For those that haven't seen it, here's the designer journal where Caleb makes some comments about LoTR LCG (scroll to bottom). Click here

Essentially he's making the point that he's considering some sort of campaign play.

Just to say that I'd favour that. The game is 6 or so years old with thousands of player cards and the equivalent of about 11 - 12 full cycles. Something I struggle with is how much more of the same do I really need?

I know it's controversial, but I personally think the card game is ready for a change and perhaps bring some of the best of AH TCG into it. I'd be up for a 2nd edition - I don't see it as invalidating what I've already bought at all, but rather enhancing it.

So do you want a 2nd edition or a campaign mode?

A campaign mode could very well be implemented within the current meta, as it was done (and enjoyably so) in the Saga expansions.

2 minutes ago, banania said:

So do you want a 2nd edition or a campaign mode?

A campaign mode could very well be implemented within the current meta, as it was done (and enjoyably so) in the Saga expansions.

I personally see campaign mode as a minimum really. AH TCG has maps, a less structured phase process, more personalised characters with weaknesses, cards that make sense (Why miner of the Iron Hills?) etc. I'm not saying copy it, or go for a dice system, but you could do more.

I have no issue with a second edition as long as it is fully backwards compatible with the existing cardpool and quests. I've made a large investment into the game and am not at all interested in starting over from scratch -- it would take a vast amount of releases before the new edition could compete with what I already have. However, even a new edition that makes substantial rule changes would conceivably be interesting to me as long as it invalidates few of the old cards and provides mostly player cards that will work seamlessly against old quests.

I would welcome a second edition not of the game, but of the core set -- I don't think the existing quest mix and selection of player cards is the best possible introduction for new players. A better introduction could be made without altering any rules whatsoever.

A second edition would be fine with me as long as the first edition stuff is still legal. I would hate to lose all of the past cycles. A campaign compatible with the cycles would be nice.

2 hours ago, JonG said:

The game is 6 or so years old with thousands of player cards and the equivalent of about 11 - 12 full cycles. Something I struggle with is how much more of the same do I really need?

This is how I feel. We are getting cycle upon PoD upon cycle, with no end. They've been great, but I'd love to see something new. The new playmats and competitive format are moving in the right direction. Perhaps another product format (like six packs six weeks in L5R, clan specific packs in GoT) would be in order. The game at this point feels like too much of a good thing. Nate talks about moving the LCG's into their own entity, and LotR feels like the cookie-cutter he was talking about.

Side note: I just realized that LotR is the oldest surviving LCG!

From Caleb’s comment in the article, we are definitely getting one or more characters in this cycle that people have been asking for for a while. At this point, Thranduil is the one everyone is expecting, myself included. Caleb seems to take all of the repeatedly requested characters seriously though, so I would expect to see a Radagast hero in the game’s life at some point, or at least an updated ally. Gwaihir hero seems likely, as that one is often called for. And Spirit Aragorn. Not expecting to see all of that in the upcoming cycle, mind you... Personally I would like to see alternate versions of Frodo and Bilbo (which can be used outside the the Saga expansions).

8 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

I have no issue with a second edition as long as it is fully backwards compatible with the existing cardpool and quests.

So then you're saying that you're not OK with a second edition, then?

Because this is really a pretty unrealistic expectation.

It's not meant to be a realistic expectation, it's just a constraint I would like to see. Certainly preserving backwards compatibility would dramatically limit the scope of the changes that could be made. I don't believe any FFG LCG has ever attempted doing such thing, but it certainly has been done in other games. Second edition Dominion didn't change the game system at all, merely replaced some of the kingdom cards in the base set to make it a better experience for new players -- I think LOTR could and should do a similar rework of its base set. Thunderstone Advance did make significant changes to the game system, but while it dramatically altered the value of some of the past cards it was still fully compatible with them.

I'm thinking just a tidying-up of the rules (just look at the length of the FAQ and RRG) and an overhaul of some of the old cards to help the meta. Maybe something to tweak the location mechanics.