Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I just want you to know that it is really appreciated. Thank you for your efforts. OCTGN is amazing, but I need the save functionality Lackey provides, so this is a life saver for me!
  2. OMG, that's exactly what I wished for in the general speculation thread on the LCG forum!!!! Will buy ALL.
  3. Well, this image has started doing the rounds on the internet: http://www.pic-upload.de/view-30734678/news.jpg.html I can't stress enough how happy will this make me. I need another co-op LCG so bad, mainly so I can solo it (LotR I keep for the friend with which I started collecting it), but also because a CoC co-op LCG makes so much sense! I really really hope this is not a hoax...
  4. Cool. Shouldn't it be only Weapon items, though? Way more thematic sense, and gives more meaning and strength to weapon attachments, the same way Foe-Hammer, for example, does.
  5. I so agree. The Horrors have too many fiddly bits for me. Make a coop (soloable) and I would buy everything plus the chewing gum. Yes yes yes. I would buy everything. I'd buy EVERYTHING. I want a Lovecraftian-themed Co-Op LCG so bad! That looks REALLY cool, but I think this should be differentiated from the LotR LCG a little more. Both in visual design and basic mechanics. Though I guess the creator/s will do that as this fan-made game is developed. Is there a BGG thread, or a forum thread here, where this is maintained and updated?
  6. Oh, that's nice! Thanks! I like my archetype names more, though.
  7. I just read the "Ned, Shagga, and Jaime… Revisited - Nate French on Player Archetypes in A Game of Thrones: The Card Game" article published yesterday on the FFG site. First off, I really enjoyed it - it's a good read, and one that's highly relevant for LotR LCG. While reading the article, you can understand how these considerations of player archetypes that Nate French talks about were clearly also taken when he designed the LotR LCG. It is of course a reference to the classic MtG player archetypes, and the two sets of archetypes have a lot in common, naturally. Second, I think that the three archetypes that Nate presents there - Ned, Shagga and Jaime - have clear parallels in our beloved game. So, risking being redundant (as this has probably already been discussed), I think the right names for the same archetypes in LotR LCG are: The LotR LCG "Ned" - The Master of Lore A true fanboy of the source material, the Master of Lore enjoys building highly thematic decks, recreating his favorite tales through the game. He also takes offense when mechanics and theme collide. Legolas can't be the Steward of Gondor. There's no chance Thorin managed to get his hands on Celebrian's Stone. Gimli and his father Gloin shouldn't be hanging out together all throughout Middle Earth. And no! The eagles can't go into Moria! Motto: "Aragorn hasn't actually met Gandalf until T.A. 2956." I gotta say I have a little of the Master in me. I'm not a fanatic, so I'm ok with Glorfindel and Bilbo finding their way into one of my LotR saga decks, but I do have to assure myself that it might have been the case that Bilbo had joined Froddo, and that the company came upon Glorfindel rather than Gildor, who then decided to tag along. I will, however, for the life of me, will not allow Aragorn, Gimli, Boromir or Legolas feature in my Saga decks before the point in the story in which they appear in the books. The LotR LCG "Shagga" - The Grey Companion The Companion is in it for the puzzle. The great thing about a living card game is that the card pool keeps expending, and new ways to try and play the game are continuously created (and destroyed). Compi enjoys hours of pouring over his card boxes or binders to find just the right card to complete his new deck, or to find some way to utilize an old over-looked card. Motto: "I can make this Song deck work." This is so me. This is what I enjoy the most about this game (the theme coming a close second), and what I spend most of my time on - I probably spend 80% percent of my time with the game building decks or thinking about decks, and only 20% playing, and I'm just fine with that. The LotR LCG "Jaime" - The Glaurung Being that LotR LCG is a cooperative card game, where players combine their effort to fight the encounter deck, the game makes it kinda hard to get too competitive. That's not going to stop The Glaurung, though. Forged in the dark fires of Orodruin, trained by the KGB and armed with three core sets, The Glaurung is in it to crush the encounter deck and make Sauron kneel before the might of power-gaming. He's also the most strict about the rules out of the three archetypes, because he's got to beat the encounter deck in his own game. Motto: "Is too easy. I wait for Nightmare cards." I am definitely part Glaurung. When I build a deck, I usually bend my thematic idea when I start optimizing it to become the best it can. Also, I think there's a definite type that is missing from the list and is prominent in the LotR LCG player community... The LotR LCG "Hodor" - The CotR Brandon The CotR Brandon isn't too worried about thematic sense, and though he likes to win that's not his main concern either; The Brandon likes awesome cards. The Brandon wants to throw Steward of Gondor and Gondorian Fire on Tactics Boromir to have him kill four goblins in one combat phase with a completely over-the-top and unnecessary attack strength of 11, because that's just fun. And if the rules get in the way of that, maybe the rules need to sit this one out. The Brandon likes Sneak Attacking core Gandalf, he likes pumping Gimli with wounds and he likes killing stuff with Beorn. Usually, he likes Tactics. A lot. Motto: "Can I put this axe on Beorn? I'm gonna put this axe on Beorn." Well, I guess we all got a little Brandon in us (naughty thoughts!), because everyone likes to smash things up in an epic LotR-films-like way So, what do you think? Are these player archetypes a good representation of the people of our community? Is there an archetype missing? And can I put this axe on Beorn? I'm gonna put this axe on Beorn.
  8. I too think the direct damage effect deserves a resurrection, but I don't think it should be just one card. Maybe a few good cards rather than one OP one will be better? Like, one Lore ally (Ithilien Captain, Sniper, whatever) that boosts by 1 direct damage that is done to enemies in the staging area, and another Tactics attachment that boost direct damage to enemies engages with you by 1. And perhaps a Tactics hero that can exhaust (limit once per round) to boost a direct damage effect by 2, anywhere on board (but only boost an existing one, not create an effect on its own).
  9. I think this suggestion is a nice way to make the game much easier, and will definitely make a lot of thematic decks viable (and the group of elite decks currently ruling the meta, it will make unstoppable). However, it will make the game a very VERY different game, and it can't even be considered (IMHO) a variant of easy mode, as it makes several important aspects of the game either non-relevant (deck fetching) or a lot less important (card draw). As a past MtG player, and an avid deck builder (both for MtG and LotR LCG), I gotta tell you that the randomness of the deck in general and specifically the opening hand makes up so much of the game and challenge of deck building, that the effect of such a house rule will be tremendous. So yeah, this might be a nice variant for thematic play, that may even become quite popular (given the feedback in this thread), but it is obviously not a change that can be organically incorporated into the game without taking too much away from it. This aspect of the game is really important to me, and from the other kind of reactions in this thread - I'm not the only one. On a personal note - I think that's exactly what house rules are for, especially in a co-op game. I personally would probably never play this variant, the same way that I don't ever take a second mulligan; It's part of the fun for me (and I'm fine with people doing what they want to make the game more fun and thematic for them). My most recent anecdote regarding this is not getting LoV in either my opening hand or my mulligan in my Bilbo+Glorf secrecy deck in the second LotR Saga quest (I think). Not only that, I found it maybe in turn 9 or 10. And I was forced to quest with Glorf to keep our heads afloat, so my threat kept going past 20 and than back down once I got some threat reduction. It was challenging, and unique, and made for some hard decisions - and it was a blast! (and we won )
  10. Totally bummed about this. I really wanted another coop LCG (though I knew the chances are slim to none for two coop LCGs coexisting). But as a former MtG player, I'm happy for a CCG community (legend of the five rings, in this case) getting its game revitalized in this superior format.
  11. Just LotR, but I have every product of that. Will go into any solo/coop one, but have no community play competitive ones.
  12. This is something I just noticed, and found to be kind of cool; the art for the Faramir character in ME:TW CCG and the art for the Damrod hero in LotR LCG have so much similarities it almost looks like the latter pays homage to the former (although I guess it's probably just a coincidence). This made me think generally on whether the art of LotR LCG is ever inspired by the art of ME:TW CCG. I remember finding similar art similarities a couple of time in the past (maybe Fatty Bolger and Dagger of Westernesse, to some degree, though not really. Or Beregond), but it's really hard to know if those are intentional homages or just that these are some specific characters, items and locations that were either so well described in the books or was given some definitive artistic interpretation by some third artist, that anyone drawing them is bound to come up with something the reminds you of past art. The Faramir-Damrod thing, however, is just uncanny. Most of all the pose. Maybe we should interview some of these artists!
  13. Yeah. I like the conditional-ity of it. Anyway, I guess I read you wrong and so I ended up designing something else that a replacement for Horn of Gondor. Anyway, we're good. We'll just keep discussing cards here. It is! Very neat idea! It's only half a hero - only resources, not the hero type - so it's not a sword thain, and can only replace a dead hero. I like it a lot! I don't know if it's too strong with 1 cost (given that hero resurrection cost 5, and that sword thain is 4), but I think with either 1 or 2 it's an incredibly solid design. Good job!
  • Create New...