I get the impression it's going to be more like Warhammer than LotR. No real reason for that, just based on a lot of assumptions. I mean, if they stick to the idea of the four zones that you can play characters into (ship, operations, whatever they were) it sounds more like you'll have a capital board in front of you, and you'll be going against your opponent with the same setup. I suppose you could play it multiplayer, as Warhammer seems possibly capable of being played, but I get the impression that "officially" it'll remain 1 vs 1.

My thoughts keep coming back to the update announcement, though. A "groundbreaking" game experience, with just 1 vs 1? Even with multiplayer, this wouldn't be groundbreaking, as AGoT has that built in. They're either lying, don't understand what "groundbreaking" means, or have something completely awesome up their sleeve that will make people around the world collectively faint when they announce the mechanics...

spirit said:

The difference is that the LOTR box says "1-2 players," and the SW box now says "2 players."  All of the other PvP LCG games say "2 players."

It's funny, in a sad kinda way.  I picked-up the LotR:LCG core set recently so that I could get aquainted with cooperative game play, primarily because I was looking forward to this game.  LotR has really grown on me, and now it seems that I will stick with it and probably avoid Star Wars.  It's funny how things work out.

FFG probably doesn't care one way or the other; they are getting my $ in either case. 

Pericles said:

Ditto! That's exactly what happened to me too.

Budgernaut said:

And me! Though I kinda went overboard and also got into AGoT and Warhammer, so they're probably rubbing their hands with glee at me...

 Similar story here - when it was announced that FFG had got the Star Wars license, I bought Battlestar Galactica to see what the company was all about. Then, I bought my son Talisman for Xmas based on how impressed I was with BSG.

I've sort of been looking at LotR, but the introductory videos here on the site make it look sort of... boring. Not so?

I don't think so, no! I think the major drawback people have been griping about is the fact that, once you've played one of the quests, you know what cards are going to come up and so can tailor your deck to beat it, because that game will never change. But I win and I lose, and I enjoy it immensely either way. Knowing what cards you're going to come up against is no different to knowing what's available to your opponent in his chosen card pool, in my book. You can put cards in your deck to counter the beasties of Return to Mirkwood in the same way you can counter Baratheon power-rush, or whatever.

I suppose the big put-off for people could be boiled down to them not being able to gloat over an AI...

I don't think LotR is boring (which is why I bought all the Adventure Packs to Shadows of Mirkwood last week). It's especially fun to play with multiple people, but it can be complicated, so most of the time I play by myself. I think it's still a really rewarding solo play experience. I think if they had reskinned it as Star Wars, you would have LOVED it, I.J. Thompson. But I think that if the setting doesn't interest you, it can be hard to get into a game. I just finished reading the LotR trilogy for the first time in December and that had a lot to do with me getting fired up about this game.

Budgernaut said:

Good man! A very sound investment, there! Have they been delivered, yet?

The point about theme is a very valid one. The LotR game is dripping in theme, it's almost unbearable. But in a good way, I hasten to add. I would heartily recommend the game to anyone who stood still long enough, but you won't get half as much enjoyment out of it if you don't like the theme than if you do. That said, I wouldn't call myself a Tolkien fan, and I go nuts over the LotR LCG! I'm either in denial, or there are Tolkien fans playing this game having minor heart attacks with every card draw because they're enjoying it so much...

 I see!

I actually really like the LotR setting, and certainly the films (it's been a couple decades since I read the books, however). Possibly it's just those FFG introductory videos that made it seem dull. Maybe what I ought to do is look for videos of people actually playing the game...

 I haven't figured out how to multi-quote on this forum yet so I'll just direct my comments.

Spalanzani: Yes, I've received all the packs. I skipped Dol Guldur from the core and am now on Conflict at the Carrock. I don't get a lot of time to play, but I think about deck-building all the time (too much, in fact).

I.J. Thompson: I actually found the introductory videos riveting. If you think those were boring, I don't think you'll get much out of watching people play, primarily because it'll be hard to get a clear sense of the cards and why they are playing the cards they're playing. It just may not be your kind of card game. But if you can find someone with at least a core set, you should definitely spend an evening learning to play it.

[sigh] I wish we were talking about the co-op SW game right now instead . . .

Budgernaut said:

LOL.  I know, right?  There are programs out there that allow you to create your own custom LotR:LCG cards.  I have toyed with the idea of creating a core set based on Star Wars, basically doing what was mentioned earlier and re-skinning the current game for Star Wars.  The amount of free-time involved, and my lack of it, has prevented me from progressing it past the idea phase, though.

Pericles said:

I've already started this (see the recent thread in this forum about getting all the info about the game).  I think we know enough about the game to create something.  I've transcribed all the (known) cards, started writing a rule book, have extracted the card frames (except for the strategy and mission cards, anyone good w/ photoshop/gimp?).

If anyone is interested in helping, I'm all for it!  I'm using NanDeck for making the cards.

~telengard

Seems that there was nothing terribly concrete at all from the Toy fair.