Just thought I should chime in and point out that we actually already have products 63 and 64 as standalone scenarios being belegost and murder. That leaves 7 slots (65 - 71) for another cycle plus deluxe. I kept seeing people mention 9 slots, but there's only 7.

2 hours ago, Willange said:

Just thought I should chime in and point out that we actually already have products 63 and 64 as standalone scenarios being belegost and murder. That leaves 7 slots (65 - 71) for another cycle plus deluxe. I kept seeing people mention 9 slots, but there's only 7.

Aha! Good catch.

I really thought I was going to like AH LCG, but I began to dread all of the overhead required to play. I doubt we will ever get a reboot, but if we do I hope it's not like AH. LOTR is much more abstract and strategic than AH and I like that. AH is more tactical and immediate.

The game has been dying since it was born.

On 7/27/2017 at 6:16 AM, sappidus said:

I never particularly welcome seeing any "dead/dying/DEATH??" posts -- no offense to OP, but what *is* it about this game that spurs these thoughts?

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the question at all. As for what it is that invites the question:

- Saga is a bounded product set, and soon to be complete
- There's already a huge amount of content for the game, and entry is daunting for new players
- 5-6 years seems like a good lifecycle for FFG products
- FFG has other products in a similar vein (Arkham Horror) with obvious inspiration from LOTR
- Content we do get is getting more and more fringe. Hardcore Tolkien fans may recognize the Gray Havens or Harad, and the characters with them, but many don't.
- Pace of new content has been cut in half, once Saga is done it'll be running about 30% of what it was a few years ago
- Mechanics are reaching the limit of what they can do with the structure. They're still finding new ways to break molds, but only so much of that

In most games, doomsaying comes about because people are unhappy. "I don't like what they've done, so nobody else will either!! The game's doomed!" That really doesn't seem to be the case here. People in the game love the game, including the ones who look at the state and think it's winding down. It's not some left-field invented prediction of doom. Maybe three cycles ago, but today? Honestly, there's more evidence that the game's close to done than there is that it's got another 3-4 cycles to go.

Sadly, while the origin of the "doomsaying" is different, the defensive responses seem to be very much the same.

2 hours ago, Bullroarer Took said:

I really thought I was going to like AH LCG, but I began to dread all of the overhead required to play.

I'm curious what overhead you mean? I know a lot of the reasons people don't like AH, but this is a new one?

I mean the setup time and keeping track of experience. I know that AH is young, but I didn't enjoy it as a solo game and playing it double fisted was really not for me. (I didn't really mind the chaos bag though many others did.)

I think Bulhallin's point are all pretty spot on... I'm sure the change in release tempo, end of the Saga boxes, lack of hard info on a next cycle and the LCG distribution model in general all play a role in stirring up "game is dying" sentiments, but I think a lot is also just worrying about how long such a good thing can last and steeling your self for the end, so it hurts a bit less.

My solace is that with the success of LOTR, and now AH, I find it pretty likely that there will be a co-op/solo LCG in the line up for a very long time and that, just as AH grew out of LOTR, something new will be inspired from AH.

As an aside... when the game does end, would folks rather see a pretty quick reboot/2nd Ed (like GoT) or let LOTR rest and see a new co-op/solo LCG emerge? Obviously there a ton of other possibilities besides these two, but they seem like the most generally desirable outcomes of LOTR ending.

I'm honestly not sure how I'd feel about a 2nd Edition for LOTR. To be honest, I don't really think the game needs it. While there are a few balance issues, they don't bother me the way they seem to some.

The game certainly isn't in a broken enough state to need a reboot. I don't think there's much to be improved by a new edition, and if they were to reboot it now, it would need to be something dramatically different to feel like anything but a cash grab.

Agreed. While I'd be said to see it end, if it has to then I'd rather they explore new horizons. Going straight back into ME with it pretty well explored in the current edition would feel a bit off.

5 hours ago, Trialus said:

As an aside... when the game does end, would folks rather see a pretty quick reboot/2nd Ed (like GoT) or let LOTR rest and see a new co-op/solo LCG emerge? Obviously there a ton of other possibilities besides these two, but they seem like the most generally desirable outcomes of LOTR ending.

Personally I do not want a reboot, for entirely selfish reasons. I still have years worth of unplaced scenarios ahead of me, and I hate the idea of the rest of the community going off and playing v2.0 while I am stuck playing v1.0 by myself! Basically I don't like the idea of investing so much time and money into a game only to have it made obsolete overnight.

In any case, I agree with previous commenters who have pointed out that the game is not broken, and therefore doesn't need a reboot.

I wouldn't mind a reboot that was backwards compatible, but that would difficult to manage and calls into question the necessity for a reboot. If there's an incompatible LOTR LCG 2.0, I would prefer the setting be incompatible -- ideally in the time of the Silmarillion, but with rights to that not at all likely, perhaps set at the end of the second age and beginning of the third age, where we have Appendices content to fall back on. (I'd also love to see a new saga set at this time.)

The end of the saga will (necessarily) slow down the release of content, and Harad seems to be coming out more slowly than a regular deluxe. But the game began before there were any rights to a saga, so I don't think the saga's end presages the end of the game.

The amount of content available must be daunting for new players, yet it seems like there's a continual stream of new players posting on boardgamegeek. With the next cycle set in the Hobbit's old stomping grounds, we're not in unfamiliar territory, and there's still other places we haven't seen that I'd like to see.

How the game's longevity compares to other LCGs I don't know. Because the player card pool grows so slowly, I'm curious how the number of distinct player cards compares to other active/retired FFG LCGs, I'd be surprised if it were at the top. And the cooperative nature of the game makes all player cards relevant in a way that's not true in a competitive game.

All things come to end sometime, especially licensed products. But without knowledge of the licensing situation at all and only a vague impression of the financials, I must say that I don't see a sag either in popularity or quality of new releases to think that the end *should* come soon.

Not sure if I'd buy a reboot or not. That would greatly depend on the types of changes they made. I would like to be able to play the stealth side of the game a little more without my threat just ticking up and up and up because I keep sneaking past the enemies rather than kill them. Big systems changes like that, if they enable more diverse approaches to various quests, would be welcome and would probably justify a new edition.

But even assuming new systems were in place, I sort of feel like this current edition might continue to be enough for me. My main enjoyment in this game comes from making themed decks and just enjoying being the in LOTR universe. I love that a new Ent hero is coming because now my Ent deck can get even more thematic! An eagle hero would have me revisiting my eagle themed decks. As long as they continue to reinforce strong themes, I'll be more than happy with the game as it now is I think. Because of this, I think I would also need this edition to die for a few years at least before I'd be motivated to buy into a new edition of it, but even then that's only a maybe. If they ever do make a 2nd edition, then I certainly hope it would do well.

I'd like to see a Core Set 2, that is better balanced for new players and gives them an easy entry point into the modern card pool. If it happened to include rebalanced versions of cards like Steward of Gondor or Glorfindel (either version) I certainly wouldn't complain. No need to errata the old versions, just let them coexist and players can use whichever version they prefer. I'd also be okay with them doing a few major rule tweaks so long as the older cards remain playable under the new rules.

But I don't think the game needs a full 2.0 reboot, honestly, just a better way to enter the game.

I'd like to see :

- 1 or 2 Saga Expansions focused on The War of the Ring and expanding Campaign Mode

- a Print on Demand set of quest cards only, reusing existing encounter sets from the whole collection of expansion to build new scenarios

- a Print on Demand with side quests for the early cycles, when Side Quests did not exist

- a Core Set-sized expansion with a generic campaign mode, boons, burdens

On 8/1/2017 at 7:28 AM, dalestephenson said:

With the next cycle set in the Hobbit's old stomping grounds, we're not in unfamiliar territory, and there's still other places we haven't seen that I'd like to see.

Apologies if this is a stupid question, but how do you know this?

Crossing of Poros (final Harad quest) was accidentally leaked in Europe. It hints where we will be going next.

7 hours ago, banania said:

I'd like to see :

- 1 or 2 Saga Expansions focused on The War of the Ring and expanding Campaign Mode

- a Print on Demand set of quest cards only, reusing existing encounter sets from the whole collection of expansion to build new scenarios

- a Print on Demand with side quests for the early cycles, when Side Quests did not exist

- a Core Set-sized expansion with a generic campaign mode, boons, burdens

All this seem very great but I don't think there is any chance they do something like that. It is only material for people who get everything, have already play to everything and want to mix some experiences. It is even more specific than nightmare packs. The saga you mention seem the most plausible and it is perfect since it is also the most exciting stuff to me in your list :).

I agree with you :-)

Was just listing wishes but I have no illusion for them to be being ever printed, except as you mentioned, The War of the Ring stuff.

The good point is that we don't fully rely on developer to make adventures. We can create our own cards :).

I've played this game since the beginning. I own everything. Most of the adventures are on a box in the back of the closet. For the last 4 years, I have had exactly 2 decks that work in tandem beautifully and the only time I ever change cards out is when something is released that is definably better than a card in one of the decks. I've tried building other decks but nothing really matches the pair my wife and I play routinely, against the scenarios that are either the most fun, the most challenging, or both. Out of roughly 40 scenarios, I would say about 10 have stood the test of time.

So yes, we love this game at my house but seeing it come to an end won't impact that in the slightest. It's had a great run and they've done a great job with it overall. It's okay with me if they decide to stop. I'd be able to try out some of the other games they are making.

On 9.8.2017 at 7:00 PM, banania said:

I'd like to see :

- a Print on Demand set of quest cards only, reusing existing encounter sets from the whole collection of expansion to build new scenarios

I would like to see just quests too, with or without existing encounter-decks. And I think people would buy them more then nightmares. Personaly, I've everything that is released besides nightmares..

I would not buy a 2.0

I've so much content still to play I'll be playing 1.0 for years and will always buy 1.0 packs but a reboot would stop me buying. I would steer my money elsewhere.

A new coop lcg in another setting may well get bought by me depending on the setting.

I love the idea of the adventures that mix older encounter sets

I would definately be interested in buying a pack of rebalanced and updated versions of older player cards instead of a 2.0. I really feel that completely over/under powered card don't contribute to a fun game.

I have been using the rebalanced cards from the rework projekt (available here on the forums and linked from Hall of Beorn's blog). But the perfectionist and rules lawyer in me would be more at rest with an official release.

22 hours ago, Boris_the_Dwarf said:

I have had exactly 2 decks that work in tandem beautifully and the only time I ever change cards out is when something is released that is definably better than a card in one of the decks.

...Out of roughly 40 scenarios, I would say about 10 have stood the test of time.

Do you mind posting the two decks (or at least the archetype and the used heroes)? As well as your 10 quests? I'd love top hear about them.