how many game per day/ or since you purchased do you have?

i find the game very addictive, and the fact that the game is based on the books instead of the film just adds to how much i love this game

Well I only managed to get my copy today as it just arrived here on Friday April 29th. But after one game I am sitting here right now picking out cards from Tactics to add to my Leadership deck to make a full 50 card deck and play again.

I bought the pack yesterday and went to a friend's to try it in coop immediatly.

We enjoyed it so much that we had another 4-hour session of play today as well ^^

We defeated every scenario and the nightmare mode.

My friend will soon buy a second core set to allow us to play with more people and tweak our deck even better.

If I say that I've been playing around 2 hours a day for the past week, would I be judged? Because if so, I barely ever play...

Very addicted. Been playing just about every day since I got it last week. I have now made over 6 different decks and have played with all variations of players from 1-4. Still haven't taken a crack at the third Scenario yet but soon will.

If I'm not playing the game, I'm on these boards and BGG reading the discussions. I check the FFG website every day for more teaser or a release date for the first expansion. So yup, I'm pretty hooked.

I've only played five games so far since I bought it eleven days ago, but I have spent a few hours every day here and on BGG reading about it! That's a much different addiction than the one you're refering to, but I'm still addicted.

Robert

sputang said:

I'm a big ditto here too My copy arrives before this coming weekend (as does my Black Goat expansion to Arkham, argh!) and I've been hooked since the first day I read about the LCG

I can't stop play this game and Gandalf is not a hero in the core set.If FFG give us Gandalf as a hero i think i will die on my table after 3 days of non stop play .

If it will be possible ta make our own scenarios and mix encounter deck in the future this game will be the best solo experience i ever had .

Yes, I am addicted so far. It averages out at a game a day, although I can't actually play every day. I have played with 1, 2 and 4 players, and tried all combinations of 'Spheres', Next will be mixed sphere decks.

I also like the idea of makeing up scenarios. The tweaking and mixing of the various encounter decks looks obvious, and it doesn't look too difficult to make up your own quest cards. Mind you, the game as it is, has a lot more replayability than I had first imagined. The same Quest, with the same Heroes/Spheres can lead to very different outcomes from an easy romp to an absolute slaughter. I still can't beat my best score of 66 for 2 teams on the 'Mirkwood' scenarios when everything just worked out perfectly. Cheers!

its good to hear that im not the only one whos addicted and spends most my spare time sitting down building and playing

im sounding old here but man it beats computer games hands down

Ditto with Sputang - if I'm not playing it then I am reading about it! Haven't yet started dreaming about it...

So far I have only played solo - but by GF is also a gamer and LotR fan, so can't wait for her to 100% Star Wars III on the Xbox so we can multiplay this tremendous game.

I have only played the 1st scenario - and I'm trying to avoid spoiling the other quests for myself so that I can be surprised when I turn them over for the first time. I know that's sad, but I really want to savour every new revelation. I did hear rumours of a HIll Troll...

I am only using the starter decks (1 copy of Gandalf) and eventually beat the 1st quest with Leadership and then with Spirit. I tried Tactics about 10 times and got nowhere. I tried Lore twice yesterday and made decent progress until overwhelmed by engaged enemies.

I haven't yet taken a mulligan (I keep forgetting it's legal to do so!)

I know I am not very good at it, but I love this game.

Regards to everyone.

richsabre said:

I've received my copy of LotR LCG on friday (english version came to Poland much too late...). But during weekend I couldn't resist it I have 15 games played already (all solo exept one in two player setting). It's been a long time, since i like the board/card game so much. I completed the first scenario with all decks, but Journey Down the Anduin seems impossible to go through in solo mode (with pre-constructed decks).

@ChinaBlade

I agree with ChinaBlade: I know I am not very good at it, but I love this game.

Regards!

yep im gonna pick up my VERY well read copy of The Hobbit for another read through, best book every written nuff said

I spent the first week playing it quite a lot in both solo and multiplayer modes. Haven't played as much recently though as I'm finding issues with how it works. Not enough to spoil my enjoyment too much but enough that I'd say I'm not addicted.

Just got my second coreset, now i start building new decks. Play the game whenever i have time!

i got mine the day after it came out. and have played it everyday at least once. the bgg says i have played it 17 times, but i know i have played it more and forgot to log it. i keep checking in to the page everyday as well just to read what other are saying. it is also one of the few games i have given a 10 to on the bgg.i got it bad

I'm quite addicted but not in a good way. I've played 60+ games (almost all of them solo) and it's usually incredibly frustrating. I'm starting to wonder why I keep playing at all. I guess I'm just too stubborn to admit it's way too hard in solo play.

Solo play is really my biggest disappointment right now: The third scenario is so incredibly hard I can't imagine this was playtested at all.

With four players it's a different kind of disappointment: It turns the game into a cakewalk. In other words: the game scales very badly.

I dunno, I thinkt he 3rd scenario was intentionaly made difficult for solo play. No where did it say that every scenario should be playable both solo and multiplayer. I dont think FFG ever intended for it to work like that. Obviously the 3rd scenario IS beatable on solo (someone on the forums did it a few days ago) but its not suprising that youre finding it hard when youre playing the most difficult challange solo. I found the first scenario to be pretty well balanced for solo play and the second one to be Really tough but beatable with a clever deck.

Ive been palying it pretty regularly, once every few days. I taught two of my friends to play recently and they both loved it. The game Doesnt scale particularly well in difficulty when palying with 3 or 4 players, I will give you that but I think with future APs the kinks should get ironed out a little. Two players seems to be the sweet spot between too difficult and too easy right now but I imagine this is liable to change!

DerBarchen said:

The box says it's for 1-2 players. If only the first scenario was meant to be playable solo it would have been fair to point that out right away, probably right in the product description. Currently it's misleading (it's also misleading because it can be played with up to four players right out of the box, but that has already been discussed and commented on).

Actually, I think that's what FFG should do in the future: For each scenario they should provide the 'ideal' number of players. This would allow them to design some scenarios that play well for solo players and other scenarios that play well with a large number of players.

My hope is (and that might salvage the game for me as a primarily solo player) that there will be plenty of fan-made scenarios. Then it doesn't matter so much if the 'official' scenarios are wonky.

There is nothing misleading about the game so I do not know why you say that. The scenarios can all be done solo but any game playing solo is going to be hard. I would rather it was hard than easy.

I was hooked at game 3 while playing with a friend (getting my second core set this week). I'd say that I don't think the difficulty for the 3rd scenario is misjudged. In the rule book they rank it at a "9" on the difficulty scale, which, assuming a max of 10, fits appropriately for solo play. As mentioned above, they could do better by clarifying estimated difficulty ratings according to the number of players. But things may be different once we have official clarification on what stays on the board in quest transitions.

Toqtamish said:

There's hard, and there's HARD. The third scenario is the latter.

@mijnjiku: Actually, scenario 3 is rated as 7. I don't really want ot think about what a scenario at difficulty 10 would be like

You know, after reading something on BGG maybe I'm being a bit unfair in my assessment:

I love playing Arkham Horror solo. However, I immediately gave up trying to win the game with only a single investigator. I'm always playing multiple investigators at the same time. Then the game is fun and has a success rate that seems reasonable to me.

So, perhaps it's time to forget about trying to win the third scenario with a single deck. Playing two decks solo might be the way to go since two players appears to be the sweet spot for this game.

That is actually mentioned somewhere either in the rulebook or in one of the articles as a way to play solo by piloting two of the starter decks together.

Maybe this is something they have to address going forward. A lot of people have raised issues about it and FFG have said 50-threat will not alway be the "cap" for scenarios.

For solo play they could introduce something like the following on each scenario:

Escape from Dol Guldur solo play
Threat Elimination: 3 heroes or less = 50 threat, 4 heroes = 60 threat, plus 10 threat per hero to a maximum of 6 heroes
Deck Size: 3 heroes or less= 50 card minimum, 4 heroes = 60 card minimum plus 10 cards per hero to a maximum of 6 heroes
Staging Draw: 3 heroes or less = 1 card, 4 heroes = 2 cards, 5 heroes = 2 cards, 6 heroes = 3 cards.
Solo Scoring: As per standard scoring plus 15 per hero after the third hero.
Threat increase: 3 heroes or less = 1 threat per turn, 4 heroes or more = 2 threat per turn

Obviously it would need to be tested and this is something just off the top of my head without any testing, but it effectively scales you up to around 2 decks, without have to worry about screwing around with 2 different hands, resources, engagement zones, etc
6 heroes would be 80 cards, 80 threat elimination and +45 to your score.
That seems feasible. With 6 heroes you are going to start at 50-60 base threat which seems in proportion to the 20-25 threat below the cap you start at now with 3 heroes. The deck size increasing means you get a slight advantage over 2 decks and could better manage the card pool better, but it is diluted a little more.
The benefit of lowering the characers would be scoring, which fits with the whole "lower is better" thing.

Everything there is also achievable with a single CS. It wouldn't be hard to implement and just makes it easier while increasing the score. The challenge would be to lower your deck.
Players approach could then be to build a 6 Hero deck that can do all, maybe a 5 Hero that can do all scenarios, or maybe they want to create specialised decks of 3 Heroes for the given task.

This could also be done retrospectively