Advanced Search

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.

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.

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.

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?

Jeff White wrote: Beowulf first caught my eye when I read Chris Ferrell's 10 rating at BGG. Truth be told, he and Barnes were the original two reviewers I followed when I first started lurking at BGG and Barnes gave Beowulf a 2

Me too! And one of the things I liked about following the two of them on BGG was that 10/2 split they had, that they came at games from wildly different perspectives and had very different insights.

Beowulf first caught my eye when I read Chris Ferrell's 10 rating at BGG. Truth be told, he and Barnes were the original two reviewers I followed when I first started lurking at BGG and Barnes gave Beowulf a 2, but I always assumed he was lashing out at a culture at the time. I could be wrong though...you know assumptions... It also came out in what was my golden age of FFG. This and the first of the two GW remakes (WK and FoD) had me really stoked about the company at the time.

I wouldn't say Beowulf is one of my top 10 games, but I do enjoy it. It puts me in a particular mood that no other game seems to...the mood to drink dark beer. I'm not a super big drinker and prefer pale lagers (live in Texas), but when it comes to playing Beowulf I have to have a dark, heavy drink. The beautiful Howe art and a strong drink really puts me in the mindset. I also like Beowulf as a theme though.

It's also a game that I sorta group in with crayon rail games...great to hang out and shoot the breeze over while casually playing.

About the game itself, I feel the theme enough to say if 'my geat' is ready to commit to a particular episode based on how much of an impact he'll provide vs the risk of taking an injury or more importantly be too spent to battle well and get the lion's share of a later, greater reward.

I wonder if this game woulda been helped if each player had a minis that represented them instead of just the numbered disk each episode. Sorta like what this dude did:
boardgamegeek.com/article/10214378#10214378
LotR at least had the hobbit minis and I'd guess that'd help players be interested in Beowulf as well. Though with minis, those looking at adverts might assume it's a Talisman like game...

I suspect part of it might be theme. If the LotR design had a Beowulf theme, and the Beowulf design had a LotR theme, how much impact would that have on the two games' reception?

Besides the theme, LotR has the upside of being a relatively simple game among the co-op genre. At the game, I thought the game was a bit dry and suspectible to the alpha-dog syndrome (although the home traitor variant helped address these). More than anything, it pissed me off that one hobbit's ability (Sam?) where you ignore the color of the card, which greatly curtails the hand management problem, which is the really only interesting part of the game.

Beowulf has the problem of being a complex and fussy design for what you get out of it, but I thought it was a great hand management game, and that's one of my favorite game mechanisms.

I'd pick Beowulf over LotR primarily on LotR being the kind of group-puzzle co-op I don't care for (see also: Pandemic)

They initially felt very similar to me, especially in how cards, symbols, and hand management played a role in each game. We found LotR to have more staying power; however, mostly because the cardplay is always so damn painful and tense (and if it isn't, then it's easy to ramp up the difficulty). We kept LotR and got rid of Beowulf for mostly superficial reasons:

• The LotR theme is/was more appealing to us.
• My wife likes cooperative games, I do too, and I think LotR is one of the best in the genre.
• Beowulf just wasn't an attention-grabber, and we rarely got it off the shelf. I had fun when we played it, but usually when someone suggested Beowulf it got kind of a 'meh' response and we played something else instead. Not being well-versed or really that interested in Beowulf lore we found that our Beowulf games, while fun, were mostly mechanical and lacking in Beowulf-y-ness. We dig Tolkien and never had that problem with LotR. Personally I think it would have gotten more play if it just would have had a less specific and more fun theme like, "Vikings: Pillage the Shit out of Everything!"

If somebody wants to give me a copy of Beowulf, I'd try it again. I hated it back in '04, but I would be interested in seeing it again.

While we're talking LotR, let's chat up its relationship to its sibling... Beowulf: The Legend.

These two share a lot of similarities (designer, artist, abstraction, publisher, etc) and came out around the same time. One is highly regarded by several on the Fort, but I don't think there's but one or two that care for Beowulf.

Now, I know Beowulf came out at a time when folks were getting sick of euro games and their influence on the early days of BGG, but I always felt this game didn't get a fair shake. Sure, you can't _be_ Beowulf, but it's a multi-player game so that wasn't going to happen. I think being part of his party and 'proving' yourself to take his place is a fine compromise.

Let's look at these two games though. Do you like one, but not the other? How did one work while one 'failed'?

...

Read more...

Yeah, I'm a Knizia fan, but Star Trek: Expeditions lacked any real tension and is possibly the worst game of his I've played (I'm sure there are worse Knizia games, but I haven't played them.)

We did play on the easiest setting and it does have some interesting mechanics (like the branching mission structure) but the flow of play lacked the tension that the co-op Lord of the Rings has.

ST: Fleet Captains sounds far more interesting. And I'm not even a Trek fan.

So I've played around with ST:Expeditions and agree with many that it turned out to be kind of "meh." Too bad. But as I'm learning more about ST: Fleet Captains... wow, this seems really great. I wasn't that interested originally, as it seemed like a space battle minis game, but there's a lot more to it. Vasel calls it one of the best games ever. Check it out...

superflytnt wrote:

Grudunza...I keep hearing K:LoTR being heralded as a decent game, and I own it, but I just can't see it being all that good. I guess I'd better revisit it since I can't get rid of it to save my life.

I think it's really good, especially with the Battlefields expansion. It does a great job with tension as it builds into Mordor, and though it seems abstracted, a lot of the theme is there in the game (though admittedly very thinly attached). The way the ring mechanic works is particularly brilliant and thematic, I'd say.

Star Trek Knizia, though? Seriously? That's like a Star Wars game authored by Power Grid Boy! Where's Martin Wallace or Corey from FFG when you need 'em?!?!

Eh, I'm remaining optimistic that Knizia will make this a good one. From what can be gleaned from the pictures, it seems like there is a lot more going on than in the average Knizia game, and if there are enough meaningful decisions and some semblance of the theme and ST license represented, then I think it'll be a win.

I disagree, Mike; a lot of people still like Heroclix, and until Mage Knight 2,0...they had some nice stuff. Retailers...that's a different tale, and I'm with you there.

Grudunza...I keep hearing K:LoTR being heralded as a decent game, and I own it, but I just can't see it being all that good. I guess I'd better revisit it since I can't get rid of it to save my life.

Star Trek Knizia, though? Seriously? That's like a Star Wars game authored by Power Grid Boy! Where's Martin Wallace or Corey from FFG when you need 'em?!?!