have tried to jump on with their extended D&D open play test.

Would the "Second Breakfast" make more money than FFG make from second (and third) core sets? Maybe not, but some of those core sets are being bought by gaming groups or friends who intend to play multi-player, so the cost to the consumers is shared. The "Second Breakfast" option is for poor solo gamers, like me, who can't even persuade their Lord of the Rings loving partners to play elaborate (and sometimes fiendishly difficult) card games. Products that respond to consumer demand produce a less easily identifiable profit in the form of brand loyalty.

For someone just getting started with this sort of game, the Paizo Adventure Card Game is likely to be an alternative. It doesn't have the LotR factor, but it's a similar enough type of game. It doesn't seem to suffer from the play-set flaw, however, and has been designed with the consumer's needs very much in mind. The box, for instance, has been designed to store the adventure packs as they come out over the course of the year. There's a pack of extra characters, for those who want to play with bigger groups or to play a wider variety of characters -- including this in the Paizo core set would probably have raised the price, just as including 3 copies of every player card would raise the price of the LotR core set. Instead, Paizo have responded to a sub-set of their fan base (i.e. large groups and those who prefer the less traditional character classes), and have produced an additional product just for them. Collectors will also buy it, so this isn't an exclusively community-related move, but addressing consumer's needs with a specific product is a fairer choice than saying "just buy a second core set".

Don't get me wrong -- I love this game. And I understand that incomplete play-sets mean FFG can put a greater variety of card effects into the core set without jacking up the price. (In the interests of balance, at $60, Paizo's core set is a bigger outlay than FFG's.) Greater variety enables FFG to better establish each sphere's identity. It also leads to greater variety when playing the game -- sometimes you win with Unexpected Courage, sometimes you have to win with weaker cards. That's all well and good for a core set, but players who move beyond that first purchase will probably end up wanting 3 copies of Unexpected Courage (and 2 more copies of Gandalf for their buddy).

Environmentally, the obvious solution is an app. This too, unfortunately, runs counter to FFG's existing model. Why fill your den full of cardboard boxes when you could just fill your device's memory instead?

Great and obvious idea that will never come true, as usual.

So, the missing card PoD would consist of:

A Test of Will x1

Beorn x2

Beorn's Hospitality x2

Blade of Gondolin x1

Celebrian's Stone x2

Citadel Plate x1

Common Cause x1

Dark Knowledge x2

Dwarven Axe x1

Dwarven Tomb x2

Erebor Hammersmith x1

Ever Vigilant x1

Faramir x1

Feint x1

For Gondor! x1

Forest Snare x1

Fortune or Fate x2

Gandalf's Search x1

Gleowine x1

Grim Resolve x2

Hasty Stroke x1

Henamarth Riversong x2

Horn of Gondor x2

Horseback Archer x1

Longbeard Orc Slayer x1

Lorien's Wealth x1

Miner of the Iron Hills x1

Northern Tracker x1

Power in the Earth x1

Protector of Lorien x1

Quick Strike x1

Radagast's Cunning x1

Rain of Arrows x1

Secret Paths x1

Self Prevervation x1

Silverlode Archer x1

Sneak Attack x1

Son of Arnor x1

Stand Together x2

Steward of Gondor x1

Strength of Will x1

Swift Strike x2

The Favor of the Lady x1

The Galadhrim's Greeting x1

Thicket of Spears x1

Unexpected Courage x2

Valiant Sacrifice x1

Wandering Took x1

Will of the West x1

With grand total of 61 player cards.

That's the idea. You could then do some actual deck-building with the core set, instead of just cutting a few cards from your pool or running slimline decks. Maybe include a page of deck-building advice in the box, too.

So, realistically, FFG couldn't charge more than £12 for this hypothetical PoD pack, because that's how many cards the APs have. Without talking great economics, the purchase of two additional core sets to get these cards gets FFG between £50 and £60, depending on where you bought these core sets.

What company is going to produce a product that loses them a minimum of £38? How would that be good business sense?

I live in the UK, hence why I have used £ instead of $. Also, I realise I said I wasn't going to say anymore on this matter and just have, but this subject annoys the hell out of me and I couldn't control myself.

So, realistically, FFG couldn't charge more than £12 for this hypothetical PoD pack, because that's how many cards the APs have. Without talking great economics, the purchase of two additional core sets to get these cards gets FFG between £50 and £60, depending on where you bought these core sets.

What company is going to produce a product that loses them a minimum of £38? How would that be good business sense?

I live in the UK, hence why I have used £ instead of $. Also, I realise I said I wasn't going to say anymore on this matter and just have, but this subject annoys the hell out of me and I couldn't control myself.

Your price point seems reasonable (unlike your footnote). I already addressed the potential profits to be gained from increasing brand loyalty by responding to consumers in an earlier post. Additionally, many players won't actually buy three core sets, but might buy a booster pack. FFG are losing money from these consumers by not providing a best-fit product for them.

Sure, we're not talking mega-bucks (or mega-pounds), but we're also not talking about a huge outlay for FFG. You might also take into account the reduced cost of producing a PoD booster, as opposed to a core set, which presumably would lead to higher margins on the booster.

Finally, I found the first Harry Potter book really annoying. This book was likened to Roald Dahl's books, which was hugely misleading. You know what I did? I stopped reading Harry Potter. Maybe you could try a similar approach to this thread?

So, realistically, FFG couldn't charge more than £12 for this hypothetical PoD pack, because that's how many cards the APs have. Without talking great economics, the purchase of two additional core sets to get these cards gets FFG between £50 and £60, depending on where you bought these core sets.

What company is going to produce a product that loses them a minimum of £38? How would that be good business sense?

I live in the UK, hence why I have used £ instead of $. Also, I realise I said I wasn't going to say anymore on this matter and just have, but this subject annoys the hell out of me and I couldn't control myself.

Well, you should do some market analysis to definitely answer this question. How many players buy extra core sets? How many will buy a 12$ "Second Breakfast AP" ?

However, in a pure economic sense, core sets, since they need no additional development and printing cost on FFGs part, since they will keep printing them anyway. Although more players might be willing to buy a "Second Breakfast APs" it probably will not be enough to cover extra cost development and production of such an expansion

Personally, I was hoping that there will be "reprints" of some of the major core set cards, at least the ones that were only included as a "one of". The, you just need to buy two core sets, which provides you with good resources for a 4 Players group.

So, realistically, FFG couldn't charge more than £12 for this hypothetical PoD pack, because that's how many cards the APs have. Without talking great economics, the purchase of two additional core sets to get these cards gets FFG between £50 and £60, depending on where you bought these core sets.

What company is going to produce a product that loses them a minimum of £38? How would that be good business sense?

I live in the UK, hence why I have used £ instead of $. Also, I realise I said I wasn't going to say anymore on this matter and just have, but this subject annoys the hell out of me and I couldn't control myself.

Your price point seems reasonable (unlike your footnote). I already addressed the potential profits to be gained from increasing brand loyalty by responding to consumers in an earlier post. Additionally, many players won't actually buy three core sets, but might buy a booster pack. FFG are losing money from these consumers by not providing a best-fit product for them.

Sure, we're not talking mega-bucks (or mega-pounds), but we're also not talking about a huge outlay for FFG. You might also take into account the reduced cost of producing a PoD booster, as opposed to a core set, which presumably would lead to higher margins on the booster.

Finally, I found the first Harry Potter book really annoying. This book was likened to Roald Dahl's books, which was hugely misleading. You know what I did? I stopped reading Harry Potter. Maybe you could try a similar approach to this thread?

You're right, of course. Apologies for sounding unreasonable. I find this topic so frustratingly redundant because FFG has stated for years now that they are happy with the way the core set was produced, and have no plans to implement such a thing. There are many threads in the past, both here and on bgg that I know of, that have discussed this. The idea of "completing" the core set is, at best, a pipe dream, and no matter how well-reasoned and respectful the arguments in favour of this hypothetical product may be, the company's stance has been given before, and referenced many times thereafter: it's not going to happen. While it doesn't count for much, I personally wouldn't have thought this particular issue is such a concern in terms of brand loyalty - overall, I would think the overall game experience by far transcends such concerns as "if only I had another Unexpected Courage", for example.

This distribution model has many times over been held up to give the lie to FFG's 'LCG promise', but the answer will always be the same. Overall, buying three core sets and thereafter one of each expansion is always going to be cheaper than, say, staying current with Magic.

You're right, of course. Apologies for sounding unreasonable. I find this topic so frustratingly redundant because FFG has stated for years now that they are happy with the way the core set was produced, and have no plans to implement such a thing. There are many threads in the past, both here and on bgg that I know of, that have discussed this. The idea of "completing" the core set is, at best, a pipe dream, and no matter how well-reasoned and respectful the arguments in favour of this hypothetical product may be, the company's stance has been given before, and referenced many times thereafter: it's not going to happen. While it doesn't count for much, I personally wouldn't have thought this particular issue is such a concern in terms of brand loyalty - overall, I would think the overall game experience by far transcends such concerns as "if only I had another Unexpected Courage", for example.

This distribution model has many times over been held up to give the lie to FFG's 'LCG promise', but the answer will always be the same. Overall, buying three core sets and thereafter one of each expansion is always going to be cheaper than, say, staying current with Magic.

You're not wrong about M:tG. Last I checked, a full play set of just one core set would set you back something like £650 if you bought a re-pack. And WotC release four sets a year (including a new core set, often with duplicate cards). This is just one reason that my gaming budget now goes to FFG, rather than WotC.

Of course, you're also absolutely right about the major source of brand loyalty here. This is a LotR tie-in that does the franchise justice in spades and would be a **** good game without the Middle Earth factor. People are going to buy it, and so they should.

Pipe dream is probably right. FFG have far bigger fish to fry than this particular sardine (like milking X-Wing to the MAX, based on their in-flight report). But a man can dream, right? Admittedly, it's not a particularly ambitious dream. My 3 year old son dreams about pirates and Batman -- why can't I have his dreams? Instead, I'm stuck with this futile fantasy of having three copies of some cards without paying for two boxes of stuff I don't need.

Thanks for your patience and I appreciate your comments.

here is a poll i did on who owns how many- should be interesting for you Whitman

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/83673-poll-how-many-core-sets-do-you-own/

the results were

1…17

2…5

3…12

4…1

5…1

6…1

also some more polls in case you are interested

player type http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?showtopic=68612

game difficulty http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/87391-game-difficulty-poll/

player + play amount http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?showtopic=68833

which books read http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/74387-poll-which-have-you-read/

rich

Great stuff, rich. Goes to show there's a fairly even split between those who will and those who won't buy more than one core set. From reading some of the comments, it seems like a few players bought multiple sets for gaming groups or playing with family and friends, who I guess would still want to have multiple core sets.

I might include something like this in my LotR LCG blog (when it's up and running), to probe a little deeper. (After all, who doesn't like a little deep probing, huh?)

Since posting this thread, I've also seen numerous similar threads, along with Chris Peterson's justification for the core set's card distribution. I agree with his points about diversity of card pool and initial price point for new players. But why single copies of some cards? With 2 copies of those cards, you could have everything you'll need from 2 core sets, which is a lot more palatable than 3 core sets. I'd understand if all the single cards were unique, expensive allies, like Beorn or Brok Ironfist. But Unexpected Courage? I guess this way it stays unexpected...

thanks. horn of gondor was always one of those cards i couldnt see why there was only 1. sure it was unique, but during the core set it was hardly a power card...i mean we got 2 copies of steward, which is one of the most powerful cards in the game

interestingly, now with the recent cycle's focus on allies leaving play, the horn is becoming much better

The poll was of people that read this community. So it's a biased response by definition

I daresay the ratio of those that bought more than one core was closer to 15%

Yeah I agree with the gripe about the cards we only got one of.

6 copies of a lot of cards might be reasonable if you've got a regular group of 4 players (like we did when we started) but with 3 sets you move into 9 copies of a lot of cards and then they're just reaching trash status.

Personally we fixed this problem by giving the main organizer 3 copies of every card while we got the spares. So I have 3 copies of anything there was 2 of in the core set but only one of the others. Things would have been a lot simpler if there had just been a requirement of 2 cards minimum. That way you'd have the right number if you bought 2 core sets - which we had to do anyway to move up to 4 players.

Again, I fix this problem by printing and sleeving the only 2 cards I want that badly - Dwarven tomb and Unexpected courage.

The poll was of people that read this community. So it's a biased response by definition

I daresay the ratio of those that bought more than one core was closer to 15%

The poll was of people that read this community. So it's a biased response by definition

I daresay the ratio of those that bought more than one core was closer to 15%

i could go into statistics and analysis in depth (believe me i could- and its certainly not pretty ) however as i have said to previous people, those polls are just for fun, and to see what the forum population is like....its not meant as a definite representation of anything

rich

My point has no insult to Rich at all.

If he knows statistics then he knows that who you ask and what you ask (or what correlations you are looking for) makes up a very large segment of how much utility there is to a given batch of statistics.

So by saying that of the people that read this LOTR community that 50% bought more than one core is something I have no problem with. To say that 50% of the people that bought LOTR LCG bought more than one core set is a leap of faith not backed by the poll.

Fair?

And yes my 15% was a guess and I believe I couched it in those terms.

Of course, rich's sample is based only on a sub-set of players and is too small to support any general conclusions. What is arguably more relevant in this case is qualitative data -- the reasons people bought just one or multiple core sets. This would give a far better idea of how much money FFG could make (or lose) by coming up with a "Second Breakfast" booster.

For instance, if a significant number of people bought multiple sets for gaming groups, FFG stand to lose less money than if the people buying multiple sets were all "hard core" completists. How many people bought one core set and then moved on to other games? How many people, from both camps, would buy a booster given the chance?

FFG already know their sales figures. Some quantitative data (e.g. how many sets each player owns) is certainly useful, but without qualitative data, it's all just numbers and guesswork.

Even with all the right data, however, FFG seem disinclined to make such a product. You know what might change their minds, though? A Kickstarter campaign. We would need to know how much it would cost FFG to put together this product, then raise that amount of money. We could come up with stretch goals for bonus content, such as extra heroes or quests, alternative art cards or easy mode cards for the core set quests. What do you guys think? Has this been discussed before?

Even with all the right data, however, FFG seem disinclined to make such a product. You know what might change their minds, though? A Kickstarter campaign. We would need to know how much it would cost FFG to put together this product, then raise that amount of money. We could come up with stretch goals for bonus content, such as extra heroes or quests, alternative art cards or easy mode cards for the core set quests. What do you guys think? Has this been discussed before?

Not to be the voice of gloom once again, but during the Q&A at the In-Flight Report from GenCon this year, Christian categorically said Kickstarter campaigns are not the way the company is going to go. You can watch the video on the Team Covenant youtube channel, the Q&A runs from about 53 minutes in.