Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

B
BradHB
September 18, 2021
232 0
D
DavidNorris
September 16, 2021
509 0

Quick, Simple Fun: High Society

Board Game Reviews
AL
Andi Lennon
September 15, 2021
535 0
O
oliverkinne
September 14, 2021
481 0

Play and Pass

Essays
U
ubarose
September 13, 2021
623 0
T
thegiantbrain
September 13, 2021
533 0
O
oliverkinne
September 10, 2021
554 0

Karuba Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
B
BradHB
September 10, 2021
410 0
K
kneeshawdevelopments
September 09, 2021
578 0
D
DavidNorris
September 09, 2021
646 0
A
adamr
September 08, 2021
541 0

Mariposas - a Punchboard Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
September 07, 2021
646 0

Paring down

Essays
B
BradHB
September 03, 2021
519 0
O
oliverkinne
September 03, 2021
735 0

Earthenwar Review

Board Game Reviews
D
DavidNorris
September 02, 2021
733 0
O
oliverkinne
August 31, 2021
638 0
×
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.

One Mechanic Review: The Lord of the Rings, The Card Game

More
12 Aug 2015 13:27 #208370 by Gary Sax

The exhaust to defend or attack mechanic.  The last straw for me with LOTR: LCG


I've decided to start a series where I take games in my collection and think about them via the one mechanic I think defines them.  Today it's Lord of the Rings LCG, a rare one of this series that is going to be negative.  In this case the game used to be in my collection, so forgive me if the rules I discuss are vague/wrong.  And I'm not out here trying to troll you and insult your love of the game!

Lord of the Rings LCG is a novel attempt to make a cooperative card game against a system.  Many love the game, the product line is now vast, and I don't want to dissuade folks from doing so.  For me, one of the remarkable things about Lord of the Rings LCG is that I love it as a conceptual product.  The LCG concept seems almost perfectly designed for it---each box is a new adventure, with new game changing goals.  Enemies and allies can be tailored for whatever adventure you're trying.  Perfect!  In addition, the questing mechanic is spot on while still being appropriately abstract.  But after a number of tries, the mechanic that broke the game for me was its implementation of attack/defense against threats, and how they are separated.  It's one of the mechanics that sticks out in my mind as a fireable offense for an otherwise inoffensive game.  It drove me crazy.

Where the game broke for me is the encounter/combat system.  Specifically, each character has an attack and a defense rating, as well as a quest/resource rating.  The twist is that attack, defense and questing actions require you to tap (I'll use Magic terminology) and exhaust to perform them.  That meant that once you reached the appropriate threat level and aggroed an enemy, it would automatically attack the player.  That player would then choose a character to block the enemy, but unlike Magic the Gathering the block only absorbed damage, it did not inflict it!  Attack required a separate action, with another unexhausted card, where you use your attack skill to hurt an enemy and defense doesn't matter.  And forget questing---if your character went off to quest at a ominous location, they would not be involved in any battles.  For me, thematically, this was unthinkable both generic fantasy herowise and LOTR thematically.  This meant that Aragorn needed to rely on some other hero to eat damage before he could attack and hurt anything.  If Aragorn decided to absorb damage, he could not then attack.  So begin with the thematic part of this: I could not accept it, it boggled my mind from such a famously "hero-based" LOTR thematic base.

Forget thematics, though.  I can live with abstractions.  Where this drove me especially crazy was that it absolutely incentivized the red shirt syndrome.  Essentially, your base heroes were augmented by red shirt semi heroes played from your hand with a resource cost (e.g. a single rider of rohan).  This meant that every turn, beyond hiding from all enemies by keeping my threat low, my biggest incentive was to get some asshole out in the field with at least 1 shield/defense.  That way, he could block the enemy orcs, allowing Theoden the King to sneak up behind the orc later in the turn to do lots of damage.  And since those red shirts would often die in this phase, I would need to produce as many red shirts as possible, preferably one a turn, for combat focused scenarios.  And god forbid that Aragorn go on a quest to accomplish goals, he certainly couldn't fight then!  I really hated this mechanic, independent of theme.  It meant your best bet was to have a glass cannon and a meatshield, or a glass cannon and an ever-rotating set of random asshole guards.  Oh, and don't forget a character whose only job was to tap and perform quests as their only action (there was some lady who was awesome in the base game at this but only this).

No sale.  This all may seem trivial, but it was one mechanic that lost the game for me.  Particularly given that there are so many other good co-op games.

The following user(s) said Thank You: ChristopherMD, Sagrilarus, mutagen, OldHippy, boothwah, Colorcrayons, sornars

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

More
12 Aug 2015 14:03 #208371 by Michael Barnes
I liked LOTR LCG OK, but this was particularly annoying. It could create some tough decision points, but more often it resulted in almost unfair or unduly frustrating situations. Too many "well shit, there's nothing I can do here" moments. The game comes across as unusually punitive, which some folks mistake for "challenging".
The following user(s) said Thank You: Colorcrayons

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

More
12 Aug 2015 14:48 #208377 by Ken B.
This mechanic was the breaking point for me, too. It's stupid, anti-thematic, and only there to make the game "challenging", as Barnes said. It wasn't my only problem with the game, but it was by far the biggest.

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

More
12 Aug 2015 15:52 #208381 by boothwah
Spot on - I hated this mechanic - How much simpler it would have been if blocking meant receiving and dealing damage. Seemed so stupid that I needed to let random elf minstrel take an orc axe to the face so that legolas could shoot it.

Which reminds me, if anyone is interested I do have one LoTR CCG core set + 4 first cycle expacs for trade - LMK

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

More
12 Aug 2015 16:38 #208387 by Gary Sax
I thought I was going to take a bunch of shit on this one, I'm surprised.

The *product* as an idea is sooooo good too, a perfect use of the LCG release cycle. That's why I'm interested to hear how Warhammer Quest works out.

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

More
12 Aug 2015 17:46 #208392 by mutagen
I didn't have a problem with the game thematically. I think it adheres closer to the books then the movies. A more adult version of a hero, somebody who happens to be at the right place at the right time with the tools to get the job done. Not the movie version where some guy shoots ten orcs in the face while shouting witty banter across the battlefield. So a bunch of red shirts die? You better find a way to keep some of them alive or you are toast. Of course red shirts aren't the only way to go in this game, but it would be silly to argue that the game doesn't incentivize them.

As for being punitive, it is that. After some cards comes out you might just as well pack it in unless the finish line is in sight. But it does generate tension, and some interesting decisions. And starting over is not a big deal in this game, swap out a few cards, shuffle two or three decks, and you're ready for business. Not like say pathfinder where you could be shuffling for ten bloody minutes.

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

More
12 Aug 2015 18:17 #208395 by Michael Barnes
Yeah, that was the other big problem with this game. In addition to this overly restrictive mechanic, there was the whole thing where you literally could find yourself in an unwinnable situation strictly because of the order that the cards came up in. No, it's not a big deal to restart, but I don't feel particularly challenged when I'm looking at the table and thinking "welp, there's not a damn thing I can do because I got these three cards in a row" out of whichever deck.

It's that Ghost Stories thing...where a game is made not difficult, but capriciously impossible. This is a weak design characteristic that I think goes largely under-reported by players who think that a game is "tough" or some kind of ironman ballbuster challenge...when really it's just throwing a random game state at you that may or may not be possible to overcome. You should lose a game with automated opposition like this because you made the wrong choices, squandered resources or couldn't mitigate bad fortune. Not because the game randomly handed you a no-win situation or a series of them.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Shellhead

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

More
12 Aug 2015 18:20 #208396 by repoman
Well, I don't want you to feel cheated, Gary. So here is your portion of shit...

You are WRONG!

Alright, not wrong but I don't agree that the mechanic was either un-thematic nor deal breaking for me. The Lord of the Rings is all about hope in the face of despair and fighting against impossible odds. So if you're feeling oppressed by the weight of attacks or the lack of powerful members to assist in everything then I think that fits in. It's resource allocation. Is Aragorn more important to the questing this turn or to fighting? Do I need him more on defense or attack. These are tough choices with a cost associated with each.

Yes the game can go belly up in a hurry where you reach a point where there is no coming back. I don't think that is unique to Lord of the Rings though. I see that in Magic and in Hearthstone.

Of course I play the game strictly solo, perhaps that gives me a different perspective.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax

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

More
12 Aug 2015 19:13 #208399 by boothwah
I forgot to mention - I really dig this format Gary. Great article, great format.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ChristopherMD

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

More
13 Aug 2015 00:27 #208412 by Colorcrayons

boothwah wrote: I forgot to mention - I really dig this format Gary. Great article, great format.


Agreed. I despise Co-ops in general as they are merely solo puzzles marketed as a game. (whole other philosophical topic about that which I'll leave alone)

But whether I agree or disagree, he states his opinions cogently. I give him props for giving the game as much credit as he does. For me, you literally couldn't pay me to play it to the point where he became fed up with it.

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

More
13 Aug 2015 07:36 #208419 by Scottgun
Nails down exactly what bugs me about this game. I love the non-Peter Jackson art, but ain't no way around it: I officially dub thee "Lord of the Red Shirts"!

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

More
13 Aug 2015 09:26 #208428 by san il defanso

Michael Barnes wrote: Yeah, that was the other big problem with this game. In addition to this overly restrictive mechanic, there was the whole thing where you literally could find yourself in an unwinnable situation strictly because of the order that the cards came up in. No, it's not a big deal to restart, but I don't feel particularly challenged when I'm looking at the table and thinking "welp, there's not a damn thing I can do because I got these three cards in a row" out of whichever deck.

It's that Ghost Stories thing...where a game is made not difficult, but capriciously impossible. This is a weak design characteristic that I think goes largely under-reported by players who think that a game is "tough" or some kind of ironman ballbuster challenge...when really it's just throwing a random game state at you that may or may not be possible to overcome. You should lose a game with automated opposition like this because you made the wrong choices, squandered resources or couldn't mitigate bad fortune. Not because the game randomly handed you a no-win situation or a series of them.


Thanks for this. It articulates something that has bothered me endlessly about the co-op genre. It's been a long time since I've played most of these games, but I remember hitting a point with Pandemic where my wife and I realized that we had hit a ceiling for how good we were going to get. The only difference was that sometimes the game would randomly be much tougher than others. Essentially the only thing letting us win the game or not was the way the cards fell.

The LotR card game was a big disappointment for me. It's been several years since I played, but I do remember that it felt like at least a third of my games were obviously impossible halfway through.

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

More
13 Aug 2015 09:41 #208429 by Mr. White

San Il Defanso wrote:

Michael Barnes wrote: Yeah, that was the other big problem with this game. In addition to this overly restrictive mechanic, there was the whole thing where you literally could find yourself in an unwinnable situation strictly because of the order that the cards came up in. No, it's not a big deal to restart, but I don't feel particularly challenged when I'm looking at the table and thinking "welp, there's not a damn thing I can do because I got these three cards in a row" out of whichever deck.

It's that Ghost Stories thing...where a game is made not difficult, but capriciously impossible. This is a weak design characteristic that I think goes largely under-reported by players who think that a game is "tough" or some kind of ironman ballbuster challenge...when really it's just throwing a random game state at you that may or may not be possible to overcome. You should lose a game with automated opposition like this because you made the wrong choices, squandered resources or couldn't mitigate bad fortune. Not because the game randomly handed you a no-win situation or a series of them.


Thanks for this. It articulates something that has bothered me endlessly about the co-op genre. It's been a long time since I've played most of these games, but I remember hitting a point with Pandemic where my wife and I realized that we had hit a ceiling for how good we were going to get. The only difference was that sometimes the game would randomly be much tougher than others. Essentially the only thing letting us win the game or not was the way the cards fell.


Do you feel the same way about Knizia's LotR or do you feel you have more control over how well you do?

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

More
13 Aug 2015 09:51 #208431 by Columbob

Mr. White wrote:

San Il Defanso wrote:

Michael Barnes wrote: Yeah, that was the other big problem with this game. In addition to this overly restrictive mechanic, there was the whole thing where you literally could find yourself in an unwinnable situation strictly because of the order that the cards came up in. No, it's not a big deal to restart, but I don't feel particularly challenged when I'm looking at the table and thinking "welp, there's not a damn thing I can do because I got these three cards in a row" out of whichever deck.

It's that Ghost Stories thing...where a game is made not difficult, but capriciously impossible. This is a weak design characteristic that I think goes largely under-reported by players who think that a game is "tough" or some kind of ironman ballbuster challenge...when really it's just throwing a random game state at you that may or may not be possible to overcome. You should lose a game with automated opposition like this because you made the wrong choices, squandered resources or couldn't mitigate bad fortune. Not because the game randomly handed you a no-win situation or a series of them.


Thanks for this. It articulates something that has bothered me endlessly about the co-op genre. It's been a long time since I've played most of these games, but I remember hitting a point with Pandemic where my wife and I realized that we had hit a ceiling for how good we were going to get. The only difference was that sometimes the game would randomly be much tougher than others. Essentially the only thing letting us win the game or not was the way the cards fell.


Do you feel the same way about Knizia's LotR or do you feel you have more control over how well you do?


It's really the same thing. If the event chits all come out early you're screwed. We had the hardest time winning or even just reaching the end, until I recently pulled it out after a years long hiatus and we breezed to a win.

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

More
13 Aug 2015 10:08 - 13 Aug 2015 10:18 #208432 by Sagrilarus
Bad news decks have no way to assess game state and produce a coherent response. Pandemic does a little bit with its deal-from-the-bottom and restack-on-top mechanics, but that's the only real success I've seen on this concept. Even it is limited.

D-Day at Omaha Beach does a good job of presenting sufficient bad news everywhere all the time. But that is appropriate to the genre. Don't know how a game like this one could do that.

Lord of the Rings LCG fell flat with me from the first play. Didn't go long enough to discover this issue. I wonder if the mechanics were designed and fitted to the theme, or vice versa. It seems to me you could have implemented the same concept with facets of a single character instead of multiple people.

S.
Last edit: 13 Aug 2015 10:18 by Sagrilarus.

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

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.157 seconds