Well, here are some of the fantasy books I like:

Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun (and pretty much any of his novels)

Neil Gaiman anything. Started with Sandman, and have enjoyed the rest of his work.

Steven Brust's Jherig and the Vlad Taltos novels, but more for fun than serious reading. Doesn't hurt that we're both from Minnesota.

Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire

Sheri S Tepper The True Game books (Kings' Blood Nine, Mavin Manyshapes, Jinian Farseerer, etc). Actaully, I'll read anything of Tepper's, she's an amazing author.

Martha Wells Element of Fire, Death of the Necromancer and the Fall of Il-Rein series.

Sharon Shinn Archangel books (which could be argued are sci-fi, but actually are closer to fantasy-romance, yet incredibly good).

I'm really not much of a fantasy fan. Tolkein to me is word heavy, and the glut of Dragaonlance style fantasy in the late 80s-early 90s turned me off of fantasy for a long time. I'me more of a sci-fi fan, and really into cyberpunk (Gibson, Walter Jon Williams, etc), though lately I've been reading different genres of stories, and tend to like particular authors more than, say, a setting. Jonathan Carroll is one of my favorites, and I'm really enjoying Richard Powers, who books I guess would actually be defined as literature as opposed to a specific genre.

Thanks for the explanations and the book list!

So, yes, it actually sounds like I might enjoy the 'A Game of Thrones' novels (and thus maybe the LCG, as well).

Sorry for the threadjack!

Hey, I've been known to hijack my own thread. It's thread-volution!

Besides, if it gets someone to read A Song of Ice and Fire, it is totally worth it.

I will alway and forever love Tolkien. I won't apologize for that! I like Terry Brooks a lot. I sorta liked the Eragon books by Chris Paolini. They were Ok. I've read a little Terry Pratchett. My latest favorite author (other than Martin) is Bernard Cornwell. I'm on the 5th book in the Saxon series. I'm -really- enjoying these books. I'm also anxiously awaiting Patrick Rothfuss' follow up to "The Name of the Wind". Rothfuss has a super intelligent way of phrasing that I just can't get enough of. He could write a cookbook that would be impossible to put down

jhaelen, I also encourage you to read A Song of Ice and Fire books. Also, remember, that you can try AGOT LCG for free by printing demo deck.

My best ever story is The Witcher saga by Andrzej Sapkowski. If you happen to find translation check it out. Although I'm not sure if translation don't spoil this wonderful piece of art.

Regarding SW LCG I don't believe it can happen, but who knows? Decipher's SWCCG was the best game ever created in my humble opinion. And it's hard to believe that someone will create as good game as it was - but on the other hand, FFG created AGOT LCG, so maybe they can surprise me.

Rogue30 said:

Thanks for pointing this out, I'll have a look at it!

What I'd really like them to do with a new LCG is two opposing factions (or two kinds of factions) that have completely different goals, use different kinds of cards and play different from each other. I'm imagining something like the NetRunner CCG:

In Netrunner the Corporation faction is trying to develop it's hidden agendas, hiding them behind ICE software, distributed over several nodes. The Runners try to hack into these nodes and steal the agendas before this happens.

I could imagine a similar setup for a Star Wars LCG. The rebels (-> runners) should work quite differently from the Imperium (-> corporation).

Alternatively, I would really enjoy a new LCG that is designed to be played by more than two people. While most CCGs/LCGs have multi-player rules, they usually have a 'tacked-on' feeling, imho. One example for a game that works better with more than two players would be the Illuminati CCG.

regardless of what they for the next LCG (and I can't wait to see), it needs to be designed to accomodate 3-4 players.

I would really suggest for Fantasy Flight to aquire both the Star Trek and Star Wars rights and then proceed to pay Decipher something of a kickback to be able to use some of their design and rules for the LCG.

Both games were popular. Star Trek fell off because it was far too rare and rule intensive for new players to get into. Star Wars imploded like the Death Star because Wizards were able to steal it away from them and killed the franchise. People believe to this day it was because Star Wars had begun to outsell Magic for some months of the year.

In Europe, Star Trek is not a good licence. But Star Wars miam miam

If we're throwing out SciFi ideas then why not Dune? Another amazing classic and you have plenty of factions to work with. Or something more lighthearted perhaps Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Okay, I would very likely play a Hitchhiker's LCG. Babel fish in every deck!

Star Wars LCG, but centred in IV-VI movie... And with illustration, no movie photo... Enjoy With a good system

And GOOD fluff pllzzzzz!

Here's my two cents....

No SW LCG. Star Wars has been done to death. Come out with something new. An LCG in the Twilight Imperium universe would be cool. A fresh and new story. I also think having some cool fluff would rock. I would love to read stories about the cards also.

As for type of LCG, I would like it to be a space conquest game. Something similar to the Eve CCG. I liked controlling the ships and having to mine for resources.

JerusalemJones said:

After 33 years, I'm sick of Star Wars. BSG on the other hand.

I really want to see FFG take the Warhammer 40K and Star Trek liceneses into the LCG format. That would please me no end.

i've said it before, but since it was brought up again I'd be more the nhappy with a star trek LCG!

I'm not a trekkie, but I agree Star Trek would be a nice fit for an LCG. BSG would also be a natural fit for a 2-player, but it would be nice to see an LCG which was designed for more players. My typical gaming groups hover around 3-5 players available at a time, buy board games take up so much space

Licenses I wouldn't expect to work in this format are Futurama, Discworld and Smurfs. But you never know

Oh, I bet I could come up with a Futurama LCG. And it would be far, far superior to WotC's Simpsons ccg they came out with in 2003. And good (the two are not automatically mutual).

There is a part of me that is wondering if they might try to do an RTS LCG based on Starctraft. I know that is one of the things that many gaming companies have beent ryiong to accomplish in the last few years. I mean, how exactly would you try to do an RTS card game?

evilidler said:

DO WANT O_O

The_Big_Show said:

I'd just like to add that if FFG did decide to try for the license and make a Star Trek LCG, please make it universe prime not the alternate timeline from the JJ movie (though do an expansion set on it by all means). I want to continue the exploits of Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer in LCG format. Thank you.

No matter what FFG does or doesn't do, there will always some permutation of the Star Wars license popping up in tabletop format. All the same, I think it would be an excellent license to secure, if indeed Lucasfilm is in the market for selling it again.

Agreed.

Toqtamish said:

Epic fail

locohost said:

I think the biggest problem FFG would have (after acquiring the license) would be choosing which edition to use. Assuming they went the “Dead Card Game” design route.

I mean you have Deciphers CCG. I haven't played it, but I have read the rules and it seem WAY more complicated than you would expect a two player “kill the other guy” card game to be. Which is enough of a first play shock to turn off a lot of people who aren't into heavy rules, or a large amount of card and number management. Although I can see where once you've adjusted to that, that the game could be very enjoyable. I mean it takes great strides to make itself play like a full galactic space epic.

Now, WotC TCG didn't have that grand of scale. I've played this one, and I really enjoy it. If you have ever played WotC Star Wars minis game, you've pretty much played this, with a few modifications to the rules, for instance victory is obtained the same way as in Warhammer: Invasion but it's based on who has a unit in that area and who doesn't. But looking at the unit cards for this game, and comparing them to the minis reference cards, your looking at a lot of the same information that's just modified to not use a grid. The draw to this is that it is quick to pick up, and quick to play. It adds a luck mechanic in that dice rolling, in combination with card draw, can completely turn the tide. Compared to the CCG, the games are much quicker, yet still satisfying win or lose.

So I mean it probably comes down to marketing. How many people would be willing to play either of these as a LCG. The TCG seems more marketable just because it can be picked up and explained quickly. And as far as the CCG fans go, most of them still regularly meet up and play with their current collections. But if they where willing to buy new cards using the same system, they might swing with that.

Either way, some sort of Sci-Fi LCG would feel really good right about now. Even if they went way out of left field and asked James Cameron for the right to one of his works. XD