Okay, so I initially posted this by mistake in the Strategy & deckbuilding forum, and I was recommended to just post it again in the general forum to maybe get more replies. So, here it is, with some additions:

I will begin this rant saying I've recently picked up this game,though I knew of its existence as soon as it was announced. At the time, however, I was busy playing Decipher's Lotr, and before that I was playing ICE's Middle Earth CCG. So, as you can see, I've enjoyed and experienced all Lotr-themed CCG's made to date and I picked this one up mainly because of the solo play factor and because it just looked like a good game (and it is). However, as a devoted Tolkien fan, I keep seeing some flaws in this LCG. I don't mind the non-canon characters, in fact I enjoy seeing them (Meccg had lots), so that's not the problem I have with this game. The thing that bothers me is how they've made the culture/race/faction spread. I think it looks rather disorganized and it seems like cards are just disconected from each other. What I'm saying here is that, for example, all Rohan cards don't really look like they belong in a particular culture/faction; another example would be Gondor. All these groups of cards, since they're spread in all spheres of influence, have this lore/aesthetical feel of being kind of disconnected, and frankly, I think that the creators of the game don't put much thought when naming and creating the concept of certain cards, or at least when placing them in a particular sphere or set. If the game right now supposedly takes place in the 17-year period before Frodo leaves the Shire, what is a card named Gildor's Counsel, with that particular art and flavor text doing in a set called The Hills of Emyn Muil? What is Gildor even doing there? (Note that I think both these cards were well made, Gildor's card feels like him and the lore behind them was very well thought, it's the fact that they're so misplaced that bugs me.) I could list lots of other examples. Everything about the card's lore and concept feels just so scattered, so out of place. Why did they decide to put Boromir in the Dead Marshes set, and Imrahil in A Journey to Rhosgobel; and Dúnhere, a character we read so little of, in the Core Set? There just seems to be so little reasoning behind the placing of each culture's cards and it looks like they just choose a random character and toss him in a random set, if you understand what I'm saying. And the main problem I this brings in my opinion is a big unbalance between races/cultures. One can't build, say, a consistent, coherent Gondor-themed deck without including at least three spheres of influence, and sometimes only one card of a particular sphere. There are other minor bugs I have with the game, like the "Istari" and "Dúnedain" keywords, and anachronic references to the "Necromancer", that show that the developers didn't make further research on these matters, but again, those are minor details.

I think that maybe this will all be fixed when we get more sets and get to the proper Lotr novels, but then I think another problem may arise. I really enjoyed Decipher's Lotr. The fact that the cards were in fact divided by culture (Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, etc) made it just feel better organized and "tribal" without it being that it was "necessarily tribal", or that you couln't mix and splash cultures as you wished when building a deck, but it gave a better visual flavor than just the word "Dwarf" written above the ability. However, what I didn't like about that game (though I think it couln't be helped) was the dozens of versions each character had. Will we get this too in Lotr LCG? It seems likely, being that we already have two versions of a bunch of characters already. When we get to the Lotr novels, will we get another Bilbo, or yet another Aragorn, for example? Or maybe (and I hope this was the case) we won't and they decided to put Bilbo early in THFG to make it unnecessary to make another in future sets. I don't know. Also, the fact that characters are divided in heroes and allies also helps the possibility of many version of the same character. I honestly hope that we'll see at most two cards for each character. More, in my opinion, wouldn't be necessary and feels like it kills the character's "uniqueness".

So I believe most of you now think that I hate this game or something like that. I don't. I love it, I like the gameplay, the very concept of the quest card, the illustrations, the visual design, etc. Enough to keep me playing it. It's just some lore and design things that really bother (or maybe will bother) me, and I was wondering if anyone else has felt something similar about them.

Also, I make mistakes with my Enlgish. It's not my first language and sometimes I confuse things.

i shall post my old reply here, then take another read, if theres anything extra ill edit the post or post another one if the edit time run out

hi

firstly let me start by saying i am a huge tolkien fan, as people who have been around on this forum for a while will know. i play this game because its lotr, not because im a gamer. so this will probably influence my answer, but with that said here is my reply……….

-i have to say i respectfully disagree with you. i have found the races and cultures very well thought out. the art is of course amazing, and i can tell the designers research at least a fair amount before creating a character.

-i feel that the races and cultures being spread over spheres is a good thing, and stops this game from being stale- after all there is many different people in all cultures, but they specialise in different areas. this i think is well represented in the game. for instance i wouldnt particularly like it if dwarves, being excellent fighters and craftsmen, were put just into tactics. there are of course many other skills that can be utilised. similarly elves are wise in lore, but they also have powerful warriors and leaders.

-remember as well that with the excpetion of dwarves and possibly noldor, no other races have really been expanded on yet

EDIT - i do agree the character release is slightly wierd- i mean mirkwood had boromir and imrahil which was very random indeed, however i actually have grown to like it. it keeps you guessing who you will get in the next pack, and again it keeps us from getting ALL the characters from one race or area all at once, which i think would get very old

-the game used to go on that 'set in the years between end hobbit and start fellowship' but i really dont think that applies anymore. afterall we are getting thorin in the hobbit pack….someone dead by our game timescale. no, i think it is more of a loose area where ffg are saying 'we're not following the hobbit, and we're not following the trilogy'

due to this the game timescale cant be after the trilogy as sauron had fallen, and the game timescale cant be before the hobbit as many of the character werent alive (thus breaking even more tolkien lore) so that leaves the brief time between the two books as a loose backing for a timescale.

of course this may change- the hobbit was a surprise when it was announced, and even though they are saga packs, we still can use the cards in our decks.

-as for the multiple versions im not sure how many we shall get….remember we only have 2 characters so far who have 2 copies, which i dont think is that bad. granted i would be annoyed if several more came out when there are so many good tolkien characters, but i was one of those people who actually wanted a new glorfindel as i disliked the old one. i agree to an extent when you say it kills the characters uniqueness, and i see what you mean here, but i think as long as both copies offer us both different things when building decks, i dont think its a major problem. the problem comes when say a new copy comes out completely killing the old one- that would be a fail in design of course.

finally i would say dont worry too much…..ive been where you are right now- i love this game, am obsessed with it, and i got really annoyed during the first two packs of dwarrowdelf when ffg gave us about half of the player cards that were useless for solo…..so i messaged them and they replied both 1 and 2 player would get equal amounts of design intention, and true to their word the last 3 packs have had some excellent cards that really helps out a solo player.

hope that all points covered

rich

well, i don't think FFG intends the cards that come in a adventure pack to "go with" that quest, per se. as has been discussed elsewhere, an entire cycle is developed at once and then the cards are split amongst the various adventure packs.

additionally, given the way they are making the cards, just who *would* go in the dead marshes? i'm not certainly up on my lore like some folks but it seems that some heroes aren't really meant to go in any location we've visited so far.

either way, i think it's sorta a false assumption to think that whatever cards go "with" an adventure pack are designed *only* for that pack -- they are not.

there was post similar to this a few months back as well - and i think dain has a good point….i think a good thing about this game is customisation, being able to take characters in places they didnt…but of course its a balance, in my opinion there are some lore areas not to cross. having a a 1st age character in a 3rd age pack for instance

on the thread a few months back i was annoyed at the idea of having thorin in with out usual player cards and quests as he would be dead….now im sort of coming round to the idea, but i guess different players will have thier limits depending on their bilbo/pippin/boromir player types

rich

Thanks again for the lengthy reply Rich.

Now, I understand what you mean when you say you like the character release and how they did it. In fact, I tried before to convince myself this was the best option; however, the problem I have with it is the relation it will have with future sets. For example, since we got Imrahil so early in the game already, when we get to the Return of the King period and we get, say, the "Houses of Healing" adventure pack (sounds cool, huh?) will they release another Imrahil? Will they release all the remaining "Imrahil-related" cards (another Athelas, or "Blade of Dol Amroth", for example)? If they do, and I hope they do, then they would feel very disconnected with the already released Imrahil in the Rhosgobel expansion. Unless, of course, they release another Imrahil in the "Houses of Healing" expansion, but then I wouldn't like more versions of already existing characters. If they do release another Frodo in the Lotr novels storyline, or another Imrahil, it would render the previous Frodo and Imrahil pointless lore-wise. (That wouldn't be the case if they make a Frodo for the Fotr storyline and another in the Rotk storyline, since the character has changed and he is relevant in both scenarios, but since Frodo has nothing to do with the Conflict at the Carrock, or Imrahil with Rhosgobel, it wouldn't had made sense to put him there). I know what I'm writing sounds maybe a bit confusing, but that's because of my difficulties with English, and I tend to repeat myself.

So yeah, while I think the character release is interesting, I think it presents problems in the long term. Again, I would not like if they made another Imrahil later in the game, but then, when the time comes that an Imrahil card would be very appropiate because of the setting, why did they have to release him as a hero so early?

richsabre said:

Also, I don't see why this is a good thing.

Dain Ironfoot said:

Yes, I do understand that player cards don't "go" with the quest and that they're not intended to necessarily be played with them. The problem I have is with the design themes in the long term, in the overall story and how they will handle repetition and such.

i see what you mean, and i do agree to a certain extent - i would like to know what (if any) reasons were for the heros in the first pack. they were a disorganised bunch as you say. perhaps this was to get the ball rolling with all the different classes by giving us a wide selection of races and areas….i really dont know

i think inevitably we shall get double copies of many heros…..im not keen on it myself to be honest.

it shall certainly be interesting to see how ffg handles these problems. i think most players are content with the method of character release at the moment so i cant see it changing, and as i say im pretty much ok with it, even if its a little wierd

rich

i see what you are saying a bit better now, but frankly, i'm not sure it's really an issue for most gamers.

first and foremost, i think FFG's responsibility should be (in my humble opinion) to gameplay first, lore/setting second. if it's a bad game but it fits the story perfectly, no one will play.

i, for one, don't have any problem with thorin being dead and walking around with frodo or aragorn. i'd wager most don't care, either (but who am i to speak for anyone else?).

at the end of the day, as long as they release a great game, i'm happy.

Dain Ironfoot said:

let me also add i wouldn't want them to "murder" the story, but at the same time, every CCG (based on a license) does that. in ME:CCG, you could have Legolas destroy the One Ring at Mount Doom, for example. They also had characters that were dead interacting with characters that were living.

so far, it seems like FFG is actually taking great care to not "break" the story (i.e., much to many players chagrin, it seems like we won't be "killing" the Balrog in Shadow and Flame AP.).

either way, I don't think crossing story boundaries is avoidable, and frankly, i think it's a plus of the game.

I know this isn't an issue to most players, and that this is pretty much a pet peeve of mine, though a very bothersome one. My problem is not with story-breaking (all ccg's do break the story) as much as with distribution and repetition. I don't really care if they released Legolas in the Core Set, so long as they don't make dozens of other Legolas, or that the current Legolas doesn't feel disconnected with the newer player cards.

Dain Ironfoot said:

I agree completely.

I had written a long post but accidentally lost it (backed out of combox). To summarize, as long as a new "version" of a hero (or ally, I'd like to see a hero version of Faramir, and several other ally cards at some point…) doesn't "kill" or make obsolete the old version (as Rich said) I don't see a problem. Many of the heroes of Middle Earth are very complex characters and have different sides to their personalities. Aragorn is both a leader and a lore-keeper (also a warrior [self-evident] and healer [houses of healing], perhaps we shall see a version of him for each sphere in the future). Glorfindel likewise is both a healer and warrior as one FFG employee (Caleb?) noted when the new version was released.

Furthermore characters develop and change over the course of their lives. This seems to be seen in the new, "young Bilbo" from TH Saga has no threat (he's inexperienced), compared to the old, "old (redundant?) Bilbo" from tHfG who is weaker (2 HP instead of 3; after all, he's older), but much more experienced (unusually high threat), and has card draw (i.e. "tricks" up his sleeve?). Caleb also discussed how (and why) the new Gandalf in TH Saga differs from the old Gandalf in Core in a recent blog post. I think having this variety (again as long as it doesn't kill other "versions" of characters) will turn out to be very useful (FFG will just have to be certain to add a rule about only being able to use one x name card in play at a time, if they haven't yet).

But no I don't want a dozen of any characters, I don't see a purpose to that…

I really like your post and i agree on many things with you. I also use to play Decipher game and Meccg as wel (meccg is the best Tolkien card game in my opinion). And all those problems what you talking about i already for seen 1 year before.On top of what you say here is also big problem with cards game balance. But now is a bit better. They work in on it. Much slower as they should but they do it anyway.

And what i love about this game : this game remind me a bit Decipher lotr a bit Meccg but is still very different game to both of them. And i think this game still have a big potential.

And there is no other Tolkien card games currently so we still need to play this one. Cose decipher lotr and meccg is dead now. I dont really like to play dead games if you understand what i mean.

Still ffg listen what the people say here and try to make it better. For example i complain about some problems of this game for almost year and they listen it. Last FAQ they erratas some cards like as i say all the time. Anyway i glad to see here 1 really deep thinking player with proper experience. Welcome to the club

John85 said:

John85 said:

Well put! I was so put out that I needed to write my long post again, due to unknown error, but so gratefull that you just wrote basically what my point was. The whole thing about characters developing through their lifes thus legitimate a couple of different versions of the same heroes. Of cause no one wants 10 different versions of Aragon Loragon, ok, but a Tactigon just sounds more like Transformers though a Strider would be nice.

I lost my post to Thomas, but great minds eh. Glad I could post "proxy" for you. Would love a "Strider" (not the first time I've seen that come up this week…)

John85 said:

^ *too (I do know the appropriate usage, Thomas didn't get my first post…)

very good points thomas and john….i agree that characters evolve, take pippin and merry for example. i actually hope to see two copies of those two, one as a pre-fellowship and one as a mid-return of the king, showing how they changed through their adventures

rich

i also agree that i don't want 10 copies of aragorn. that's something decipher's LOTR game did, and while there are strengths to that approach (mainly, they weren't all rares, which was nice) it does get stale.

for this game, since they aren't limited to movie images, or the movies at all, they have more license to roam and aren't limited by screen images (though, yeah, decipher did create some custom folks). so, yes, i think we will see doubles (maybe even triples -- AGoT certainly does this, but they are all so different and fit different types of decks/play styles) that i don't think it matters, as much.

even if the new glorfindel makes the old one "obsolete" (and it probably does) the old one still fits into a different deck style than the new one.

as long as there is that, and they still can find a home in the right deck (which, truth be told, is every card -- even the "bad"), we are okay.

the magic: the gathering developers talk all the time about why "bad" cards must exist and while a "bad" card might be bad in a particular environment, it takes on a life of it's own in future (as yet unknown) situations, when the card pool expands.

we tend to think cards are "better" when they best fit our play style, as opposed to some objective measure. it's normal, and not a bad thing, just something to keep in mind.

Dain Ironfoot said:

Agreed. It would be one thing if they said, "This game recreates the Lord of the Rings," then let you play in such a way that had nothing to do with the actual storyline. However, they are simply trying to recreate a decent Middle-Earth setting and allowing you to create your own "story" within it. And even as someone who loves the canon/lore of this game (probably not so much as Rich… lol), I'm okay with that. I never played ME:CCG, so can't know the feeling of using Legolas to destroy the ring, but in a way I would almost be okay with that to a small extent IF done in the right setting. My reason is that all of Tolkien's stories were about people (I include all his races in the term "people") making decision. Indeed, one of my favorite lines is Boromir stating,

"It is a strange fate we should suffer so much fear and doubt… over so small a thing. Such a little thing."

Granted, he was speaking directly about the One Ring, but I really felt this was a poignant moment that Tolkien was trying to drive home a theme. Small things, small decisions, can change the outcome of lives on a massive scale. So the ability to assume that small changes could drastically effect the storyline is plausible to me.

EDIT: Was a double post. Apologies. (stupid button delay)

benhanses said:

great insight there!

richsabre said:

Since people have been mentioning previous LOTR card games, I will say that the above point is partly why Decipher's game fell apart (I didn't play the other game, so can't speak on that). I played Decipher's extensively (actually STILL have boxes of it gathered up in a cabinet somewhere) and one of the things I appreciate about FFG's game is the "spreading around" of races. Or more accurately, the attempt to not focus the game SOLELY on races. In Decipher's game, there was a VERY defined system for each of the races… Dwarf, Elf, Man, Orc, Urak-hai, Southron, etc… and increasingly, it seemed to penalize you for trying to stray too far outside of those races. The synergies of the decks were almost SINGLY centered around race. They eventually had to include cards for "rainbow" decks, just to make them playable again… But when you start compensating by creating cards to fix design flaws (instead of fixing the flaw itself), your days really are numbered. So the fact that this game is centered more around the Spheres, AND includes synergies for the races (or other keywords… Secrecy, etc) means that the game is MUCH more flexible, and hopefully will survive better in the long run!

IMHO

benhanses said:

I too hope this game will last longer and that it will develop all it has to offer. I think this game has more potential than any other card game based on Tolkien, but right now it feels incomplete. VERY incomplete. However, I have to disagree on some things you wrote about the previous Lotr TCG. I don't think it's true when you say it was SOLELY based around races. In fact I liked that, while you could make decks around one race or theme, it was also very easy to make decks based on certain parts of the story (thus mixing races) and splash cultures in the same deck. This was especially true in the first sets, when there weren't many cards for each culture, you actually had to mix them. Don't know if you remember, or maybe you started later, but actually "rainbow decks" were in fact the first decks to appear in the game. The fact that the resource system was generic (i.e. the same for every card) also helped this. There were no colours or different types of resources, so adding random characters with generic abilities was fairly easy, and sometimes recommended.

MECCG, for its part, was, let's say, crazy about lore. CRAZY. Sure, you could give The One Ring to Legolas (an extremely foolish move, as he would have gotten corrupted in a couple of turns) but you first would have to travel to a place where you can find a gold ring, you would have to take a "sage" character with you such as Elrond (which you could only play if your company was at the character's home site or at Rivendell), then "test" the ring to see what type of magic ring it was, and if it turned out to be in fact The One Ring, you would have to travel half Middle-Earth (using a MAP that is, no less) facing the threat of hundreds of hazards (more or less depending on the size of your fellowship) including corruption from inside the fellowship, orcs, trolls, nazgul, bad weather, rivers and whatnot, to reach Mount Doom and then finally destroy The One Ring. And this was just one of the many ways to win. (Others included finding treasure, mustering different factions and peoples of Middle-Earth for your cause, crowning and proclaiming Aragorn as king and restoring the White Tree, etc) So yeah, it relied heavily on flavor for its mechanics, and it was extremely complicated (one of the reasons it was more a lot less played and part of the reasons it died quickly) but it was pretty amazing. I think though, that this game has even more potential and that if done right, it can be better than any other Lotr card game released before it. That's why I want it to avoid unnecessary versions for each character, and have each theme, culture and race properly and extensively developed to make a "world-scope" game; don't really care if it's through the course of many little expansions, but I would hate it if they leave themes or cultures incomplete or ambiguous.

Also, note that I don't want them to make hundreds of cards for Gondor, for example, but what they've made so far with the Dwarves is to me ideal, enough to consider a culture complete and balanced within itself. (And there are still more cards coming!)

John85 said:

Hehe, yep. Great minds indeed think that we wrote it the same time and pressed post, but instead of posting it it came with a choice to press post once more due to newer posts written in the meantime. So we lost either to each other or another who posted in the meantime. But kudos for your post, and wouldn't take any credits from you, just found it a funny coincidence two people writing around the same point at the same time, and both getting their first post booted

I agree with many of the above points that have been made (I do actually like that they spread the cards around so that, for example, I can create a Rohirrim deck before the presumed Rohan cycle shows up and look forward to the improvements such a cycle would produce). As a noob to the game, and a lore junky, it seems to me that there is room in the game for you to produce your own storyline here.

I don't know a whole lot about the forthcoming Hobbit "saga expansion", but if Thorin is involved and the game allows for you to include a Thorin hero card in the same deck as Frodo (who was born some decades after Thorin's death) then so be it. You, as a player, and especially a solo player, have the power to say "No" to such temptation and build a lore appropriate deck, should you wish.

So I understand some of the concerns, especially as a big fan of the source material, but this game, unlike LOTR video games and some other card/board games, allows you to build it the way you want to. So do it!