Jump to content



  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 sammann11



  • Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 04:34 PM

I am "new" to the gaming community. Aside from Heroquest over half my life ago, and a recently kindled interest in a very modified version of Lego's Heroica dungeon crawl games, I have no experience with table top gaming, and none whatsoever with LCG (or CCG) or deckbuilding or anything. That said, I'm a huge fan of the fantasy genre and read an average of about 2 or 3 books a month within the genre.

I've been scouring these FFG forums and the internet in general trying to get a feel as to what LCG I want to try to get into. I'm a huge fan of AGOT, LOTR and Warhammer and I really am torn between which one of these (or 2?!) I should dive into. It seems the consensus is that LOTR is good for 1 player/co-op, W:I is best for 2, and AGOT is the most difficult and best when played with 4 people. Is that a fair assesment. Being new, would I (and the guy I may rope into playing with me)be better off with W:I or LOTR?

LOTR does appeal to me because of the 1 player aspect. I spend 2 nights a week on the road for work and that could be a nice activity for me. Does 1 player get boring, or is it too hard - is it better done with 2 decks.

Any input would be appreciated. I'll be posting this in the other 2 brands' forums as well. Thanks!

PS - I'm just getting into the Warhammer novels (not 40K). I just picked up the Legend of Segmar omnibus. Any other suggestions or tips on a reading order (if there is one)?

"Not all heros dwell in the light. Some limp in shadow." - Paul S. Kemp

#2 Mallumo



  • Members
  • 524 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 11:06 PM

I've never played LOTR and am very new to AGOT, so I can't help you with a direct comparison. But I guess a lot of the choice between Invasion and LOTR at least comes down to how much you enjoy cooperative games vs competitive ones, and how important solo play really is to you at the end of the day. Do you already have some experience with cooperative games and/or solo play?


I've you're willing to invest that much, you could of course always simply get the core set of each game and find out how much you like the mechanics. I'm sure that just like Invasion, AGOT and LOTR get a lot better if you add expansions, but this should still allow you a decent first impression which should help you.

#3 Junglecat



  • Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 04:35 AM

 I don't dig co-op or 1 player games so I can't chime in on LOTR, but I'd like to share my thoughts on the other 2. I'm a big fan of the Game of Thrones books so I picked up the game. I played it several times and I definitely enjoyed it. It showed so much potential for a obscene amount of strategic depth. Then my friend picked up Invasion and invited me over for a game. While it didn't seem like it was quite as deep a AGOT, we had TONS of fun and I wanted to play again IMMEDIATELY.  Invasion's rulebook seemed to explain the order of a turn more clearly than AGOT's did which was helpful.

     So short answer, I'd recommend WARHAMMER INVASION.

#4 Doc9



  • Members
  • 454 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 05:39 AM

Being that you are in the W:I  forum…I would say that you should definitely try W:I.

#5 sammann11



  • Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 08:31 AM

Thanks to all of you for your input and feedback. I'm going to process all of what you said and take the info to a buddy of mine and my brother. They're the two poor saps who I'm going to try to rope into playing with me! I'll see what they think and we'll make a purchase then, I suppose. I'll be back on one of these forums for sure once I have more questions about the ins and outs of these LCG's. Thanks!

"Not all heros dwell in the light. Some limp in shadow." - Paul S. Kemp

#6 Papa Khann

Papa Khann


  • Members
  • 116 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:09 AM

I haven't played LOTR, so I can't comment on that. Though friends have stated that the solo option is quite viable and enjoyable.

I do play both W:I and AGoT, both fairly extensively. They are very different games. Each has their place.

W:I games are shorter (not necessarily a bad thing) and more brutal. The tournament format is best of 3 games for each match, with 1 hour or 1 hour 20 minute rounds. Not that the tournament format matters for your purposes, but it illustrates just how quickly games can be resolved (AGoT tourney format is 1 game during an hour long round).

W:I definitely has more of a visceral feel to it, as there are LOTS of actions that straight up eliminate units or support cards without the need to enter combat. A newer player once remarked to me that everything she played just died… and I responded by stating "Welcome to Warhammer".

Both games have strong mechanics.

I often describe W:I as feeling a little bit like playing a computer RTS. You decide where to place resource generating cards (into 1 of 3 zones), to either generate money, card draw, or be able to attack the enemy (cards in the money and card draw zones can defend, but not attack).

AGoT probably has the better turn structure, as phases are shared, thus avoiding the 'advantage of going first" issue that W:I struggles with. AGoT also incorporates the inclusion of a 7 card plot deck, which is a very interesting additional to both deck building and decisions made over the course of the game.

AGoT takes 2-3 times longer, on average, to play a game (not necessarily a bad thing). It's a deeper game, with more intricate strategies and tactics. It's harder to grasp at first, as it has a LOT of moving parts. Which is to say the average game has more interactions from cards in play to keep track of. And therefore lots more opportunities for players to make mistakes and miss opportunities. Player familiarity with the game, as well as overall skill, makes more of a difference in AGoT than in W:I (note that I'm not saying W:I doesn't require any skill to play, I'm just stating my opinion that AGoT is a deeper game with many more chances for players to miss opportunities… make mistakes… during a game).

Whatever you heard about AGoT being better as a group game (i.e., more than 2 players), is misleading. The turn structure (shared phases) and multi-player rules make it a much better group game than W:I. But almost everyone I known prefers Joust (the term used for AGoT head-to-head play) over Melee (AGoT group play). Some to the extent where they really won't play Melee at all.

All in all, I think AGoT is the deeper, stronger game. However, that's not to say that W:I isn't a great game, because it is. And there are times where I simply will prefer to play W:I. Either because I want to get more games in during a shorter amount of time, or I'm simply more in the mood for W:I than I am for AGoT.

Rest assured that whichever you choose, you'd be getting into a great game. It may server you best to try to gauge the level of interest in your geographic area for each, then pick the one that is most active.

Good luck,



#7 mistertetch



  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 01:55 PM

I've not played LOTR or AGoT, so my advice might not be very helpful.  But, I have played several other card games over the years, and for my money, W:I is the perfect blend of simplicity and depth.  Take into account which game setting you like the most, because that can make the game much more enjoyable for you.

When it comes to Warhammer novels, have you considered the Gotrek & Felix series?  They give you a great feel for most of the various races of Warhammer, especially the Empire and Dwarfs. 

© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS