I still maintain that the reason to buy a second core set (aside from completion-ism) is to allow for 3 and 4 player games. (Which otherwise requires additional components from outside the game as well as a lot of expansions).

As a result I still think the optimal choice for FFG is to create a dedicated 3-4 player expansion, with three new quests, and new player cards that are designed to be more beneficial to multi-player than single-player (like campfire tales). The quests would be designed to be most enjoyable at 3 and 4 player (though ideally still suitable for 1 player, I feel we could do with some quests that really work at the higher player count). The quests should again include easy/medium/hard.

As a bonus this new multi-player set, that's designed to compliment the core set, should include the missing 61 cards from the core set. This can be done to help keep the price down since reprinting from another set is cheaper than designing new stuff; it also will be possible because the 3-4 player expansion wouldn't need to support an adventure cycle. It would get some token sheets and two new dials though.

It could be priced at the same point as the core set (despite having less new card designs because of no need to support a cycle and 61 cards being reprints + maybe more gandalfs). It could even be priced a little higher (if the core set is marked down to increase sales). I believe this product would sell to all collectors, and to many groups that consider a second core set.

I certainly think that a casual player might consider this product but would never get a second core. I also think that it would sell to people who already have even 6 core sets. The price ( the same as core or a little higher) with the increased sales I believe would be the best way to offset the loss of core sets. (Equally I think as time goes on the number of people that ever intend to buy a second core set that haven't already got it will dwindle, but this new product would certainly entice purchases).


Sadly I don't think we'll see it, but I think it's the right thing to do.

It's a very creative idea. But what we really need to know rather than how much it would cost to produce is how much money FFG would loose. Say it would cost $10 000 (have no idea at all) to produce but they might loose $100 000. I think they'd pretty much turn down the $10 000. Also, it's hard to make them fix something they don't see as "broken". They are satisfied and the majority are satisfied, at least enough. I have no figures to back this up, but if you look at all that is planned in the near future you can see that the game is going very well. It wouldn't dothat if people was unsatisfied. Anyway, I doubt that any attempt to do a kick starter campaign would just end in nothing.

I hear you. In addition to production costs, we'd need to know what proportion of core sets sold were second or third (or fourth...) purchases, and how many of these were bought specifically to "complete" one player's collection. A bigger sample than rich's would help, as would gathering data from more than one place (maybe from multiple web-sites and blogs). This would give us some indication of the money FFG might lose.

It would also be helpful to know how many people would buy such a product, what stretch goals might induce people to purchase such a product, etc. This would help us gauge how much money FFG might make.

That's a lot of data to collect, which we would probably need to persuade FFG that the "Second Breakfast" booster is worth pursuing. (Obviously, we couldn't run a Kickstarter campaign without their blessing.)

All of that said, Spalanzani is quite right to point out Chris Peterson's reservations about Kickstarter (as expressed in the In Flight Report). Although he stopped short of saying FFG would never use Kickstarter, he was pretty clear that he didn't want to use Kickstarter as a "pre-order" tool, which is essentially what this campaign would amount to. This generated a spontaneous round of applause from the audience, so it's possible that this idea would not only fail to impress FFG, but also FFG's biggest fans.

Sadly I don't think we'll see it, but I think it's the right thing to do.

I respectfully disagree with you you make a good point but bear in mind that it's a 1-2 player game with the possibility of playing 3-4. That doesn't make it a native 4 player game and therefor I don't think FFG should go more specific into that area. If an expansion for 3-4 players the. Why stop there? Why not additional packs for 5-6 and 10-12 players? They have made a game that is best played with 2 players in generel.

I really couldn't say how I feel about this project.

I personally have never supported a kickstarter campaign but my wife and friends have.

If Lord of the Rings LCG DID a kickstarter then yes I think I would support it, even in this case... but I feel they're doing an admirable job of moving forward and I don't think enough of the community would be inclined to pony up for something essentially looking backwards. I could be wrong here, of course... Kickstarter is a great way to go about proving commonly held notions dead wrong, after all.

I still maintain that the reason to buy a second core set (aside from completion-ism) is to allow for 3 and 4 player games. (Which otherwise requires additional components from outside the game as well as a lot of expansions)...

You know what would be awesome in a set like this? A competitive game mode -- something like the original LotR CCG, where players (or teams) compete to achieve the same objective using different methods. For instance, in the Council of Elrond, everyone has different ideas about what should be done with the One Ring. You could even have less heroic characters, like Saruman, as hero cards (although, given the next cycle is all about Saruman, we might have missed the boat on him).

The biggest problem with this set is it still screws solo players (like me). But if I could get those "missing" cards with some new player cards and a couple of new quests, I'd be happier than I would be buying a second core set.

I don't know how they would ever go about making this game competitive beyond what they have done now... outlining rules for essentially racing to the finish.

Plus, I would never want the cooperative element to be overshadowed by a competitive version of the game. I barely play this game solo at all... literally I think I have done 5 games solo ever. Tried Shadow and Flame by myself twice, and tested a Trained for war deck against Journey down the aduin solo three times.

I still maintain that the reason to buy a second core set (aside from completion-ism) is to allow for 3 and 4 player games. (Which otherwise requires additional components from outside the game as well as a lot of expansions)...

You know what would be awesome in a set like this? A competitive game mode -- something like the original LotR CCG, where players (or teams) compete to achieve the same objective using different methods. For instance, in the Council of Elrond, everyone has different ideas about what should be done with the One Ring. You could even have less heroic characters, like Saruman, as hero cards (although, given the next cycle is all about Saruman, we might have missed the boat on him).

The biggest problem with this set is it still screws solo players (like me). But if I could get those "missing" cards with some new player cards and a couple of new quests, I'd be happier than I would be buying a second core set.

But really, everyone that is participating in this thread do have good and valid viewpoints

I don't know how they would ever go about making this game competitive beyond what they have done now... outlining rules for essentially racing to the finish.

Plus, I would never want the cooperative element to be overshadowed by a competitive version of the game. I barely play this game solo at all... literally I think I have done 5 games solo ever. Tried Shadow and Flame by myself twice, and tested a Trained for war deck against Journey down the aduin solo three times.

You could do it lots of ways. In a combat heavy quest, you could take head counts, like Gimli and Legolas do. (You could even have a kill steal event, where you cheekily shoot an orc that has an axe buried in its head!) In something like The Hunt For Gollum, whoever has the most clues at the end of the quest wins. In Laketown, whoever kills Smaug wins.

These are minor changes, more akin to bragging rights than a separate game mode, but you could also scale up. You could have a separate encounter deck for each player, for instance, along with event cards that hinder your opponents. You could even have rules for PvP combat. As Mr. Thomas points out, this wouldn't be to everyone's tastes -- one of the things I love about this game is that it is co-operative, so I can play it with my son without suffering a tantrum if I win. But it's an option.

Also, when I say "screwed" I mean that I would begrudge buying a set aimed at large groups just to get play-sets of the cards from the core set, when I mainly play solo. A booster would work better for me, personally, because I would just like to have the "missing" cards.

All of that said, I'm happy with my one core set -- I still have lots of sphere and hero combinations to try out. And I agree that just because the rules say you can have 3 copies, doesn't mean FFG are ripping me off by not giving me 3 copies of everything in my core set. Limitations are just challenges with an attitude problem.

But... if FFG ever did release a PoD "Second Breakfast" booster, I'd buy it. And I'd be absurdly proud that I helped to make it happen. (Unless it bankrupted the company, of course. Then I'd have to find a way to blame FFG.)

the forum wasnt working for me for some reason.....brings me back to the times of waiting 2 hours for a page to load haha

i have to agree with mr.thomasschmidt on this one- i don't think ffg will do this, no matter of the support or anything. not that ffg dont listen to their players, they most certainly do (they even made the subforums after i started a petition) but on this one, i think its too much of a 'sticky' area (dont ask me what i mean by that as i dont really know) .

what really matters i think is the amount of players who buy the game but dont go further than that i.e. dont post on forums, dont follow the news apart from new release schedules and so on. being so obsessed with this game its hard to imagine it, but i guess a lot of ffg's player base are happy to own and buy the game and leave it at that...im also thinking of the players who have the game and bring it out once or twice per month/year

...therefore, it is not even sure how many would join a campaign to get these extra packs. it is also unsure how these 'basic' players would feel about such a thing....im guessing most would not have an opinion either way enough to back it

personally it is risky...perhaps just ask caleb outright whitman? you can contact ffg, see what they think...they may say its not likely to ever happen, they may say it depends on sales..i really dont know

Sadly, I can only conclude that you and the other commenters are right, rich. It seems like FFG made up their mind about this a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away).

As for casual gamers, you can buy the core set in Waterstones, but they don't stock any of the adventure packs. If this happens elsewhere, there are probably a lot of players with one core set and big smiles on their faces.

Let's just hope the line stays profitable until they complete the Saga expansions, eh? I cannot wait to toe-punt Gollum into Mount Doom.

hahaha- yeah i may throw frodo in with him just to see what happens

i have never actually seen it in waterstones, though in the barren wastes of n.w. england its hardly surprising (though i have seen game of thrones lcg core set....and many other lotr and hobbit things when the hobbit came out)

It doesn't get more desolate than Sunderland, mate. (Just ask the guy who wants to frack the whole north-east...)