Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Everything posted by cootewards

  1. That's for the feedback all. I think this now gives me a good idea of things to try. Cheers again.
  2. We also only have a single core, plus 1 each of the first cycle of monthly packs. I'm not sure if this physically give enough cards to do much beyond 4 monosphere decks. I was wonder if it would work trying to do decks that used 2 heroes from one sphere one from another and look for 4 match ups such that each sphere was a main and a support in only one of the 4 decks. but I seemed to hit the problem that you simply don't have enough cards from the core to really support this.
  3. I'd like to hear what people have done in terms of deck design when playing with 4 players. The few times I've done it so far, it's been a last minute thing and so we've just stuck with mono sphere decks. while this is probably the simple answer it feels like it's missing out on some of the possibilities. So does anyone have and suggestions/examples of other ways they've set-up the decks for a 4 player game? Cheers.
  4. We did all three of the quests in the core set one after the other. We switched spheres each quest so people got to try something different each time. It's pretty easy to beat the quests with 4 players even with just the starter mono decks. I'd think if you made up proper 50 card decks you'd walk all over any of the quests with 4 players. I think it works pretty well just thinking of it as a 4 player board game where each player has a single sphere deck, a bit easy but still it was an afternoon filled with fun. Also hoping as the adventure packs keep coming they will get better and the scaling above 2 players.
  5. The one time I've tried with four players and we just stuck with mono sphere decks. In fact we just used a single starter so they were the 30 card decks and it worked fine. Easy but fine.
  6. servant of the secret fire said: Ok i am a little confused.FFG is an US company so the original version of the game must be in English right? ...and in the French and Spanish site says world wide release date 18th April. How can France take the translated version first(April 18th) and the other europian countries the English version later? What i miss here? Probably because the French ans Spanish language versions are produced locally, while the english language versions are being shipped from the US. Just a guess but seem likely.
  7. Mighty Jim said: Dam said: Toqtamish said: Don't get me started on the Elves at the Battle of Helm's Deep... Okay, what about Faramir then ? Or Aragorn falling off the rock, being presumed dead and then found by a horse who wasn't in the books either... Seriously though, I'm glad they changed some bits- I think Return of the King had about 5 or 6 endings as it was, imagine if we'd had another 20 minutes for the Scouring of the Shire I thought having no scouring was one of the worst ommisions. I mean after 9-12 hours of films not bothering with one of the main themes/points to story seemed a bit silly. To me at least. Also most of the issue with the 5-6 endings was the stupid fade outs kacjson kept using.
  8. I'm with Toqtamish. I thought the movies got worse as they went along. And while the films where clearly successful, that has nothing to do with their artistic quality. I mean look at Avatar and Titanic. Edit: Still the first two video tutorials have been good, and I'm really looking forward to the game.
  9. servant of the secret fire said: Nah dont worry about me i allways find a way to turn thinks in my side.I think i'll find a way and my decks will be accurate at Tolkiens lore.Done that in the past. Another problem solved. My work he is done...
  10. I see so you are only happy to accept very minimal changes from the source material. Given that, I'm really interested to know which (if any) Lord of the RIngs games you've ever actually liked? Which games have got that level of acurracy, and actual game choice uncertainty of outcome right for you? Also if Decipher releasing different ringbearers annoyed you so much the simple answer was not to buy them and stick to just using Frodo.
  11. servant of the secret fire said: There is no possibility to avoid alternative histories (like Gimli-Legolas earlier meeting), because without that choosing of "historical" characters would be limited. I agree with this.My point was that if a company wants Tolkien's fans happy they must be accurate at lore and historical events.Removing just one of those two has the same results (Tokien's fans maaaad ). So or they must remove all inaccurate events,historical characters etc or they must just say that this is a game based on Tolkien's world(not lore) and we can play free any event with any hero (dead or alive). I consider myself a fan of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings works, but I couldn't disagree with you more. If you want something that is completely accurate to the lore and the events, well read the books. Anyone making a game like that would have a fail, because the person playing the free-peoples would always win against the person playing Sauron's forces. What would be the point?
  12. Yes that all sounds right. So it would seem the first cycle of adventure packs will be our first chance to actually take over the roles from a significant event from the actual lore. The hunt for Gollum and his imprisonment with the elfs in Mirkwood. Interestingly how close does this happen to Frodo's 50th birthday and him setting off from Bag End? I assumed it was pretty close as Legolas is at Rivendel to let Elrond know he's escaped. I assume this means that the expansions won't be moving forward in time from one to the other through the 17 year period. Also the Rules say that the deluxe expansions will introduce new areas, and the adventure pack that follows I assume will also be based in those regions. So I guess we could be seeing events that "actually" happened concurrently in later sets.
  13. Toqtamish said: Eleanor is Gondor Noble. You can see her fairly clearly on page 13. Also Aragorn is Dunedain Noble Ranger. Not Gondor, which makes sense based on the books and not those movies. Well that does suprise me what with eleanor being an elvish word. so she is. Well that's my idea of there being some logic to the initial hero selection, gone for a burton.
  14. Toqtamish said: Timeframe is clarified as well in the rulebook. It is between the 111th birthday party and Frodo and Sam leaving the Shire. So its a number of years past the end of the Hobbit. In that case hasn't the last meeting of the White Council, and Sauron being revealed as the necromancer in Dul Guldor and returning to Mordor long since happened?
  15. I'm assuming the heroes also come out as 3 Dwarf, 3 Elf, 3 Rohan and 3 Gondor/Dunedain. Also 3 females, allows a full female party for a player, which I expect FFG think could be an important factor in attracting women to the game. So all these are reasons for the breakdown used in the core set. On top of that they don't want to load it too front heavy with the big names. or people will pretty quickly complain about the nobodies being added in each adventure cycle. An interesting question might be, how long will we have to wait until being able to play a full Hobbit party? Be interesting to see what the sphere breakdown is for each race. Dwarf: Leadership - Gloin, Tactic - Gimli and Thalin Elf: Tactics - Legolas, Spirit - Eleanor, Lore - Glorfindel Rohan: Leadership - Theodred, Spirit - Eowyn and Dunhere Gondor: Leadership - Aragorn, Lore - Denethor and Beravor I'm guessing at race for Thalin, Dunhere, Eleanor and Beravor, based on their names I think that's right.
  16. As this thread seems to have descended back into sensible discussion, and I've just had a bit of a brainwave on the subject I'll chip in. Free people vs. Dark Lord, I could see how some people would have preferred this to what we got with the Decipher game. Obviously you have the ability in MECCG to play as the bad guys, but that isn't really a direct duelling game in so much as both deck have a set of threats to play on you opponent. So we don't have a light vs. dark play style like Star Wars. I don't think Star Wars is the right game to be thinking of, as that is pretty much the same cards on each side, with different pictures. Or rather both sides play the same and are trying to do the same thing. This just isn't catching the flavour of the conflict in the books. So I was think at better fit would be Netrunner CCG, or at least in as much as the game play is asymmetric. So both sides word with a different rules set and different card types. Even more so is I recall discussion around the time WotC dropped the game (the fools, best CCG ever!) Where a lot of people thought the game would have sold better as a fantasy theme of parties of heroes breaking into dungeons and defeating an Evil Overlord TM schemes. I think that as a starting place could lead to a dark vs. light LotR which also captures the feel. and overcomes the big differences between the two sides in the story. Thoughts?
  17. There's still so little information about on this game, in terms of how it'll be packaged and deck construction, that it There's still so little information about on this game, in terms of how it'll be packaged and deck construction, that it's not even clear to me if we've had official word that there's a 3 card limit in decks, other than some people saying they were old during their demos that the expansions would follow the current LCG trend of 20x3. If the shadow decks are going to be fixed, surely they'll just be whatever they are. Of cause people can make up their own missions and so shadow decks themed together, also I'm sure the rules will have something to cover tweaking shadow decks for greater and lesser challenge, but I'm still not taking anything as read in terms of what is or isn't a must buy. I assume all 3 of the other LCGs work in that each expansion contains cards for all of the playable factions. The cycle then covers a bigger story, at least in WH:I, but has equal stuff for everyone. LotR, isn't using the basic 1v1 faction vs faction mechanic, so working on that assumption, in terms of having to keep buying to keep up could be a mistake. From what I've read it seems as they expand it will be to introduce different geographic area of Middle Earth. Which seems to me to be easier to just skip a whole release or cycle of release without it being such an issue. Also depending on quite how they release the stuff, you could always just buy the expansions that have the new quests and shadow decks and ignore the ones that focus on free peoples cards if you so choose. Still having played CCGs since Magic beta, I can say with some certainty that LCGs are cheaper. Boardgames are cheaper still, but as others have said how much real worth is there in these comparisons
  18. Frank6 said: If Thorin Oakenshield is alive in this game will we also see Smaug ? It does seem to suggest that FFG might well have the license for more of Tolkien's works than just LotR. Fingers crossed anyway. Will be very interesting to see just how the scenario cards work, as that might very well give a guild as to what sort of themes we'll see in the later releases
  19. Looking at a close up of the layout image from the description page. I would suggest the horn card is called: Horn of Gondor. As the last word looks very much like it starts with a G
  • Create New...