FFG AMA with Andrew Navarro

[John Constantine 967]

1 hour ago, Seastan said:

Thankfully, the head of FFG studios disagrees. According to him, the majority of the playerbase does not want a 2.0. Shouldn't demanding that you want personally, that most of the playerbase does not want, be the selfish position?

But to be clear, FFG doesn't owe me any product that I haven't paid for. Yet I want them continue the game forever. So in that sense, I am selfish. I can admit that.

I'm not sure that he disagrees, he just lays down the facts (tbh I don't think somebody in his position even takes part in decisions like these, those are usually made by people directly involved). I think there is much more reasons behind not doing second edition than simple "0.001% of the playerbase that are vocal on the forums don't want it". If I was a betting man, my money would be on the risk of it not returning as much profit and/or licensing issues being the actual main reason for that.

I don't know how they can "reiterate" the game with so many cards being designed around the old rules. Some cards gonna function differently under the new rule set, some cards might break at all.

Edited August 31, 2019 by John Constantine

[Yepesnopes 636]

I hope that with all this, at least Caleb won’t have the time to release more erratas.

Obviously all the “erratas allow to open new card development strategies” argument is not valid anymore.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Yepesnopes

[eliodoloro 9]

I am quite pleased with the current plan and cannot wait to see what the 2nd iteration is.

Also,

6 hours ago, John Constantine said:

But second edition wouldn't take your deep card pool away. Nothing stops you from playing first edition while second edition is developing. Plus, when game first release, they develop significantly faster than 1 adventure pack in 3 years like lotr lcg currently has, another very compelling reason why lotr should go for second edition.

I understand the argument, that development slows over time, but your math/counting is a bit off. Since August 2016, which would be 3 years ago, we have seen 3 new deluxe expansions and 15 adventure packs, not 1 adventure pack.

[John Constantine 967]

18 minutes ago, eliodoloro said:

I am quite pleased with the current plan and cannot wait to see what the 2nd iteration is.

Also,

I understand the argument, that development slows over time, but your math/counting is a bit off. Since August 2016, which would be 3 years ago, we have seen 3 new deluxe expansions and 15 adventure packs, not 1 adventure pack.

Hyperbole, from a Greek word meaning "excess," is a figure of speech that uses extreme exaggeration to make a point or show emphasis.

[eliodoloro 9]

Fact check, a term in modern English, refers to the act of verifying the accuracy or near accuracy of claims that are made. It does not distinguish hyperbole from non-fact.

Edited August 31, 2019 by eliodoloro

[John Constantine 967]

2 minutes ago, eliodoloro said:

Fact check, a term in modern English, refers to the act of verifying the accuracy or near accuracy of claims that are made. It does not distinguish hyperbole from non-fact.

It was never supposed to be a factually correct statement. All this statement was trying to convey is that this game is releasing products at a turtle pace, which it does. Like, I made it so obvious - 1 pack in 3 years, and you still took it at face value? Lmao.

[eliodoloro 9]

No, I found it to be absurd, because FFG has released more than 1 card per day over that time period.

[John Constantine 967]

2 minutes ago, eliodoloro said:

No, I found it to be absurd, because FFG has released more than 1 card per day over that time period.

See, you are able to grasp the concept of hyperbole after all

[dalestephenson 1,482]

So August 2016 to present is 3 deluxe and 15 APs.  For comparison to the original pace of the game, 3 years from the release of Hunt for Gollum (July 2011 through July 2014, inclusive) has 3 deluxes, 20 APs, and 3 saga expansions.  That's faster, even if you ignore the parallel saga boxes, but not vastly so.

I'm not sure I agree that a new-iteration-after-a-break would necessarily be at the current pace, or that a reboot would necessarily develop and release quicker than a largely/entirely compatible "new iteration" would.

[John Constantine 967]

17 minutes ago, dalestephenson said:

So August 2016 to present is 3 deluxe and 15 APs.  For comparison to the original pace of the game, 3 years from the release of Hunt for Gollum (July 2011 through July 2014, inclusive) has 3 deluxes, 20 APs, and 3 saga expansions.  That's faster, even if you ignore the parallel saga boxes, but not vastly so.

I'm not sure I agree that a new-iteration-after-a-break would necessarily be at the current pace, or that a reboot would necessarily develop and release quicker than a largely/entirely compatible "new iteration" would.

I'm not judging by how it used to release at the beginning, I'm juding by how other fresh LCG releases come out now.

Edited August 31, 2019 by John Constantine

[dalestephenson 1,482]

What I don't quarrel with is the idea that an incompatible reboot *needs* an aggressive release schedule in order to get to the size of the card pool where deckbuilding would be interesting -- in the current card pool, you pretty much need the whole first cycle to get to 50-card decks without filler, let alone making thematic decks.  Heck, here's how the historical tribal decks were 3 years after the release of the first AP (through Three Trials/Black Riders; 39 months after release of core):

Eagles --  fully formed but weak; it would take Hirgon/TaEowyn to take it to the next step.

Dwarves -- fully formed and likely more powerful than now, thanks to errata [Dwarrowdelf/Hobbit]

Gondor -- fully formed [AtS]

Outlands -- fully formed [AtS]

Hobbit -- viable for hobbit heroes [Black Riders], non-existent for allies

Rohan -- fair amount of cards, but needing SpTheoden

Silvan -- Celeborn/Tree People released, no O Lorien and enter-plays Silvans thin on the ground

Ent -- no Ents released at all

Dunedain -- no unifying principle, let alone enablers

Noldor -- no unifying principle, let alone enablers

Harad -- non-existent

Dale -- one hero and one overpriced, useless ally

Woodmen -- non-existent

Beorning -- Beorn hero, Beorn ally, and the overpriced coaster Beorning Beekeeper

So after three years, three months there were five viable tribal decks, and two years from core release (Heirs of Numenor) there were just three.  A "second iteration" that can draw from the existing card pool can create new archtypes with a single card (see contracts).  The most recent cycle created three new tribal archtypes while simultaneously giving *major* support to Eagles, Silvans, and Hobbits.  A reboot *plus* a complete cycle might get you to the point where you can build a decent 50-card deck, as long as it's not monosphere.

Of course, since a second reboot isn't constrained by compatibility, it could abandon entirely the idea of mix-n-match heroes and cards, instead focusing around self-contained heroes that carry their own decks with them -- this would let them create viable decks from day one -- it would also fundamentally change one of the greatest attractions of the current game -- it wouldn't be an incompatible "better version" of the current game, it would be a completely different game sharing theme and artwork.

FFG has already made an incompatible version sharing artwork, theme, and some mechanical elements for the  computer.  How many players of this game have abandoned this to play it instead?

[dalestephenson 1,482]

23 minutes ago, John Constantine said:

I'm not judging by how it used to release at the beginning, I'm juding by how other fresh LCG releases come out now.

Why?  Are there any second editions of cooperative LCGs to compare to?

If you imagine a second edition would release at the same pace as a brand new cooperative LCG, we know the Marvel Champions has an *intended* release schedule of once per month, with the majority being hero packs and minority being scenario packs, with no announced schedule for "Campaign expansions".  Sounds very much like the *intended* release schedule for LOTR to me.  The significant difference to me is the separation of player cards from scenarios, and the alteration of deckbuilding to make heroes come with synergistic deck element, at the expense of the combinations possible in LOTR LCG.

[Bullroarer Took 996]

I have now watched the video and put myself in the “cautiously optimistic “ category.  Caleb has talked about bringing more of a story telling or saga style element into the game and maybe that’s what’s being envisioned here.

Regarding the 2.0 vs 1b argument, put me firmly in the 1b category.  I’m not saying the game is perfect, but I don’t believe the game’s problems are structural.  Yes, Spirit and Lore got too much of the color pie and Tactics and Leadership didn’t get enough, but I don’t believe that can’t be handled with errata or future cards.  I do not want to go back to the very limited card pool we had for so many years.  Furthermore, if there was a complete reboot people would be wanting the sagas all over and I don’t think the designers really want to go back there again.

[soullos 147]

So, lately I've been reading my older D&D books, mainly 3e. In there, 3e had a revision early in it's life called 3.5. 3.0 content is still fully compatible with 3.5 content, with just a few tweaks. I wouldn't be surprised if the new iteration for LotR was a revision that is fully backwards compatible. A 1.5 if you will. It could be cleaned up rules, errata and balance for the 1.5 revision and a new way to deliver content that isn't cycles. Hmm... just a shower thought.

[xchan 66]

Am I the only one who thought that the «new iteration» was refering to the release format? No more cycles + DE but a different product, instead of a new game experience (be it 2.0 or 1.b).

I thought he was hinting at some new way to distribute the game, like Arkham (return to), L5R (clan packs) and Marvel (campaign, hero and villan decks) are already doing?

It seems like FFG is trying to move away from the cycle releases, and what Andrew said fits right into it.

AGoT is finishing the house DEs soon too. We might also get news of a different product type moving forward. Anything that would attract new players seems good to me. A new point of entry into the game.

[Onidsen 571]

48 minutes ago, xchan said:

Am I the only one who thought that the «new iteration» was refering to the release format? No more cycles + DE but a different product, instead of a new game experience (be it 2.0 or 1.b).

I thought he was hinting at some new way to distribute the game, like Arkham (return to), L5R (clan packs) and Marvel (campaign, hero and villan decks) are already doing?

It seems like FFG is trying to move away from the cycle releases, and what Andrew said fits right into it.

AGoT is finishing the house DEs soon too. We might also get news of a different product type moving forward. Anything that would attract new players seems good to me. A new point of entry into the game.

That is a completely reasonable interpretation of what he said.

I'm also hoping for campaign supplements for earlier cycles

[John Constantine 967]

Experience versions of existing cards to purchase during campaign.

[Radix2309 355]

12 hours ago, Bullroarer Took said:

I have now watched the video and put myself in the “cautiously optimistic “ category.  Caleb has talked about bringing more of a story telling or saga style element into the game and maybe that’s what’s being envisioned here.

Regarding the 2.0 vs 1b argument, put me firmly in the 1b category.  I’m not saying the game is perfect, but I don’t believe the game’s problems are structural.  Yes, Spirit and Lore got too much of the color pie and Tactics and Leadership didn’t get enough, but I don’t believe that can’t be handled with errata or future cards.  I do not want to go back to the very limited card pool we had for so many years.  Furthermore, if there was a complete reboot people would be wanting the sagas all over and I don’t think the designers really want to go back there again.

I dont really play LotR that much. Mostly when a friend brings it out.

What is the difference in the pies?

[Zura 563]

1 minute ago, Radix2309 said:

I dont really play LotR that much. Mostly when a friend brings it out.

What is the difference in the pies?

color pie is a concept from mtg that basically splits the pie that are game mechanics between the colors equally so each color (sphere) feels unique and has something to offer players. If one color (sphere) starts getting the fragments of the pie originally reserved for the other it is considered that the color is better than the others. 

For example, in original lotr lcg color pie lore had the card draw. As time passes, every other sphere got some form of it too. Tactics had strong defenders, then spirit beregond happened. etc. Sphere are more of a direction now than restriction

[Bullroarer Took 996]

10 hours ago, Zura said:

color pie is a concept from mtg that basically splits the pie that are game mechanics between the colors equally so each color (sphere) feels unique and has something to offer players. If one color (sphere) starts getting the fragments of the pie originally reserved for the other it is considered that the color is better than the others. 

For example, in original lotr lcg color pie lore had the card draw. As time passes, every other sphere got some form of it too. Tactics had strong defenders, then spirit beregond happened. etc. Sphere are more of a direction now than restriction

I would have said it much worse than than this.

In the early days Spirit got questing, cancellation, recursion and threat reduction.  It also got the ability to attack the staging area without engaging the enemy.  So it could handle all phases of the game very well.

Tactics got combat, but not terribly better than the other spheres.  It did get the ability to generate progress through combat, but if you say that only about one third of the encounter deck is enemies then it can only generate progress one third of the time.  Meanwhile its threat is spiraling because it can’t quest.

[Ywingscum 842]

Why a break though?  Lack of man power while designers develop Marvel content?  Time to develop the new “iteration?”

[Onidsen 571]

3 minutes ago, Ywingscum said:

Why a break though?  Lack of man power while designers develop Marvel content?  Time to develop the new “iteration?”

Probably because other LCGs (Marvel and GoT) are going to pilot new content formats, and they want to wait and see how they are recieved.

[Radix2309 355]

11 hours ago, Zura said:

color pie is a concept from mtg that basically splits the pie that are game mechanics between the colors equally so each color (sphere) feels unique and has something to offer players. If one color (sphere) starts getting the fragments of the pie originally reserved for the other it is considered that the color is better than the others. 

For example, in original lotr lcg color pie lore had the card draw. As time passes, every other sphere got some form of it too. Tactics had strong defenders, then spirit beregond happened. etc. Sphere are more of a direction now than restriction

Yeah I know colour pie theory.

I was just curious what the division for LotR was.

[asgardianphil 38]

I just really hope they keep the reprinting going.

I feel this game would be more successful with a better reprinting of deluxe sets first and foremost. I have friends struggling to find deluxe sets in the UK. FFG reprint quest packs from time to time but what's the point when there's not enough deluxe sets out there that the quest packs require. Buying a quest pack for the player cards only (because you cant play the quest without the deluxe counterpart) is poor. The deluxe to quest pack tie-in model only really works if you can guarantee market supply and demand of the deluxe enabler. 

The LCG model was a new innovation in card gaming for those burnt out on the rare-chasing nature of previous collectable trading games. FFG boasted no rares to chase... everyone gets everything in the pack. But by the lack of reprints coming they've made cards extremely rare and chaseable as people in the second hand market puts these sets on sale at ridiculously expensive prices and are now even selling singles for stupid prices. The game as become that horrible collectors nightmare that LCGs were created to not be.. 

So I hope a second or new iteration firstly solves this problem and creates exciting jumping on points for new players.

 

I'd like to see a completely new core set (that's not a second edition) but the start of a new campaign with player new cards in it and army/faction cards and treasures and player card locations. Clarified and explained rules. Then the packs can be like the new marvel releases- one pack is one complete scenario focusing on a lieutenant or location. And hero packs that focus on a hero his/her race, Havens, factions, events, contracts and equipment.

Easy mode, and nightmare need to be better incorporated into the game rather than separate nightmare packs too. 

****, I'd even love for a silmarilion version of the game that's compatible.

I love this game and have everything but I have friends desperate to spend their cash on this game but cant get packs and deluxes for love nor money. 

 

[Tyrion Gru 13]

Maybe it's time to speculate on what might be arriving in this Cycle, before the development break in LOTR LCG. Perhaps a Spirit Aragorn hero, or maybe a Scouring of the Shire AP? What about an eagle hero? Or perhaps a hint/taste of Second Age Middle Earth?

We've all been anticipating many of these things...think FFG will try to cram them into the final APs?