$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 133.21

7,794 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
49.1% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
50 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Arkham Horror: The Card Game» Forums » General

Subject: More like Pathfinder ACG or Lord of the Rings LCG? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
C F
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm just curious, for those who have been watching this closely.

I love PACG and I hate LotR LCG. The latter game essentially requires you to spend money on blister packs to play certain scenarios. Even the final scenario in the core game was unbeatable without more card variety. I hate, hate, hate this business model. It's blatant pay-to-win in card game format.

On the other hand, PACG is about growing a character in a story driven campaign over multiple, sequential, scenarios. I own PACG and all the scenarios. Love that game.

FFG has called this an LCG (Living Card Game), but then also states that it has RPG mechanics (taking control of, and improving an investigator and such). So which game does it more closely resemble? Or is it a little of both?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Milo Gertjejansen
United States
Hopkins
Minnesota
flag msg tools
~ >
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
lumin wrote:
The latter game essentially requires you to spend money on blister packs to play certain scenarios. Even the final scenario in the core game was unbeatable without more card variety. I hate, hate, hate this business model. It's blatant pay-to-win in card game format.


This is just untrue. While you need to buy the scenarios you still need to do the same in PACG. I cannot play past the first adventure in Wrath of the Righteous without buying the second adventure. Similarly I cannot play the Drowned Ruins without buying the Drowned Ruins. So.. I am not sure what the difference is.

Secondly, Escape from Dol Guldur is certainly beatable with just the core set. I did it and plenty of others have as well. Sure, you are relying on some luck for what hero gets locked up, but there is plenty (if not more) luck involved in PACG.

From what I have read this game seems very similar to Lord of the Rings in it's sales model. But there will be much more tie-in between scenarios in the form of a campaign. This is very similar to PACG and something Lord of the Rings has been doing a little with the Saga expansions.

Edit: not sure on vocabulary for PACG. Adventure, story arc, whatever. I am sure people understand my wording.
23 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mario
United States
Mesa
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If you don't like buying booster packs then this is not the game for you, starting with the first deluxe expansion you will have to buy the following 6 Mythos packs if you want to play the entire Dunwich Legacy Campaign.

But I don't see it as that much different from PACG where you have to buy a base box and 5 adventure packs to complete a campaign.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Boeren
United States
Marietta
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The third Core LotR scenario is tough, but it has a lot more to do with the number of players than having more cards. In simple terms, "losing" one hero out of 3 is crippling. Losing one hero out of 12 is a minor inconvenience. So what I'm guessing is that either you prefer playing with fewer players (which is fine, but not every scenario is well suited for that) or that you don't like hard quests (which is fine too, and there are ratings to help you choose ones that will suit you). I can add that Arkham Horror seems to scale much better than LotR does from what we've seen.

I'm also uncertain what ASPECT of the game you're actually asking about. You'll build a deck like LotR. You will gain XP and tune your deck which is I guess sort of like PACG although the way it is done is very different and IMHO far superior to PACG's randomness.

I get the feeling that you'd like the theme and RPG aspects, but don't want to feel like you have to buy more cards to beat a scenario which is basically saying "I'd like my quests to be not-too-difficult please". Fortunately, Arkham Horror has you covered here too. EVERY quest has four different difficult levels built in, so if playing it on Hard is too rough, just try it again on a lower level.

Bottom line is that the game will be more like LotR but FFG has learned a lot since then and improved the game in many aspects, some of which I think address the specific things you didn't like about LotR.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew McFarland
United States
Floresville
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, difficulty of scenarios minus extra cards aside, I'd have to say it seems to combo both. Business model and general scenario setup similar to LOTR, with some character progression and campaign play similar to PACG. It's its own beast though, so it may be prudent to see what comes of true first impressions.

Also, the base boxes for LCGs aren't necessarily meant to be the end-all be-all; they fully intend you to buy more packs. Having said that, this is the first LCG I can remember (and I may easily be wrong) where the first support released for it is a deluxe expansion starting a new campaign, so the core may feel much more complete this time around. Time will tell.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Hansen
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, you have an interesting interpretation of LotR. I think you are the first person I've ever heard call it pay-to-win. I'll admit the third quest in the core set was probably too hard, but you could beat the first 20 quests with just 1 core set if you wanted to. Or if your complaint is that you have to buy additional quests, I don't see how that is any different than PACG.

But getting to your question, I think it's a mix of both games, but probably closer to LotR. You get more decisions about how to construct your deck, whereas in PACG it's often just about which cards you happen to pull from the box. I think there will also be a lot more decisions to be made during the game than PACG, where the decisions are typically obvious or trivial.

But, the whole campaign aspect and evolving your deck is more like PACG where it is a slow burn.

So, if the only thing you didn't like about LotR was the "pay-to-win" aspect, I suspect you will enjoy the AH LCG.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabriel Conroy
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
MerryHo wrote:
If you don't like buying booster packs then this is not the game for you, starting with the first deluxe expansion you will have to buy the following 6 Mythos packs if you want to play the entire Dunwich Legacy Campaign.

But I don't see it as that much different from PACG where you have to buy a base box and 5 adventure packs to complete a campaign.


Plus there was essentially no explicit story to the PACG campaign, at least not one I could detect or follow from the meagre text written on the scenario cards.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C F
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
miloshot wrote:


This is just untrue. While you need to buy the scenarios you still need to do the same in PACG. I cannot play past the first adventure in Wrath of the Righteous without buying the second adventure. Similarly I cannot play the Drowned Ruins without buying the Drowned Ruins. So.. I am not sure what the difference is.


Are you saying that being given a scenario (1 of 3 in the core box) that is [nearly] impossible to win without buying more blister packs is the equivalent of not being able to "win" a scenario because you don't even own it yet? That is the most silly comparison I've ever heard of.

That is like saying that buying a cake mix with half the ingredients missing is just as unfair as a cake mix which includes all the ingredients, but you simply haven't bought it yet.

I mean, the LCG business model is clearly based on the idea that they want you to buy stuff to fix a half-completed game that you ALREADY OWN. It's similar to Free to Play MMOs that restrict bag size and other features until you get it in the cash shop. It's a crafty monetization model that hooks you onto chasing a carrot.

PACG does NOT do this. When you buy a scenario, you get the whole scenario to play through, and all the tools (weapons, powers, etc) you need to complete said scenario. You're buying a complete product.

miloshot wrote:

Secondly, Escape from Dol Guldur is certainly beatable with just the core set. I did it and plenty of others have as well. Sure, you are relying on some luck for what hero gets locked up, but there is plenty (if not more) luck involved in PACG.


Ridiculous. PACG (at least the original game) has been criticized quite a bit because it is too EASY to win. If you're able to beat Dol Guldur with just the core characters every 1 in 10 sessions, you're very lucky.

miloshot wrote:

From what I have read this game seems very similar to Lord of the Rings in it's sales model. But there will be much more tie-in between scenarios in the form of a campaign. This is very similar to PACG and something Lord of the Rings has been doing a little with the Saga expansions.

Edit: not sure on vocabulary for PACG. Adventure, story arc, whatever. I am sure people understand my wording.


Question answered. I'll definitely be passing on it then.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C F
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
achates wrote:
MerryHo wrote:
If you don't like buying booster packs then this is not the game for you, starting with the first deluxe expansion you will have to buy the following 6 Mythos packs if you want to play the entire Dunwich Legacy Campaign.

But I don't see it as that much different from PACG where you have to buy a base box and 5 adventure packs to complete a campaign.


Plus there was essentially no explicit story to the PACG campaign, at least not one I could detect or follow from the meagre text written on the scenario cards.


No story? I beg to differ.

LOTR LCG is the game that had no story.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Milo Gertjejansen
United States
Hopkins
Minnesota
flag msg tools
~ >
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
lumin wrote:
miloshot wrote:


This is just untrue. While you need to buy the scenarios you still need to do the same in PACG. I cannot play past the first adventure in Wrath of the Righteous without buying the second adventure. Similarly I cannot play the Drowned Ruins without buying the Drowned Ruins. So.. I am not sure what the difference is.


Are you saying that being given a scenario (1 of 3 in the core box) that is [nearly] impossible to win without buying more blister packs is the equivalent of not being able to "win" a scenario because you don't even own it yet? That is the most silly comparison I've ever heard of.

That is like saying that buying a cake mix with half the ingredients missing is just as unfair as a cake mix which includes all the ingredients, but you simply haven't bought it yet.

I mean, the LCG business model is clearly based on the idea that they want you to buy stuff to fix a half-completed game that you ALREADY OWN. It's similar to Free to Play MMOs that restrict bag size and other features until you get it in the cash shop. It's a crafty monetization model that hooks you onto chasing a carrot.

PACG does NOT do this. When you buy a scenario, you get the whole scenario to play through, and all the tools (weapons, powers, etc) you need to complete said scenario. You're buying a complete product.


MerryHo wrote:
But I don't see it as that much different from PACG where you have to buy a base box and 5 adventure packs to complete a campaign.


I am not really sure how you can say it's any different. Another user (above) noted that it's exactly the same: you get one sixth of the total arc in PACG. To progress you have to purchase further parts of the arc.

I really fail to see how that is any different at all. If I want to progress further in the Dreamchaser Cycle in Lord of the Rings I have to buy further parts of the cycle. It's different wording but it means exactly the same thing.

lumin wrote:
miloshot wrote:
Secondly, Escape from Dol Guldur is certainly beatable with just the core set. I did it and plenty of others have as well. Sure, you are relying on some luck for what hero gets locked up, but there is plenty (if not more) luck involved in PACG.


Ridiculous. PACG (at least the original game) has been criticized quite a bit because it is too EASY to win. If you're able to beat Dol Guldur with just the core characters every 1 in 10 sessions, you're very lucky.


I am not positive how you addressed my point with this counter point. PACG is much more of a narrative game than Lord of the Rings. The mechanics are dead simple though: pick a spot, draw a card, and roll the dice. Granted I am not a fan of PACG after playing a couple of sessions, but really that's what the game boils down to. Lord of the Rings on the other hand gives players much, much more agency in terms of deck building and how they want to handle a given scenario. The trade off here is that Lord of the Rings is much less story driven.

I, personally, enjoy the mechanics much more than the story so I don't "mind" (i.e. I really like it) Lord of the Rings at all. When I played the couple of sessions of PACG I found it to be a slog and I really couldn't control anything that happened on my turn.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Hansen
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't quite understand why you hate the LCG model but love the PACG model. Without mentioning Escape from Dol Guldur (that quest was a mistake), how is LotR any different than PACG? You get a small number a quests and player cards in the core set. Then you buy expansions for more quests and more player cards. In both games, the quests are beatable when you buy them. PACG you should be able to beat on the first try. LotR should take 2 or 3 tries. After ~6 expansions the story arc ends and you buy a new core set (PACG) or deluxe expansion (LotR) and start a new story.

I also don't see how you think PACG has more of a story than LotR. The Pathfinder universe is certainly rich, but the card game only gives you a couple sentences per quest. Meanwhile, LotR gives you a full page of text for each quest.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam Cook
United States
Denton
Texas
flag msg tools
*beep*
badge
mbmb
I'd steer away from the Arkham LCG if I were you. It is likely going to have the same kind of uniquely themed adventures as LotR instead of the random grab-bag of encounters in Pathfinder that you need to stitch together with creative RP elements.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin Thomas
United States
Palmyra
Virginia
flag msg tools
Check out our journey at http://colinbethanyadopt.wordpress.com
badge
"Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination." - The First Ideal of the Lightweavers (The Stormlight Archive)
mbmbmbmbmb
lumin wrote:
achates wrote:
MerryHo wrote:
If you don't like buying booster packs then this is not the game for you, starting with the first deluxe expansion you will have to buy the following 6 Mythos packs if you want to play the entire Dunwich Legacy Campaign.

But I don't see it as that much different from PACG where you have to buy a base box and 5 adventure packs to complete a campaign.


Plus there was essentially no explicit story to the PACG campaign, at least not one I could detect or follow from the meagre text written on the scenario cards.


No story? I beg to differ.

LOTR LCG is the game that had no story.


And for evidence of your point, you point to a thread of your own in which there are a bunch of posts disagreeing with you? You really dig Pathfinder and don't like LotR, that's cool. But asserting that there is no story in LotR is rather ridiculous; it just doesn't have the story telling that you like.

To answer your question, it appears that the story telling will be a bit stronger in Arkham Horror than either LotR or Pathfinder. As for difficulty of just the core campaign, there is no telling until it comes out.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C F
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
miloshot wrote:

I am not really sure how you can say it's any different. Another user (above) noted that it's exactly the same: you get one sixth of the total arc in PACG. To progress you have to purchase further parts of the arc.


I'm not trying to convince you that they are different. I'm just giving you the facts, whether you are able to comprehend the facts is not my problem.

miloshot wrote:

I really fail to see how that is any different at all. If I want to progress further in the Dreamchaser Cycle in Lord of the Rings I have to buy further parts of the cycle. It's different wording but it means exactly the same thing.


Let me make it a little simpler: I buy LOTR LCG base game with money. I own the game, but I can't play what I own until I buy something else with more money. I buy PACG base game. I play all 6 scenarios from start to finish. If I want to continue the story further, I pay for another scenario pack that gives me a full and complete experience for what I paid for.

The difference is that LOTR doesn't even let me finish what I bought and paid for. PACG does.

Blizzard did this with StarCraft 2. You buy Wings of Liberty and you get a complete story, a complete game, in a LARGER campaign. You can purchase Heart of the Swarm and you get another complete product that appends to the story. But each game is fully enjoyable and completable on its own with no outside or extra purchases.

To compare it to LotR LCG, if StarCraft 2 followed that model, Wings of Liberty wouldn't let you finish the game you bought until you purchased more units from their online store.

You have been advertised on the box you would get 3 full scenarios and you bought it that way, but only 2 are really playable. It reeks of the lowest form of bait-and-switch advertising. They do this with other scenarios as well. I won't go as far to say it's false advertising, but it sure is shady.

If you can't see that difference, I honestly don't care. It's the truth either way.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C F
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Donkler wrote:
I'd steer away from the Arkham LCG if I were you. It is likely going to have the same kind of uniquely themed adventures as LotR instead of the random grab-bag of encounters in Pathfinder that you need to stitch together with creative RP elements.


Uniquely themed, meaning, completely outside the canon of Tolkien, with made up characters like Berevor, completely outside the timeline that makes any sense (Eowyn, for example, at the ripe age of 7 fighting spiders in Mirkwood with Denethor).

A uniquely themed circus. Can't wait to see how they rape & pillage Lovecraft's Mythos.

Yeah, I'll steer clear.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivan Cox
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
lumin wrote:
I'm just curious, for those who have been watching this closely.

I love PACG and I hate LotR LCG. The latter game essentially requires you to spend money on blister packs to play certain scenarios. Even the final scenario in the core game was unbeatable without more card variety. I hate, hate, hate this business model. It's blatant pay-to-win in card game format.

On the other hand, PACG is about growing a character in a story driven campaign over multiple, sequential, scenarios. I own PACG and all the scenarios. Love that game.

FFG has called this an LCG (Living Card Game), but then also states that it has RPG mechanics (taking control of, and improving an investigator and such). So which game does it more closely resemble? Or is it a little of both?


Escape from Dol Guldur is unwisely difficult for one of three adventures in a core set, but I'm not sure that there are any other lotr adventures which are that hard, when only using material which was available at the time of release. I could be mistaken, but I don't think the intention at the time was to encourage people to buy adventure packs so as to be able to win core set adventures. So your pay to win assertion is pretty much false.

I didn't like PACG much, but I did like the deck improvement element, and for me the lotr deck construction was too much. Especially where you might take completely different heroes in different adventures in the same cycle, that didn't work for me, I prefer the PACG way of taking the same character(s) through a campaign, which the AH card game has too.

My guess is that card turnover between adventures in AH will be similar to the number of upgrades you'd get during the course of an adventure in PACG. I prefer the AH way of doing it though - xp granted by performance over the scenario, rather than being determined directly by random card draw (plus a smaller element of reward at end of adventure). I also like that if you drop a card for one scenario, you can use it again in the next scenario (for a cost) if desired, rather than it just being gone.

The general gameplay - with balancing of investigating for clues vs dealing with enemies and other obstacles seems a lot more similar to the lotr and WHQ card game gameplay of balancing questing/attack/defence, than to PACG - I think it's really just character progression which has similarities.

Overall, I suspect you'll like the AH card game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Hansen
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
While I largely disagree with your critiques about LotR, it's obvious that nobody is going to change your mind.

LotR aside, I do think you would like Arkham Horror LCG. I'm confident you will be able to beat all of the core scenarios with your core set, and the story telling is likely to be richer than either LotR or PACG. Some of the oddities of LotR (like the timeline, made up characters, ents running through caves) don't really apply in the AH universe. Everything that makes PACG good - the campaign feeling, the uniqueness of each character, the "story" - will be similar or better in AH.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mario
United States
Mesa
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
lumin wrote:


A uniquely themed circus. Can't wait to see how they rape & pillage Lovecraft's Mythos.

Yeah, I'll steer clear.


I don't expect it to be any more "raped & pillaged" then they have already have with ES, AH, and EH. Besides I've read quite a bit of Lovecraft and if FFG was true to the Mythos then I'm not sure the games would be as fun.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C F
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hellicon wrote:


Escape from Dol Guldur is unwisely difficult for one of three adventures in a core set, but I'm not sure that there are any other lotr adventures which are that hard, when only using material which was available at the time of release. I could be mistaken, but I don't think the intention at the time was to encourage people to buy adventure packs so as to be able to win core set adventures. So your pay to win assertion is pretty much false.


Of course it was about encouraging people to buy adventure packs for the core set. Evidence of this is doing this later with extremely difficult adventure packs that required a highly diverse set of packs already purchased in order to win. It's pay to win all the way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mario
United States
Mesa
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As for the Story Issue, I think Arkham LCG will be strong. compare it to PACG, one adventure pack had to have enough content for 5 scenarios, whereas in Arkham LCG at least half of each Mythos Pack will contain content for just one scenario.

That's alot of cards being dedicated to the encounter, act, and agenda decks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Slamin Perfect
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
lumin wrote:
Donkler wrote:
I'd steer away from the Arkham LCG if I were you. It is likely going to have the same kind of uniquely themed adventures as LotR instead of the random grab-bag of encounters in Pathfinder that you need to stitch together with creative RP elements.


Uniquely themed, meaning, completely outside the canon of Tolkien, with made up characters like Berevor, completely outside the timeline that makes any sense (Eowyn, for example, at the ripe age of 7 fighting spiders in Mirkwood with Denethor).

A uniquely themed circus. Can't wait to see how they rape & pillage Lovecraft's Mythos.

Yeah, I'll steer clear.


Thanks!
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Hansen
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
lumin wrote:
Hellicon wrote:


Escape from Dol Guldur is unwisely difficult for one of three adventures in a core set, but I'm not sure that there are any other lotr adventures which are that hard, when only using material which was available at the time of release. I could be mistaken, but I don't think the intention at the time was to encourage people to buy adventure packs so as to be able to win core set adventures. So your pay to win assertion is pretty much false.


Of course it was about encouraging people to buy adventure packs for the core set. Evidence of this is doing this later with extremely difficult adventure packs that required a highly diverse set of packs already purchased in order to win. It's pay to win all the way.

You're upset that the quests get harder over time and that there is a variety of difficulties? If they didn't make hard quests, the dedicated players would stop playing because it would be too easy. I fear that there isn't any business model for an expandable co-op card game that would make you happy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mauziz
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Well, let me try to weigh in. Hopefully this will help and be constructive. The main problem with the LotR base set is that the final scenario (Escape from Dul Guldor) is extremely difficult for a single player to complete. Many people have deemed the quest impossible to win playing true solo (one player playing one deck, as opposed to "two handed" where one player plays two decks simultaneously). That quest becomes much more playable and a lot more enjoyable when you play it with more players. This isn't a flaw of the LotR system as a whole, it's a problem with this single scenario. Remember that LotR was the very first cooperative deck construction card game, and it's clear that FFG was still trying to figure out what could and could not be done in the genre in the core box and early expansions.

If you want to see LotR really shine, check out the latest expansions (especially the Angmar Awakens and Dreamchaser cycles). The quests are in general much better because they stand on the shoulders of giants - the designers have spent years discovering what makes a scenario great and what makes it fail. Players of the current quests often say things like "That quest really pummeled that time, but man it was a lot of fun!" To me comments like this help indicate that the designers have found ways to make a scenario hard while also keeping it fun. These newer scenarios also play better with 1-4 players. Sure, some are easier solo, and others are easier multiplayer, but in general they are all playable and winnable for 1-4 players. So while I can understand why Escape from Dul Guldor would frustrate players, I would hope that they would be willing to overlook one poor scenario. Pathfinder certainly has bad scenarios as well, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad game.

As for Arkham Horror LCG, well we don't know if there will be poorly implemented scenarios like Escape from Dol Guldor, and we won't until the game comes out. However, Nate French and Matt Newman (the designers of Arkham Horror LCG) both have a tremendous amount of experience designing scenarios for LotR. They've had a chance to learn from the triumphs and mistakes of that game. I would be surprised to badly designed scenarios. But again, who knows - this is a new type of game and the factors that make a scenario successful and fun are still unclear so they might trip up. But (again), a bad scenario doesn't make the game a bad game anymore than a single bad match of Magic doesn't make Magic a bad game (Magic is a bad game for other reasons ).

Hope that helps clarify the situation and maybe even encourages you to take another look at LotR. It really is a fantastic game despite the fact that Escape from Dol Guldor is a less-than-stellar scenario.
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivan Cox
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
lumin wrote:
Hellicon wrote:


Escape from Dol Guldur is unwisely difficult for one of three adventures in a core set, but I'm not sure that there are any other lotr adventures which are that hard, when only using material which was available at the time of release. I could be mistaken, but I don't think the intention at the time was to encourage people to buy adventure packs so as to be able to win core set adventures. So your pay to win assertion is pretty much false.


Of course it was about encouraging people to buy adventure packs for the core set. Evidence of this is doing this later with extremely difficult adventure packs that required a highly diverse set of packs already purchased in order to win. It's pay to win all the way.


Which are the later adventures you're referring to? By the way, noted that you've changed your argument now - first your fixation was on the idea of having to buy a later pack, to beat an earlier adventure. Now you're also complaining about buying earlier packs to beat the adventures in later ones.

If that's really your complaint, then the LCG model just isn't for you. But it sounds from the content and tone of your responses like most of your criticisms are subsuming dislike of the difficulty level. As already suggested, in order to avoid the adventures being trivial for players with all the packs, you pretty much have to make later adventures require cards from earlier ones. The other choice is to set the difficulty bar very low as in PACG, which I don't think makes for compelling gameplay; the game becomes more of a ride you're strapped into and taken along on, than an adventure where you have to strike out and balance real conflicting priorities to win.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam Cook
United States
Denton
Texas
flag msg tools
*beep*
badge
mbmb
lumin wrote:
Donkler wrote:
I'd steer away from the Arkham LCG if I were you. It is likely going to have the same kind of uniquely themed adventures as LotR instead of the random grab-bag of encounters in Pathfinder that you need to stitch together with creative RP elements.


Uniquely themed, meaning, completely outside the canon of Tolkien, with made up characters like Berevor, completely outside the timeline that makes any sense (Eowyn, for example, at the ripe age of 7 fighting spiders in Mirkwood with Denethor).

A uniquely themed circus. Can't wait to see how they rape & pillage Lovecraft's Mythos.

Yeah, I'll steer clear.


Pathfinder ACG is not absent of theme inconsistencies. Like Lem has no business using a "Blessing of Lamashtu", since he is not evil, but he can totally have those in his deck along with tons of other random non-canon deities for him. I understand if you have more reverence for the Tolkien lore than Pathfinder lore though.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.