Lord of the Rings: The Card Game

Newbie play report of first scenario-

Pretty much what I expected. Wandering through the wilds with Dwarves, Elves, and Dunedain and getting killed by big spiders and shit. Which is fine by me because I like that kind of action.

It's similar to The Lord of the Rings (Knizia) in the sense that the goal is to pass through X game stages to win but instead of different boards there are just three sequential quest cards. The similarity mostly stops there. There's a lot of battles to engage in instead of card suit collection. In the LCG you have to maintain a balance between tapping your characters to add quest completion points and keeping them fresh in order to fend off foes and use abilities.

Fights are the simple staple ATK-DEF=DAM. The battles aren't bad though and there is a random kicker card assigned to the monsters so you never know how hard they are going to hit or if some other minor ability will trigger. One of the cool things in combat is that if you don't tap a defender then you have to assign all the damage to one of your heroes, not your fodder allies. Those guys are the real (nameless) heroes of Middle Earth, stepping up to melee twenty foot arachnids while slackers Legolas and Gimli hang back puffing pipes until it's time finish off the beast. Like the fucking Jay and Silent Bob of fantasy those two.

The starter deck sets are decent 30 card mono decks and seem to play well enough without any customization for the tutorial scenario. I don't even feel the need to get into any deck building for a little while, at least until the familiarity becomes dull or the adventures get too difficult. It's totally playable out of the box, you don't have to worry about constructing a deck to learn it.

Lord of the Rings isn't a 'skill-checky' kind of adventure, nor did I come across any story-type encounters in the tutorial. So, unlike ME:TW there aren't any dice either. Kind of a shame they didn't work dice into the design. If you've ever played a CCG and any co-ops you pretty much know what to expect I think. The fusion does add interest though. Really nothing majorly groundbreaking here but it's solid and definately another good couple's (or solo) game. If you want to play 4p then you need to have a buddy score another box.

So far I really like it and had a lot of fun. Totally worth it on the cheap.

P.S. If you own Thunderstone and still have the insert for it, rip it out and put it in your LotR box. It fits perfectly and works like a charm for this.

Good write-up. I've definitely grown to like the game a lot more since my initial impressions: fortressat.com/blogs-by-members/2549 Playing it solo by controlling 2 decks (as if playing with 2 players) was a huge improvement for me in terms of enjoyment.

Man, I missed that blog so thanks for the link. I really liked what you said here:

I suppose it might have something to do with feeling like you've hit every possible type of experience that a particular game is likely to throw at you. And that can be pretty broad, so even though something might have a lot of random elements so it will never be exactly the same game twice, it still might feel the same in a general sense... to the point where you don't really feel compelled to continue playing it at some point. Then again, there are some games that I'm still playing with some regularity after a few years, and they may provide more or less similar experiences, and yet, I'm still eager enough to play them when I can.

I can totally relate. You also mentioned that you dig LoTR(Knizia) but for me it's one of those games that I hit a wall with early on. After we finally won it, I felt done with it. It didn't offer any significant different experience, after you digest what it has to offer, other than "can we win". I get cranky while playing it because it just feels like a chore. Red November had the same effect as well as some other co-ops. So I wonder if LoTR:TCG will eventually be the same for me.

Unlike those others, the deck customization aspect could very well save it from that fate. Can I win with this build? What would happen if... Then you have the multiple scenario angle to keep it lively. I'm hoping for the best. Yeah, the focus of LOTR:TCG is pretty narrow but I don't mind that because it's not cluttered with excess baggage either.

Hex Sinister wrote: Lord of the Rings isn't a 'skill-checky' kind of adventure, nor did I come across any story-type encounters in the tutorial.

I don't think there will be any "story" encounters besides the ones brought by the quest cards, which are supposed to drive the narrative. In any case, rather then random Runebound-style encounters, I'd like to get beefed-up quests, with crossroads that lead to different paths and outcomes. It would be possible to even add some minor in-game deck-building. For example, we start the game with no Gandalfs, and we are given the choice to rescue him as a side-quest; if we succeed, the group gets the right to immediately shuffle Gandalf cards into their decks.

Another option is the epic scale: we start the game with basic 30-card decks, and at the end of each successful quest the group receives new cards. It could be played on a map, like Middle-Earth Quest's board. it would work a bit like the old Magic: the Gathering PC game: new heroes and new quests would appear, and the group decides which ones to go for, depending on the expected loot or difficulty level. Even basic quests would be useful. At the end, after we've received enough cards to build strong decks, we must defeat a very hardcore quest, difficulty 10 or 11. It would take a long time, but it would be awesome.

Some cool ideas there, Tcho-tcho. I'm wondering what the expansion packs will offer and if they'll open the game up more or if it will be more of the same. Still, some of the stuff you are talking about could be fan created. The quests themselves seem pretty easy to customize.

I played a few more games and am still digging it. The second quest is a ball breaker. We lost that twice and went back to the trainer quest and beat that pretty easily.

Fantastic idea, tcho-tcho. I'd love to see that kind of thing, and who knows, maybe that is planned for an upcoming official release. Otherwise, it can always be a fan created scenario, though I think you'd have to wait until a lot more of the cards have been released to be able to put it together well.

I think they have left the system open ended enough to introduce some different stuff down the road. For instance, the Threat Level is currently 50; increasing it would allow for longer quests, although you'd need some more healing type cards and/or some red shirt characters to replace those that get killed. Similarly, you could start a quest with a fixed number of Resources to build a starting party. Or give you resources to heal/add at the end of a quest before starting the next one. I'll be curious to see what they add down the line.

Yes, I suppose that once we get enough cards, we'll see all kinds of stuff – either official of fan-made. The game is good, it only needs some extra elements to really shine. In fact, I'm not usually prone to solitaire boardgaming – it usually gets stale very fast for me – but I'm enjoying this one even without other players.

I've been thinking about getting a second core set. Then I tell myself that I shouldn't fall prey to FFG's devilish, wasteful schemes: 30 euros for ~70 useful cards sounds a bit over-the-top. I'll try to find a copy for cheaper, but European online stores are not as "generous" as American ones. Maybe The Book Depository, if I'm lucky enough to score a copy when they received it.

I suspect you'll see it pop for sale in flea markets/used etc after a while. Many probably bought it based on subject matter alone, and some will probably not like it.

Msample wrote: I suspect you'll see it pop for sale in flea markets/used etc after a while. Many probably bought it based on subject matter alone, and some will probably not like it.

This would be without any doubt the best solution, but the second-hand market here is quite small (especially for non-euro games) and shipping expensive, both within the country and internationally. For the time being, I'll wait and see.

This is the rage at my game group. I like the game but don't love it like the others do. Last time we had a big game group more than half the tables were playing it.

Steve"Roots for the trolls"Avery

I just played a couple of games of this- I'm going to review it next week, but some notes-

- It's very good, I think it's probably better than Death Angel. The theme and narrative is much stronger, and there's a lot more depth. It definitely has an adventure game feel that's quite complete given the streamlined package.

- The first scenario is too easy. I beat it twice with tactics and leadership, first times out.

- FFG are playing the fucking crooks on this one. It's a total lie- stated on the box and in the rulebook- that you need two sets to play four players. Instead of buying another $40 game to get the two threat dials you would need to play with four, buy a pencil from a blind guy on the corner for a quarter and find a piece of scratch paper. Write down your threat. There's four starter decks in the box, and you can swap cards between them. They're making shit up.

- Adjunct to that, it's a damn shame they didn't put this in a small, Silverline box for a $24.95 retail. You don't need the dials, pen and paper or some dice work just fine. Smaller markers would be fine for the other pieces, too. It's another LCG in a big square box with an insert that would fit in a Silverline box. This is ridiculous, 200 or so cards and a couple of handfuls of counters in a full-sized container. Wasteful and deceitful.

It looks like once again a potentially great game is bungled because of FFG's spurious marketing practices, and that's really a disappointment.

I dunno man, I thought it was a good deal really. Shit, I only paid $25 for it. Comparable to something like Resident Evil, no? The meager 3 quests seemed a fucking joke at first but I'm cool with it now.

I've already doubled the play time I thought I would get out of it and I've not even done the 3rd scenario yet. For what it's worth, the cards are of GOOD quality and the art and layout are very well presented. Thunderstone kind of looks like shit in comparison. Finding two card backs that MATCH in that game is a game in itself. The rulebook is also well composed and the gameplay IS there. So you kinda get what you pay for.

I like the dials but it would have been more convenient if they were card sized for storage.

I have to go, I need to set my Silver Line LotR Knizia game on fire now.

- It's very good, I think it's probably better than Death Angel. The theme and narrative is much stronger, and there's a lot more depth. It definitely has an adventure game feel that's quite complete given the streamlined package.

That sounds great, adventure games with tactical cardplay are my weakness, and it definitely looks like an adventure. Also, more scenarios are coming, which is great.
BTW, how strong does the narrative feel in this game?

- The first scenario is too easy. I beat it twice with tactics and leadership, first times out.

It's interesting, others say that the tactics deck is the weakest aganst the first scenario. Or did you use both decks in the games you have beaten it?

- FFG are playing the fucking crooks on this one. It's a total lie- stated on the box and in the rulebook- that you need two sets to play four players. Instead of buying another $40 game to get the two threat dials you would need to play with four, buy a pencil from a blind guy on the corner for a quarter and find a piece of scratch paper. Write down your threat. There's four starter decks in the box, and you can swap cards between them. They're making shit up.

Yeah, I find it annoying as well. Well, at least they didn't tweak the game to make it impossible to play with 4 out of the box, although I'm pretty sure they could have done it.

- Adjunct to that, it's a damn shame they didn't put this in a small, Silverline box for a $24.95 retail. You don't need the dials, pen and paper or some dice work just fine. Smaller markers would be fine for the other pieces, too. It's another LCG in a big square box with an insert that would fit in a Silverline box. This is ridiculous, 200 or so cards and a couple of handfuls of counters in a full-sized container. Wasteful and deceitful.

All of their LCGs core sets come in the same big square boxes, so no surprise there. Unfortunately, in the case of boardgames, the size of the box usually correlates with the intended deepness of the game, at least that's how customers see it. A small box just screams "filler!!!!", while a bigger box (even if it contains mostly air) suggests a more serious, longer game. I can understand it, I just wish they included a smaller box in the big one for portability (a box of the size of a smaller book would be enough for each LCG core sets). There would be plenty of space for it in the box.

It looks like once again a potentially great game is bungled because of FFG's spurious marketing practices, and that's really a disappointment.

I don't think any of these issues is serious enough to make LOTR LCG a non-great game. But they definitely leave a sour taste in my mouth.

wice wrote:

- It's very good, I think it's probably better than Death Angel. The theme and narrative is much stronger, and there's a lot more depth. It definitely has an adventure game feel that's quite complete given the streamlined package.

That sounds great, adventure games with tactical cardplay are my weakness, and it definitely looks like an adventure. Also, more scenarios are coming, which is great.
BTW, how strong does the narrative feel in this game?

I like this more than Death Angel, which felt okay but too repetitive, since the range of options is quite small.

The narrative has its quirks, of course: there are concepts like "threat" and "resources" that may not make sense all the time, or events and attachments that maybe do not fit the place you are in ("Beorn's Hospitality" in a wasteland), but with some creativity you can fit it all into a coherent story. The quest cards are specific, so they help drive the narrative forward.

- The first scenario is too easy. I beat it twice with tactics and leadership, first times out.

It's interesting, others say that the tactics deck is the weakest aganst the first scenario. Or did you use both decks in the games you have beaten it?

The problem with the tactics deck is the lack of willpower, needed in order to explore locations. It's possible to win with it, but only if you're lucky to get a constant stream of enemies instead of locations from the encounter deck.

- FFG are playing the fucking crooks on this one. It's a total lie- stated on the box and in the rulebook- that you need two sets to play four players. Instead of buying another $40 game to get the two threat dials you would need to play with four, buy a pencil from a blind guy on the corner for a quarter and find a piece of scratch paper. Write down your threat. There's four starter decks in the box, and you can swap cards between them. They're making shit up.

Yeah, I find it annoying as well. Well, at least they didn't tweak the game to make it impossible to play with 4 out of the box, although I'm pretty sure they could have done it.

This is not completely fair. The game is playable with four, but the deck-building aspect is very very weak (it's not strong with two, but much better). If FFG had announced this as a four-player game, they would have received a horrible backlash. The fact that they haven't included three copies of each card is much worse.

- Adjunct to that, it's a damn shame they didn't put this in a small, Silverline box for a $24.95 retail. You don't need the dials, pen and paper or some dice work just fine. Smaller markers would be fine for the other pieces, too. It's another LCG in a big square box with an insert that would fit in a Silverline box. This is ridiculous, 200 or so cards and a couple of handfuls of counters in a full-sized container. Wasteful and deceitful.

All of their LCGs core sets come in the same big square boxes, so no surprise there. Unfortunately, in the case of boardgames, the size of the box usually correlates with the intended deepness of the game, at least that's how customers see it. A small box just screams "filler!!!!", while a bigger box (even if it contains mostly air) suggests a more serious, longer game. I can understand it, I just wish they included a smaller box in the big one for portability (a box of the size of a smaller book would be enough for each LCG core sets). There would be plenty of space for it in the box.

The box may look empty now, but it's supposed to store the expansions as well.

It looks like once again a potentially great game is bungled because of FFG's spurious marketing practices, and that's really a disappointment.

I don't think any of these issues is serious enough to make LOTR LCG a non-great game. But they definitely leave a sour taste in my mouth.

I agree with wice. It's not a disappointment, mostly because I already knew what I was getting into when I bought it, but it could have been better. My only issue are the '1x' and '2x' cards.