Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35142 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20819 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7405 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3967 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3495 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2075 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2583 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2252 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2496 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3014 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1971 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3692 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2620 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2461 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2289 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2505 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about Eurogames here.

Let's Talk Knizia's LotR Expansions

More
03 Jan 2013 00:39 #140638 by Mr. White
Looks like my question got buried on the front page, that or I don't rate, so I'll give it a shot back here.

I understand there are three expansions to this game: Friends & Foes, Sauron, and Battlefields. I've gotten a potential trade offer for LotR w/ Friends & Foes and Sauron, no Battlefields. Is this a decent combo to have? Will I feel the game is incomplete without Battlefields? Should I just get the new silverline version and not mess with expansions at all?

So, those of you here that dig the series, what's the rundown on the expansions?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2013 02:27 #140641 by Juniper
The game is good without expansions, but replay value is limited somewhat. The expansions extend the life of the game by adding variety.

The Friends and Foes expansion adds the Bree/Isengard scenario board, so it's worth having once you've figured out reliable strategies for beating the four scenarios in the base game. The "military victory" option that this expansion introduces should probably be harder to achieve than it is; destroying the ring is a grander and more satisfying accomplishment, IMO.

The Sauron set is actually three small, independent expansions. I don't think I've ever played as the Sauron character, so I can't vouch for that role being any fun. I dunno.

I haven't played Battlefields at all.

Overall, I'd say that the basic game is an absolute classic must-play game that gets tired after 5-10 plays because that's the point at which the scripted gameplay becomes repetitive. The expansions don't eliminate the problem, but they do forestall it a little by adding some variety and difficulty.

I doubt you'd miss the Battlefields expansion. I don't imagine that there are many groups that use all the expansions at once. The combination of Friends and Foes and Sauron will give you plenty of ways to customize the game once you're finished with the base rules.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2013 08:41 #140649 by dragonstout

Juniper wrote: The Friends and Foes expansion adds the Bree/Isengard scenario board, so it's worth having once you've figured out reliable strategies for beating the four scenarios in the base game. The "military victory" option that this expansion introduces should probably be harder to achieve than it is; destroying the ring is a grander and more satisfying accomplishment, IMO.

It's recommended by Knizia that you play with the Black Gate variant when playing with F&F, which eliminates the "easy military victory" problem mentioned above. Completely.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2013 12:30 #140650 by wadenels
I'd argue that Friends & Foes is a good way to play after your first couple games even if you haven't "figured out" the base game. It just feels more complete and more interesting with F&F. Sauron is a cool option; I like it but in practice we rarely use it.

Lots of people don't like Battlefields; I have it but haven't played it yet. I like having the option, and the completionist in me is happy to have it.

I would recommend the old "big" version with Sauron & F&F over the Silverline version. Partly because I really like the older artwork, and partly because it feels to me like there's much more game in the box with F&F and Sauron options.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2013 12:49 #140651 by wkover
Battlefields is my least favorite expansion. I don't own it, and I can't really recommend it.

The others are both good.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2013 14:43 #140653 by san il defanso
There's a copy of the original with Friends and Foes in a local math trade I'm in. I think it'll be near the top of my wantlist.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2013 16:41 - 03 Jan 2013 16:53 #140664 by Grudunza

wkover wrote: Battlefields is my least favorite expansion. I don't own it, and I can't really recommend it.

The others are both good.


I have the opposite opinion... I think Battlefields is the best expansion and adds a really interesting and more dynamic aspect to the game. Yeah, the flowchart layout of the boards is lame... the same essential thing could have depicted actual battlefields, though they were obviously trying to conserve the size of the boards... but in terms of something happening, I think it's a lot more interesting than Friends & Foes, the new mechanic of which is just a line of cards. And for me it completes the LOTR experience better because now you're not just moving the Hobbits in the game, but Aragorn and Gimli and Legolas and Boromir and Gandalf are also doing their thing on the side.

Btw, I don't think of any of the expansions as essential. They're all nice to have, but the base game still holds up on its own.
Last edit: 03 Jan 2013 16:53 by Grudunza.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2013 17:20 #140668 by panzerattack
I'd say that Friends and Foes is the only expansion you really need. I hardly ever play without that one.

The other two were ok for the novelty value at first but I never use them now.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2013 17:21 #140669 by Michael Barnes
I have always suspected that Battlefields was never really finished. It just doesn't feel completely integrated to me, and the whole thing with the flowcharts feels very prototype-y. Remember that this was an expansion that came out WAY after the others, kind of out of nowhere. I've always suspected that Knizia never really felt like it was done, and eventually it just got published anyway- probably due to contractual obligation.

It also feels, as Grudunza pointed out, like a more detailed implementation of some of the concepts of F&F. And as much as I like that you've got the rest of the Fellowship more "present", it does shift the focus off the Hobbits and some of the game's core thematic values.

You know, it really kind of makes sense...Battlefields is the parts of the story that Knizia didn't think were essential to the themes he wanted to bring out, all the mass battle War of the Ring-type stuff.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2013 19:54 #140682 by jpat
Has FFG said one way or the other whether some version of the old expansions would be reprinted or redone for the Silver Line edition? I kind of figured that would be a no-brainer, but then again I also recall numerous holiday sales that had the first two expansions for something like $5, so maybe the market's saturated and anyone wanting to play with them should just pick up the old set instead or in addition.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Jan 2013 23:58 #140695 by Juniper

Michael Barnes wrote: I have always suspected that Battlefields was never really finished. It just doesn't feel completely integrated to me, and the whole thing with the flowcharts feels very prototype-y. Remember that this was an expansion that came out WAY after the others, kind of out of nowhere. I've always suspected that Knizia never really felt like it was done, and eventually it just got published anyway- probably due to contractual obligation.


Years ago, before the publication of Battlefields, but after the release of Friends and Foes and Sauron, Reiner mentioned in a BoardGameSpeak interview that he had done work on a third expansion but decided to leave it in its drawer because he didn't think it quite worked.

Unlike the base game and the other expansions, Battlefields was not developed by Kosmos. I've wondered in the past whether Battlefields came about because someone at Fantasy Flight heard that same interview and specifically requested Knizia's "lost" Lord of the Rings expansion.

Or maybe Battlefields is completely different from the "lost" expansion. Someone should ask Reiner.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Jan 2013 00:05 #140696 by Michael Barnes
That has to be it. The other expansions- even Sauron- are so refined and so exquisitely developed, and Battlefields is not. I can totally see how he toyed with incorporating this stuff, wasn't really feeling it, and shelved it. And I can totally see FFG saying "let's print that!"

Playing with it again recently, I didn't dislike it as much as when it first came out but it's still definitely the weakest element of the entire set. If it were just a LITTLE more obscured that the "battles" are flowcharts, it would have helped.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
04 Jan 2013 00:18 #140698 by Juniper
Also:

The scenario boards in the base game and Friends and Foes have lots of text on them. However, Knizia has said that it was not possible to put text on the Battlefields boards because, unlike the base game and the other expansions, Battlefields was a combined French/German/English edition.

If Battlefields had place names or chapter titles on the flowcharts, maybe the relationship between gameplay and the books' narrative would have been apparent. My understanding is that Battlefields needed more character tokens, too, so that you weren't required to do stuff like field Boromir in battles that transpire long after his death.

The production run on Battlefields was much lower than the other Lord of the Rings stuff, so such luxuries as English-language boards with explanatory text, or an appropriate selection of characters for each battlefield were probably not possible, economically.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.247 seconds