Jump to content

nelsonbaggins

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by nelsonbaggins

  1. Well, I guess this game is dying out. Not a single response in 11 days and not many other users posting at all. It's a shame because this is such a cool game. I wonder if the Bloodquest Cycle will be the end?
  2. I've noticed that since Legends came out, there has been no news of another deluxe expansion to Warhammer: Invasion. Why is this? Did the model change to battle packs only?
  3. Lightdarker said: Slight derail here, but for those of you that have picked up a copy, does the scenario seem complete with just the included quest/encounter cards? I ask because (and I don't know for certain, not having seen the cards myself), it seems like FFG forgot to print "if the players complete this stage of the quest, they have won the game" on the quest card 2B. There's a similar thread about this on BGG, but I figure I may as well ask here now that more and more people have gotten their hands on this, and by now people have had some opportunities to play through the quest. Thanks in advance! Well, stage 2b actually takes one travel token to complete it, so beyond defeating the trolls you have to quest successfully once. I got mine today at my FLGS. Couldn't believe it was in already! Looks tough.
  4. I personally enjoy a more leisurely release schedule. I think once a month is too much product for me to keep up with. I'm still about 8 battle packs behind on Warhammer Invasion and I really want to pick up the new Legends Expansion--I just can't seem to catch up. Now I'll be buying into LOTR LCG and that will be a another Adventure Pack every month, plus an expansion once a year maybe. FFG can take their sweet time imho! That being said, I am pretty excited about Hunt for Gollum!
  5. Just finished my 2nd solo game. Combined Spirit and Lore this time and practically walked through A Passage Through Mirkwood unscathed. I was able to score massive Willpower points with Eowyn and other cards and only fought two battles. I got lucky and Ungoliant's Spawn was used during a battle for Shadow effect, so the 3rd Quest was easy. So I've played twice now and the difficulty has swung wildly from impossible to impossibly easy. I'm trying to decide if I like it or not, but I seemed to do ok with using two spheres this time. Although, pulling one Spirit resource per turn makes me realize allies should be from the sphere with two heroes for sure. I can't wait for neutral allies! I think the game is too wishy-washy if not darn near broken out of the box, but once some Adventure packs start coming out I'm sure the game will start to balance out. p.s. I haven't even tried multi-player yet, my experience is based on solo only thus far.
  6. CAlexander said: Sadly there is no way to currently make a legal deck without going multi-sphere. I think going forward (with a better card base) single sphere decks will be much more effective in a game with 2 or more players, but when you go solo multi-sphere decks will start to shine. Right now I think a multi-sphere deck pretty much needs Leadership to be one of the spheres in order for it to be effective. Steward of Gondor just increases your efficiency by leaps and bounds, and Theodred is a low threat way to add even more resources and splash Leadership into your deck. Snowbourn Scout is (if I'm not mistaken) the only non-unique 1 cost guy and makes an awesome chump blocker, comboing well with another awesome 1 cost Leadership card, Valiant Sacrifice. Finally, we all know the incredible Sneak Attack/Gandalf combo, which Leadership adds to the ring as well. Combine all of these things (not to mention Celebrian's Stone) and it's just silly NOT to have Leadership, even if it isn't your primary sphere. So, for now, I'd say the best way to go with any dual sphere deck is your primary sphere + Theodred and the 15 staple Leadership cards. (3x Snowbourn Scout/Valiant Sacrifice/Sneak Attack/Steward of Gondor, 2xFaramir/Celebrians Stone). Add 3 Gandalf to the mix and you've only got to fill in 32 cards from your primary sphere, which allows you to cut out some of the crappier ones. Great post! Thanks. Only now I'm sad because I'm starting to see the necessity of buying 2 or 3 core sets.
  7. Yeah, I think where I went wrong was with allies. It seems you should be putting out at least one new ally every round. It looks like resource production is also going to be key, because the default every round is only three, which isn't really enough to do much of anything. Either that, or cards that let you ignore cost like Sneak Attack. I suppose the difficulty level needs to be high as well, since the customization with future cards will see decks quickly gain strength and be able to breeze through scenarios before long.
  8. With a hero limit of 3, doesn't it seem beyond risky to go multi-sphere? A two sphere deck would require you to have only one matching hero for one sphere and his loss would kill half of your deck as well. I can't even imagine using 3 spheres; 4 is an impossibility. Does anyone anticipate having much success with multi-sphere? What would it require, an overabundance of allies? Excessive healing? How effective can a multi-sphere deck be if it is primarily defensive in order to protect your heroes? BTW, when a hero dies, do you get to keep his remaining resources or must they be thrown out?
  9. Yes, I anticipated your response and concur, however choice only comes into play with an adequate amount of allies, which arguably a single starter deck does not contain enough of (unless you combine and go multi-sphere). Throughout my initial game I never seemed to have much of a choice beyond: "Which option will allow me to survive another round?"
  10. I can't really see from either a gameplay or theme standpoint how a character should stay exhausted for the length of the round. Thematically, every character in Middle Earth (and all RPG's for that matter) is on a quest in which they need to attack and defend simultaneously. The whole adventure seems stunted if you have to choose between questing, attacking or defending. Gameplay-wise, why muddy up the table with sideways cards--it's inelegant and messy. I think they could've kept the same basic concept and just allowed the characters to remain standing throughout the round. Let the player decide how they want to quest, attack or defend. As it is, it kind of removes the strategy (i.e. thinking) for you, eliminating player choice. For example, if you commit everyone to a quest--you're done for the round. If you want (or need) to defend against an attack--done for the round. Maybe you'd like to actually attack with someone--you can, but have to skip questing and defending. It's like going to an all you can eat buffet and only getting to eat one item. I'm kinda bummed by this. (Granted, on my first disastrous playthrough solo, I rarely had more than 2 allies in play. It seems as though a multitude of them is required to win. Can it be that allies make or break this game?)
  11. Acererak said: And having a fairly succesful single sphere deck definitely needs two sets. Most cards (the best ones usually) of each Sphere don´t come with three copies. You want those for the hard quests for sure. So does that mean there is actually a purpose in having three sets? I'm still confused on that as well. I thought the new LCG format was going to have 3 copies of every card. Will the Adventure Packs for LOTR be back to having single copies now?
  12. Eh, maybe I won't even want to go three player anyway. I wonder if the game gets more complex and takes longer if you go beyond 2 player. It might be simpler just to play 2 player games anyhow.
  13. EnigmaKnight said: I guess my main problem with the way this is set up, is that with my second purchase of a core set, I am buying, quest, encounter,hero cards that I will never use,that it was designed that way. I will likely still buy the second set, but I wish a four player expansion had been thought of, to keep us from paying for wasted cards. I agree. I'm a casual player and just game with my two boys. It seems really stupid to spend another 40 bucks just to get the dial trackers and tokens. The expansion packs will provide plenty of cards, so no worries there. I could really care less about having three of each card as well. It's been difficult just trying to figure out how to buy this product for casual play, too. FFG recommends 2 core sets, which is why I thought it was necessary. But I can use pencil and paper and other tokens if necessary. I don't understand why they didn't just include enough in the core set for 4 people or at least offer an expansion. Really poor idea on their part. The game looks awesome, but the underhanded marketing scheme to sell more product than is necessary really turns me off. Wasn't transparency supposed to be the whole point of LCG?
  14. @OP: Please elaborate. My boys and I have played the Silver Line Edition maybe six times now without a win. I can't figure out what we're doing wrong. Maybe if I understood what you were doing wrong it would help us. Thanks!
  15. I'd like to see one or two (one order one destruction) neutral capitol boards. Or at least something more than a simple box of cards. It was kind of a let down that the last deluxe expansion was cards only. Why waste such a large, oversized box on the equivalent of a few battle packs? I had no issue with the product, however. Very cool.
  16. I just bought the Core Set, Assault on Ulthuan, and the 1st Battle Pack from the Corruption Cycle, and I can vouch for it being more than enough for casual players to have one copy of each set. I would advise against buying multiples unless you were going to play in a really competative tourney or something. Most of the single copy cards are heroes anyway, in which case being unique, there cannot be more than one copy on the table, and you can only have one hero per zone anyway. If FFG did release a "catch-up" set to round out the collection, I'd definitely go for it, but I'm not breaking my wallet and buying up with more product than needed just do so myself. I love the game though, now having played it a bit I'd say it's one of the best card-based games I've ever played and I highly recommend it!
  17. When I first started the game, I thought the 3 power on the Kingdom and the 1 power on the Quest zone counted in combat. I think it's a neat idea to actually play it that way. It makes sense, not so much for the Quest zone, but definitely for the Kingdom that there would be some defenses built into it before adding units and support. Most castles have arrow towers, boiling oil dumps, trebuchets, etc. Perhaps a tactic card will be released in the future that allows for the Kingdom to use it's power in combat or something.
  18. I would definitely buy a set that brought all of the "old style" cards up to date to make triplicates of each card. In fact, If it weren't for the new style of LCG I wouldn't be playing at all, so I'd really like to see them go retroactive and offer something like that. ******Even if it was only sold on the website and came in a plain box to save packaging costs******* As it is now, I'm a casual player, so I won't be buying more than one of everything and just have fun with that. But I can definitely see how having three of some of the solo cards from the core set would be useful.
  19. I guess I just don't understand why companies are so reluctant to just release exactly what ccg fans are looking for without making them make so many purchases in order to complete a set (or set x4, etc.). I'd love nothing more than to see a box with everything needed to play in one box. And then release an expansion with everything needed as well. That way, the game would go by sheer talent or ingenuity in deckbuilding rather than the guy/gal who buys the most wins. I suppose I should just stick to board games. I've got Middle Earth Quest on the way right now and I can't wait. It's cool that it has a card battling mechanic in a self contained set.
  20. Frog said: But it has been said by many that you have to run around worrying about influence tracks and that there is no leveling of characters (character progression) and hardly any items to equip etc. Sounds like the good guys have to squash fires (removing plots) and collect favor around the map rather than going on adventures and doing what they please. Yeah, the characters do level up and there is some exploring and item acquisition, but overall it's only half of the game. I think if you're really looking for an in-depth questing experience you need to play an RPG. If the game is as fun as it looks, hopefully there'll be an expansion to add more items, quests, characters, etc. Oh yeah, there are always current quests (targeted goals) ongoing for the heroes in the game, so it is a little RPG-ish in that sense.
  21. I have been a big fan of CCG games in the past, but the cost of building competitive decks is so ridiculous that isn't worth it and I abandoned them. Then I discovered this new Warhammer Invasion game and thought FFG was onto something. I learned all about their new LCG style of game and its philosophy, but I still think it doesn't go far enough to get me back into a collectible game. It's totally awesome that there are no blind purchases and no rare hunts, but it still sucks that you need to buy 3 of everything (barring core sets I hope) to build competitive tourney decks. Why not go all the way and just have LCGs work like board game expansions, where each new 30-50 dollar release has everything needed to play? I'd be willing to spend between 30-50 bucks 2 or 3 times a year, but I can't afford the core set plus 30 bucks each month plus special releases. You're talking 4 to 5 hundred dollars a year! It makes MMOs look cheap by comparison! I understand that it's a good business model to give people a crack-like addiction and continually pump them for money, but it seemed like the LCG phiosophy was a step in a better direction . . . just not a big enough step to get me hooked.
×
×
  • Create New...