Well... I sure do understand your arguments.... but a "perfect" game should aim for casual and professional players alike... e.g. in the computer scene - Starcraft (the first more than the second) you could play the game casually... but you could try and be a gosu in Korea

same with Magic the Gathering: casual is great and interesting - professional is brutal but you can enjoy the game at any level and always having the option of going "hardcore"

having said that: even MtG got a bit stale (ok, the last Mirrodin Block was a FULL SUCCESS AND SO FUN TO PLAY), you have about 11000 (!!!!!!!!!) different cards as a card pool - reprints not included - and tons of deck options and EVERY card is compatible (unlike decipher... after Hunters it just got tooo weird... and I'm still trying to lay my hands on some of the expensive cards :S) - the oldest and the newest one... but even the grand MtG can bore you to death if you play 100000 games, which I did in my time, though you never lose the interest totally because of so many different possibilites - in my opinion, they have the best CCG designers in the world and quite a good community link... needless to say, I quit the game because of money reasons...

LCGs are way better with their model, but of course the card pool is way below average and expands more slowly... I mean, MtG brings out like 3 sets and 1 core set each year... at least 500 different cards per year... DIFFERENT.... that oughta keep the game fresh and exciting... though... I'm beginning to wonder, when will their creativity come to an end...

anywho: people, we're at the start of something great, just wait and see for the 1st cycle... then we can talk about failures, prospects, etc.....

viva LOTR LCG

Below is a post from Board Games Geek by a guy from Fantasy Flight. A thread there was made to complain about the delay in The Hunt For Gollum Adventure Pack. He's basically pointing out why they chose to release the core set the way they did regarding the number of cards etc., and also commented on how wihle this game is different than others, it will get a lot of support from FFG. Sounds like they have some good stuff on the horizon for the game, so we'll have to wait and see.

(Flightmaster)
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

"jerseydvd wrote:
I guess to make it easier it seems. I bought the core set and won't be buying another. I'll enjoy it like this and with the expansions. As of right now I only play solo."

In our opinion, the core set provides a *great* experience (YMMV) for under $39.95, allowing players like the one above to enjoy the experience without further cost, and allows dedicated players to expand should they choose to do so.

I realize there are some differing opinions on this. Know this: FFG had a choice of providing a more narrow replay experience (with fewer card types but more of each card) or a broader experience (with more card diversity and re-playability). For our LCG core sets, we choose the latter. There is no conspiracy, it is a choice between a retail price point, diversity, and card counts. Players who want to maximize every option can, at a very competitive cost, by getting additional core sets to increase the player count and number of cards. Casual players, or people who just want to sample the experience, can do so at a very reasonable cost. Since dedicated players are the ones likely to purchase expansions, we make 3 of every player card available in these monthly release.

With four different spheres, there are many different combinations and abilities to customize decks in the core set alone. Of course it won't yet compare to other LCG's which have years of support. Also, the LOTR LCG gameplay is a very different game style from anything on the market at this point. Yet, it will be supported vigorously and the diversity will quickly increase. We are working on great content for 2012 already, and I think you'll love what we are releasing in 4Q.

In terms of timing. The LOTR core set hit retail shops towards the end of April, and we expect to ship the first expansion within roughly 60-70 days of that date (barring unforeseen events) and monthly thereafter (with some small gaps between 6-pack cycles). While I understand, and appreciate there are many folks eager for this to happen sooner, I don't think this window is egregiously long or somehow indicative of FFG dropping the ball. In fact, we get severe complaints when we solicit these decks early (i.e. before the core set ships) which is necessary to do in order to properly inform the global wholesale marketplace of the upcoming product as soon as possible. Damned if we do...

The game is a huge success for FFG (and for our international partners, especially in Germany, Spain, and France) and we're having a ton of fun playing it in the office. We're flying a few hundred "Hunt for Gollum" decks into the country early for this event, so that players can see the new cards and quest even earlier than we had planned and meet other enthusiasts in a FLGS. Being angry at this event is quite silly, as it will be great fun, and has no bearing on the main delivery of the expansions.

Take this information as you will. They are the facts as I know them, and decisions made as we see best for everyone.

Thanks,

Christian
FFG

Hahma said:

They sould know better than me that huge success is not if you sell all your copies to the retailers(especialy with a Lotr franchise) but if people will continue to buy the expantions or else this game will die fast.Same thing happend to Lotr online.Turbine sold 1,5 milion copies at the beginning and the game is f2p now.They have many subscribers again but this is happening just because the game is free.Can this happen to a card game?I think no,we cant have a free card game.

They must be very careful or else the only thing they will have to remember is that they had a big success with their core set and a big failure after that.

servant of the secret fire said:

The Lord of the Rings Online never sold 1.5 million copies at retail. Where did you pull that number from? It was a profitable game up to and including the F2P release. Developers can never please the super hardcore users. It's like a race and the hardcore get to a fence and say "more content more content more content" and the developers have to balance their wants with what retailers and more casual users want.

I have never seen any of FFG's games fail so no worries there. You sure have changed your tune servant.

Toqtamish said:

Toq you know how much i want this game to be succesful and you know that my English sucks.I can't write it better my English don't let me do it but you know that i am not a hater.I realy don't want FFG to act like arrogants and say that we had a sold out with this now we can give them anythink we want and they will just buy it.

Ulairi@

Forget my post it is totaly wrong.It was an article about 1milion beta keys not boxes.

Hahma said:

For the record, the "guy from Fantasy Flight" is the CEO. I love the fact that he participates in the online community. And I love the fact that he gives reasonable answers that reflect a businessman's sense of the need to strike a balance between extremes.

Arma virumque said:

Well then that's even more impressive that he's the CEO. And I agree that it's nice to get his side of decisions that are made. We may want things about a game that benefit us (the individual), but he's got to think about trying to find a balance to please as many customers as possible that have various personal demands or concerns for a game.

This part of Christian's post (below) interested me as he says that while this is a different game system than anything on the market, it's going to get lot's of support from FFG. It sounds like they have products ready for the rest of the year and are working on next years additions to the game. Being that it's a very different type game than others on the market, it's hard to compare it to others.

"With four different spheres, there are many different combinations and abilities to customize decks in the core set alone. Of course it won't yet compare to other LCG's which have years of support. Also, the LOTR LCG gameplay is a very different game style from anything on the market at this point. Yet, it will be supported vigorously and the diversity will quickly increase. We are working on great content for 2012 already, and I think you'll love what we are releasing in 4Q."

I am aching for Gollum, but I havn't lost interest in the game. We have quite a few people around here into it. I've been playing with different deck designs to see what I can make work even if it doesn't seem optimal. I've tried out different ways of using the different colors. I keep a deck list with me so if someone wants to play the heroes I need for a deck, I just switch out the cards and use a different deck. I've been looking at different 2 and 3 color combinations. Sometimes even a good deck will have bad luck so they're not guarenteed to win. Different friends like to play differently. So to me its still fun.

Once several expansions are out, things will be much smoother Its just how it is when you get in at the start of a card game.

Obviously they care a lot about the game and are thinking about it in terms of the long run.

Wow I did not think I would spark a firestorm I would like to thank the community for rallying behind me to keep my interest in the game. The fact that you guys showed up is far more important than anything you had to say. I am more excited than before about the game.

As for the things that were said there is a lot to digest and just stokes the fire in my belly.

One of the things I wanted to address was the comment about Fan made materials being a sign of the end of the game. I disagree. There has not been a game come out that hasn't had some sort of fan made supliment Dominion has one and it rocks! WH40k has a ton of it and it is incouraged. Fan made supliments are just a desire to see more from their game, and I do not want "more" to imply a weakness.

As for PvP I think it would be an exciting change. Does the game need it?... It would get more players to play so from a business standpoint I would say yes. From my own experiances with the Games I say, "No, it does not need it." Would I enjoy it? Hell yes. My group of friends and I LOVE Descent and it combines both ideas perfectly. A Co-Op with a Vs. mode reeks of win!!!

My other concern is the fact that this is LotR. How many games need to be made and fail for this universe? Is this one going to fail as well? It could happen but before I get all doom and gloom I think I will wait and see.

Thanks again! This community is the best I have ever come across. If anyone is in the northern Utah area hit me up and see if we can't get a game.

Dwnhmcntryboy said:

The Lord of the Rings is a very strong brand and with the Hobbit coming out next year that will help revive general consumer interest. FFG did a smart thing by going after the books, I think if Decipher would have done that the LOTR card game would still be around.

Hallo to everyone!!! I really like the game. But i already build up the deck which one is almost impossible to lose first and second quests. I mean for solo playing. Third quest is multy player so i think for solo is impossible. At least with core set cards. I cannot say i lose interesting but....... I hope exp pack quest will be more difficult and will be focused on the both side for multy player and for solo. I like third quest but there is no way to play solo. But why???? Someone want multy quests someone want solo. I hole there is more than 1 quest in exp pack other wise is boring. What you think fellows???

Hahma said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "guy" is Christian himself, the founder and CEO of FFG. Pretty cool for the head of the company to respond to what has been the biggest question the community has had, and I think I shows that FFG had a high level of commitment to this game.

Or that Christian is just a very clever CEO and knows the best way to appeal to his customers. Either way, win.

Bohemond said:

Well hopefully Christian is paying attention here and at Board Games Geek, as there is still a need for a quality FAQ. There are rules interpretation questions that don't have any official stance. If they are going to have this be a tourney game, then the event organizers would probably appreciate knowing the answers to questions players come up with.

A reply to the notion that the scenarios are 'static': that is not my experience at all.

Sure, the encounter cards and quest requirements are the same every time you play the same scenario, but since the encounters are randomized, you get a different experience every time, from extremely enemy-heavy to a big location roadblock and with everything inbetween. There are certain orders of encounter cards that may happen very rarely but that completely change the make-up of the game when they do. The poster a few pages back stating that there is no need to play a scenario again after you've beaten it completely misses the point of this game, in my opinion. This is not Prince of Persia where the same critter is hiding behind the same wall every time.

ClydeCloggie said:

I think what he ment by static is..There is a certain process to beating the scenarios and he is kinda correct however so are you. Basically after a few games you kinda get a wash rinse repeat cycle going and then our of the blue there is a hiccup you have to fix then it is back to wash rinse repeat. I know with my deck I was playing that I had certain things I needed to do in a certain order. I got to where I was getting a reasonable win streak going, about 60%. Was my method flawless? No .Not at all. After all I did lose a bit, but still the game started to feel like more of the same old thing.

Then again I do play A FRIGGEN LOT!!!! I do it because it is fun. I am not trying to find a break in the game. Just a more solid way to play. My goal is to have one deck that can play in all scenarios in both modes and that take a lot of play testing to figure out.

I will very shortly be playing the game for the first time with 4 people (never played with more than 2 before). I have two copies of the basic set of the basic set but I'm not sure how to go about constructing the decks (the others have never played before so I thought it qwould be easier if I just created all the decks myself). I don't want one person to end up with a gimpy deck; suggestions?

With 4 people you can probably just go mono-color and be fine. They wouldn't be exactly 50 cards but even with 3 sets you can't make mono-color 50 card decks. If you need to have them be 50 cards, just make 2/1 2/1 + 1/2 1/2 in color breakdown. So 2 Leadership/1 Lore, 2 Spirit/ 1 Tactics, and either the reverse (Lore/Leader, Tactics/Spirit) or the opposite (Lore/Spirit, Tactics/Leader) with the rest

Sir Jolt said:

I have updated the decks since then, but you could try the decks I posted here. They are not ideal, but all of them are solid, and they can be made with dore core sets.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=201&efcid=4&efidt=477980

A dozen plays (two player) was all it took to drop interest.

For me a lot of it is the how the mechanics of the game create a run-away train effect. The first few turns are tough and interesting after that, except for an occasional bad combo, it's very static and dull. It's pretty straight forward players are weakest turn 1 and the encounter is toughest turn 1. Turn 1 you have 3 heroes and 3 resource points, nothing else. As the rounds progress you get stronger, 3 heroes+attachments+allies+3 resource points. Something hard to deal with turn 1 isn't even a threat later on. At the same time the encounter challenges are toughest turn 1. All quests start with cards in play+2 random flips. If you survive the first few turns and get ahead of the encounter (clear everything out) your facing 2 random flips. After the first few turns your facing a lesser threat from a position of greater power. At this point the game feel monotonous. It doesn't matter what encounters come up none of them are dangerous. I feel like the stages are supposed to ramp up the danger but excepting one extreme location flood in anduain they don't seem to be enough. Sure the nazgul is big and mean but we know he's coming and have no trouble dealing with him.

Options for dealing with the train

1) Advancing a quest stage brings the train back in line so to speak. Reset things so the game is challenging again rather then monotonous. Limit the number of allies, attachments, cards, resources you can bring from stage to stage. The reset can change from quest to quest and stage to stage but something needs to happen. Once you've gotten ahead of a stage it will be dull finishing it but at least it won't be dull for the rest of the game. Creates some interesting decisions on what to keep/toss as a side bonus.

2) Add a global effects to some cards. Something like treachery cards that instead of leaving play sit in the staging area providing the encounter deck with bonuses for the rest of the game. All orcs get +1 shield or undefended attacks do +1 damage. Locations give +1 threat the turn they come into play etc. Some way to make it so the encounter deck gets stronger as the players get stronger.

3) Increase the number of encounter cards staged as the quest advances. In a two player game 2 at stage 1, 3 at stage 2, 4 at stage 3.

I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to keep the game exciting throughout the match but something needs to be figured out to keep the interest up.

@Ratcur

I understand that frustration all too well. Part of what I have done is Lower the number of heroes. In a 1-2 player game use all 3. 3 Players use 2 Heroes. 4 players you each get one Hero. If you play mono colors you wind up with a 48 card deck, if you have 3 Core sets. Which is soon to be fixed with Gollum. We have just started this format so there aren't many reliable play test results. Give it a try though.

My biggest problem with the game is the lack of cards in the core set. I agree with those that think x3 of ever card should have been the decision. For that reason my interest has been seriously knocked.

On top of that, irrespective of easy or difficult, I just don't see the game evolving much. The adventure packs will not provide enough player material (if it's needed beyond certain spirit cards) to change the decks and will comprise mostly of new encounter factions and quests. Of course such things are important and my introduce new rules (though constantly introducing new rules would be a bad idea) to spice things up. But for me, while the game is produced beautifully and does play fine, I'm rather regretting buying it over Warhammer Invasion. Shame I can't get my money back really.

signoftheserpent said:

I disagree with the amount of cards you suggest. I think they should have done like C'thulhu had **** LOAD of cards but only 1 copy of each.

As to your other issue, the evolution of the game, I hope you are wrong. While I can see where you are coming from, I have to hold out hope, Manly because I am wanting to buy a 3rd set and can't get my hands on one. I think they really have something here if they do i t right. the LotR franchise though has been a pain in the ass when it comes to card game, and most other games, With a lot of hype, little support and no follow through.

After reading the recent news interview with FFG I disagree that the game is a "HUGE" success just because they have sold a lot of Core Sets. A lot of people are in your shoes and not liking the game and wanting to bail or not invest any further. If the game lasts 3 years I will consider it a success. 5-10 a "HUGE" one.

I will see what I can do about getting a WH:I core and maybe we could work out a trade later. Funds are tight right now but maybe I can call in a favor or 2.

Dwnhmcntryboy said: