Okay let's try again. Sorry for the "partition" error in the other thread which cost me to post another thread.

There's a lot of talk going on, to put it nicely, about the game being too easy, banning cards, critics of easy level 4 quest and so on. I think it would be interesting to see just how many people that visit this forum frequently and play the game for the fun of it, that thinks it good as it is in general and don't need any seriously changes. At least not until the first tournament has been helt...if ever.

I can start out and say that I think it both easy and challenging in the same time, but love it for the story and flavor more than its beatabillity. And if there's a card or two I don't like whatever the reason, I'll just play less with it.

I don't think this is needed. I doubt very much that FFG is on the verge of banning or restricting anything. They usually ban or restrict cards based on what they see and hear about official tournaments, because that is what they can monitor and control. Since we have none of those, I would be shocked to see them do something like that. Some erratas maybe, but not the more extreme steps.

As an example, it took quite a while for them to do this with Warhammer and that only took place because of the constant complaints by tournament players. If you think a card is overpowered, simply don't use it. That is the beauty of a game like this. There is no one better than you to police yourself.

The game should stay as is for now. FFG has plenty of competitive cardgames, a lot of people got into this one because it's NOT 'in your face' cutthroat.
In fact it worries me how even here the 'ban this' 'ban that' 'change this' 'change that' fanaticism bandwagon seems to poke it's head up... prematurely on top of it!

since I NEVER saw ANY staff of ffg post on this forum - I think they won't be hearing any of our partitions, eerrrrrr, petitions ;-)

which is a pity... couldn't we get a moderator for this forum, who can delete some threads, close them, reply to rules, etc...

I think - which is standard btw in anything produced - that ffg has already finished the deluxe ap and the first 2-3 ap of the dwarrowdelf cycle... after the deluxe ap, we will see a change! and maybe tournaments -

ANYONE know SWORD QUEST on ATARI?? if the PRIZES ARE THAT COOL, like a real golden sword with rubies, e.g. narsil, etc - THEN we can talk...

anywho, ffg won't certainly ban cards - they simply won't make them if they think they're to powerful... people, the guys at ffg aren't stupid, they do this for a living!!!

No one has come up with a good tournment format, or even a good scoring system.

Vyron said:

I think FFG actually prints all the AP's in a cycle at one time, so I wouldn't be surprised if all the Dwarrowdelf AP's are developed at this point. What they're probably working on now is the next deluxe expansion and the following AP cycle.

While this petition may not be needed, I do like to see that other people prefer to wait to make any big "fixes" until after there are some official events. I look forward to LotR having official events like CoC, W:I, and AGoT. I don't know if they will be tournaments, but I think that's what adds to my curiosity.

unexpected courage should be a restricted attachment.... ... .

mason240 said:

I remember reading somewhere that tournaments would be 2 player, getting three tries against a new quest, and keeping their best score. It would be similar to showing up and playing massing at osgiliath at gencon.

What do you think is wrong with the scoring system in place?

The scoring system in place gives Spirit decks designed around recycling Galadhrim's Greeting, Gandalf, and Will of the West a huge advantage over those decks with very little threat reduction.

If the game is too easy -players can switch to 3 sphere decks, they can switch to 50 cards decks, and or they can switch to 1 sphere decks

I even hear that some people play with only 1 core set so the quests are more challenging (and they spend less money)

Keggy said:

Not to mention it favors decks with healing and discourages using heroes like Gimli and Gloin who rely on being damaged to be useful.

And soon will discourage you from ever using Boromir's second Action.

Lenbo said:

Both of Boromir's actions actually, since one forces you to raise your threat. I still want to see how a tournament would go using the parameters set by FFG.

Lenbo said:

I don't have a problem with most of this. Yes, it might slightly favor decks with healing, but only by maybe a couple points. Also, yes, it means that Gimli will hurt your score if you're tossing damage on him. However, Gimli with a bunch of damage on him is pretty ridiculous, which makes the game much easier. Having a worse score (and only by a minor amount) for using something very powerful isn't a problem, imo.

Also, Boromir's second action is really a last ditch effort. It's more of a "If we don't use it, we'll probably lose. If we do use it, we can possibly win." It should never be taken lightly. The same with his first action, really. You can keep upping your threat to ready him over and over, but that's the cost of using a very powerful ability.

The problem with threat reduction decks is that they change your score to the point where no other deck can even hope to keep up. You're talking about changing your score by 30-50 points versus maybe 3-5 points difference for say using Gimli or a healing deck or something.

Svenn said:

So your saying it's okay for the scoring system to discriminate against playing smart, using cards' strengths, and employing different cards/strategies?

No, score should reflect difficulty and skill. Netting a few less points because you used more powerful cards doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Losing a few points because you used Boromir's second ability to save the game seems fair to me since someone who didn't need to sacrifice him to win the game probably did better, so the score reflects this.

The point of the post was mainly that a few points of difference in score is going to occur based on various cards in just about any sphere. You can play a healing deck and cut off a few points through healing, you can play a heavy defense deck and cut off a few points by not taking damage, you can play an offensive deck built around killing enemies in the staging area or dealing with them in other ways before you take damage, or various other options each of which affects your score by a few points... OR you could just play a Spirit threat reduction deck and have the lowest possible score without competition.

It's fine having cards in each sphere that affect your score in some way, whether it be through healing, defense, offense, or even threat reduction. When one of those things is worth WAY more points than the other is when there is a problem. Threat reduction has the capability to change your score by 10 times as much as any other method, or more since with threat reduction you can cycle through forever to squeeze out every last point.

The main issue with Threat reduction and the scoring system is that even a few points can make a difference in the results and standings. Even if I score only 1 or 2 points higher than you (which you seem to imply isn't a big deal), I'll end up second to you in ranking, meaning you beat me.

In most 1-on-1 games, tournament results and standings are based on victory, period. For example, in Magic, whether you end up with 20 life points of 1 life point at the end, if your opponent is dead, you win the game and you get the 3 victory points awarded as part of the tournament rules. Your win's value doesn't change based on the cards you use or your strategy. The difference ingame is the risk you're taking.

But with LotR, the strategy itself has an impact on the score. As was pointed out, using Gimly becomes an issue because the damage he needs to be effective will reduce your score in the end.

Other people have suggested different methods: factoring in the number of turns it took to win was one.

I don't know what the ideal system could/would/should be. Maybe forcing more "common" parameters on players, like what is done in Arkham Horror League play, where players are restricted in what they can use (thus giving everyone a more equal chance of success and basing the score on a similar opponent / game, favoring better gameplay rather than stalling strategies).

But clearly, the current scoring system will not work as the sole result-determinant in a tournament structure without further additions.

SiCK_Boy said:

This.

Which is why I suggested this scoring system which I've posted in a few other threads:

Final Threat Level + Number of Threat Lowered Using Card Effects + Number of Hero Defeats - Victory Points Earned

This formula makes things only slightly more complicated in that it requires you to keep track of 2 variables. However, it doesn't discourage any strategies in particular and doesn't encourage cycling of players' decks, while keeping in theme with the original game's formula of punishing players' scores for losing heroes.

However, I believe that there will also have to be restrictions made by FFG to the rules or as to what content decks will contain because as players have demonstrated, it is more than possible to create decks which can beat any scenario in the game pretty handily with the right synergy.