Hello everyone, I've played for the game for several years but I am new to the forums here. One thing that has been in the back of my mind since shortly after I started playing this game was whether we would ever develop specific terms to describe the overall strategic stances of different decks. It's similar to how Magic: the Gathering and Hearthstone have names for their deck archetypes: :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_deck_types. I know we already have some terminology we've been using for a long time such as action advantage, resource acceleration, and ally mustering. There are even times when I have seen players using terms like "aggro" or "support" to describe their decks. On the Reddit forums, I replied to another player who asked a question in this vein concerning what the different deck types have been throughout this game's history. With a lengthy post, I explained my personal observations regarding how some of the same deck types described by Magic's terminology are also present in the LotR LCG. You can find my post here if you want to read the entire thing https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrlcg/comments/50zl27/deck_archetypes_throughout_the_games_history/. Fast forward two weeks, and there was a post on Peace and Thought where the writer posed the question of whether we need terminology to describe the workings and orientations of decks like other ccgs do: http://www.peaceandthought.com/voices-at-the-door/deck-terminology/. To me it has always been an interesting question to ponder, and I will give a brief run-down of the categories of deck types I have witnessed. First there is Aggro, starting the game running, gaining initial momentum from strong heroes, and embracing combat as a given. A deck that has Boromir, Beorn, and Arwen as heroes might well follow this approach. There is the Tempo deck, which is fueled by the efficient play and synergy linking it's cards together. Silvan decks and other ally leave play decks are usually seen in this category. Ramp decks focus on using card draw and resource acceleration to advance in the game and outpace/outgun the encounter deck, normally ending with a swarm of allies. Many decks like that have been built, with Dwarves, Outlands, Gondor, etc. Then there is Control, which intends to disrupt and weaken the encounter deck or staging area's propensity for harm. With Forest Snare, Ranger Spikes, recurring A Test of Will, Secret Paths, Risk Some Light, Thror's Key, Burning Brand and The Door is Closed, the ways of doing this have only increased. In solo play, a devoted Control deck wouldn't fare well in all quests, but in multiplayer there could be deck space available to devote to denying some of the pain the encounter deck dishes out. Alternatively, one could employ some aspects of Control while playing any of the other deck types above. This could take the form of a Leadership Gondor deck that also uses traps to hinder and weaken enemies. This in between style could be called Midrange. Don't forget Support, those decks are tailored for multiplayer where they give other players card draw, resource acceleration, healing, stat buffing, and all sorts of goodies. They contribute to the victory by contributing a lot to the other players. Perhaps Combo is a type as well, seeing as how there have been strong decks that heavily rely on Steward of Gondor plus Gondorian Fire or Blood of Numenor or other strong, spammable combos. So I have a few questions. Do you see it as useful or as unnecessary to develop strategic categories to describe our decks in this game? Do you think the categories I described correspond to how decks are built and played in this game? Are there additional deck types you can think of or other ways of describing our decks? Please, share your perspectives and give me feedback.

Line breaks, dude.

I don't think LotR really benefits from that type of categorization, except for the very broad categorizations of Combat, Support, and Questing. I reluctantly add Griefing since some people get their jollies from that kind of thing.

I think that is a bit difficult to do by the nature of the game for a couple of reasons.

1. 50 card minimums and 3x card limits really limit your ability to focus intensely on 1 or 2 mechanics.

2. Unlike most competetive card games, you can't just find that one or two mechanics to shut your opponent's deck down...decks have to be more balanced to do many things. This is more true the better the designs have gotten. In the generally poor designs of Heirs of Numenor and some of the Mirkwood cycle quests, you almost did have to build your deck to do one or two things extremely well to combat the encounter deck's mechanics, but now you have to pay attention to everything.

​I consider those good things by the way, makes for a more thematic and balanced play experience... but it's not like you can make an "opponent discard choke deck".


​With that said, I find myself categorizing decks in certain ways.

​1. co-op or solo - probably the biggest distinction. Many decks can do ok in both but almost always are better in one, while some decks are very specialized to either solo or co-op play.

​2. Combat or Questing - These are the two main mechanics of the game. I find that a lot of my 2 hand fellowships that are successful feature decks that do atleast a little of both, but tend to specialize one way or the other. Sometimes this gets hazy sometimes... like right now where I have a "questing" Dunedain deck that wants to engage enemies to help convert enemies into willpower, and a "combat" Ranger/trap deck that softens up/manages the enemies with traps as they engage the Dunedain, and then destroys from afar with range when necessary. However, I still tend to call one my quester and the other my fighter.

​3. Beyond this, I tend to classify by archetype mainly, although this might be due to the types of decks I tend to build.

​Here are some examples:

​a. Dunedain - convert engaged enemies to board advantage
​b. Ithilien Ranger - manage enemies in staging with traps and tricks
​c. Dwarves, Outlands - unlock advantages through ally swarm
​d. Sylvan - allies in and out of play advantage
e. Noldor - draw/discard for advantage
​f. Gondor - strong hero defense and resource acceleration (diluted by the Steward of Gondor card not being Gondor specific)

​I recognize there are also decks built along mechanical lines not closely associated with archetypes as well.

I agree it's possibly to classify decks according to composition and effect, and that may be interesting and possible even useful to some.

As Gunslinger83 said, the most significant distinction is solo vs multiplayer. I think there's actually three kinds of decks:

1) Decks built to be a viable solo deck.

2) Decks built to play with other specific decks.

3) Decks built to be played in an unknown multiplayer environment.

ringsdb's "fellowship" feature links the second class together, but telling #1 from #3 can usually be done by looking at the decklist and heroes.

Beyond that, I don't think there's much value in trying to apply outside terms like Control or Ramp to the game, especially since (with the possible exception of Aggro) those terms aren't already being used. It may be true that a Boromir deck is likely to be aggro, but "Boromir deck" conveys more information than aggro already, and "super-Boromir deck" conveys even more. Likewise a Three Rings deck is going to be aggressive and combo-rific, but "Three Rings Deck" already conveys a wealth of information that "Aggro" or "Combo" would not, and just from the name I can make a guess on how the contents and playstyle of the deck are going to be compared to an equally aggressive super-Boromir.

I'd agree that the most important distinction is solo vs muliplayer, devided into the 3 groups dalestephenson mentioned.

Apart from the player count, I see the following deck types:

1) Thematic - These decks don't focus on mechanics, but on the flavor of the cards (e.g. Fatty Bolger would NEVER be Steward of Gondor).

2) Traits/Mechanics - Decks that look to play cards that share a specific trait and cards that work well this this trait. As most traits have their own remarkable mechanics I'd say a trait deck is a sub-form of a mechanic deck.

3) Combo - Decks that look to get specific cards in their hand or play. Put in an exaggerated way they would cut their deck down to 5 cards (their "combo pieces"), because that's all they want.

4) Effects - Decks, which Cards have similiar effects (e.g. direct damage). They don't rely on drawing specific Cards (so no combo deck) as most of the deck serves the same purpose. They don't share a trait or mechanic, but have the same effect (e.g. Thalin has to quest, gondorian spearman has to block, but both deal direct damage etc.)

5) Others - Decks just build to play. You like Hama, Frodo and Berevor and want to build a deck with them.

Some deck types might be better for sure and especially Combo-decks can really steamroll most quests if they get "the Combo" into Play early on, but as this is a coop game you can find al types of decks.

One last Thing: WingfootRanger, you should try to use more paragraphs your post is really hard to read (for me).

i like Calvadur's dalestephenson's categories.

i'd also expand upon dale's Decks to be played in an unknown multiplayer environment and talk about deck roles

i liken them to classes from mmorpgs, mobas, or class/team based shooters like overwatch and team fortress 2

there are i think 3 primary roles for this game: questing, defending, and attacking power, and i think they are relatively self-explanatory.

i think that a lot of decks generally tend to focus on all 3 and attempt to be self-sufficient. in a multiplayer environment, it's easier to build a deck that focuses more on 1 or 2 of these roles.

there are secondary archetypes, like card draw, healing, action advantage, and resource acceleration, that don't really fit into a role themselves, but fit under the umbrella of a fourth role in multiplayer: support.

the support deck i feel may lack considerably in questing, defending, or attacking (but realistically will likely contribute to this in some significant way) but also perform a role of offering card draw, healing, action advantage, and/or resource acceleration for other players.

and then maybe a jack-of-all-trades deck that has no real primary role, or maybe one primary role but a lot of secondary roles, but i think the main thing is what primary and what secondary support roles the deck fills

I'd agree that the most important distinction is solo vs muliplayer, devided into the 3 groups dalestephenson mentioned.

Apart from the player count, I see the following deck types:

1) Thematic - These decks don't focus on mechanics, but on the flavor of the cards (e.g. Fatty Bolger would NEVER be Steward of Gondor).

2) Traits/Mechanics - Decks that look to play cards that share a specific trait and cards that work well this this trait. As most traits have their own remarkable mechanics I'd say a trait deck is a sub-form of a mechanic deck.

3) Combo - Decks that look to get specific cards in their hand or play. Put in an exaggerated way they would cut their deck down to 5 cards (their "combo pieces"), because that's all they want.

4) Effects - Decks, which Cards have similiar effects (e.g. direct damage). They don't rely on drawing specific Cards (so no combo deck) as most of the deck serves the same purpose. They don't share a trait or mechanic, but have the same effect (e.g. Thalin has to quest, gondorian spearman has to block, but both deal direct damage etc.)

5) Others - Decks just build to play. You like Hama, Frodo and Berevor and want to build a deck with them.

Some deck types might be better for sure and especially Combo-decks can really steamroll most quests if they get "the Combo" into Play early on, but as this is a coop game you can find al types of decks.

One last Thing: WingfootRanger, you should try to use more paragraphs your post is really hard to read (for me).

​I would also add that thematic is sort of a "meta" value and can be applied to any of the above. For example, I prefer to build trait decks, but I will typically select a slightly less powerful card if it's thematically more satisfying than it's counterpart.

​Thankfully, the current card pool makes it a heck of a lot easier to build and play "thematic" decks of all types nowadays.

Thank you all for your replies, they all make alot of sense. It is definitely the case that "Boromir deck" and "ranger trap deck" communicate more information than simply saying aggro or control, and that solo vs multiplayer denotes the most significant fundamental differences between decks. It seems that the terms we are already using are sufficient.

There also the disctintion between decks that are made for normal and nightmare modes (most of the decks that beat normal quests really struggle with nightmare quests).