So I love the concept. What is killing me is having to constantly build a new deck. It is tedious!!!!!

I have built a deck that can win with regularity doing the Passage through Murkwood solo quest. I thought it was an accomplishment. So I take it against Journey Down the Anduin... FML!!!

I am all for Minor tweeks to a deck. A Side Board if you will. But to have to constantly completely change your deck is a pain in the ass. Again tedious.

Then add into it the multiplayer aspect. Again I would expect minor tweeks. But when changing out your heroes completely changes what you need in your deck and causes you to have to rebuild the whole thing....TEDIOUS.

So lets flash forward to when we have 6 Adventure packs out. A ton of cards that we now have to weed through. More things we have to take into consideration.

As it Stands, for me IMO, I need to have a minimum of 4 decks. That is a lot of cards I need to buy. To me it is not worth the hassle.

Maybe it is because of the lack of resources that we have to do this. Maybe things will become more standardized when we have more cards. I don't know.

I know I am going to get a lot of flack from fanboys. Screw you guys right off the bat. What I could use is some encouragement and maybe some empathy. Hell show me the error of my ways and make me love this game again.

When it comes to multi-player, I completely understand you. There just are not enough heroes in the game to be able to "swap out" certain heroes without having to make major changes to your deck.

My son and I have made a handful of "custom" heroes that we've tossed into decks for the games that we play. So far, we've made Halbarad, Boromir, and Faramir. We have plans for Galadriel, Celeborn, and Elrond. That has been a really fun thing to do to keep our interest high while we wait for the month and a half (ugh! that is along time) until The Hunt for Gollum finally arrives.

The low number of heroes is my biggest complaint so far. But rather than actually complain about it, I "fixed" the problem myself (with the help of my son).

As for needing large numbers of cards, yes, you do need a lot of cards. My son and I have 2 core sets. With those, we are able to build decent pairs of decks. It was expensive, but it was worth it. We've pulled out all the less useful cards (Gandalf's Search), made lists of the best core cards from each sphere, and can grab 15 player cards for each hero, 3 Gandalfs, and a couple extra cards and put them in a deck without too much effort. Sleeving them is tedious, I suppose, but we're used to trading card games, so we're kind of used to it.

If you have only 2 decks that you need to make, then you could just write the decklists out, assemble them each as best you can, and then swap the cards that are in both decks between games. If this is still too tedious, then buy another copy of the core set.

Last advice: take some time off. It is fun to have a few games to rotate between so that you don't get bored. My son and I have SEVERAL games we like to play.

honestly: I suggest to you to leave the game be until the adventure pack comes out... buy one, then play the game again and if you still don't like it... sell it

normally you shouldn't be building decks for each scenario... if playing with 2 players or more, the game is totally feasible! solo mode is another thing... but 2-4 players? it's fun - the cooperation is a vital part, talking, discussing, banding together - you can always combine it with some nice cooking, drinking, etc

I agree with OP I have beat the 1st scenario solo and with 2 players, beat 2nd with 2 players and 3rd with 3 players. Then I lost interest. But once the adventure packs start rolling out I expect it to get better. Right now I am trying to see if I can get a store to do the Hunt for Gollum preview event.

I'll definitely agree that deconstructing and reconstructing decks is pretty tedious, even though I have lists made and printed out for what cards go into which decks. Sometimes I find it being a lot less work to just not play single player, because then I'd have to disassemble my two dual-sphere decks that I use for 2 player games just to put together my single player deck... so I can empathize with the tedium there, and sometimes I just don't have the energy to go to all that effort just for a couple of solo games, because then I would have to remake the original two decks when I was done... blarg. Since I use a color-coded organization system on top of things, that adds to some of the tedium from another layer of organization on top of what one would normally do. Or actually, it probably makes things a lot easier (since cards are simple to find).

I've played a few single player games against the first scenario, but I haven't gotten around to playing the 2nd or 3rd solo yet, because of not knowing when my 2nd player will feel like playing, and wanting to have the decks ready to go at, more or less, a moment's notice. And, if that person doesn't feel like playing, I normally don't have the attention span or energy to drop everything and swap out a ton of cards to play single player. I've enjoyed the game immensely with two players, and I probably enjoy reading and writing about the game just as much as playing it, but I haven't had the free time to divert much attention or energy toward single player. Working two jobs probably doesn't help with that. I wish I knew enough interested people to get some 3 or 4 player games going, though, that would be great to try out and decks could be as easy as "okay, you get 3 copies of every Spirit card, you get 3 copies of every Lore card..." etc, making reconstruction a little quicker.

This is my first coop card game and my first question in those forums was how a coop game can keep your interest.Most people told me that deckbuilding and different combo of heroes can keep my interest but after 1 month i can say that this doesn't work.Maybe it is me maybe coop games are not my style but if this game wasn't Lotr you could see my box on ebay.

Maybe if FFG will give us the option to play as the shadow player can bring more people (especialy those who like competitive games) and make this game a little more intresting than just play the same scenarios over and over again.

I hope AP will make the game more interesting cause i want to have a good Lotr game to play.

Try playing "two-handed solo" - play like a two-player game, but with yourself controlling each deck.

Two-player is clearly what the game is balanced for. Beating any scenario beyond the first in solo play requires a precisely made deck, a lot of luck, or both. They should have said in the rulebook that 1 player is especially challenging, but oh well. All scenarios are doable in two-player with the default decks, though you should at least add the extra Gandalfs. That doesn't mean you'll always win, but if you play well you have a decent chance, and bad luck doesn't hit you as hard because you have more options to deal with it.

So just simluate two players with one player, I prefer it over "real" solo play. Though actually having two players is even better of course.

Since each scenario seems to require a different build to defeat it, it does require a lot of deconstruction. But if you can find 2 good combinations (one that works for Mirkwood, and one that works for Anduin or Escape) then you'd cut down on your rebuilding time. I think the fact that there's no one "best" combination for all 3 scenarios is both a plus and a minus.

Thank you so much guys. I really appreciate the Support and it was encouraging to hear I was not the only having these thoughts. I have become a huge fan of Co-Op and Single player games. That is what drew me to LotR.

Your suggestions are great and encouraging. Especially playing 2-handed. I think this is the direction I will take.

I too am waiting for Golum. I really look forward to playing again. You guys have given me a new direction to go. Thanks again!

servant of the secret fire said:

it would be awesome to finally be able to play the "bad" side in future expansions... as in Middle Earth: The Lidless Eye... it was SO COOL being able to play a Nazgul and fighting against Gandalf, etc. Maybe the encounter deck will consist of the "good guys" then or to actually play the encounter deck actively against a coop-team (same as in WOW TCG Onyxia's raid, where one player is a super-crass dragon who wants to kill them all and the players have to defeat him...) or maybe 2-bad guys vs. two good guys... there's potential!

It sounds like you might have just played too much, try pacing yourself. I haven't even played the 3rd scenario yet! Anytime we put a lot of expectations on something, it's bound to not live up to them and so there's an initial "let down" feeling. It seems like you guys don't really enjoy cooperation. There's a buzz I get just from helping a friend out when they're in trouble that makes coop exciting. If I was playing solo all the time I would definitely get bored. At first I was woried that with more players the game would be too easy but I found the 2nd scenario to be tough with three players.

I agree that deckbuilding is somewhat limited right now. To make a duel sphere deck I basically use the whole deck of the sphere I have two heroes with, and half of the deck of the other sphere. Once the expansions come out we'll have to start making some choices as to what's in our deck. Hang in there guys!

I've only had the game for a week and I've played maybe 12 solo games and 1 co-op. Most of the games were learning from mistakes as was the co-op attempt. I finally got the rules down and enjoyed a few solo games afterward. I might be lame, but I've still only attempted the first scenario and made all kinds of mistakes with Leadership and Tactics sphere (the first ones I was trying with) and I had a tough time with the first scenario. Then I figured stuff out and got through it with Spirit and Lore. Before I move onto the second scenario, I want to get through the first with Tactics and Leadership.

The game is kind of addicting and being able to play solo made it easy to get a lot of games in. So I've decided to slow it down before it gets stale for me, especially since the Adventure Packs are behind schedule and there's no rush for me to accomplish everything and then sit and wait for the future cards. I'm just going to pace myself and make it last.

I got a game called Summer Wars (by Plaid Hat Games) for my nephew a couple years ago for his birthday. It's a deckbuilding game that's mostly a 2 player game but can be played with 3 or 4. Well at the beginning there were only a couple core sets and four factions, so there was only so many plays in it before you did all you can do before it got stale. The game took off and is really good, so now they have had many more factions available and I have picked up a couple more faction decks plus some reinforcement packs for the original core sets and some mercenary cards that can be mixed with any faction. In June, they will have a master set out with 6 more factions. There's 2 more I don't have so all together there will be 14 faction decks, mercenaries and reinforcements. So now that I have kind of put the game down for a while, I've started getting back into it as there has been so many other cool releases that I was able to and will be able to get to add to the diversity and replayability of the game. So that's kind of something that I can see with LOTR the card game in a way. I will slow-play the core set and when they release a bunch of other stuff, I'll likely buy a bunch of them at once to keep me going for a good stretch.

btw - how could anyone EVER lose interest in something that has to do with lord of the rings???

btw - how could anyone EVER lose interest in something that has to do with lord of the rings???

I think that not spending a ton of time actually playing the game has definitely helped me not to get sick of it yet, despite constantly checking this forum, the Boardgamegeek forums, FFG's main page for news updates, listening the Cardboard of the Rings podcast, and writing a way, way too long review for this game on Amazon. I played the first scenario a lot of times before the second, and I played the second a few times before the third, so in that way I feel like I "paced myself" pretty well, and I didn't rush the experience, just took some time to "savor it," if you want to call it that. Apart from the solid gameplay and the incredible hype for a very alluring theme, I think the other aspect of playing this game that I've enjoyed the most is that my 2nd player has never really played any strategy game before, and teaching someone literally new to gaming and this genre in particular how to play has been a great experience. Seeing another person slowly start to grasp the concepts of how the game works, and eventually get to the point where they can talk about the pros and cons of including or excluding certain cards from their deck has been very awesome, and I love seeing their understanding become clearer with each game.

Deck building is definitely limited at the moment, and for me most of the choices seem pretty obvious. For two players, I did a 2/3 Leadership 1/3 Tactics deck, and a 2/3 Spirit 1/3 Lore deck. To make them, I basically thought about what cards were the best from every sphere, included those, and then supplemented with other cards to reach the minimum of 50. Without doing an exhaustive deck list, I think this has allowed me to take advantage of the best cards and combinations that every sphere has to offer, and I honestly don't feel like I'm making any sacrifices by having to leave certain cards out. One deck is primarily for tanking, the other is for utility and questing. When the utility deck needs extra resources, the tanking deck hands them over. When the tanking deck needs to draw extra cards, the utility deck facilitates that. The tanking deck deals with creatures extraordinarily well, and the utility deck almost exclusively handles questing and exploring locations with the assistance of the fantastic Legolas from the tanking deck.

I've probably limited myself somewhat by not trying a lot of different hero combinations, but what I've gotten into the habit of using has worked extraordinarily well so far, and has been able to reliably beat all three scenarios. Still though, I find myself making small changes to the decks despite our limited pool of cards at the moment, and I don't think I've hit "perfection" quite yet. All I can really say though is that I'm beyond excited for the first adventure pack... late June feels so far away, but I'm sure once we get into the habit of receiving new cards each month, 4 weeks might not seem that long to wait. I have high hopes that this will become my hands-down favorite game, and here's hoping that FFG does not disappoint!

Edit: removed messed up formatting and quotes, blarg

Lightdarker said:

I totally agree. While my 15 year-old nephew isn't new to gaming, he loves LOTR and the one attempt at co-op was when I had a chance to teach him and it was so cool and rewarding to see him get into it. I enjoy teaching my girls games as well and see their excitement grow as they understand the game more and can pull off a cool move or whatever. For me, as much as anything, the biggest part of my enjoyment in gaming is just spending time with my family or friends, and then reminiscing about some memorable event during a game even if it was a week or month ago.

I have similar concerns with it slowing down as well.

I find the problem is the event deck. Imagine you played MTG, but every game was against the same opponent with the same deck. AGOT where your opponent played the same deck without changing a card.

Then each month, they get some new cards, make a new deck, then play that repeatedly until another month passes.
I can see it becoming a fringe game in our group, mainly because the challenge in other games is a live opponent making tactical and strategic decisions. That part is missing from the event deck. All choice has been removed from it. There is no battle of wills. I know what cards are in the event deck after a couple of plays and start mitigating against possible negative events before they happen. Surprise element has gone.

I am definitely giving it at least one complete cycle of APs, maybe two.
I agree that the heroes are a big problem in terms of choice and that hurts any creativity, even with a small card pool.
On the card pool front I am also worried that 2 different cards per AP will not meet our thirst for new cardboard.

Personally I LOVE coop games. BSG, Shadows over Camelot, Space Alert, Ghost Stories amonst others but LOTR LCG seems to be missing something intangible in our group

I do play a lot. Mainly because I am trying to find out what I like to play. Unfortunately the games is dictating what I NEED to play at this point so I am getting frustrated.

That and I just had a sense of accomplishment, with creating the one deck, only to have it torn asunder.

Vyron said:

Well, for me Middle-Earth Quest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> War of the Ring, hence interest in WotR has all but vanished.

Kzer-za said:

Even without the extra-Gandalfs, the chances to win are _very_ good. In my playtest using all of the possible two-sphere combos, I won 12/12 games against the first scenario, 7/12 against the second, and 8/121 games against the third scenario.

I'm not worried about losing interest in the game too fast. I played over 100 games using the core set. And I haven't even tried the fan-made scenarios yet!

It seems like part of the issue with people losing interest is that they have to change up their decks. I haven't gotten that far yet as I'm taking my time, but I don't think that the having to change my deck for a different scenario would bother me at all. I guess part of that comes from me playing games like Heroscape and Summoner Wars where you either build your army (Heroscape) or deck (SW) either as a counter to your opponent's army/deck or in the case of Heroscape, the map helps determine what army to build. So for me, I guess I'm used to changing things up to meet a different circumstance in the game.

Lightdarker said:

Yeah, I agree that playing constantly will probably wear your interest thin. Remember that this is not a regular card game, where you might see a great deal of variety in terms of the opposition. There is, for me, an unrelated question in terms of the kind of long term re-playability this game will have. I've just begun to play against the 3rd scenario after defeating the first and then the second several times over a period of a few weeks. I don't play everyday either, only when I can do it confortably and can give it my undivided attention. I also do vary my decks, I don't always play the same one, even if it is the best. All of this has helped keep my interest fresh.

And blarg?????? As in Blargers?

Naw, "blarg" in that case could be used interchangeably with "ugh" or "blah" or "****." No idea what Blargers is/are...

Someone I knew from another forum and the only other person that I have ever seen use the expression. So I wondered. Sorry about the confusion.

Mestrahd said: