47 minutes ago, DMG said:I know there's not much to go off yet, but the favour cards have me concerned & strike me as pay-to-win.If they're included, then I won't be playing the game. Paying cash for a one use card is just plain corporate greed.
They come across to me more as "pay-for-easy-mode" than "pay-to-win". It's a co-op game after all.
3 hours ago, Seastan said:Imagine some other studio had just made this exact press release instead of FFG. Would you not cry foul, claiming that they had ripped of LOTR:TCG too closely? FFG's claim of violated copyright would be the easiest lawsuit ever filed.
Honestly? No. The design elements don't seem at all similar to LOTR to me outside the naming.
I really think you're getting hung up on the IP involved. If they'd announced this as a Runewars game we might be commenting on some of the similar mechanics and ideas, but nobody would be calling it the same game. Honestly, by your standard Arkham is the same game as LOTR - I think they have more in common than the new digital version does.
5 hours ago, Buhallin said:Depends a lot on how different the rules are, and it's hard to tell - but from what I can see/guess, there are no phases, no apparent staging area, no engagement area, a combined attack/defense, no threat on enemies... It seems like the existence of willpower will likely be a choice between using a character to add quest points and attack with them, without any effective threat. To the extent there is threat in the game, it seems likely to be a limitation on the cards the AI can play, with higher threat unlocking higher power cards. Locations sound like they're now the equivalent of quest stages, so basically no locations at all.
I guess it may depend on your definition of "tweaked" - if you think hamburger is just tweaked steak, then yeah, it's a tweaked LOTR LCG.
Look at it another way - if they had announced this as a Star Wars game where the Empire AI played enemies for you to fight while your heroes built up Rebellion points to complete objectives, would you say "Hey, that sounds like LOTR!"? I have a hard time seeing that. The similarities would be vague outlines, at best. You might say "That concept sounds like they brought it over from LOTR", but you certainly wouldn't be saying "They remade LOTR with Star Wars skins!"
Well, this is the same game with the same name, same components, same environment, same but watered down rules. Yep, it's tweaked LotR LCG.
3 hours ago, Seastan said:They come across to me more as "pay-for-easy-mode" than "pay-to-win". It's a co-op game after all.
Pay to win is general term for selling power within the game, and selling power is rarely healthy. Let me put it that way, in the best-case scenario selling power is ineffective, in any other it is damaging.
Anyway, I will be buying the game as soon as it hits the Steam and digging deep into it. Cept for the case when they put an unreasonable price tag on it, which is not uncommon given the place I live. We tend to get a lot of euro prices here with the neglect to our paying ability.
Edited by John ConstantineI'm burnt-out on the micro-transaction / cash-shop model after playing Elder Scrolls Online since beta. So the favour cards put me on the defensive.
I have no problems with paying for set expansions (same as the current LCG format), but I won't be paying for single-use cards or gamble crates etc.
Let's hope FFG pleasantly surprises me.
i don't know about the rest of you, but when i heard about the digital edition i thought great but then when i saw it was based like hearthstone i was under whelmed i was thinks of something a little more interesting and deserving of the LCG, i was hoping of something along the lines of an interactive game map where you select you quest and join others on an online-multi-player or local area network to beat the quest, similar to what octgn does with there table top only with more automation to make it easier for new players, for example when sending characters to the quest it does all the maths for you but it gives you a cut scene or something for your characters going to the quest either traveling through the location or battling enemies along the way that would be great. i did not really like hearthstone it seemed to little bang for the buck i played it cant say i enjoyed it that much but there is so much more they could have done with it, i love the LOTR LCG and will continue to buy and play it but i don't think i will look at this version of it, it doesn't seem to do the LOTR LCG justice.
18 hours ago, Muco said:I am excited about this. I stopped playing the game because I only played with my brother once or twice every Christmas when we would meet at home. Now we ll be playing it all the time. I just hope it is as challenging and interesting. Also I hope that FFG will not go full greed on this one. The "favor" cards for example are a red flag. I hope they are completlely unecessary.
On the technical side I hope I see amazing visuals, music (although I am sure I ll be playing Howard Shire as I did with the physical one) and of course voice lines for all the characters. The one silly thing that I dont like is the logo. The original is so amazing? Why change it?
Me.
i own a lot of this game, seldom get to play anymore (kids). That is going to change thanks to this.
11 hours ago, John Constantine said:Well, this is the same game with the same name, same components, same environment, same but watered down rules. Yep, it's tweaked LotR LCG.
See, I really don't know where people are getting this.
Name? OK, sure, but irrelevant.
Components? The cards are notably different, not even having the same stats (no defense, HP values so different they really aren't the same). Sphere means something completely different. We haven't seen game text yet, but I could name a dozen off the top of my head that can't be the same just with what we know of the new rules.
Same environment? How? Sure, there's a place where enemy cards goes, but that doesn't make it a staging area. There are no engagement areas. There are no locations.
Watered down rules? Generally agree here, but there's a point where the rules stop being watered down and are just different.
The only way anything between these two games are the "same" is if you make the definitions so broad as to be meaningless. "Components"? OK, so you have cards with an attack value and a questing value, and hit points. You have some form of progress token, and you have some form of damage token. I'm describing a game here, can you tell which one?
Again - if they'd skinned this on Star Wars and called it a revival of the first-gen SWLCG, you'd never connect it to LOTR.
Edited by BuhallinDude. This game was literally built on LotR LCG. You can't claim to be completely different game from the game it was built on and evolved from.
31 minutes ago, John Constantine said:Dude. This game was literally built on LotR LCG. You can't claim to be completely different game from the game it was built on and evolved from.
Why not? Arkham was obviously built on and evolved from LOTR. You can very clearly see the elements that Matt introduced to LOTR before moving to Arkham. The broad outlines are the same. That doesn't make them the same game. What matters is the mechanics. Again, I've asked repeatedly - looking at what we know of the games, if you were handed this to playtest - no art, no names, just "Character A", "Enemy B", "Objective Z", would you recognize it as LOTR?
AT BEST it's a completely new version of the game. Which still makes it a different game.
Let's try the flip side - I've pointed out any number of things that make it different. What makes it the same? I don't mean silly broad stuff like "It has resources!" or "It still has spheres!", because FFG has factions in all their card games, whatever they happen to be called. Looking at what we know, can you list a few rules that transfer identically?
2 minutes ago, Buhallin said:Why not? Arkham was obviously built on and evolved from LOTR. You can very clearly see the elements that Matt introduced to LOTR before moving to Arkham. The broad outlines are the same. That doesn't make them the same game. What matters is the mechanics. Again, I've asked repeatedly - looking at what we know of the games, if you were handed this to playtest - no art, no names, just "Character A", "Enemy B", "Objective Z", would you recognize it as LOTR?
AT BEST it's a completely new version of the game. Which still makes it a different game.
Let's try the flip side - I've pointed out any number of things that make it different. What makes it the same? I don't mean silly broad stuff like "It has resources!" or "It still has spheres!", because FFG has factions in all their card games, whatever they happen to be called. Looking at what we know, can you list a few rules that transfer identically?
I don't need to, because argument is about it being a completely different game, and to be completely different game it needs to absolutely deviate from the concept of the LotR of the Rings (I did that on purpose), which it doesn't.
1 hour ago, John Constantine said:I don't need to, because argument is about it being a completely different game, and to be completely different game it needs to absolutely deviate from the concept of the LotR of the Rings (I did that on purpose), which it doesn't.
You do realize that it's utterly impossible for any two games to be completely different by this definition, right?
Edited by Buhallin
1 minute ago, Buhallin said:Reductio ad absurdum - not a Harry Potter spell!
LotR LCG DIgital - not a completely different game! 
Sorry, edited to be slightly more productive.
But it's a ludicrous standard that hides behind pedantic absolutism.
I guess we could call it "A game that's so different you'd never ever think it was the same game unless marketing helpfully pointed it out for you", but that's a bit more painful to type.
9 minutes ago, Buhallin said:Sorry, edited to be slightly more productive.
But it's a ludicrous standard that hides behind pedantic absolutism.
I guess we could call it "A game that's so different you'd never ever think it was the same game unless marketing helpfully pointed it out for you", but that's a bit more painful to type.
But it is not just about marketing. Same cards with same names and same art, same(ish) abilities, etc.
16 minutes ago, John Constantine said:But it is not just about marketing. Same cards with same names and same art, same(ish) abilities, etc.
This makes X-wing and the SWLCG "not completely different" games too. That feels right to you?
1 minute ago, Buhallin said:This makes X-wing and the SWLCG "not completely different" games too. That feels right to you?
X-wing wasn't based on SWLCG and doesn't use it's rules and content as basis. You're just being silly now.
Just now, John Constantine said:X-wing wasn't based on SWLCG and doesn't use it's rules and content as basis. You're just being silly now.
I just applied the standard you presented. It's not my fault you can't come up with a distinguishing standard that actually works with any other system.
Just now, Buhallin said:I just applied the standard you presented. It's not my fault you can't come up with a distinguishing standard that actually works with any other system.
I think I just did 
36 minutes ago, sappidus said:
I'm absolutely insanely bad at international time, might you tell me exactly how much time needs to pass from the your post for it to be 1 PM CST?
18 hours from the time of his:her post
8 hours ago, Ywingscum said:18 hours from the time of his:her post
Thank you kind sir!
This news has me pulling my LoTR cards off the shelf, dusting them off, giving the rules another read and give the game another go. I put it away a couple years ago, perhaps that was a mistake.
So, stream should start any minute now?
12 minutes ago, John Constantine said:So, stream should start any minute now?
Current central time is 11:28 am, so 1 and a half hours to 1 pm
Edited by Ywingscum