it is a shame they did not carry over AH progression. no long stories and just one and done. The reason i dont play LotR but i do play AH is progression. its really the only thing that worries me. what do you guys think should they have added more progression or keep it fast for more people?

I resent the idea that not having progression means it's dumbed down. If you think numbers have to go up and things have to get better, then you haven't been paying attention to comics for the last 40 years.

And if progression is really important to you, we don't know exactly what's going to be in the campaign boxes. It sounds like there's going to be some sort of long form story in those.

im sorry those words dont sit well with you but i do stand by them. and again dont get me wrong i do like this game and will have fun playing it but its not epic like AH is. and i dont think they can change it now so im not asking for that. all i was asking is what do you guys think, and your 2nd line answered that. i do hope for more long form storytelling also. me and my friends have been playing some games and testing out decks and it is fun just dont know if it has staying power.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of arkham's progression. You can't really just pick up and play a game of it the way you can with LoTR. Plus, Arkham forces you into playing some bad scenarios like Miskatonic Museum, in LoTR you can pick and choose the best and avoid Hills of Emyn Muil or The Long Dark or what have you.

Sometimes I dont want to commit to 8 scenarios. I just want to play a standalone. And Arkham without the campaign is lacklustre.

As much as I like Arkham, sometimes it can be tedious to go through a story arc.

Sounds like this will have campaigns in the future but won't be the primary focus. Looking forward to see how those will work.

2 hours ago, CrimsonEnvec said:

im sorry those words dont sit well with you but i do stand by them. and again dont get me wrong i do like this game and will have fun playing it but its not epic like AH is. and i dont think they can change it now so im not asking for that. all i was asking is what do you guys think, and your 2nd line answered that. i do hope for more long form storytelling also. me and my friends have been playing some games and testing out decks and it is fun just dont know if it has staying power.

For the record, "less interesting" or "less epic" are different words than "dumbed down".

I'm not a fan of Arkham's progression system. Sometimes I find that a card I picked is not working as intended and I can't change it without paying xp costs.

It also forces me to not play with my cards until way down the line, when I have experience to spare. It's also the reason why the game has 0 replayability for my group. We enjoy the scenarios once for the story aspect and done. It's too much hassle to restart the campaig for us so we can see other outcomes.

Knowing that you have to build a deck and complete some scenarios before you can play with the cards you wanted is a killer.

I, for one, am an Arkham player. I prefer the progressive story telling of the campaigns found in Arkham Horror the Card Game compared to the passive story telling in LOtR. That said, I am glad that the campaign element seems low key compared to that of Arkham. The campaigns in Marvel seems to be around 3 scenarios long instead of 8. The hero packs are not tied to any scenario pack or campaign expansions. The scenarios act as one-shots. The expansions are like comic events. Or so it seems

5 hours ago, CitizenKeen said:

For the record, "less interesting" or "less epic" are different words than "dumbed down".

ya sorry about that i did change the wording in the first post, after rereading it it did sound a little a**hatish lol

Progression doesn't fit the superhero theme, I think, it's basically a one-shot comic book fight

On 8/4/2019 at 4:22 AM, Supertoe said:

You can't really just pick up and play a game of it the way you can with LoTR.

Yes you can, standalone mode and POD scenarios

On 8/4/2019 at 7:00 AM, xchan said:

It also forces me to not play with my cards until way down the line, when I have experience to spare.  

Nothing stopping you from doing exactly that

If you want to start with that flamethrower in your deck in your first game, do it, it's your game

Don't want to use weaknesses, take them all out, it's your game

I don't see the problem here

More to the point, if you want to play high-level cards, you can always play standalone. Plenty of great standalone scenarios out there: Midnight Masks, Threads of Fate, Depths of Yoth, Before the Black Throne...

1 hour ago, cheapmate said:

Nothing stopping you from doing exactly that.

The rules do, and I don't play alone. I could adapt the rules when solo playing, but then, I rather play LotR or Sentinels (or Champions when released). Those give me more satisfaction.

Standalone Arkham isnt as satisfying as campaign play.

Aand just as easily as we can houserule campaigns out, ypu can make your own rules to do campaigns.

Leveling is fine, but I think this game doesn't need it out the gate and there's nothing saying we couldn't see something similar to AH:TCGs leveling later when we see future products.

1.) I feel like in a super hero game you wanna come out the gate feeling powerful. Leveling as a framework mechanic would introduce another slow power ramp on the game.

2.) This appears to be aimed at a more casual crowd and they seem to be making deck building completely optional. As is you just buy a deck and play, and only explore deck building if you want. Even then the deck building in this game is potentially way more approachable.

3.) We don't have a campaign mode baked into the game, which would be required for a leveling system. Maybe when we see the campaign products we'll see cards you can earn during the campaign and slot in your deck. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case since that's how LOTR LCG's campaign mode works.

20 hours ago, xchan said:

The rules do, and I don't play alone. I could adapt the rules when solo playing, but then, I rather play LotR or Sentinels (or Champions when released). Those give me more satisfaction.

AH has a standalone mode on all scenarios for this reason. Though I do agree that a campaign mode is not a selling point for everyone. You can only play so many campaign mode games realistically with a game group and they monopolize your play time. A game having primarily a campaign framework does sometimes turn me off from playing it. AH:TCG is nice though since I can just play it solo or with my wife. So when my other gaming friends aren't feeling it or wanna play something else I can still feed my AH gaming habit. Champions is a much better fit for a game meet up product. You don't need buy in or commitment from your other players to see a campaign to the end or spend time researching effective xp progression schemes for investigators. That can be too much of an ask for alot of people.

I found this even more relavent for LCG and LCG-like competitive games. For Ashes and Summoner Wars for instance I usually just kept those prebuilt decks together. I've never explored deck building in those games even though it's an option. That made it way easier to get those games to the table. For AGOT I just made a bunch of decks and threw them in the box if people wanted to try it out. My area never had any formal meet ups or game groups for those games, but there was some casual interest that I could facilitate. Champions plays well to that causal interest which I think will be a strength for the game.

I don’t think Arkham’s XP system would be a good fit for Champions super-hero theme. What I expect a Champions campaign will have is consequences determined by your success and/or choices in earlier scenarios. For example, you are given a choice of thwarting two different side plots; which one you choose will determine the encounter sets you see next scenario. I could also see Story Assets as in Arkham - cards you can add to your deck as a reward for achieving certain goals.

I'm thinking the LotR Sagas are the blueprint here. You bring the same team of heroes to each scenario (there probably won't be hero death, this being the comics and all), and you occasionally add a new card to your deck or have effects from earlier scenarios impact later ones, but you don't have major Arkham-style upgrades.

5 hours ago, rsdockery said:

I'm thinking the LotR Sagas are the blueprint here. You bring the same team of heroes to each scenario (there probably won't be hero death, this being the comics and all), and you occasionally add a new card to your deck or have effects from earlier scenarios impact later ones, but you don't have major Arkham-style upgrades.

I can see a hybrid in campaign styles. Deck maintenance of LOtR and storytelling of Arkham

When I was 20 I was happy to play BattleTech all weekend, sleep was for the weak! Now I am 54, I have a lot more on my plate, 6 hours a week is pushing my limits for face to face gaming.

As such I am often quite happy to see games that can take hours to play with great depth and complexity as much as games that are quick and easy and fill in a small amount of time. I think, the variety of choice, is a very good thing.