Hi,

I tried to read this rule carefully, but was still unable to comprehend how attacks are declared. Rulebook states:

"After a player’s first attack has resolved, he can declare another attack against any eligible enemy target that he has not yet attacked this round. Each player can declare an attack (with any number of eligible attackers he controls) against each enemy with which he is engaged once each round."

Question:

If I have one character and two enemies are attacking him/her, lets assume I declare this undefended and survive. Comes time for character to attack. I exhaust character and declare attack against enemy 1 and resolve. Now, do I get chance to attack also enemy 2? To my knowledge exhausting is done before attacks are declared, so basically it's not the attack-resolving which exhausts character, and rulebook states as quoted before... still rulebook gave an example where there are three characters: one attacks and resolves, then two other characters attack together and resolve, so this example didn't clarify the question.

I'd like to get confirmation to this: Can once exhausted character attack as many enemies as it likes (once per enemy of course and within range), or only one attack?

Another question:

Are defending characters declared defenders at one time, or chained after resolving? If two chacters defend against two enemies, do I have to tell "these two characters defend" and exhaust 'em, or can I tell "this character defends against this enemy. Exhaust, and lets resolve... ok, and then this another character defends against this one, exhausting now and resolving..."?

Thanks for support.

A character can only make an attack against a single enemy. The idea is that you declare an attacker (or attackers) and a target, exhaust the attacker, and resolve. Then you can pick a non-exhausted character to exhaust and attack a DIFFERENT target. The same character can only attack one target (unless a card effect allows otherwise, of course).

From the rulebook: "1. Declare target of attack, and declare attackers. A player does this by choosing 1 enemy with whom he is currently engaged, and exhausting any number of characters as attackers."

You are declaring a target and exhausting characters as attackers against that particular target. When you pick the next target the first attacker is already exhausted and cannot exhaust again, thus cannot attack again.

Defending is also done one at a time. Choose an Enemy. Declare a Defender. Resolve Shadow effect. Determine combat damage. Then repeat this. The example on page 19 of the rulebook does a pretty good job of explaining this.

Also, from the rulebook: "The first player then repeats these 4 steps for each enemy that he is engaged with. After the first player has resolved all enemy attacks against himself, the player to his left resolves the attacks his enemies are making against him, following steps 1-4 in turn for each enemy."

A character must exhaust to attack. This means that under normal circumstances, each character can attack one enemy per round. If a character readies after attacking, he or she can attack again. Notice that a player can only declare one attack on each enemy per round.

Under normal circumstances you can only defend with one character per enemy.

Thanks for clarifying. This should have been clear as a day, but somehow I managed to make it sound more complicated.

Darn I'm still so newb with this one. Even after having played MTG, Star Wars CCG and Middle-earth CCG, I still haven't been able to solve even first quest after three solo-games. Getting butt-whipped all around, but having good time as it is

Are you playing solo? If so, I wouldn't worry too much about losing your first few games. It's really difficult to play solo, especially without a good deck.

If you are playing with 2+ players you should pretty much always be able to complete the starter quest.

reaktor said:

I use to play Middle-earth ccg before but it was so long time ago about 12 years. Can you tell me please what you think about this 2 games???? I mean Middle-earth and lotr FFG. Who is better and why???? Thanks a lot.

Thats a hard question in my opinion, because Middle-Earth CCG (Collectible Card Game) was quite nice game, as was Star Wars.

In my opinion FFG's Lord Of The Rings is better for couple of reasons.

Firstly: I love cooperative games. My girlfriend isn't HC gamer and she is terrible loser (and in complex games she doesn't have similar 'game-sense' as I do), so it's better to play on same side

Secondly: I was pretty sceptic with LCG concept (as many CCG player have been), but it's really worth your money since you don't have to buy booster-boxes for 200$ to get competitive enough deck. This isn't that much a case in Lord Of The Rings LCG because it's cooperative game, but for Call Of Cthulhu (where you are going to play against other players) it saves wallet and nerves. In LOTR LCG it's nice to experience additional decks as "expansions", rather than "boosters" with totally random content.

Thirdly: In my opinion LOTR LCG is really simple when it comes to rules, when compared to Middle-Earth. Middle-Earth CCG was little more roleplaying-oriented and bit chaotic, where as LOTR LCG is quite direct when it comes to fight-rules and so on. Simple is beautiful and easier to play, which adds to fun. No need for "take that number, add dice to it and compare if that number is greater than this with those additional dices..."

Offtopic:

In my opionion the worst problem with Arkham Horror is it's ridiculous amount of components/markers and rules. I would love to see "Arkham Horror 2", which would combine the simplicity of LOTR cards with boardgame elements (without ~700 different cards/components/markers). LOTR and Call Of Cthulhu LCG both show how complex adventures can be presented without complex rules.

reaktor said:

My main gripe with LotR LCG is that lack of randomness during combat. Shadow card for Enemies adds a bit, but Player Attacks are pure math = boredom for me. That is keeping me from truly getting hooked on this game. As a point of a reference, I barely got 6 plays of LotR during the first month of owning the game, whereas I just picked up Gears of War (which has tons of randomness during combat) this week and am already up to six plays, with more to follow. Chucking dice (or drawing cards, however it is done) adds excitement and tension, not every action will be an automatic success/failure, there is always the element of chance. Middle-Earth CCG also had dice for combat (and corruption). Meccg remains to this day my favourite CCG and M-E themed game. LotR LCG currently comes in I think at #4 after Meccg, Middle-Earth Quest and LotR the board game (the co-op one).

this is sooo off topic, but... personally MECCG ABOVE ALL!!! it was the most complex ccg EVER, even with 7 sets, you have PLENTY of deckbuilding to master and you can make so wonderfully themed decks! it's to die for ))

and the fact, that you could play the ringwraiths and fallen wizards, and and and just added a component (another point of view) which in turn enabled you to understand better what the fellowship was fighting against (or all of the free peoples)

the randomness was soooo cool, because luck was a crucial part in LotR... you always need a bit of luck, so that even the smallest may rule the fate of many...

the rules were so cool, so complex, much better than MtG (though I love it, too), or Decipher's Lotr (which I like too - nerd alarm), though the text was sometimes ridiculously long - a lot of redundancy... but

coupled with the WONDERFUL art... the Middle-Earth feeling just instantly manifested itself - LURE OF MECCG - for you insiders ;-) - the characters, the "quests" - it was really a non-linear full Middle-Earth experience - more like an RPG, buffing your characters (but beware of corruption), recruiting armies... sort of board-game/rpg/ccg combination....

that being said - I think that MECCG is not suited for these times now... (wow, it's been almost 20 years already since METW) the printing technology and the new card style IS WAAAAAY better with Lotr LCG! WOW! I am AMAZED - evil storm, or Flood or Mountains of Mirkwood, etc. etc. Riverlands, EVERYTHING is painted beautifully, so that's a tie....

it's a bit negative that the game is linear insofar that you have a fixed quest in a fixed area - you don't get that sense of GRANDEUR as in MECCG, when you MUSTER THE ROHIRRIM, or pass through Morannon, or REFORGE ANDURIL, defeat a Nazgul, or become the NEW RINGLORD...

but I don't mind that! actually, it's a nice change that you don't have 10000 people fighting... just plain old small quests which are very important! the rules are explained marvellously! almost no redundancy and little faq! well, that's ok in the beginning...

the cooperative aspect is incomparable - I think it's a welcome change, though I would like to play the evil side... maybe in a future expansion, we can change sides??? kind of like MELE - LOTR LCG SAURON CORE SET, why not??? everything is possible...

also, we have to be fair - we're still at the VERY beginning of this game - so only time will tell, if this has potential (well, it obviously HAS already...) - wait till Khazad-Dûm, then we can compare better...

conclusion: I like both games enormously - art is wonderful in both, game mechanisms are awesome, rules are better explained in LCG, but more interesting and complex in MECCG; having a THINKING opponent is a HUGE advantage and motivation and because of the EPICNESS in MECCG, I still prefer MECCG, though I rarely get to play it... sometimes over the internet...

sorry for the long posts and probable mistakes - it's late, I'm tired, going to sleep...

I also found myself wondering about one possible way to expand game (if FFG shares this point of view). In my opinion one part of grand-questing is that players don't have time to do all the quests at same time. That's what makes planning so important. LOTR LCG already shares this view by placing multiple locations in one game, but I still wonder if future expansions would include multiple questing cards in one table.

In my opinion advanced questing might mean this: Table has three (maybe?) quest cards at the same time, with each having passive shadow-effect which affects players globally. Players can do only one quest at time, and have to complete this quest before having possibility to change to another one. Quest cards shouldn't put too much weight to "corruption" points, but maybe give some small aids for Saurons side (such as one quest might have active shadow effect "when playing an event, throw a coin to see if event is discarded". There could even be small quest deck, which randomly throws active quests for players.

For an example: When game begins, players draw three random quest cards. Quest cards are put on the table, and players choose which quest they are trying to defeat. Other two quests cast global shadow effect against players. When active quest card has been finished, it's discarded and players draw one more quest card (so that there are still three quest cards in game). Players then choose which quest they try to finish next... and this would be looped until all quests are finished.

Or maybe these additional quests could be "sub-quests"? Or maybe they are already introduced as locations, and there is no need for multiple quests in table? Just my 5 cents though, to see more epic campaigns

Thank you guys for very extended answer to my question about MECCG. I want to try this game cose i also think this game put you much more in Tolkien wold then other game. But i also hope this FFG Lotr will grow up and extend on the same level as MECCG. Cheers and good gaming.