Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Calvadur

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

571 profile views
  1. Calvadur

    Limited Edition Starter avalable now?!

    Seeing it‘s still called limited Edition, maybe it just isn‘t sold out? FFG said they produced a limited amount, but nobody knows exactly how many or how many were sold, I guess. It isn‘t on the cheaper side either (exspecially for non american-buyers) and includes many goodies many people might not care about (digital game, paintings...) might explaining why copies are left.
  2. I tend to agree. We had the exact same matchup (Pelennor vs Helm's) in the 2016 competition, where Helm's Deep pulled ahead by a small margin. So I guess Pelennor will take it this time, as past time winners tend to fall short in repeat entries (even when making it to the semi final again; quite showing for how good/beloved the quest is).
  3. It is like treebeard: To cancel the shadow effect, Erkenbrand must take the damage.
  4. Also suprised by Mount Doom, as I remeber quite some people mention the high difficulty shortly after it's release. Took forever to take it out for the first time. Since then I have come to like it (somewhat). It caputures the atmosphere nicely and I always find myself debating if it is worth to play the ally or how to get as many actions out of my heroes *** possible. Also a little surprised by the huge lead of Anduin over it's "remake". It is a classic for sure, but it didn't age all that well. Sure the remake can be "cheesed" by going for side quests, but I like a quest that gives good opportunities to play them.
  5. I seem to have forgotten to post my comment for the last round (it sat finished in the comment box :S ), whoops. Anyway some great match-ups: Helm's Deep vs. Breaking of the Fellowship are two of my favourites (and I am sure many others) so that was a close one. City of Corsairs vs. Cobas Haven must be the ultimate dreamchaser showdown But Haven takes it. The great ship battle is awesome and I was disappointed by the showdown with Sahir. I am really surprised to see Deadman's dike loose to the watcher, as I think that with the modern cardpool dike is much more fun. Also I hate the tentacles
  6. Calvadur

    Mount Gundabad

    Oh man, why did they leave Bilbo at nine threat? Tactics Eowyn has 4 willpower from the get go (meaning she can do other stuff like one of these annoying hide tests etc.) and a powerful ability. While different I would rank Bilbos ability lower in terms of power. Two damage is great as it opens up some neat tricks with Gondorian spearman and spear of the citadel, but how often do enemies guard stuff? Sure there are a handful of player cards and some quests, making it quite niche. And dealing one damage is not too great. Argalad already does something very similar and profits from stuff like light of valinor etc. Ofc he is in lore and usefull quester shouldn't be too common in tactics, but other spheres are more generous in adding "out of sphere stats" I feel. Bilbo probably will be good in mono tactics anyway for the (most likely) above avarage willpower, but with 6 or seven willpower I would have been much more happy. Would have made him more interssting for secrecy, too (and this is his Burgluar version, so he should be sneaky). This way I don't see why I shouldn't just pick Eowyn, if I want one tactics hero (with high willpower and low threat), as she is more constant and can really be a life saver against high health enemies. Love the general Hobbit support in this pack though
  7. Voted! Some thought on (imo) interesting match-ups: Raid on the grey havens > Nin-in-eilph: I was tempted to take the swamp quest (I think it's great for deck testing), but then remembered I hate it with a passion non the less :D Crossroads < Dunland Trap: Both very punishing in their nature, I like Dunland trap better as I think it offers more ways to play the quest Escape from Mount Gram > Peril In Pelagir: I like both very much, but Mount Gram is so cool when you have a deck made for it Steward's Fear < Helm's Deep: Somewhat of a fundamental decision. Helm's Deep was my favourite 2016 (and how it turned out many others, too), but Steward's Fear didn't become the superior quest somehow for me so I guess I'll have to go for it again. In the end my money is on "The Crossing of Poros" (as past winners don't tend to win twice in these championships). It's replayable, has some nice tactical decisions to make and a satisfying culmination.
  8. I see where you are coming from, but I have to disagree. Players always have to choose what to play thats right. But by offering a different gameplay than an other game you are as unqiue as you can be. I think, I wrote enough why I don't think the singleplayer content HS offers satisfys LCG players. To say ignoring the PvP aspect would be fine and in the same breath saying you can't ignore the existenz is something I don't understand. You make good points why the physical game is a success. But I don't agree with the other points. The LCG is for people who don't want to compete with someone else. And the LCG wants to offer this. Sure there will be more people who want to play HS and the DLCG, but go for HS. I don't know how much money FFG makes with the digital game and I don't know how much they need to make. An other example: For Honor, it had disappointing results, but got supported and is still alive today. Sure no hit or CoD/Battlefield, but not everything can become a mass phaenomenon. I expect the same fate for the DLCG. Also if FFI doesn't make it work, their first game was a bust. Not really what you want image wise.
  9. Let's stick with hearthstone (i am most familiar with, from the games you mentioned) and play it through: What is the core of Hearthstone: Short (about 10-15 minutes I'd say) 1 vs. 1 battles. Does this, in any way, compete with the gameplay of the LotR LCG? No. What about the solo content of Hearthstone? Appart from the recent Dr. Boom riddles, they always give you AI-Opponents with stronger cards/heropowers to combat the horiffic AI and create a challenge. Partially you can create a deck to beat them, partially you have an "on the go" deck building. Could this appeal to someone interested in the LCG? Quite possible. I thinks it is totally fine to ignore the PvP aspects of other games as the LCG never was meant to directly be played against other people (we got this mode with the fellowship event, but come on that isn't PvP). So if we compare to HS we just have to worry about the PvE part. And at the moment there is much more in HS. Though you have to grind or pay quite some money to get the adventures (Meaning you coud also get the mithril pack for the LCG). And then you are still stuck with mostly basic cards and have to play a game mode you didn't care about in the first place to grind cards or pay even more to get them quick. After some tinkering you finsihed the adventure (in hard mode) and then? Do many people come back to replay them? I don't. The content is more of a riddle to solve and once that's done you are done. HS asks the question, if you can come up ith a deck for a specific task, and while you are free to do that in the LCG, many people like to come up with a deck that can beat as many quests as possible. Or is as thematic as possible. Hearthstone doesn't offer anything in this regard at all. The modes with "random" deck aren't what a LotR LCG player looks for, as "complex" dedicated deck building as a core aspect of the game. Summing up: Hearthstone might have more "pure content" at the moment. But it puts PVP first. If you enjoy that part of the game, you will have a nice collection to get the most fun of the PvE. If you don't you have a huge paywall for this content or have to grind a mode you don't like. Intro: The Lotr LCG. Quite small at the moment there will be at least 16 quests upon full release (I'd argue 1 quests in normal mode easily offers as much content as 3 bosses in a HS adventure in normal mode). All with multiple phases and their own story (something HS only as the absolute minimum of to have a setting for the SP content). You are encouraged to beat the quests in as many ways as possible and as good as possible. New cards you also get either for money or with ingame currency, which you get for playing a game mode you actually want to play. To bring this to an end: The LCG and Hearthstone can easily co-exist like the hawk and raven. Even though both are birds one doesn't push awy the other. Same goes for the card games. The LCG wants to cater to other players than HS. Sure there are players interested in both and as HS exists much longer they might stay there/don't participate in the AE because of a lack of content (and I repeat the content you get for just picking up the shire pack is great). But once the game has a full release with triple the content they might reconsider it. One last thing: IF you should have to compare the LCG to HS, you would have had to compare the physical LCG to Magic: The Gathering. And magic outclassed LotR by a huge margin and many other card games did too. Even I house products did. But it became a hit, despite inital lack of content. TL;DR: The LCG caters to other player than other popular digital card games, putting PvE over PvP, therefore trying to find it's own niche. The inital "lack of content" is impossible to prevent as other games are much longer on the market, but will (obviously) go away with time and can't really be an argument against the game.
  10. I am sorry, but I just don't know/play an other digital cooperative card game. I was trying to make the general point, that most coop games, which fokus on a scenario design and a growing card pool, will suffer from "a lack of content" in the very beginning. And to support this argument, I think looking at the beginnings of the LotR LCG is completly reasonable.
  11. Well, sure compared to the actual card game the content is closes to non existent. But you have to start out somewhere. We started the physical game with a box of 3 quests. One ment to be played as a tutorial, one with great replayability and one to hard for many people to enjoy. With the player cards given to you, there weren't many "viable" decks, and in true solo even less. Was that content worth 40$? The digital game is at the same point. There are few player cards and even fewer quests. But everyone should be able to complete them (as there are 3 difficulties). And we have more to come. Getting a ton of in game currency means you won't have to worry about getting new valour cards any time soon. And the more heroes and quests release, the easier it will be to farm up the valour points (for doing decent with a hero in a quest). So yeah. There isn't too much content at the moment, but it's the same with any new game that is based on an ever growing cardpool and you can get in for iirc 8$ and get the first five quests (+the new "encounter", a "ultra-hard" quest, think like a POD quest) and player cards prior to the recent update. What is (imo) a really good deal, netting an absolute minimum of 3 hours of gameplay (for playing the quests once and listing to the story with it's complete voiceover). Than you can obviously improve your score or increase difficulty. Worth it in my opinion.
  12. I personally have no interest in printing the quests, even though for stuff like the first age expansion you can easily get the pdfs. These type of quests really lent themselfs to OCTGN as it is much easier to download than to print, cut and maybe even glue and sleeve the cards (not even mentioning the colours can be completely off/different from what you expect) If the quest "just" throws together different encounter cards (what can make for awesome quests as the pool is even larger than for player cards) I might do that, but even in this case the hassle to pick sometimes only 1 or 2 from an expansion is far greater than just to play it on OCTGN.
  13. Oops, thank you. Had the old link saved (as you might have guessed).
  14. The sets you listed are correct. You didn't especially list the set of the quest itself (e.g. Flight fro Moria), but that is pretty obvious. There is a great site, which lists the sets and rules (and some other features) for each quest: lotr-lcg-quest-companion.000webhostapp It isn't quite up to date (listing the quest up to the Haradrim cycle Quest 1: The Mumakil). Also, so far, the listed sets in my rules have always been correct. Some cards might have an error or aren't up to the recent erratas, but that mostly isn't that bad. EDIT: linked to an outdated version of the site the correct (full up to date!) one is: http://lotr-lcg-quest-companion.gamersdungeon.net/ Thanks to Banania for correcting me!
  15. Calvadur

    Cycle Sagas?

    I assume by "turning cycles into Sagas", you mean adding campaign-mode to existing cycles, as this is the only real difference I could think of. As far as I know there isn't really an offical announcement, that something like this is on the horizon or even in development. I just remember a while back in the "state of the LCG" article Caleb said he woud "thinking quite a lot" what could be done with the idea outside of Sagas If you want to give it a read: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/6/8/state-of-the-lcg/