Lord of the Rings: The Card Game

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.

I think the point of the core sets in every LCG is that they contain well constructed decks, that make the game playable out of the box even for casual players, who are not interested in the deck construction aspect. They obviously could include 3 copies of every card, but that would probably make the core set more expensive and these decks would not be that well balanced, so they should include a deck construction guide for casuals ("put 1 of each of these cards into your deck, 2 of these and three of these"), which would be tedious. Or, at least, that's the official response for these concerns.

On the other hand, it would be a good compromise if there was a complementary package for the core set available, that would complete the core set's deck to three copies of each card. Unfortunately hardcore deckbuilders are willing to buy 3 core sets, so it won't change any time soon.

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

I didn't check it, but I'm pretty sure that even if I had three copies of every card available for older LCGs (CoC, W:I or AGOT), there would still be plenty of space in the core set boxes. Also, even if I was into deck construction, I would carry all the cards with me all the time. These boxes are just simply too large to be carried around. And since FFG seems to care so much for casual players, a smaller box that's big enough only for the core set would be nice.

I think the point of the core sets in every LCG is that they contain well constructed decks, that make the game playable out of the box even for casual players, who are not interested in the deck construction aspect. They obviously could include 3 copies of every card, but that would probably make the core set more expensive and these decks would not be that well balanced, so they should include a deck construction guide for casuals ("put 1 of each of these cards into your deck, 2 of these and three of these"), which would be tedious. Or, at least, that's the official response for these concerns.

On the other hand, it would be a good compromise if there was a complementary package for the core set available, that would complete the core set's deck to three copies of each card. Unfortunately hardcore deckbuilders are willing to buy 3 core sets, so it won't change any time soon.

The decks are not necessarily more balanced because they left some cards out – they are just weaker: FFG left out copies of the most powerful cards, the ones you'll want to have if you want stronger decks. They could have simply left less useful cards out and given us a complete set. I doubt this was done for the sake of gameplay.

In any case, this is a deck-building game, and you can't get too far without customisation. Except maybe if you're playing with 3 or 4.

I didn't check it, but I'm pretty sure that even if I had three copies of every card available for older LCGs (CoC, W:I or AGOT), there would still be plenty of space in the core set boxes. Also, even if I was into deck construction, I would carry all the cards with me all the time. These boxes are just simply too large to be carried around. And since FFG seems to care so much for casual players, a smaller box that's big enough only for the core set would be nice.

But in one year there will be more than 700 new cards – probably more than 800. In one year and a half there will be no space left in the box. It's only wasteful if they release new 'big' boxes.

And I don't get the 'casual players' remark – it's never been FFG's strong point

I think the box size issue may irk the hard core geeks like us, but at retail, those things stand out more than a Silver Line box, esp when faced out rather than bookend style. And with such a well known license as LotR, you think FFG is going to let potential sale slip by? Hell, maybe they are making better margin% at $40 than $25, but the extra margin dollars at that price point may even offset less unit sales at $40 than more units at $25 with less margin. While I agree that the other LCG would have been better served in smaller boxes like Heroes of Graxia, for a LotR theme game it is easy to see why they went big.

tcho-tcho wrote: The decks are not necessarily more balanced because they left some cards out – they are just weaker: FFG left out copies of the most powerful cards, the ones you'll want to have if you want stronger decks. They could have simply left less useful cards out and given us a complete set. I doubt this was done for the sake of gameplay.

Let me correct myself here: this is not right. A deck with only 10 different cards would be a bore. A better solution is to print copies of the 'rare' cards with the expansions - 3 in each box, for example. The price would be negligible.

edit: Those who bought 3 core sets would complain, but who cares? They would keep on buying anyway...

tcho-tcho wrote: And I don't get the 'casual players' remark – it's never been FFG's strong point

By "casual player" I, of course, mean gamers who buy the core set, but are not interested in deckbuilding, not housewives, who would ocassionally play Ticket To Ride or Lost Cities. I, for one, am such a casual player, I bought CoC and W:I, but I wouldn't have done so, if it was necessary to bother with pre-game deckbuilding.

I'm sure many other gamers are just like me: if the "Num Owned" stat on BGG is anything to go by, then the number of people owning the core sets wastly exceeds the number of those who bought expansion decks. And I don't compare one particular expansion deck to the core deck: the number of owned core sets of any LCG seems to be higher than the number of owned expansion sets for that LCG combined. This pretty much means that FFG makes more money on casual LCG players than on hardcore deckbuilders.

The 'casual player' is restricted to 3 quests with the core set (besides unofficial print-and-play). Not a great deal, if you ask me. Maybe the previous LCGs are just a bad benchmark for this game.

The box size shouldn't be an issue, because it's clearly marketed as an "LCG", with multiple expansions already announced before the base game was even released. So the intent and expectation is for people to buy more than the base game, thus needing more room in the box for additional card sets.

What annoys me is that there were only 3 scenarios included in the base game, when they comprise all of 3 cards each. Certainly another 1 or 2 more scenarios could have been included. Granted, I haven't even tried the 3rd scenario yet, but still...

Come on y'all, are people not able to provide their own storage for games anymore and we've got to have a publisher jacking up the price of what could be a small box game to put it in a big box and make you feel like they give a damn if you have somewhere to put your cards? It's more about looking like to the casual consumer that they're getting value for the money. FFG isn't giving you a big box as a charity. Msample has a good point- the big box makes it stand out and it looks like a $40 game. The problem is that a mainstream consumer is going to open it and see two zippies with 100 or so cards a piece in them and a couple of cardboard counters and feel ripped off. They _should_ feel ripped off.

The big box is _iconic_ in the games marketplace, it tells you that you're buying The Big Game and it's worth the cover price. It's not because FFG says "we need to provide people with a box. I'll tell you what FFG- you put out a $20 edition of this game with no counters and no threat dials in a small box and I'll buy my own damn buck fifty card box and I have plenty of dice and counters around the house.

I'm not surprised or disappointed at the format, I know exactly what to expect from the LCG racket. But whatever happened to all of this talk about how it was better than a CCG? It isn't, you just make bulk purchases of set cards. I can't imagine buying multiple copies of the core set to get three of each card- at that point, you're looking at a $120 buy-in, almost the cost of a booster box and a half of Magic. I'm talking retail prices, what you paid at Coolstuff or whatever doesn't count. If you paid $25, you paid the right price for this game. The $40 retail is a farce.

The three scenarios deal is an issue. Seriously, double the number of scenarios and it would have been a grand total of nine or ten more cards.

Resident Evil was brought up in comparison- RE had more cards, retailed at $30, came in a reasonable box,and there was no tease to get you buy two more "starter sets".

I want to support this game because it's really good, but FFG is really yanking at our purse strings with this one...and sadly, mostly people won't have a thing to say about it and just line right up to buy it like trained dogs.

Michael Barnes wrote: Come on y'all, are people not able to provide their own storage for games anymore and we've got to have a publisher jacking up the price of what could be a small box game to put it in a big box and make you feel like they give a damn if you have somewhere to put your cards? It's more about looking like to the casual consumer that they're getting value for the money. FFG isn't giving you a big box as a charity. Msample has a good point- the big box makes it stand out and it looks like a $40 game. The problem is that a mainstream consumer is going to open it and see two zippies with 100 or so cards a piece in them and a couple of cardboard counters and feel ripped off. They _should_ feel ripped off.

I'm not surprised or disappointed at the format, I know exactly what to expect from the LCG racket. But whatever happened to all of this talk about how it was better than a CCG?

But you are looking at it from the consumer perspective. From the FFG perspective, the LCG concept seems to be working well. This is the fourth LCG they've released now, and I don't think they would have done it if the prior three were not working. And to boot, they have one of the most bankable franchises in the hobby with LotR. ( AGoT has probably seen a huge surge in interest as well I bet ) . And they've conditioned the LCG consumer - who in many cases, myself included, are separate from the CCG consumer - to expect and deal with it.

Finally, this series will probably entice more first time LCG customers than any of the others - people on TOS were drooling at the prospect of this game and I haven't seen any huge backlash over the format or price that hasn't already cropped up over the other LCG. And it seems to be the most popular of the LCG series by the amount of time it has spent on top of the Hot List.

From the FFG perspective, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

True enough- regardless of what I think, the game seems to be a smash hit and if it's turning revenue, then they're doing something right. I just think consumers should be more critical. Being OK with getting rolled is what's made GW the company they are today. Which is great for them and their stakeholders, sure. It's capitalism.

I am sort of surprised that it's done so well, the LotR license seems like it's still recovering from saturation, maybe there's enough distance from the films now.

ONe thing I like a lot is that it's a very dark, different look for LotR. It's got a nice, grim tone that I appreciate- it looks more dark fantasy than high fantasy. The artwork is exceptionally well done, and even the basic storylines are fairly dark.

Like that time when Aragorn got killed by a spider...

That's one thing that's interesting- people didn't like MECCG because it had situations like that, but somehow they're OK in this game. Odd.

Michael Barnes wrote:
ONe thing I like a lot is that it's a very dark, different look for LotR. It's got a nice, grim tone that I appreciate- it looks more dark fantasy than high fantasy. The artwork is exceptionally well done, and even the basic storylines are fairly dark.

Yeah, they could have gone all Rankin Bass on it.

"Where there is a whip, there is a way".

Msample wrote:

Michael Barnes wrote:
ONe thing I like a lot is that it's a very dark, different look for LotR. It's got a nice, grim tone that I appreciate- it looks more dark fantasy than high fantasy. The artwork is exceptionally well done, and even the basic storylines are fairly dark.

Yeah, they could have gone all Rankin Bass on it.

"Where there is a whip, there is a way".

Would've been all in.

Michael Barnes wrote: I'm not surprised or disappointed at the format, I know exactly what to expect from the LCG racket. But whatever happened to all of this talk about how it was better than a CCG? It isn't, you just make bulk purchases of set cards.

Nah, it's better in this case. I'm not going to play "competitively" and I don't need to feel like I have to have a bigger suitcase then my friends.

The three scenarios deal is an issue. Seriously, double the number of scenarios and it would have been a grand total of nine or ten more cards.

It's true, this is milkin' it. Fucking Mansions was short on scenarios too. It kinda makes me bummed to say it but this is a better game and maybe even one of the better co-ops.

Resident Evil was brought up in comparison- RE had more cards, retailed at $30, came in a reasonable box,and there was no tease to get you buy two more "starter sets".

But we know damn well it's designed to sell expansion product. Yeah, any of these card based games are a racket which is why I take more time to consider them before making any purchase.

and sadly, mostly people won't have a thing to say about it and just line right up to buy it like trained dogs.

I'm not THAT trained. Sometimes I pee on the rug. Nobody is happy about game price increases but what are we supposed to do?

The box it comes in... and fits in.