This game is fun as it is right now. But give it some time. In a few months, with the first cycle of chapter packs out and a batch of new hero's, it will hopefully even be that much better.
LCG's are in it for the long run, and can imho only really start to be evaluated after a year or so. Who knows what cool new mechanics the designers have up their sleeves for future sets?
Yeah I don't mind having a side board and needing to switch cards in and out per scenario. I am used to that. I just have not found a build that will allow me to implement said side board. If I could take my deck and beat scenario 1 with it, not all the time, then switch out cards to do #2 and further switch those out for #3 I would be happy because then I could keep the Core idea for my deck whether it be a sphere deck or theme deck.
Maybe that will develop as the game grows. Like I said though. I am losing Interest but not all is lost.
Bryon said:
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.
YES! I can't believe the rabid single-mindedness some people show in gaming. Was I ever that young? 
I have a slew of gaming options. Yes, LOTR is one of "the new games" and probably is getting a little more loving right now, but I'm not playing it to the exclusion of everything else.
@servant : Some folks just don't like co-ops. They want a single clear winner. That's cool. PLENTY of games out there for everyone. Personally, I hope they never try to introduce a Sauron player to this game. It didn't make their other LOTR game better and I don't think it'd be a good idea here. Heck, here it might very well be impossible given the structure of the game. There are co-ops with player opposition out there that work (Battlestar Galactica), but they were designed that way from the beginning.
I am not single minded about the game. I have other hobbies that are better IMO. I just set aside a time/day for each of my hobbies so that I can dedicate my attention to something I like rather than lose track have it all go to waste.
The more time I spend learning and investigating a game the better I can promote it.
Trump said:
@servant : Some folks just don't like co-ops. They want a single clear winner. That's cool. PLENTY of games out there for everyone. Personally, I hope they never try to introduce a Sauron player to this game. It didn't make their other LOTR game better and I don't think it'd be a good idea here. Heck, here it might very well be impossible given the structure of the game. There are co-ops with player opposition out there that work (Battlestar Galactica), but they were designed that way from the beginning.
The one and only reason i want this is because not even one of my friends or the guys at my fantasy shop wants to play this game cause its coop.All of my friends are fans of Tolkien but after their first game they went back to the other Lotr card game from desipher.Desipher's game is dead but my friends still play this game after 10 years cause it is competitive and they enjoy it a lot.They prefer to play a dead and old competitive game than a new coop game.
So now i am stuck with solo play and i can't find anyone to play with.The worst thing is that they all tell me that if FFG introduce a shadow player in this game they will play it without second thought but as long as this game remains only coop they will never play it.
Anyway even if i don't continue play, this game already has a place in my Middle-Earth corner.
I was so lucky... I got the game like... 2 weeks ago and played some solo games... well, ok I admit... A LOT of solo games... then, played it with a friend... which was much more easier... and today I invited some friends over and introduced the game to them... and we played some good 4-player matches... all three scenarios... and we beat them all!!!!!!!!!!! it was really fun... sometimes dangerous, but we managed well...
so that kind of resparked my interest for the game... very cool, especially, when the APs will be coming out... can't wait to hunt the little stinker...
but yeah, I still play decipher, it's awesome... but not as awesome as meccg, which I still play, too it's just so cool having 3 lotr "ccgs"...
First, I want to say that I like the concept of this game and the mechanics that are used. Of course also theme and flavour are fantastic.
For me the co-op thing is not a big problem, my friends actually felt it a welcome change. But that's it. They will always prefer any other game over this one.
For me the reason is another one: There is not enough variety to keep me interested in the game. I think to make up for the lack of the co-op element, there has to be some other element to make up for it. One such thing would be variety (different modes, deck-building and such).
Well, lotr offers deckbuilding...theoretically. But the problem is with four players, e.g. there is no deckbuilding possible. We could build 4 dual-sphere decks, but a lot of the good cards we want to play, can only come into play once at a time. And even if not, the restricted number of heroes and allies basically makes it very un-interesting / near-to-impossible to build four dual-sphere decks using two core sets.
With two players there are two decks we can build that differ from each other. This will provide a very balanced and interesting game-play.
Alone no matter what deck I build, the help of the other two spheres that I don't have in my deck is needed very strongly.
So in my eyes, this game is only rellay enjoyable as a two-player game. When played with four or three players, there is but the option to use one-sphere decks and these decks are - at the current stage - not that fun and consist of only 30 cards. Which makes a nightmare modus kind of boring (as we ended up playing without player-decks for almost half of the game). For two players there is the option of a dual-sphere deck, but even there deck building is extremely limited. It basically ends up as being a simple: Do I use 1,2 or 3 copies of card X? But there are no alternatives for the good cards and there is almost no possibility to try different strategies for two decks. (This is possible for a single-player using the off-sphere ally deck).
Ok, it is possible that the above-discussed issue is actually not a problem of the game itself, but a general problem of lcgs. Since I don't own any other lcgs I cannot really say. But I think that the game wouldn't become boring so fast if it was a co-op game, as sad as that is. Of course it will be fun to see new quests and new stuff, but I think with only 9 new player cards the game will still fail to make up for the lack of competitive play for a while.
With just the core set, the motivation to go through the same quests again and again seems low. Especially with four players where losing is really difficult. And even if there is a new quest once Hunt for Gollum comes out, just nine new cards won't change the decks much and the one quest will be boring once played for 3-4 times.
I think it might be the curse of this game and the lcg game concept: If replayability is too high, players won't buy new packs. But if it is too important to always get new stuff, people might be drawn to more constant games. And I think playing against another player is more fun in terms of replayability than co-op play.
This is just my five cents, though. And the reason why I won't buy adventure packs. I decided to wait and lay low until the first deluxe expansion hits the shelf to have a look at the game again and see how it evolved. Very possible I might buy the packs together with the deluxe expansion then.
When you use "co-op" in your post, did you mean competitive?
faith_star83 said:
First, I want to say that I like the concept of this game and the mechanics that are used. Of course also theme and flavour are fantastic.
For me the co-op thing is not a big problem, my friends actually felt it a welcome change. But that's it. They will always prefer any other game over this one.
For me the reason is another one: There is not enough variety to keep me interested in the game. I think to make up for the lack of the co-op element, there has to be some other element to make up for it. One such thing would be variety (different modes, deck-building and such).
Well, lotr offers deckbuilding...theoretically. But the problem is with four players, e.g. there is no deckbuilding possible. We could build 4 dual-sphere decks, but a lot of the good cards we want to play, can only come into play once at a time. And even if not, the restricted number of heroes and allies basically makes it very un-interesting / near-to-impossible to build four dual-sphere decks using two core sets.
With two players there are two decks we can build that differ from each other. This will provide a very balanced and interesting game-play.
Alone no matter what deck I build, the help of the other two spheres that I don't have in my deck is needed very strongly.
So in my eyes, this game is only rellay enjoyable as a two-player game. When played with four or three players, there is but the option to use one-sphere decks and these decks are - at the current stage - not that fun and consist of only 30 cards. Which makes a nightmare modus kind of boring (as we ended up playing without player-decks for almost half of the game). For two players there is the option of a dual-sphere deck, but even there deck building is extremely limited. It basically ends up as being a simple: Do I use 1,2 or 3 copies of card X? But there are no alternatives for the good cards and there is almost no possibility to try different strategies for two decks. (This is possible for a single-player using the off-sphere ally deck).
Ok, it is possible that the above-discussed issue is actually not a problem of the game itself, but a general problem of lcgs. Since I don't own any other lcgs I cannot really say. But I think that the game wouldn't become boring so fast if it was a co-op game, as sad as that is. Of course it will be fun to see new quests and new stuff, but I think with only 9 new player cards the game will still fail to make up for the lack of competitive play for a while.
With just the core set, the motivation to go through the same quests again and again seems low. Especially with four players where losing is really difficult. And even if there is a new quest once Hunt for Gollum comes out, just nine new cards won't change the decks much and the one quest will be boring once played for 3-4 times.
I think it might be the curse of this game and the lcg game concept: If replayability is too high, players won't buy new packs. But if it is too important to always get new stuff, people might be drawn to more constant games. And I think playing against another player is more fun in terms of replayability than co-op play.
This is just my five cents, though. And the reason why I won't buy adventure packs. I decided to wait and lay low until the first deluxe expansion hits the shelf to have a look at the game again and see how it evolved. Very possible I might buy the packs together with the deluxe expansion then.
Replayability is one of the major issues I see with this game. After you play and beat a scenario a few times, the interest in it is going to wane because it doesn't really offer anything new. I wonder if one new scenario a month is enough to keep people satisfied. I've already beat the first and second scenario several times (and nearly the third) in that time span. That's twice as many scenarios as the packs will have and I don't play nearly as much as others do. While I haven't lost interest, I can see how it could happen.
I don't think replayability is an issue. Lack of choices and customization to a gainful means is. I could replay all of the scenarios over and over as long as I could see more than 1 possibility to win. On top of that to win with a core theme.
Waiting so long for the Golum AP and others to follow is what is hurting.
Yes, I can see your point.
I just wonder if we will see some additional spheres...because with 4 players it is kind of pointless to try and play dual-sphere decks I think. At least with the current choice of cards. Having more spheres to choose from would be nice.
I can see the game get more interesting, once there are several different strategies for decks within one sphere and across spheres. Like thematic decks focused on theme rather than sphere. (E.g. a Gondor deck or a Rohan deck). But in my eyes this game has one serious issue: Although I will keep changing my deck, the quests will stay the same (with one quest per month (?) added to the mix). It probably would be more fun to play against another constructed deck and an enemy controlling it...maybe co-op just isn't my thing after all 
I really have still hopes for this game though. The adventure packs add quests, but maybe the deluxe expansions will boost the card-pool a great deal and introduce some new elements. Let's wait, see and hope!
I think they may add more spheres in the future. All their other LCGs have at least 6 factions, so I could see 2 additional spheres. I also agree with your hope that they make cross-sphere themes that play nice together.
This is a two-player game. It's too easy at three and four. It's too hard solo (at least with the current card set). But if they released it as straight two-player only, there'd be no end to the whining. And they are able to keep their options open. Perhaps a future adventure will be suicidal with less than four players? Solo is feasible with the lower difficulty adventures, but you just lose too much in the decision process for that to be as robust as two-player.
I can't see how this would ever have a Sauron player. It'd be a completely different game. In my case, it'd be one I didn't want to play. And I don't think it'd add any interest.
The game's just going to need more cards. More adventures to go on. More heroic cards to inspire deck creation and, in turn, to inspire people to go back and replay all of their old adventures. Knowing this, I'm glad this is in the LCG format. I wouldn't touch it otherwise. That steady drip of new cards might seem sluggish while we're starved for something new, but this time next year some of us might well wish the flow would slow down as we continue to work with the libraries of cards we already have.
Trump said:
This is a two-player game. It's too easy at three and four. It's too hard solo (at least with the current card set).
When I'm playing solo with quests 2 and 3, I simply play a 4 for the price of 3 game on Heroes.
Basically, I choose 4 heroes but only start with the threat cost for the highest 3. All other rules I play as if I was a solo player.
I'm doing this at the moment because it allows me to practice and find some different synergies with dual sphere decks and as you say at the moment the card set is so small that unless you have leadership and/or spirit in your deck and use the sneak attack/Gandalf or Stand and fight/Gandalf combo's the 2nd and certainly 3rd scenarios are very very difficult to win and only then if you are exceedingly lucky in your card draw.
I'm not aware of anyone playing Solo that has beaten scenario 2 or 3 consistently with a tactics/lore deck - anyone?
With the above ruling it allows me to take a tactics/Lore deck into the 3rd scenario and at least allow me to get far enough to have a go at tweaking the deck, even if its still not good enuogh to beat it (yet).
Trump said:
I can't see how this would ever have a Sauron player. It'd be a completely different game. In my case, it'd be one I didn't want to play. And I don't think it'd add any interest.
It will be more interesting if a real person can play as the shadow player.Imagine DND pnp without a DM.Just a group of guys trying to complete the same stories over and over again with different characters.You will enjoy your first games but after some games you know where you must travel what monsters you must kill and what you must do to complete the quest and the game becomes boring.
I don't say to change this game from a coop to a competitive one but they could give the option to play as a the shadow player.Those who like coop they can continue play like this and those who like pvp games they can enjoy this mode.More options more people more fun.
But i agree with you,it is very dificult for FFG to do that .Denethor's abilitie will be useless if someone can control the encounter deck and they must make a tone of erratas to give us that option.
pumpkin said:
I'm not aware of anyone playing Solo that has beaten scenario 2 or 3 consistently with a tactics/lore deck - anyone?
I built a solo Lore/Tactics deck that could beat scenario 2 at least half of the time. I used Glorfindel, Denethor, and Legolas. The strategy of the deck was to delay beating stage 1 until you have a large amount of cards in your hand. Then you use Protector of Lorien to complete stage 2 as quickly as possible. I can give you the deck list that I use if you want.
I just assume that scenario 3 is practically impossible solo so I don't have any suggestions on beating it solo.
I Love the Idea of having the game both co-op and competitive. I do agree more cards are needed. I don't agree with the Idea that we will be asking them to slow down production.
If they are adding new scenarios every month I am going to be a lot more interrested. I don't think they will though. I think they will be going the same rout a CoC with the expansions in lieu of an AP for that month.
And thanks guys simply talking about this has been helping me to relieve a lot of my stress over the game. I may just go ahead and buy that 3rd Core set now.
Dwnhmcntryboy said:
I Love the Idea of having the game both co-op and competitive. I do agree more cards are needed. I don't agree with the Idea that we will be asking them to slow down production.
If they are adding new scenarios every month I am going to be a lot more interrested. I don't think they will though. I think they will be going the same rout a CoC with the expansions in lieu of an AP for that month.
And thanks guys simply talking about this has been helping me to relieve a lot of my stress over the game. I may just go ahead and buy that 3rd Core set now.
Do it... I know you wantsssssss it... prrrrrecious wantsssss it 
I'm gonna do the same, i.e. buy a 3rd Core Set, btw... French Core Set, here I come!!!!!!!!
Apophenia said:
pumpkin said:
I'm not aware of anyone playing Solo that has beaten scenario 2 or 3 consistently with a tactics/lore deck - anyone?
I built a solo Lore/Tactics deck that could beat scenario 2 at least half of the time. I used Glorfindel, Denethor, and Legolas. The strategy of the deck was to delay beating stage 1 until you have a large amount of cards in your hand. Then you use Protector of Lorien to complete stage 2 as quickly as possible. I can give you the deck list that I use if you want.
I just assume that scenario 3 is practically impossible solo so I don't have any suggestions on beating it solo.
what did you do with the Troll? Got forest snare on him as quickly as possible?
pumpkin said:
what did you do with the Troll? Got forest snare on him as quickly as possible?
That is the optimal way to deal with the Troll. However in a 50 card deck you might not start with a Forest Snare. The other option is to put Protector of Lorien on Denethor and have him defend against the Troll, discard a card to raise his defense, and then use Daughter of the Nimrondel or Self Preservation to heal him. There are a couple of nasty shadow effects that you can hopefully avoid by using Dark Knowledge and Feint.
If you don't get Forest Snare, Protector of Lorien, or Gandalf in the starting hand then taking a mulligan is your best bet. (Gandalf can reduce your threat and hopefully give you enough time draw a Forest Snare or Protector of Lorien.)
Apophenia said:
pumpkin said:
what did you do with the Troll? Got forest snare on him as quickly as possible?
That is the optimal way to deal with the Troll. However in a 50 card deck you might not start with a Forest Snare. The other option is to put Protector of Lorien on Denethor and have him defend against the Troll, discard a card to raise his defense, and then use Daughter of the Nimrondel or Self Preservation to heal him. There are a couple of nasty shadow effects that you can hopefully avoid by using Dark Knowledge and Feint.
If you don't get Forest Snare, Protector of Lorien, or Gandalf in the starting hand then taking a mulligan is your best bet. (Gandalf can reduce your threat and hopefully give you enough time draw a Forest Snare or Protector of Lorien.)
Ah, I always overlook the defence boost of PoL for some reason, but putting it on Denethor is smart
servant of the secret fire said:
Trump said:
I can't see how this would ever have a Sauron player. It'd be a completely different game. In my case, it'd be one I didn't want to play. And I don't think it'd add any interest.
It will be more interesting if a real person can play as the shadow player.Imagine DND pnp without a DM.Just a group of guys trying to complete the same stories over and over again with different characters.You will enjoy your first games but after some games you know where you must travel what monsters you must kill and what you must do to complete the quest and the game becomes boring.
I don't say to change this game from a coop to a competitive one but they could give the option to play as a the shadow player.Those who like coop they can continue play like this and those who like pvp games they can enjoy this mode.More options more people more fun.
But i agree with you,it is very dificult for FFG to do that .Denethor's abilitie will be useless if someone can control the encounter deck and they must make a tone of erratas to give us that option.
I don't think you're following me. Look at how the game works now. How does Threat work if you have a Sauron player? How does Questing work? These are just examples of intrinsic mechanisms in the game that you can't just alter to allow a person to choose what happens instead of having it automated. What would make the game interesting to the Sauron player?
Check out my thread "an idea for pvp". I think the Sauron player having control of the Quest phase offers lots of choices. Do I give them Treachery to hurt them, but allow them progress on the quest or do I load them up with enemies/locations? Also, do I save some of the tasty Shadow effects for combat?
Trump
I don't think you're following me. Look at how the game works now. How does Threat work if you have a Sauron player? How does Questing work? These are just examples of intrinsic mechanisms in the game that you can't just alter to allow a person to choose what happens instead of having it automated. What would make the game interesting to the Sauron player?
Threat and questing is not a promblem and it can continue work as it is working now.What makes DND interesting for the DM?He makes the story and he choose what monsters the players are going to fight and he gives palces and location the players must choose to travel.Same can happen to this game.The shadow player can choose wich enemys and locations will go in the staging area and he chooses where he wants to deal each shadow card.
Again as i said before this is not possible now cause abilities like the one Denethor has will be useless and they must make new rules for the pvp mode but i don't think that they want to do somethink like this.
hmmm.... with all the discussions going on... I really have to ask myself - does it bode well for the game that people are already making custom scenarios, proposing new rules, change of the encounter deck mode, and that particularly this thread "beginning to lose interest already" is so vibrant and alive? maybe that's just us hardcore players in the active community, having played 100 + games :S