I would say the word "biased" is not the right term for how I think the community is responding, at least from what I have read.  I think disappointed in the result would be more accurate.  No one in this community said one negative word when the announcement came, I was here for that most people were excited for an online version of their favorite game, it's just not what we got.  What we got is a game that looks the part because the same art was used, but it's not the game we know and love... and frankly it's not what anyone asked or hoped for.  This community wanted and still wants a digital version of Lord of the Rings, its just that we don't want a "reimagining" of the game, but just plainly THE game as it is.

It's my pleasure and privilege to announce that the Lord of the Rings Quest Companion has received a new home and will be preserved for the foreseeable future.  In cooperation with its creator Banania, Gamersdungeon.net (my tiny and humble blog) has become the new host of one of Lord of the Rings LCG best resources (in my humble opinion).
You can find the direct link to the new site here (http://lotr-lcg-quest-companion.gamersdungeon.net/).  The campaign companion has also been debugged and brought online you can find the direct link here (http://lotr-lcg-quest-companion.gamersdungeon.net/campaignlog/)
I would imagine most of you already know what the tool is for and what it does, but here is the original post from Banania that describes it (https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/225595-the-lord-of-the-rings-quest-companion/)
The initial plan for the Companion was to simply preserve it and that first goal has now been accomplished.  However it's my hope that we can do more than maintain it as an archive, I hope that the community can come together and volunteer some of their time to help us update and maintain the site to include future releases.  Volunteers are welcome and appreciated!
My general plan for the site is for it to remain free forever, advertisement free with no catches of any kind.  All I want to do is preserve this great resource.  We will however sometime in the future setup a donation page which will allow the community to contribute to the permanent maintenance of the site and potentially for its expansion.
For now, enjoy it and be sure to thank Banania for all of his hard work and dedication of creating this great resource,  he has done a wonderful job and deserves all of our gratitude!

I firmly believe that Star Wars Destiny is one of the best card games ever made, that no one plays and I really blame the business model for this game.
There are basically 2 core issues.
1.  Misunderstanding of the Audience.   I'm sorry but Destiny should not be targeted as a competitive CCG and it should have never been marketed that way.  This is a fun, casual, light hearted dice game.  It has dice, it's pretty, it's Star Wars, it's quite literally a mass market game if you make the business model approachable.  It should have been directed towards a much wider audience then elite collectors looking for competitive play.   I know so many people who are not gamers who come to my house, want to play "one of my games", I put out Destiny and it's an instant hit.  Then they ask "where can I buy it" and I explain to them the concept of a CCG, show them the cost... and conversation over.  Just a swing and miss in the direction of this game, it should have never been a CCG.
2. Cost vs. functional design.  Even as a fan of many collectable games, Destiny even with my shrimpy sized collection in which I have maybe 50% of the content, this is the single most expensive game I own by a very wide margin and that includes my Lord of the Rings LCG, X-Wing, Armada and Legion.  Now I'm not saying its expensive to buy individual boosters or packs, what I'm talking about is collecting to "functional status".  The design is such that you have to both collect cards and dice, but also "heroes & Villains" and its in the collection of these character cards and dice where much of the game falls apart.  I have a crap ton of cards, but a very small amount of heroes and out of a collection of over hundreds of cards I have 5 heroes for which I have two dice for and having 2 dice for a hero is typically the functional point (or use point) of a character.  With some exceptions, generally you need to have 2 copies of a character to use him in a deck in anything approaching a reasonably competitive deck.  Now I'm sure people will argue to the contrary and I recognize that there are exceptions but a deck built around 2 dice is not effective and combining 3 heroes to make a 3 dice deck trims the options dramatically.  What it boils down to is despite having spent 400 dollars the vast majority of my collection goes unused as I have 4 30 card decks that are what I would call "functional".
This design model is very discouraging.  I have bought 4 super booster boxes and I still don't really have much of a collection to work with.
These two issues are only now being felt as players realize that each time a new expansion comes out, you are going to have to spend a 2-3 hundred dollars to collect even half of what you need to make a workable deck from that set and as the release is made, one of your set is dubbed "obsolete" which just adds salt to the wound.  So you have a two prong problem.  On the competitive side, it's expensive and difficult to collect to functionality, while on the casual side the same cost and difficulty are road blocks to entry.
The end result is you have to wonder, who is the audience here?  Who are they expecting will buy into Destiny today with already several sets out, the collection of each set requiring 2-3 hundred dollars each.  
 

EDH stands for Elder Dragon Highlander, it's basically a multiplayer variant that has some deck building rules that make it more for casual play.  It wasn't created by Wizards of the Coast, it was created by the community (it used to be called Commander), it was simply embraced by Wizards of the Coast and kind of made an official variant.
There are many great card games and certainly Destiny falls into that category, being number 10 in a top 10 list is not exactly failing.  I would not expect however that at this point FFG changes its business model, my best guess would be that they will simply continue to develop the game as they have and simply reduce the production of the game to meet the expected demand, another words, sell to those that buy.  This is at least historically their strategy with all of their games. In a sense this is good for casual players like me because it means the discounting of products will continue, making the whole game a whole lot cheaper to buy.  Most stuff is already at 50% off in most places which I think may be sufficient to get more people to at least consider it.

7 and 9 is kind of a tender age, I think it's best to go for getting them excited about games in general and I would suggest games without a big reading requirement and one they can play on their own between the two of them and of course in a group as a family.
I'm not sure how these would lead into Lord of the Rings LCG, it's a fairly complex game as you said so I think you just have to let them grow up a bit before you try again, though I think getting them familiar with the Books and Movies is one way to get them interested in the game (after all, why play Lord of the Rings LCG, if you don't recognize any of the heroes).
For my daughter who was about 7 when I started with her, she got into the swing of things quick, she really loved gaming right out of the gate and her collection is a match for mine.  With her I went with the following.
For Sales - Very simple card game, fast, easy to understand rules and plays just fine with 2, 3, 4 or even 5 players.
Kingdomes - This is a tile laying game, I picked it because it requires some math and quite a bit of strategy but it has a very constructed, basic rules that you can explain quickly and its very short.
CamelUp - This I went for because I wanted to teach her that even in games of luck, you can win a lot if you apply strategy.  It took her a very long time to beat me and that turned out to be a good thing because she really tried hard to figure it out.
7 Wonder Duel - This was the first of the more complex games I introduced to her.  By the time I did she was basically a gamer already but this game had a lot of depth, strategy and required a lot of logic.  Still no reading but we were getting closer.
Stone Age & Ticket to Ride - This was just an ongoing effort to include more complex games.
Coupe & Albion: The Resistance : By the time we got to these two she was buying and learning games on her own.  She had turned ten and these two have turned out to be her to favorites.
We also play Lost Cities, Patchwork, King of Tokyo, Sheriff of Notingham.  The list is growing.  I'm now trying to get her interested in Lord of the Rings books and movies.  My hope is that once she becomes familiar with the story, I will be able to introduce Lord of the Rings to her.  Its my hope that by the time she is 12, we'll be rocking!

If FFG scraps the LCG concept I would be really surprised given how successful their games have been at least from appearances.  The CCG concept is the one struggling, I mean Destiny is barely 2 years old and it's already dropping off the radar and I don't expect Keyforge to be successful at all, that concept is just outright broken.  Random, unique decks with no customization?  So I buy a deck and hope its not a **** one with the play style I like and if it is not, I go out and buy a new one and do what throw the one I don't like away?   I can't even begin to describe to you how fast they can F off with that garbage.  I predict that game will fail super hard and will end up being one of the shortest lived card games in FFG's library.
 

Considering that at this moment Destiny is still on the top 10 highest grossing CCG's in the world, I doubt they are planning a discontinuation of the product (though these days I'm wary of making such predictions), they have dropped sharply in the second half of this year so you never know.  Certainly interest in the game has declined, at least in terms of consumer purchases anyway.
Generally speaking very few CCG's make it past year 3,  and Destiny will hit year 3 this November in just 8 days so we will see if it has a future.
For me personally if the game was discontinued I would buy up everything I could at the last minute from the bargain bins, my gaming group loves the game and we play it more regularly then any other LCG OR CCG FFG has ever made.  We just don't have any interest in official play and the game's business model is designed in such a way that it really doesn't encourage purchases for casual players which I think was a big blunder on their part when it comes to Destiny.
For me the issue is that in most cases, you need 2 copies/dice of each character to make it deck worthy and because that is random, your options is buy a metric crap ton and hope for the best or go to the third market which knocks out your entire casual player base.  Personally I have spent about 150 dollars (my friends average the same) on the game which I think is a lot for casual playing group and in my collection I can basically put together 2 viable decks that are relatively competitive in my group.  That is not much variety but in 90% of the cases its because I don't have a 2nd die for a character.
This game should have been a Living Card Game, it was a mistake to make it a CCG model, but even if they insisted on that they should have include 2 dice with each hero to at least make the whole concept viable for deck building.  I mean I have a box full of dice I know I will probably never use simply because they aren't paired up which results in me basically only buying for Destiny when I can get a fat discount (bargain bins) which actually these days is becoming easier to find, not a great sign for the game, but great for my gaming group that is eager to get more cards.
 

Perfectly reasonable, but the question is would you be willing to drop 200 bucks to buy and play Magic because other people like it?  I would assume probably not which is kind of the point here.  People who like it, buy it and play it, those that don’t, they don’t.  There isn’t some magical consumer base that buys and plays Magic keeping Wizards of the coast on top but actually dislike the game.  That sort of assumption is kind of ridiculous to me.
There is a vast consumer base out there that loves the game, it’s why it sells well and why it’s on top.  It’s not some sort of trick Wizard of the Coast has pulled on the consumer base where people play it because their marketing is so amazing.

I don't really believe this at all, though I understand that this has been the mantra when speaking to "why" Magic The Gathering is so popular.  Simply put, its popular because people love it, they seek it out, they think its an awesome game.  What your suggesting is that there is a mass market out there that plays a game they don't like simply because its available and more accessible?  I have known many gamers over the last 30 years of participating in this hobby across all platforms, genres and types.  You would be hard pressed to name a genre of gaming I have not had a hand in and in all that time, I have never once met a single gamer who wasn't super opinionated and extremely picky about what he is willing to play or not.  I have never met someone who shrugs there shoulders and says "ok fine, I will spend hundreds of dollars on this game because that's what everyone is playing".  If people like that exists anywhere in the world, I haven't met one.
I think the reality is that Magic The Gathering is a challenging hobby game that caters to the mindsets of collectors, to deep strategic players, to the creative "builders" and to the casuals all at the same time.  It has several different formats, has been marketed well both in the paper and digital world (noteably a honest digital representation not the kind of stuff FFG is doing with for Lord of the Rings LCG where they do "based on stuff"). 
I do agree with you that Wizards of the Coasts does a far better job of supporting their CCG, but that is true about all of their games, that is just a good habit of the company.  But I also believe they are the kings of their markets because they produce really great games. 
 

I assumed he meant 2.0 of the online version.  The online version improves absolutely nothing in any way shape the paper version.  It's  hallowed out,  empty shell of a game right now.  There is some potential for improvement here but I think it would require an overhaul the developer/publisher will not want to invest it so I don't think this game has much of a future.  It's clear that they have realized this at this point and are probably just hoping to cut it's losses.  After all, if it was successful, they wouldn't be making alterations like this.  I just don't think what they are doing right now is going to be enough to shift the opinion of this community nor enough to capture the PC gamers on steam.  Card games in general don't do particularly well on Steam, you can count on one hand the amount of successful ones that didn't insta die over the last decade and there have been a metric ton of them.

I assumed he meant 2.0 of the online version.  The online version improves absolutely nothing in any way shape the paper version.  It's  hallowed out,  empty shell of a game right now.  There is some potential for improvement here but I think it would require an overhaul the developer/publisher will not want to invest it so I don't think this game has much of a future.  It's clear that they have realized this at this point and are probably just hoping to cut it's losses.  After all, if it was successful, they wouldn't be making alterations like this.  I just don't think what they are doing right now is going to be enough to shift the opinion of this community nor enough to capture the PC gamers on steam.  Card games in general don't do particularly well on Steam, you can count on one hand the amount of successful ones that didn't insta die over the last decade and there have been a metric ton of them.

7 years is a good, long, healthy run for a modern LCG/CCG.  The days of Magic The Gathering (we never close) have come and gone.  Games just don't last that long anymore.  My hope is that even when they announce the closure of the game (aka stop making new products), that they continue to do occasional reprints or offer some sort of print on demand.  There is still a lot to collect for me and I would love to complete my set someday but part of the problem with Lord of the Rings was the machine gun rapid fire releases that made it difficult to keep up.  I mean I don't have an LCG money tree... I buy when I can afford to and often when I can afford to things are out of print so its a bit of a pain.  It would be great to get some more stability in the releases, like they really should try to focus on improving their method of matching the market consumption with their product.. It seems like there is always something missing from availability.

This is a great move in my opinion, 50% of the reason that I haven't got involved in this digital version of the game was because it had the micro-transaction / loot crate stank on it and I just can't be bothered with business models like that.  Besides, the vast majority of games with that model fail miserably so I'm not really sure why the industry continues to try this.  It works.. sometimes... that is not a great track record to base your game on.  I'm not suprised they are changing it and I definitely support the change.   That said I think it will backfire on them horribly.  
The issue here is that the LCG community, aka, the people who play Lord of the Rings the Living Card game are the target audience here and they have already largely rejected this Lord of the Rings the Hearthstone clone game concept and on steam the only people who are going to try playing it are the ones who can do it for free.  You stick a 30 dollar price tag on this thing and the general gaming community won't give it a second look.
That said the other 50% of the reason I haven't tried this game and probably never will is that I don't understand the point of creating a card game based on a successful card game, but then changing the gameplay to be something completely different related only by the art work used.  Look, I'm a fan of Lord of the Rings the Living Card game... its the game I want to play, if your going to make a digital version of the game and you want me to buy it,.. do that.. make a digital version of THAT game... don't make a "Lord of the Rings The Living Card Hearthstone".  If I want to play Hearthstone... I will play Hearthstone.
I just don't get it, who is doing marketing research over there?  This is a somber, happy community that loves Lord of the Rings the Living Card game... just bloody make it for us and I will mail you my credit card, but ... whatever this game is.. its not Lord of the Rings the LCG on a computer... so hard pass until that is addressed.
  

This is a great move in my opinion, 50% of the reason that I haven't got involved in this digital version of the game was because it had the micro-transaction / loot crate stank on it and I just can't be bothered with business models like that.  Besides, the vast majority of games with that model fail miserably so I'm not really sure why the industry continues to try this.  It works.. sometimes... that is not a great track record to base your game on.  I'm not suprised they are changing it and I definitely support the change.   That said I think it will backfire on them horribly.  
The issue here is that the LCG community, aka, the people who play Lord of the Rings the Living Card game are the target audience here and they have already largely rejected this Lord of the Rings the Hearthstone clone game concept and on steam the only people who are going to try playing it are the ones who can do it for free.  You stick a 30 dollar price tag on this thing and the general gaming community won't give it a second look.
That said the other 50% of the reason I haven't tried this game and probably never will is that I don't understand the point of creating a card game based on a successful card game, but then changing the gameplay to be something completely different related only by the art work used.  Look, I'm a fan of Lord of the Rings the Living Card game... its the game I want to play, if your going to make a digital version of the game and you want me to buy it,.. do that.. make a digital version of THAT game... don't make a "Lord of the Rings The Living Card Hearthstone".  If I want to play Hearthstone... I will play Hearthstone.
I just don't get it, who is doing marketing research over there?  This is a somber, happy community that loves Lord of the Rings the Living Card game... just bloody make it for us and I will mail you my credit card, but ... whatever this game is.. its not Lord of the Rings the LCG on a computer... so hard pass until that is addressed.
  

7 years is a good, long, healthy run for a modern LCG/CCG.  The days of Magic The Gathering (we never close) have come and gone.  Games just don't last that long anymore.  My hope is that even when they announce the closure of the game (aka stop making new products), that they continue to do occasional reprints or offer some sort of print on demand.  There is still a lot to collect for me and I would love to complete my set someday but part of the problem with Lord of the Rings was the machine gun rapid fire releases that made it difficult to keep up.  I mean I don't have an LCG money tree... I buy when I can afford to and often when I can afford to things are out of print so its a bit of a pain.  It would be great to get some more stability in the releases, like they really should try to focus on improving their method of matching the market consumption with their product.. It seems like there is always something missing from availability.

I find your post very confusing.  You have effectively described exactly how TI3 is played, practically quoting my post, than at the end complain about the game ending anti-climatically (as I pointed out it would) if you play the TI4 with the same approach as TI3.  
I guess I agree with your post, if you play TI4 like you played TI3 with all the assumptions, the objectives are too easy and the game is anti-climatic.  So.. don't.  Don't play TI4 with the same presumptions and assessments as you make in TI3 and you won't have the end game problem and the objectives won't feel easy.  In TI4 you cannot "start getting antsi" at 5-7, in TI4 that is End Game you are literally 1-2 rounds from the game ending.
I don't really fully understand what you mean by right way or wrong way to play a game anyway.  I mean, its a board game, you play to get victory points to try and win?  If that's not what your about, why do you care if the objectives are too easy or not or whether or not the objectives are balanced or the game end anti-climatically? I mean if you don't care if you win or lose and your just playing to play, than who cares how hard or easy the objectives are.

Its also worth mentioning that this goes to game balance.  Strictly put, in TI3, only about half the races where really "geared" towards completing objectives early.  Another words, certain races would consider "objectives to be too easy" .. for them.  Other races found it hard because they weren't equipped to deal with the objectives hence it took more time to get to them.  The result in TI3 was that some races would always catapult ahead while others struggled.  This wasn't a good thing, it was a bad thing, it meant that certain races had to be actively "stopped" as just a default of their strength.  Aka, if you played in a game and you had the Hacan, Jol-Nar or Yssaril, you knew from round 1.. ok, these guys need to be stopped.  There was no question they would go through any objectives with ease, their abilities hand them to them on a silver platter.
One key balance difference is that in TI4, given no ones interference all races have that advantage, they can all complete objectives with ease.  This would also explain why people think "the objectives" are easy compared to TI3, though the real reason is that none of the races are gimped out of the gate in terms of having oppertunities to complete objectives.  
The ultimate result is that in TI4, you don't have the luxury of knowing that X, Y and Z races can be ignored since they struggle to complete objectives.. they can all complete them and you need to actively worry about all of them.
This is a very positive change in the game in my opinion.  One of the biggest flaws of TI3 was the fact that so many races where out of the gate, gimped in terms of being able to compete.  In TI4, there is still some of that, but considerably less, there are really only a couple of races that will have trouble in normal circumstances to score points.  Most are able to do it relatively easily assuming no one is actively trying to stop them.
I also disagree with the sentiment that you can't play aggressively, this was true in TI3, its adamantly false in TI4.  Not only can you play highly aggressively, the benefits for doing so are grossly in your favor.  This is largely because of the considerable cost reduction and recovery time of building up fleets.  You can quickly take a planet, build a space dock and be ready to replenish units by the start of the next round.  In TI3 the process for taking a planet, building a space dock and building units at that space dock would take no less than 3 rounds.. that's practically half the game.  In Ti4, in normal circumstances you can do it in 2 rounds, its even possible to do in 1 round in some scenarios.

This is not an unusual opinion, I think it explains a lot of the concerns raised here.
What I'm trying to get you to understand is that, the only difference between TI3 and TI4 is the "when" of end game.  In TI3 the end game starts around round 6 to 8, until than players are building up and preparing, scoring some points, getting themselves ready for the big climax of the game.  The main difference in TI4 is that this "climax" begins at around round 3, round 4 at the absolute latest.
If players do nothing in round 6 to 8 to stop each other in TI3, just playing cooperatively, everyone will hit 8 points as well.  It's the exact same effect, good players will know how to score all of the objectives and given uninterrupted freedom to do so, they will.  Its the same in TI4, again, the only difference being "when" this happens... aka, much earlier.
The strategy is no different in TI3 and TI4 either in terms of how you approach the climax of the game.  You throw yourself into the action trying to stop one or two of your neighbhoors, you can't stop everyone in TI3 either and you work under the same assumption as in TI4 in which you assume that other players will also try to stop their neighbhoors and people they can reach and effect in an effort to slow them down.
Absolutely nothing has changed between the two games other than the fact that in TI4 you get to the action/climax of the game quicker.  That "build up and get ready" period lasts 2-3 rounds instead of 6 to 7 rounds.
I think the problem is that a lot of people are trying to play TI4 like they playe TI3, thinking they can wait until people hit 6 or 7 points before they start doing something, but the threshold in TI4 for "danger of winning" is at about 4 to 5 points.  Once someone has reached 4 to 5 points, its time to treat them as if they are about to win the game, aka, you are in your last round or two.  In TI4 if someone hits 6 or 7 points, that the equivalent of in TI3 someone hitting 8 or 9 points.  The game is about to end and that person is going to win unless you take their homeworld.
I think after 10 years of TI3 a lot of people are having trouble making this transition.  Making the objectives harder won't change anything, it will simply slow the game down.  The results would be the same, except that the things that would normally happen in round 4-5 will take place in round 6-7.
 

Again I'm just going to paraphrase what I have already said.  If people are scoring public I objectives with ease, your table is playing waaaay to peaceful and cooperative.  There is a big difference between TI3 and TI4 gameplay and strategy wise, if you apply TI3 style to TI4, objectives will be very easy.  In TI3, you really couldn't afford nor was it a particularly good move to be aggressive early in the game.  It really was a game about buying your time and making big plays at the end of the game.  In TI4, not only can you be aggressive, you MUST do this and you are given the tools to do it and there are far greater rewards for doing so.
Just think of it this way.  Round 3 to TI4 is what round 6 or 7 is to TI3.  Round 3 in TI4 is the end game, this is where you make your big plays and start pushing for the win like the game could end any moment.  
Ti3 was a game of making big plays, TI4 is about stopping your opponents from making little plays.
 
 

Well I'm happy to report that I finally beat Conflict At the Carrock, straight up solo with no altered rules.  Probably the most satisfying win I have had to date.  I really appreciated all the encouragement from the community, you guys are fantastic.  The win actually inspired me to to write about my experience on my blog.  Not sure if we are allowed to post links to blogs, but here it is, I will take my lashes if its against the rules.
Thanks again for all the great advice!

I always look at things from a perspective of "game night"... which is to say, if you and a friend or two or three sit down to play the game, which adventure (s) would I pull out to make it a fun evening.  The answer is almost always The Saga Expansions.  Its a familiar story, its an ongoing-connected story... its the good stuff.
From a perspective of doing it solo, its the same, saga expansions all the way.  Again, its got more umpf if you will.

I will try and see if I can replicate the problem, I will get back to you

It's my pleasure and privilege to announce that the Lord of the Rings Quest Companion has received a new home and will be preserved for the foreseeable future.  In cooperation with its creator Banania, Gamersdungeon.net (my tiny and humble blog) has become the new host of one of Lord of the Rings LCG best resources (in my humble opinion).
You can find the direct link to the new site here (http://lotr-lcg-quest-companion.gamersdungeon.net/).  The campaign companion has also been debugged and brought online you can find the direct link here (http://lotr-lcg-quest-companion.gamersdungeon.net/campaignlog/)
I would imagine most of you already know what the tool is for and what it does, but here is the original post from Banania that describes it (https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/225595-the-lord-of-the-rings-quest-companion/)
The initial plan for the Companion was to simply preserve it and that first goal has now been accomplished.  However it's my hope that we can do more than maintain it as an archive, I hope that the community can come together and volunteer some of their time to help us update and maintain the site to include future releases.  Volunteers are welcome and appreciated!
My general plan for the site is for it to remain free forever, advertisement free with no catches of any kind.  All I want to do is preserve this great resource.  We will however sometime in the future setup a donation page which will allow the community to contribute to the permanent maintenance of the site and potentially for its expansion.
For now, enjoy it and be sure to thank Banania for all of his hard work and dedication of creating this great resource,  he has done a wonderful job and deserves all of our gratitude!

I don't think the system is better or worse, I think 3.0 re-wrote the book on how to manage games with a level of abstraction and visual management that makes the gameplay experience different.  You can think of it in terms of movies and books.  You could argue which version of the Lord of the Rings story is better, books or movies, but in the end they both tell the same story in a different medium.  I think 3.0 is just a different medium for Role-playing games, its one where the table top becomes part of the show and everything has a visual representation.  More importantly you have a much better view of what is going on in the game as a whole pretty much at a glance.
 
Some loved it, most hated it, but I stand by my opinion that the people who hated it, hated it because it was different then what they are used to but of course you could argue semantics and mechanics until you are blue in the face.
 
The only argument I would make is that the narrative dice alone make this version of Warhammer Superior in every conceivable way over a traditional (pass-fail) dice system. The caveat here is that you enjoy that way of handling the system.  In the hands of a good group you really can create magic that is physically not possible to do with a standard role-playing system.  This is also true for Star Wars Edge of the Empire, these two games re-defined role-playing for me.  I look at games with numbered dice at this point with disgust, there really is no going back for me.  At this point I have even converted D&D 5th edition to narrative dice system and its 1000% better as a result.

3rd edition has always gotten a lot of flack for not adhering to the Old School gamer sensibilities but to me it was, in typical FFG fashion, way ahead of its time.
 
I'm as old school as they come, I'm old enough to have purchased 1st edition of D&D from a novelty store. I still have my first edition D&D books on my shelf and with that here is what I think.
 
Nostalgia in role-playing is an impassable mountain, an embodiment of a staunch resistant community that despises change.  If there is one thing role-players can't do its embrace modern design and as such every company who has ever dared to try to create something different is immediately shot down by an overwhelming mob of role-players holding up their 1st editions like its the holy bible.
 
The reality however is that if you look past the nostalgia and examine 1st edition versions of classic role-palying games like D&D and Warhammer for example... they are absolute, objective ****.  These games may have been first and as such innovative for their time, but by today's standards they are just outright horrible game designs with awful writing and miserable quality.  The only redeeming quality these games have is the fact that old school gamers just can't let it go because doing so means leaving their childhoods behind.
 
As time passes buy and new generations pick up the torch the same thing happens but it happens for older games.  Today for example 3rd edition D&D is the reigning holy cow, going so far as supporting a company that photocopied it, called It Pathfinder and rose to the top of the food chain and pushing one of the largest gaming companies (Wizards of the Coast) to abandon modern design (aka 4th edition) and re-invent the system to compete with designs that rightfully should have died 10 years ago (5th edition D&D).
 
I guess what I'm saying to the OP is that... Your Old.  Really.. really old. I get it, I'm also ... well lets just say "Ancient Dragon"... But I assure you that if you take a modern game like Warhammer 3rd edition or Star Wars Edge of the Empire and introduce it to a bunch of youngsters.. then flip the page and ask them to play 1st or 2nd edition Warhammer... They will not suddenly become "old school gamers".  They will immediately recognize the better version of the game.
 
Role-playing has changed but the gaming communities really have a hard time changing with it.
As for WFRPG 3.0.  Here is all I have to say about it.  No one in any of my groups wants to play it... its because everyone in my group is OLD.. really really OLD.  But I have kept it because my son is 12 and I catch him cracking those books and opening that box full of cards with interest and delight.  This is a game for the next generation and maybe it came a bit early and ended up not being the success it should have been, but I have no doubt in my mind that some day soon this game is going to hit the table of a new generation and they will discover the joy of role-playing and I personally can't wait.