Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7664411" data-attributes="member: 996">Support.  It's easier to de-bunk a claim of proof, though, so I can see why you'd keep changing that.  Your implication is that somehow Encounters is going to unduly skew things.  There's no way of being sure of that.  Encounters exists, so did LFR and the Pathfinder society.  Bias existed in some FLGSs - one of the 3 in my area wouldn't touch encounters and had lots of listings on Warhorn.  There's all kinds of maybes about that data.  If you care to discount it entirely, like [MENTION=30170]sailo[/MENTION]r_Moon did, that's your prerogative.  Remain unconvinced by some of the rare actual numbers we have to work with. Sure, Paizo says they were selling oodles of stuff on their website not counted by Icv2.  And, sure, maybe Essentials cannibalized it's own sales with the on-line DDI tools, which were left, likewise, out of Icv2, but - if the wizards community group counter was to be believed - would have added up to millions.  But do we have independent data about either of those things?  No. Yes, exactly.  The same data can support a variety of equally valid scenarios. Or you can believe whoever at WotC is crowing about how each new edition is a huge success.  Neither of them gave numbers, let alone numbers that could be independently verified.</blockquote>