|
It was less "oh gently caress printings messed" as it was people were really sick of Emperor Edition, and tournament organizers were asking for another Kolat Edition so they could run ivory tournaments instead. EDIT: They're pretty good at listening to the community imo.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
PrinnySquadron posted:It was less "oh gently caress printings messed" as it was people were really sick of Emperor Edition, and tournament organizers were asking for another Kolat Edition so they could run ivory tournaments instead. Wasn't the original release supposed to be January instead of end of February/March? Anyway I remember Emperor itself was delayed, but it's definitely not as bad as FFG's production delays.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Wasn't the original release supposed to be January instead of end of February/March? Anyway I remember Emperor itself was delayed, but it's definitely not as bad as FFG's production delays. Can't find anything on the net about it being delayed. Emperor was pretty messed up though, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
PrinnySquadron posted:Can't find anything on the net about it being delayed. Emperor was pretty messed up though, yeah. There was a post on Feb 7 about slight shipping delays,which is when they announced the March release dates. My FLGS told me late Feb for Ivory release originally as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Richard Garfield did a AMA a couple of days ago and someone asked a question regarding Jyhad/VTES and he confirmed that FFG was working on a LCG version. Then FFG quickly dashed my elation on BGG by saying that they did some work on it but ultimately decided not to publish it.  http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/20f1dn/we_are_richard_garfield_creator_of_magic_the/cg2nkdt?context=3
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 20:15
|
|
Bosushi! posted:Richard Garfield did a AMA a couple of days ago and someone asked a question regarding Jyhad/VTES and he confirmed that FFG was working on a LCG version. Likely from a mix of the game being hard to update while keeping it's core feel and CCP being odd about how they are handling the WoD line. I'd have loved it as a nice break from the 1v1 dueling games that the LCGs tend to be. It is a shame they passed on it, I hope they cycle back to it some time in the future.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Bosushi! posted:Richard Garfield did a AMA a couple of days ago and someone asked a question regarding Jyhad/VTES and he confirmed that FFG was working on a LCG version. Nooooo Seconding LordNat, more multiplayer LCGs would be great, especially if it was designed with MP in mind. Also like Netrunner, I had heard all about Jyhad/VTES but never played it myself, so I wanted to know what the hype was. I mean, it technically doesn't have to take place in the WoD right? They can just slap on some theme to it (Descent? Because why not), modernize the mechanics, and call it a day. Sigh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
tijag posted:My understanding is that it gets easier with multiple people, not harder. 2 players is the 'balanced' level. In practice having so many cards drawn each round can really gently caress you, especially in Against the Shadow quests. Druadan Forest has a reputation for being extremely difficult if everyone doesn't have a deck deliberately built for it. Though you could argue that building "all comers" decks is playing the game wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Nooooo reading that thread and the quickness of FFGs response, they may be repurposing the game and mechanics to fit a different theme so they don't have to worry about Licensing like they currently do with Netrunner and WOTC. I hear WoD is a nightmare to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Carteret posted:reading that thread and the quickness of FFGs response, they may be repurposing the game and mechanics to fit a different theme so they don't have to worry about Licensing like they currently do with Netrunner and WOTC. I hear WoD is a nightmare to deal with. You may remember the boardgame they released called Bloodbound. If they were going to do a VTES LCG then that's what the setting would be if they really are pulling a "we said we weren't releasing a VTES LCG, we never said we wouldn't release one BASED on it.  "GrandpaPants posted:Nooooo It really is an amazing multiplayer experience, but it REALLY could stand to be slimmed down. Over the years, White-Wolf added a lot of bloat to the game by continuously adding new Clans and Disciplines. It made for a very thematic and complex game but it was incredibly daunting for new players, and really hard to grok if they had no prior knowledge of the WoD setting. I'd hate to be the developer tasked with boiling all of that down to something that keeps a semblance of the variety while also being a non-WoD vampire setting that has mass appeal. The early reaction to Bloodbound's aesthetic was pretty bad from what I saw and I wouldn't be surprised if it factored in their decision to axe an LCG version.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
VTES is both one of my favorite CCGs, and the CCG that I've tried that needs a Netrunner-style LCG cleanup the most. It's awesome, but in many ways it's also a badly designed mess. The way card-draw happens in VTES seems like it would be very hard to replicate in an LCG, but it would be awesome if they could make it work. For those who haven't played it, you basically draw a card every time you play one, staying at a constant hand size unless a card says otherwise. Really changes all of the stuff about card advantage and value people have learned in other games. But, it doesn't really work without the 90-card decks and many copies of the same card.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Jedit posted:The most important part being that Storyline Events will be making a comeback too. Those are a heap of fun. I think the new card back looks totally sweet. What do you think? The mirrored image gives it the feel of a hoyle deck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4704 It's offical! 40k LCG.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Carteret posted:http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4704 No tyranids, no sale. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:No tyranids, no sale. I joked with my buddy that tyranids will forever be classed as an expansion race. Also, I think a tyranid alliance with other factions would make less sense than some of the ones they have now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Bosushi! posted:I joked with my buddy that tyranids will forever be classed as an expansion race. I saw the alliance thing and assumed that tyranids stand alone. It would make for ease of expansion and make some sense, at least, more sense than having dark eldar over 'nids. The alliance thing still looks goofy as hell, though. As someone who never played the Warhammer Fantasy LCG, how does this compare?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I saw the alliance thing and assumed that tyranids stand alone. It would make for ease of expansion and make some sense, at least, more sense than having dark eldar over 'nids. The alliance thing still looks goofy as hell, though. I haven't played it either, but I've watched the tutorial  That being said, it looks like a weird hybrid of SW:LCG and Bloodbowl: Team Manager with insane deckbuilding. FFG is starting to really love their dials, although it is an elegant solution to the "how the gently caress do you bluff placing 1+ card(s) in a position without being skeevy" problem. As it stands I think I'll pick up the core set because the card draw/resource gain mechanic for winning battles looks intriguing. No idea if I'll go deep like I am with ANR, SW:LCG and LoTR, but I'll give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
The planet mechanics look kinda-sorta like the plots in Call of Cthulhu.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Carteret posted:http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4704 SWEEEEET! Gonna rock Dark Eldar so hard. Kinda feel like Orks and Chaos should switch spots, since Imperial Guard/Chaos makes a little more sense to me because of traitor legions. Meh whatever, still cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:As someone who never played the Warhammer Fantasy LCG, how does this compare? Warhammer: Invasion lets you use any cards from Order (Empire, Dwarves, High Elves, etc) or Chaos (Chaos, Orcs, Dark Elves, etc). Each card has a number of loyalty icons which increase the cost of the card for every matching icon that's not already on the board. For example, to play Festering Nurglings costs two resources, plus another resource if you don't have a Chaos icon on the board already, such as if you were splashing this card into a Orc deck or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Dre2Dee2 posted:Kinda feel like Orks and Chaos should switch spots, since Imperial Guard/Chaos makes a little more sense to me because of traitor legions. Meh whatever, still cool. I feel like most of 40k (including the main game) seem to forget that traitor legions exist. Question for this thread, I've been interested in getting a LCG for a while now, something to play board game style with my friends, is the Game of Thrones one a good choice? And if so, what would be the recommended stuff to get for beginners?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
kannonfodder posted:Question for this thread, I've been interested in getting a LCG for a while now, something to play board game style with my friends, is the Game of Thrones one a good choice? And if so, what would be the recommended stuff to get for beginners? I have similar questions. I'm looking to play one with someone who doesn't play RPGs or MtG, but enjoys Fluxx, Munchkin, and Monopoly. Are the Fantasy Flight games mechanically comparable/transferrable to one another (co-op, optional "easy mode"--I skimmed the LOTR manuals)? Would you recommend picking whatever theme seems most interesting, then? If not, is there one LCG that is simpler than the others?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
kannonfodder posted:I feel like most of 40k (including the main game) seem to forget that traitor legions exist. the pairing of Orks and IG feels more like a gameplay thing to me; since both (can) use both swarmy tactics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
kannonfodder posted:I feel like most of 40k (including the main game) seem to forget that traitor legions exist. For boardgame style, LotR is the best one. It is co-op only though, so if you want to actually compete with your friends it won't do. I can vouch that it's a great game though. The core set will get your feet wet and then you can add on the adventure packs one at a time. The only thing that sucks is that everyone will eventually want/need their own Core set and, possibly, adventure packs as well since there is a limited card pool to split among 3 or 4 players. For example, everyone is gonna want 3 Gandalfs in their deck and one core only comes with 4. The first couple of Adventures are doable, but the difficulty ramps up pretty quick. Another downside is that the game suffers from limited replayability unless you steadily add more Adenture Packs. I haven't actually played GoT so I can't speak for how it plays, but I think it's the only other LCG that supports more than 2 players out of the Core. The Star Wars LCG is a great Duel game that can also be expanded to a multiplayer game with the Balance of the Force expansion. However, again, everyone will probably want their own core set for this as well. Triple20 posted:I have similar questions. I'm looking to play one with someone who doesn't play RPGs or MtG, but enjoys Fluxx, Munchkin, and Monopoly. Are the Fantasy Flight games mechanically comparable/transferrable to one another (co-op, optional "easy mode"--I skimmed the LOTR manuals)? Would you recommend picking whatever theme seems most interesting, then? If not, is there one LCG that is simpler than the others? LotR is the only Co-op one. The rest are meant to be played competitively. As far as complexity goes, out of the ones I've played, I believe Netrunner is actually the simplest on the surface. Some areas of it can be a little weird to understand for more casual gamers, but the theme is easy to digest and the way the game is set up visually supports that theme so there's less abstraction. Fantasy Flight's YouTube channel has fantastic video tutorials for most of their LCGs. Check them out and you should easily be able to identify which one is right for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Is High Command laughably bad like I've heard? Or is it passable? I like the idea of picking up High Command right now based on lore, but I'd like a good game, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Is High Command laughably bad like I've heard? Or is it passable? I like the idea of picking up High Command right now based on lore, but I'd like a good game, too. It's really not an LCG, it's much more like a Thunderstone/Dominion type of thing. The games is not deep enough in terms of deckbuilding or mechanically that you could compare it with any of the LCGs. I don't know that I'd say laughably bad, but the card stock was pretty bad and the mechanics weren't anything to write home about. Honestly I thought FFG did a better job with Bloodbowl Team Manager than High Command did with the same "bidding on places with cards, modified by their effects" gameplay style.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Bosushi! posted:Fantasy Flight's YouTube channel has fantastic video tutorials for most of their LCGs. Check them out and you should easily be able to identify which one is right for you. You weren't kidding, the LOTR videos are fantastic. For the OP, maybe: http://www.youtube.com/user/FantasyFlightStudio. Thanks for the recommendations!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Triple20 posted:You weren't kidding, the LOTR videos are fantastic. For the OP, maybe: http://www.youtube.com/user/FantasyFlightStudio. Thanks for the recommendations! Whenever I play Star Wars, I can't help but occasionally do the voice from the tutorial video for the Star Wars LCG. The way the guy enunciates the card names is just entertaining as all hell. Shadows of Dathomir. The Emperor's Web, and The Heart of the Empire. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:It's really not an LCG, it's much more like a Thunderstone/Dominion type of thing. The games is not deep enough in terms of deckbuilding or mechanically that you could compare it with any of the LCGs. I don't see how being a deckbuilder disqualifies from being an LCG, nor lack of depth (that would just qualify as a bad LCG). I've only played it once, and was thoroughly non-impressed; and being a big fan of Warmahordes AND Dominion, I was pretty hyped up about it. I haven't heard anyone whose board game opinion I value give it a positive review, and the few people I know who really enjoy HC are people who hated Dominion because of its learning curve (which a big loving red flag, to me).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
For a light, board game-y LCG for more casual players, the Pathfinder game is pretty great. There's also a lot less to buy. You lose most of the deckbuilding aspects you get from the FFG LCGs and it's a lighter weight game all-around but for casual gamers who haven't tried much more complex than Fluxx and Munchkin, that's probably a good thing. It's completely co-op though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Paper Kaiju posted:I don't see how being a deckbuilder disqualifies from being an LCG, nor lack of depth (that would just qualify as a bad LCG). If you want to argue the definition of what exactly should be considered an LCG for the purposes of this thread go for it. I just don't personally see High Command as offering a player that likes CCGs but isn't looking to get into something that is as much of a huge money/time sink. The thing about those games is that the have lots of variety from both in game and deck building levels; High Command has none of those. Yeah there are some sets out now but the deck building is restrictive enough that there's no need for you and your friend to both "collect" the game. It's not something anyone is sitting at home about, pouring over their cards, goldfishing trying to make a deck work. That's an element of LCGs that is what people like about CCGs. There aren't half a dozen sites and blogs where people are talking about the game, speculating about future cards, or looking for new combos. There aren't websites devoted to the game, or tournament reports on BGG, or Strategy Articles written. Spiritually, High Command doesn't feel like an LCG at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
But once again, are those thing because High Command isn't an LCG, or simply because it isn't a very good/popular one? I've viewed the term LCG as a distribution format, to differentiate it from the random boosters of CCGs, and the everything-in-one-box with standard board/card games. If the Pathfinder card game and Mage Wars be included in that category, I don't see it as a stretch of the term to include High Command. And I don't mean to sound snarky (honestly, I don't, but I'm not sure how else to say it), but I don't much care for classifying games by how they feel 'spiritually'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Paper Kaiju posted:But once again, are those thing because High Command isn't an LCG, or simply because it isn't a very good/popular one? As far as just viewing it as a distribution model, it seems fairly similar to other LCGs sure. If the distribution and production are your only criteria for calling it an LCG than I'd agree, but those are only two qualities that make up what an LCG seeks to provide. Look at it like this: if someone tells you they're looking to take up a sport and you recommend Chess, they'll probably give you a funny look or thing you're joking. Chess is a sport, but it's not the colloquial definition that someone would think of when asked. Similarly, if someone comes in here and says "Hey, I'm looking for an LCG." They're probably looking for something that's close what the common perception of LCGs is, which are CCGs for people on a budget. Now you can go ahead and recommend them High Command, but it's not even close to being what they probably want. High Command is just a board game with a quicker expansion release cycle. It's possible that they step it up and in future releases really flesh out the game, and the organized play content to make it comparable to the current crop of LCGs; but I just don't see that happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
To be fair my only criteria for LCG when I posted that was the business model, being able to purchase an expansion outright instead of opening booster packs. I get where you're coming from though and I can accept LCG meaning it requires a CCG style of research, deck building, and gameplay. I had hoped that High Command would be a Dominion except with more of a military focus and some location tactics involved, making it more complex. Sounds like it actually took Dominion and dumbed it down a bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:High Command is just a board game with a quicker expansion release cycle. It's possible that they step it up and in future releases really flesh out the game, and the organized play content to make it comparable to the current crop of LCGs; but I just don't see that happening. If the game got some traction, I could definitely see it happening, since organized play is a high priority for PP's flagship product. The main issue, I think, is that the game has no real audience. Warmahordes players would rather play Warmahordes, and card gamers would rather play better games. signalnoise posted:I had hoped that High Command would be a Dominion except with more of a military focus and some location tactics involved, making it more complex. Sounds like it actually took Dominion and dumbed it down a bit. I wouldn't say it's a dumbed-down Dominion; it has its own complexity. The main problem is that the deckbuilder game and the direct conflict game don't really work together that well (the most egregious example is how Khador can pretty much ignore the direct conflict and win by buying points). That, and having two different currencies, which is always problematic in a deckbuilder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
If I recall from reading the rulebook, High Command does allow for some sort of "constructed" play that would match it up with LCG style gameplay since it allows for that customizability, but I imagine most people are just going to play it like Dominion. Or just play Dominion, which I think is the more common case. But whatever your definitions are, I'm totally counting Mage Wars as an LCG.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
kannonfodder posted:Question for this thread, I've been interested in getting a LCG for a while now, something to play board game style with my friends, is the Game of Thrones one a good choice? And if so, what would be the recommended stuff to get for beginners? If by "board game style" you mean "construct all the decks yourself and purchase as little as possible," yeah, Game of Thrones is probably your best bet. It also has the advantage of supporting up to four players right out of the box. For the best balance, I'd suggest buying two Core Sets and building the decks along the lines listed in this thread. That thread also has suggested decks for the two other Houses if you find yourself liking the game and want to add some variety.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
I don't remember if I read it here or on the FFG forums but someone said that for the LotR LCG, they end up announcing all the APs in the cycle before any of them are actually available. If this is true, do they release all the APs at once?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:I don't remember if I read it here or on the FFG forums but someone said that for the LotR LCG, they end up announcing all the APs in the cycle before any of them are actually available. If this is true, do they release all the APs at once? No, it's one a month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Taran_Wanderer posted:If by "board game style" you mean "construct all the decks yourself and purchase as little as possible," yeah, Game of Thrones is probably your best bet. It also has the advantage of supporting up to four players right out of the box. For the best balance, I'd suggest buying two Core Sets and building the decks along the lines listed in this thread. That thread also has suggested decks for the two other Houses if you find yourself liking the game and want to add some variety. Yeah, I pretty much want to have a few balanced decks my friends and I can just pick up and play without having to invest too much. At some point, if we like the game, we'll probably buy more (probably the other two teams). Thanks for the suggestion, I'll probably go pick up two core sets today and see how it plays. I watched a couple youtube videos for each of the popular LCGs in this thread, and while the LoTR one looks great, my group definitely prefers competitive over co-op. Fashionable Jorts fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Mar 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:55
|
|