I'd say that foils could be a cute addition to the packs, but question is whether there are that many people who would really go busting packs to get foils. In the end Magic boosters are not about foils (IMHO), but about randomness (I have a feeling that most of Magic players are much less happy when they get foil Illusionist's Bracers compared to opening non-foil Domri Rade in their pack).

Randomizing packs just goes against the whole concept and selling point of LCG - no rares, no randomness, specific content per pack. That is the reason why AGoT does not have to compete against MtG for new players or for keeping old players. If you remove that, you are left with too-complex for large market version of MtG with no real tournament support, smaller gamers base and, let's be honest, way weaker R&D deparment than WotC have. So if you try to go that way AGoT will lose its current gamers base, won't get new gamers ('cause they'll probably choose Magic anyway) and will happily collapse on itself.

mdc273 said:

Considering this is a forum for AGOT, I'm not surprised. Many of us play this game because distribution isn't random, and all we know about Magic distribution is the cards are random.

mdc273 said:

I believe that you genuinely are trying to win an internet argument that we should all quit Thrones because Magic is apparently a better game and cheaper to play. The side effect is that you've created quite possibly the largest sustained trolling ever to occur on these boards. Ever since realizing that this morning, I've been chuckling at how many threads have been spent over the subject and how many people you've pulled into your Thrones vs Magic arguments. Heck, you got me several times and even have me posting again here.

Well done, sir.

Now I have a bit more constructive suggestion regarding draft. What FFG can do is to start releasing booster packs at the same time as chapter packs. This way, people will get a chance to draft if they want to  (and those who ever drafted cube draft, regular draft, CCG draft, MtG draft, etc. will agree that it's a looot of fun!) and people who don't will just buy regular chapter packs. If FFG does it let's say for the whole cycle and finds that it makes profit this way, we'll get a drafting community going at the same time as constructed one. If not, that's life.=)

Am I understanding correctly that the suggestion is for FFG to randomly change one card in each Chapter Pack to a foil so that we're still getting 3 copies of the same 20 cards in each pack, but 1 of them happens to be a foil?

What incentive does FFG have to do that? What benefit does FFG get out of creating/supporting a trade and/or singles market for this game? They don't get a piece of that, do they? So why should they care?

If I'm not mistaken, the point of foils and other chase cards to a manufacturer like FFG is to get people to buy more packs. With the "1 in 60; random replacement of a card with a foil" distribution system, FFG would have to expect people to continue to buy the same Chapter Pack at least 20 times, at $15 a pop, trying to collect all the foils. Really? Is anyone really going to buy $300 worth of the same Chapter Pack at a minimum? Each month? The cost of single foils on a secondary market would have to be truly extravagant in order to justify such a market! The minimum price of a foil on the singles market would quickly become $15 - the price the seller effectively paid for it since the other 59 cards in the pack were just so much wasted cardboard after the first 2 or 3 copies of the chapter pack. So, your "all foil" 60-card deck is going to cost you around $900 to put together. Minimum.

So it doesn't seem likely to me that people are really going to chase these chase cards. And if people aren't really going to chase them, they're not going to buy more than the 1-3 copies of the CP they are already buying. And if that's the case, there is no incentive for FFG to do this in the first place.

Plus, I'm not convinced the game needs a trade or singles market - something I certainly haven't been missing. Honestly, if someone needs such "collectable" aspects as foils to be added to AGoT in order for them to continue to enjoy the game, they would probably be happier with a true CCG. 

While undoubtably cool, I think foils are better as game kit, regionals, and other event prizes. They'd be cool as Gencon or Worlds participation prizes, for example. Other than that, I don't see any benefit to FFG, or to the players, in making them part of the LCG distribution model.

ktom said:

Okay, let's do a redirect here and replace foils with alternate art. Apparently foils aren't as popular as I expected.

@HoyaLawya - Well done, sir? Not sure how to take that… I am not trying to get anyone in AGoT to play Magic. I am trying to get some marketability to the game so that there is potential for competition with Magic and Netrunner for popularity. AGoT is a footnote in the NYC gaming community. A tiny one.

@BBSB12 - Ironically Ktom's post here becomes a good highlight of why they shouldn't do it. The benefit is minimal to FFG, the cost is great. Whereas with a foil they would just need to figure out how to add foils to a chapter pack, with boosters they'd need to adjust their entire distribution model to support two types of purchasing methods. I'm glad someone shows interest in the idea, meaning there is merit to it (though I didn't doubt that in all honesty). I just don't think boosters would ever really work from a business standpoint.

@ Ktom - So let's talk more generically and change the general premise and then I'll get back to your post.

Let's take away foil and alternate art and the like and replace it with "collectibles". This could be a black border instead of white. It could be a mirrored card. It could really be anything. The point is to create collectability within the chapter packs. I already have one person who admits they might buy a second chapter pack if they knew there was a good chance they would either get an alternate art version of a card they like or be able to trade one they did get for it So collectibility is the main goal (not actually having rares).

Now to your post.

You also more or less are correct, but I would actually say replace 1 copy of every card with a collectible. More incentive to buy multiple packs due to consistency, but all packs ultimately have the same content. So if a person wants to create an all collectible deck for every house, they could buy the cards. If they wanted just one house, they could trade the cards. That person who bought all those collectibles might give away the non-collectibles to friends.

I also just outlined the incentive. If they make it so buying multiple packs has a benefit, people will actually do it. I truly might consider buying multiple of the more epic packs if I could work out a trade with my friends or just wanted the special cards. Imagine there are X collectibles of a card in your meta. X collectibles is not enough to satisfy demand for the collectibles. Therefore, someone is willing to go out and buy that extra CP and trade off or sell the cards to the people who want them. FFG just made $15. That should be enough incentive to look into the costs associated with it.

The 1:70 ratio is terrible, that's why I proposed a much higher ratio. Not sure if you missed that. 1:3 is probably where it would need to be. 1:2 just seems to high for collectibility, but it might work. 1:3 seems pretty high, too. There's some number that is acceptable, but not ordinary. Better to err on higher odds than lower odds at first I would think.

I can't imagine anyone actually needs collectibles to enjoy the game. I sure as hell don't. They are fun. Fun things attract more players. More players is rarely a bad thing. The point is the marketability of the game. I'm not sure if you have an amazing meta or something where you are. In NYC, the AGoT LCG meta is 1/4 - 1/5 the size of the Netrunner meta and none of them have any interest in converting. It's probably a joke compared to Magic, but I haven't gone to anything Magic related since the Manhattan FLGS closed down. This game is relatively unmarketable as it stands right now. It needs something to attract people. This would at least be a step in the right direction.

Adding to that, let's consider people actually start buying multiple chapter packs. Most people will now have extra cards. If a new player swings by, you might actually have picked up all those extra cards from someone and have an actual playable deck for them to try. You wouldn't even have to hack your decks apart to put starter decks together. There would be enough extra cards floating around the meta that you could just have starter decks sitting around. Then that player actually likes the game and you say "well take this deck and just give me it back when you make your own". This potentially creates a new, significantly lower barrier to entry. Double win. This is why I made a point of the singles/trade market.

The big question is what is the cost to do this and what are the benefits? What risks can FFG take? I doubt anyone can answer that, but would anyone really object to getting a random collectible in a chapter pack at no additional cost? Multiple random collectibles? I doubt it. And there is incentive for FFG to look into it.

Glad at least a couple people are taking my post seriously. Apparently I went overboard on the original, but meh. At least it puts something interesting on the boards! (Or so I'm told)

I don't feel a need for foils or rare search cards, but if handled the right way, I wouldn't have an issue with it either.

The LCG model got me to get back into playing cards because I wouldn't have to power-search for rare cards like a CCG. So I wouldn't mess with that model in any way. Chapter packs should still have 3 copies each of 20 new cards. Now if they wanted to toss a single "premium" card into each chapter pack, that I could live with. PROVIDED that it's just an alternate/fancy version of an already existing card--either one that's in that pack, or a previously printed one. Just alternate art/appearance, no change in game stats. So its a bonus, not something you have to search out.

That could create a bit of a singles market for LCG cards and would certainly be cool, without devaluing the LCG model. A fancy Northern Cavalry Flank would be cool to have, and I'd be stoked if I found it in a pack. I might even shell out a couple bucks to buy one. Just don't make a "Southern Cavalry Flank" for Baratheon that does the same thing, but is rare and can only be obtained if you're lucky or buy the thing. Collecting should remain option, just like the alternate house cards and other assorted swag we get. Not something required to compete in the game.

And this is all provided that implementing something like this would not raise the overall cost to the consumer.

Depends on how much room for error FFG has. After all they can try any of these suggestions for one-two cycles (or one-two packs) to figure out the community's response without adding an overcost (if FFG has money for that kind of gamble). This way you can think of any kind of experimentation as some version of game night kits. You don't have to force everyone to buy the new version of product, but offer it as a way to try to get new people in a game.

E.g., let's say a booster cycle is added to the next cycle based on same cards, but providing foils/alternative art cards/any other extra initiative to buy those (cards signed by artists/CCG days cards). It can be done in small run the same way night kits are done and I'm pretty sure that people interested in drafting and/or foils/alternative art will buy such product. So no overcost to regular CP buyers at all.

Cool, glad I finally got the concept I intended through. Much appreciated on the positive, constructive feedback. I'll keep that in mind for my next absurd post. It involves asking non-AGoT playing Netrunner players their opinions of AGoT and detailing out why myself and a friend of mine chose to quit AGoT (I've actually played again since the FAQ and am somewhat interested in the game again). I might even ask the other guys that play NR and AGoT what their opinion of both is.

Will this be a scientific, or FOX-style, poll?

Danigral said:

Can I go with a Fox-style delivery that results in much anger and then clarify it with the actual science? I mean… the trajectory of this post amused me! Why not repeat it? And it would actually be scientific. I do try to be objective even if people don't believe it.

LoL.

the alternate art cards work just fine for me, especially since you can only get them through organized play, helps add to over growth of game

response to ktom, they could do one of the cards (all 3) foil, but still dont think it makes that big a difference, i'd still rather have aternate art older cards, especialy since they did such a great job with valar and danaerys

Strategy > Hitting eBay with expendable income

Besides the theme of the game, the only reason I was even willing to try the AGoT LCG was because it wasn't a collectible card game. After working in a comic book shop in my younger days, I can think of few hobbies that enthuse me less than CCGs.

Joshaw said:

I just want to restate the whole point of the initial thread was not to change the distribution model. It was to add in a "collectible" element that creates an incentive for someone to re-purchase a pack. For example, if there was a chance of getting an alternate artwork Daeny in the second pack I might be more inclined to pick it up if I need more than 3 of any given card.