|
Do you want something you can play casually by yourself or with a friend? Lord of the Rings. If your local comic shop has a Game of Thrones group that meets up and you like fighting against others, then I'd recommend that.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Probably more of a kitchen table thing with a few friends -- so it sounds like LOTR may be the way to go (although GoT looks really cool, maybe I'll just mess around with both and go into crippling debt).
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Lotr is the best value because it can still work if your friends don't like it after some time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
The nice thing about LotR is that there isn't a really competitive meta that you're pressured to keep up with. The downside is that you're not playing against a thinking opponent, so it's more about risk mitigation than "outplaying" someone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
I actually have a copy of Doomtown that someone gifted me a while back too, is AEG still supporting it / is it good? It seems like the prices are plummeting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:I actually have a copy of Doomtown that someone gifted me a while back too, is AEG still supporting it / is it good? It seems like the prices are plummeting. Doomtown is good but AEG is a poorly run company and isn't promoting the game hard. There's been a feeling that after they got rid of L5R the company is more or less done investing significant effort into those type of card games and Doomtown is just getting printed to sell to the existing fans and they don't care about drawing a larger fan base because the years of L5R have worn them out on dealing with the stress of handling something bigger. That said and telling you that its a fun, unique, game; don't get it. Not because the company doesn't support it but because it's really freaking complicated and your friends will have a hard time getting into it. FFG games are all a lot smoother, and it sounds like aGoT or LotR would be a better fit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
I mean, we play some heavy Euros (Splotter, Vital, etc) and war games so complexity won't be a huge deal, I just don't necessarily want to lifestyle/buy a thousand dollars of expansions. I think you're right though, aGoT/LotR will probably be an easier sell. Thanks guys. Oh and just out of curiosity how do Warhammer Conquest/GoT compare? T-Bone fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:I mean, we play some heavy Euros (Splotter, Vital, etc) and war games so complexity won't be a huge deal, I just don't necessarily want to lifestyle/buy a thousand dollars of expansions. I think you're right though, aGoT/LotR will probably be an easier sell. Both are solid games. I prefer GoT but part of that is probably just from being familiar with the 1.0 version of the game. I'd say if multiplayer interests you at all that GoT is the way to go as I don't believe Conquest is even playable multiplayer whereas GoT is decent for it. I will also say I know some people I've talked to actually find Conquest to be more skill-intensive due to how you need to allocate your forces across the different planets and the ability to somewhat control your engagements so if that sounds like something you'd prefer there's that. Honestly, even though I dislike Netrunner I think you can't go wrong with any of FFG's LCGs. I've played most of them (and actually just today decided to pick up LotR) and they all are well-designed, with a surprising amount of differentiation in how they play out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Yeah just reading through this thread and BGG I'm honestly just impressed as hell with all of them. I think I'll probably pick up GoT and LotR cores and go from there (I can get my Warhammer fix from Forbidden Stars and Ciotw for now). Thanks again guys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Nobody's mentioned this, but Wolves has been fully spoiled: https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/41894/game-thrones-second-edition-lcg-spoilers Between WH and GoT, WH is the much better 2p game imo. Obviously GoT wins by default in multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
I've gotten in the LOTR LCG. Until I acquire a cycle or two ( ) I see I'm gonna need to build 2 sphere decks to meet the minimum of 50 cards. What are descent 2 sphere combos that will work until my card pool becomes more accommodating? Anything to avoid or will anything work?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
GoneWithTheTornado posted:I've gotten in the LOTR LCG. Until I acquire a cycle or two ( Beorn's Path has a really nice guide that walks through the logic of deck building for this game. If you just want some straight up card lists: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1108855/back-basics-killer-deck-using-only-cards-single-co e: Both links will tell you not to force 50 cards into a deck from a single core, you can worry about building ~*tournament legal*~ decks if/when you get an expansion / a second core set. Foehammer fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Between WH and GoT, WH is the much better 2p game imo. Obviously GoT wins by default in multiplayer. Just wondering, why do you think so? I've had this discussion with a few people around where I play and it seems people are divided. I think GoT is better largely due to the fact I think the command mechanic is way to random and swingy (having both card draws and resource generation both be attached to winning command seems too much to me). That said, as I mentioned above some dudes I talked to actually enjoy having command be so important, as it can be a large skill test w/r/t how you deploy your forces.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
alansmithee posted:Just wondering, why do you think so? I've had this discussion with a few people around where I play and it seems people are divided. I think GoT is better largely due to the fact I think the command mechanic is way to random and swingy (having both card draws and resource generation both be attached to winning command seems too much to me). That said, as I mentioned above some dudes I talked to actually enjoy having command be so important, as it can be a large skill test w/r/t how you deploy your forces. I don't think it's any less random than econ cards in any other card game. Your 1 drop/1 command cards in Conquest ARE your econ, and are just as important as your lands in Magic, Hedge Funds/Sure Gambles in Netrunner or your Kingsroads/Roseroads/reducers in Game of Thrones. Yeah, if you don't draw them, you're pretty boned, but that's the nature of card games. I think the negative perception is just a matter of not enough time understanding the system, since it does take some getting used to equating "units" to "econ," as opposed to the actual location "econ" cards like the Promethium Mine or faction reducers that hardly ever see play. A 1 cost 1 command unit is not only (theoretically) gaining you resources and/or cards at a planet, but also denying your opponent the same...unless they do something about it. And I think that's where Conquest really shines, since there are a lot more important decisions to think about. Where to play your dudes, where to send your warlord, whether you can win combat at a given planet with the tricks and shields you have in your hand vs. the tricks and shields they have in their hand, etc. In comparison, Game of Thrones feels much more "obvious" in what the good plays are and a lot of tricks are more easily telegraphed. You play your reducer characters because they're essentially free and who gives a poo poo if they die, whereas you kinda want to protect your econ dudes in WH but at the same time you kinda don't want to devote resources to them, so there's a lot more tension involved in those decisions. The downside is that Conquest is a LOT more punishing since you can gently caress yourself over with a single bad play. I've heard a lot of "Why did I put my Warlord there?" after a particularly bad combat. The really good combat tricks, like Archon's Terror or Fury of Sicarius, will absolutely gently caress over your combat math and the best you can hope for is to retreat your dudes to fight another day. tldr; Conquest takes longer to actually "click" since it has an unconventional economy, but is ultimately more rewarding. YMMV. GrandpaPants fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
LOTR is finished.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
sassassin posted:LOTR is finished. Agreed, on October 20, 1955.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if the Warhammer Adventure Card Game replaced LOTR. They play very similarly, and I imagine most people hate to deckbuild because they read an article or forum post on Magic the Gathering once.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
sassassin posted:LOTR is finished. This is sad. Where was it announced?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
DonnyTrump posted:This is sad. Where was it announced? It wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I don't think it's any less random than econ cards in any other card game. Your 1 drop/1 command cards in Conquest ARE your econ, and are just as important as your lands in Magic, Hedge Funds/Sure Gambles in Netrunner or your Kingsroads/Roseroads/reducers in Game of Thrones. Yeah, if you don't draw them, you're pretty boned, but that's the nature of card games. I think the negative perception is just a matter of not enough time understanding the system, since it does take some getting used to equating "units" to "econ," as opposed to the actual location "econ" cards like the Promethium Mine or faction reducers that hardly ever see play. A 1 cost 1 command unit is not only (theoretically) gaining you resources and/or cards at a planet, but also denying your opponent the same...unless they do something about it. And I think that's where Conquest really shines, since there are a lot more important decisions to think about. Where to play your dudes, where to send your warlord, whether you can win combat at a given planet with the tricks and shields you have in your hand vs. the tricks and shields they have in their hand, etc. My problem with how econ works in Conquest is that it's dual nature-a bad command phase in Conquest not only stunts your econ w/r/t resources (ability to play things), but also your card draw (having things to play/different options). It would be like in Magic an effect that destroyed land and stopped card draw/made you discard. And I think that it does make the game not just more punishing, but more snowbally. That also magnifies a bad draw because you end up losing out on both card draw and resources. On top of which, with the way you deploy econ dudes/dudes in general you could make a mistake that loses you the game but not actually realize it until turns later, which doesn't give much immediate reinforcement to helping you learn what you did wrong. I do agree though that the mechanic does give you a different feel for decision-making, and I'm in general a fan of the mechanic where you deploy units and how battles are determined, I just think having card draw and resource generation being attached to command is maybe a flaw. And as for GoT being more obvious, I'd probably dispute that. Like I tend not to just dump all my econ dudes because I know I need to save for plots/have protection for a big dude coming later/need buffer for intrigue challenge claim/etc. You also need to balance having symbols up for challenges, etc. And I like the challenge phase combat in GoT in general more than Conquest-it feels like there's more interplay and decision making there since you have to decide what to commit for both potential attacks (which may not open up) as well as defense. All that said, I think both games are good and wouldn't dissuade anyone from getting into either. Both play well, and have decent amounts of players (depending on your area of course) so either's a solid choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
I do legitimately think they misdesigned the location reducers and Promethium Mine. They really should be 0 resources each, otherwise a 1 resource unit is just way better in like almost every way. But in the tens of conquest games I've played, I've only had a snowball effect a few times, all of which was really just a matter of good / bad card draw. A part of me wonders whether that snowballing is equivalent to Chaos in the Old World's "Khorne is overpowered" impression where it's just a matter of learning curve and knowing how to make things work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
DonnyTrump posted:This is sad. Where was it announced? It hasn't been and mostly likely won't be for years to come. It's one of there better selling card games and they don't have to worry about balance issues for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
DonnyTrump posted:This is sad. Where was it announced? Probably referring to a joke post made on the Hall of Beorn blog on the 1st of April: https://hallofbeorn.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/the-game-is-dying/
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Anyone going to the regional in MI this weekend? It looks like Wolves of the North is both released and legal for that, so there's roughly 2 days for putting a deck together (I'm sure lots of people have been proxying stuff for awhile, but  ). Looking at the set, I'm thinking there's a Stark power rush deck that could be built that should be pretty strong. I'm also thinking about updating my old Stark kill deck to be a bit quicker (likely swapping in some of the renown characters, and getting rid of the last of my neutral dudes). How much do people expect the new set to change the meta? I had thought it would be overwhelmingly Stark heavy but looking at it I'm not sure if that will be the case (which is a credit to the design imo). I'm still a bit tempted to just run some version of Lannister because their characters are still amazing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
I think Lannister Lord of the Crossing is the strongest list right now, but I just picked up Wolves and am testing a Stark Fealty deck tonight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
So I've been looking at the rules for the Star Wars LCG. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules, you have ten objectives but will be very unlikely to see more than half or so of them. Is that correct, and does anyone else thing it seems swingy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:So I've been looking at the rules for the Star Wars LCG. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules, you have ten objectives but will be very unlikely to see more than half or so of them. Is that correct, and does anyone else thing it seems swingy? Not really. You can double up on objectives if you're dying to see one, and you get to draw 4 at the beginning and keep 3 of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
So I have the core set of GoT, I've played a fair amount of Netrunner, what should I know/be looking out for (Like Jinteki being a terrible corp to learn how to play with), and what are the must-buys in terms of being able to do a little deckbuilding?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:So I've been looking at the rules for the Star Wars LCG. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules, you have ten objectives but will be very unlikely to see more than half or so of them. Is that correct, and does anyone else thing it seems swingy? It can be, with some of the more powerful ones. Decks built around Attack Pattern Delta will be pretty different when it's in play and when it isn't. It can be pretty swingy but it's not anymore swingy than getting to start a game with a powerful main character in aGoT. The only thing that irks me about Star Wars is that they continue to think a 2 resource, textless objective is good when we've seen it's pretty much garbage due to how the resource system works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Sir Mopalot posted:So I have the core set of GoT, I've played a fair amount of Netrunner, what should I know/be looking out for (Like Jinteki being a terrible corp to learn how to play with), and what are the must-buys in terms of being able to do a little deckbuilding? 1-2 more core sets. You only get 1 of pretty much every card in your core, so you can't even make a legal deck until you buy one more, and you'll probably want 3 total for competitive play.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
I saw an allusion to that, and I figured as much based on Netrunner. Any of the other expansions that's super necessary?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
So I rebuilt my Stark deck to do a power grab deck that focuses on Cat and Blackfish and I think that Stark definitely has some good options now. I don't think I had the best opening hand, but i was consistently able to put guys out and have Cat gain power for when someone would leave. Winterfell is an amazing location as the +1 strength across the board really helps. Also, I know people mentioned that on other forums newest discussion saying that First Snow of Winter (put 3 or lower back to hand) would be the hugest thing in the meta. It's really not. I've found when I've played it has helped a little but usually there's blowback and my opponent had some happen to him and I think once it even affected him worse. The only deck I plan on running it in right now is my Greyjoy because I've built the deck now so it has few 3 costs in it. All in all Wolves was good expansion and I think it's going to finally make my Stark deck Multiplayer viable. Sir Mopalot posted:I saw an allusion to that, and I figured as much based on Netrunner. Any of the other expansions that's super necessary? Wolves in the North for sure if you plan on playing Stark at all. No Middle Ground was one of the best of the smaller expansions IMO and should prioritize that. Other than that just try get them all and it won't matter in what order. There's not a huge amount out so it won't take much to catch up. The Black Stones fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
So I'm looking to print some higher end proxies for my LCG's. Anyone have any suggestions for type of printer/card stock to use? I've been doing the regular paper and sticking it in with an extra card for while now and I'm tired of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
frgildan posted:So I'm looking to print some higher end proxies for my LCG's. Anyone have any suggestions for type of printer/card stock to use? I've been doing the regular paper and sticking it in with an extra card for while now and I'm tired of it. ArtsCow, maybe? e: I'm an idiot hi I'd probably go for higher than 65lb cardstock, but a lot of home office printers can't handle too much higher than that. Maybe use some sturdy sleeves? Foehammer fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Ive been using Printerstudio.ca to print promos for Toronto-region conquest events. Needs about 40 pixels of black border around the edges for their cut space though
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Just watched a nasty play from a Stark/Rose deck. Catlyn and The Blackfish in play round one and a Lady Sansa's rose on Blackfish. drat. Stark Rose power rush is real.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Just watched a nasty play from a Stark/Rose deck. Catlyn and The Blackfish in play round one and a Lady Sansa's rose on Blackfish. drat. Stark Rose power rush is real. I thought of that when I saw The Blackfish and kind of gave it up as being too janky. Blackfish is good but other than Catelyn I didn't think there were enough good Tully characters to make it worthwhile. Mathmatically the combo works in that you've got essentially a 3 card combo but the third card can be a lot of things different ladies that are in the deck. Seemed like something that could work, assuming the Knight theme is worth doing Maester theme looking interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Yeah, the guy ended up losing 3-15 against Lannister Crossing (  ) but the pieces are starting to appear for a lot of cool decks. I don't think Blackfish is really worth it quite yet, there are better options in the 6 drop spot for Stark right now and he's hurt more by milk than any of the others.I'm having success with Tyrell Crossing Knights/Ladies power rush right now, but it's very much feast or famine. I honestly haven't touched any other board games in 4 months because my wife and I love this game so much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
GoT 2ed event write up: Played in a release party tournament today for the Wolves of the North box. Was a unique format in which each player brought two decks: one Stark deck (any Agenda), and one non-Stark (or Wolf banner). There were 4 Swiss rounds in which players were split between people playing their Stark or 'other' deck, and were paired up accordingly (Stark vs Other in all matches). Each player played both decks twice over the 4 rounds, followed by a top 8 in which top seed chose which deck they wanted to play, and the opponent played the other. I brought Stark Fealty with a bunch of new stuff from the Wolves box, and for my other deck brought my pet deck of choice, Night's Watch / Banner of the Sun. Went 2-2, which I'm pretty drat happy about considering it was my first tournament outing with the game, and first time really playing outside my own perverse metagame of my own constructed decks only. Round 1 was my Stark vs Martell Fealty. I actually led most of the game, getting up to 9 power relatively early before going a bit stale for a couple turns. We went to time, and in the at-time round my opponent was able to top deck a Milk of the Poppy for my Bran, allowing him to flop a Doran's Game for 5 power on the tail end of a 29str INT challenge with Red Viper, getting him the win. If I could have popped Bran to stop 'Game' I think I would have had it. New Eddard is pretty goddamn bonkers, particularly with new Catelyn. Winterfell location is also incredibly valuable, and can be cost reduced by Fealty which rocks. Round 2 was my NW/Sun vs a Stark / Crossing deck. Player seemed a bit newer, but biggest play was him walking into a Watchers on the Wall with New Catelyn (given Military by Syrio) and a Wolf Pup, after which he was pretty tilted and I just raced it with the Wall for the win. Round 3 was back to my Stark, against Targaryen / Crossing. Didn't have high expectations for this match up. Setup Winterfell however which countered Dany's standing effect. Opponent burned through all three Fire and Bloods on recurring Rhaegal, meanwhile Winterfell kept him from triggering the stand effect on Dany. Eventually he ran out of Event tricks and once again New Eddard's pseudo double-Renown locked it in. This was especially rewarding because early in the game I mistakenly paid 1g to move Lady from one character to Hodor and then defend a challenge. Immediately after the challenge resolved I realized my error, attempted to correct it by moving Lady back and grabbing for my 1g, and he responds with "well that just falls off since it can't attach now right?". In the moment I was so surprised that he wouldn't just correct the game state that I didn't even process that it (presumably? I'm not rules adept at this yet to be sure) probably SHOULD have just unwound since there was no hidden information gained on the board state, and just said "oh, alright" and discarded the attachment, causing me to loose the Mil challenge and have to claim a character as well. I totally appreciate the tournament environment and no take backs and all that, but it felt scummy, especially with an actual illegal action anyway. Bottom line, was glad to have left him frustrated with Eddard and the domination I served up afterwards.  Last round was my NW/Sun against Stark/Rose. I got the Wall going early with a few triggers as well as two back-to-back Benjen claims for 4 more, bringing me up to 13 by turn 5- but the opponent was also at 13. He had Knight of Flowers and another Renown character I can't remember on the board, so it literally came down to a coin flip when we both revealed tied initiative plots on turn 6. He won the flip and his Renown got him there before I got a chance to challenge or use the Wall. All in all had a great time and enjoyed getting to compete with the game finally. Amazed how well so many different decks can perform in this game currently. Can't wait for it to keep expanding. Merauder fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Yeah, the guy ended up losing 3-15 against Lannister Crossing ( Blackfish is good if you don't run 7 Cat. He's good with her, but Stark can't really afford 2 6's and a 7 imo (and Robb's still really good). 6 Eddard looks solid, but messing around with him I typically didn't have a second character I wanted to be sending with him since he's already beefy on his own. Much like 7 Eddard, he's a dude who really wants to be in Night's Watch/Martell or some other super-defensive shell. The card draw on Blackfish is legit, especially since he doesn't have to be participating to have it trigger. Went to regionals today in Michigan and scrubbed out. We had a pre-tourney with the spring kit on Friday and Stark decks were out in force for that (I played a modified version of the list I took to the last store championship I went to, lots of others were going heavy with new Cat and sac stuff). Actually had 14 people which was nice for something so small. Afterwards, I yet again made probably my biggest error of every tourney I've been at since the first one I played. First store championship I went to I threw together a Lanni/Rose deck, went 3-1 (with the one loss being another Lanni deck) and pretty much cruised. And for some dumb reason I've stayed away from it ever sense out of some need to be different or something I guess.This time, I decided on a Greyjoy/Crossing deck. My thinking was with people running so little location hate, focusing on location abilities (of which Greyjoy have a ton) gives you a bit of an advantage (especially with stuff like seastone chair, which has the bonus of getting around calm which is very common still). Plus, the deck is blazing quick and sometimes just...wins. The biggest problem with it though is if you fall behind it's hard to recover, and if you play against Targ you pretty much have to just pray because they set up to counter you. So of course after my round 1 win I get matched up against 2 targ decks that proceed to burn all my characters to death. I would add a report, but round 2 & 3 it was pretty much just "Dracarys all your guys lol" My big mistake was not just playing my old Lanni deck (or any Lanni deck). I don't even think it's "broken" or unbeatable (although I believe at our regional the final table was lanni/lanni), it's just extremely consistent and has no real bad matchups vs. anything. There's good characters up and down the cost spectrum, and their econ allows them to recover if you do have a bad turn. Also, they have many ways to win since the theme of "lots of gold" doesn't particularly shoehorn them into a style. Again, not unbeatable by any stretch but just really solid with none of the weaknesses the other houses seem to have. alansmithee fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 08:06
|
|