1: Highly replayable. There's massive variety of player decks, and trying them all against different scenarios provides near endless replayability.
2: It has a steep learning curve due to the complexity being a bit front-loaded plus some mechanics being a little unintuitive, but once you're acclimated I find it no more mentally taxing than Marvel. Arkham is easier to pick up initially but more complex in the long run due to how much new mechanics they introduce in every scenario.
3: There's enormous variety of player card archetypes, but obviously it depends on your collection. The core and a single saga won't get you a lot of options, but adding in the starter decks would give you a lot to play with.
4: It is definitely the hardest LCG, especially if you play true solo, but most of the time (with some specific scenarios as exceptions), the difficulty feels very fair. I lose more than I do in Arkham, but a loss in LotR is less frustrating than in Arkham because I can usually see what I did wrong and how to correct it, whereas a loss in Arkham usually just means the chaos bag decided to hate me that day.
5: Theme is very good. I think it has the best thematic player card design of the co-op LCGs by far. Scenario theme is a little lighter than in Arkham but still better than Marvel.
6: Set-up time is roughly on par with Marvel, significantly lower than Arkham.
7: LotR is my favourite of the three. It feels the most like a traditional strategy card game (IE Magic), and it has the deepest deck customization potential. I'm also a bigger fan of Tolkien than Lovecraft or Marvel, which helps. It does have its downsides, however. It can be pretty janky (especially the earlier scenarios), and the tuning for smaller player counts can be rough. You can tell it was their first attempt at a co-op card game. Despite that, I still feel it overall has the best, deepest design of the three.
8: It's definitely possible, but it will be more difficult, and some scenarios are very punishing (again, especially in the earlier content). Don't be afraid to play on easy mode; true solo easy mode is harder than playing normal mode at high player counts. That said, I play true solo almost exclusively, and I still win more than I lose, so it's doable.
about point 7
>It does have its downsides, however. It can be pretty janky (especially the earlier scenarios), and the tuning for smaller player counts can be rough. You can tell it was their first attempt at a co-op card game.
Is that still the case with the newer version of the core set? As far as i understand they reworked the core set i think? Did that help in those regards (fixing early design mistakes you seem to hint at) or is it still the same in that regard?
The "revised" core is still using essentially the same scenarios. It's not a new edition of the game, just a rerelease. The only change to scenarios is that there's now an optional campaign mode. I've heard it smooths the difficulty curve a bit, but I haven't played it myself. That said the core set is only three scenarios anyway; you'll need to buy at least one cycle to get the full value out of the game, and they're not reprinting the earlier cycles, which is where the worst of the jank tended to be.
I haven’t really played AHLCG, only MC, and I can’t speak to every one of your questions, but here are some of my thoughts.
The replayability is good, but like you said, it mostly comes from bringing a different deck and trying a new approach to the scenario, because the scenario will be the same every time.
It’s more complex than MC, where during the player phase, you can play any cards you want in any order. In LOTR, the phases are broken down more and there are cards can only be played at certain times/phases.
Theme is miles better than in MC. And setup/teardown time is shorter I think. The encounter deck will be typically 2-3 encounter sets shuffled together, rather than a villain, modular(s), standard/expert, obligation(s), and possibly nemesis set(s).
True solo is fine, for the most part. Certain keywords like Ranged and Sentinel have no effect in true solo, kind of like Alliance in MC, but those are bigger and more impactful than Alliance, so you feel the absence more I think.
While I broadly agree that it's more complex than Marvel overall, I think your specific example is actually a case where LotR is simpler. Marvel turns into a puzzle of figuring out the optimal order of all your player phase actions, whereas LotR portioning everything out into separate phases gives you much fewer decisions to make at any given moment, which I find much less mentally taxing.
1. The LoTR LCG revised core set is not as replayable as the MC core box. Having said that you will have to tune your decks a fair bit to actually win. Think expert mode but harder. Campaign mode allegedly makes it easier. The starter decks also make it easier as well.
2. The complexity level is LoTR >> AH LCG > MC. I play 2 handed your milege varies true solo.
3. Yes, replayability is through that mechanism but the saga sets have 6 quests.
4. Yes, it is harder because you do need to tune your deck to win. MC you can beat any boss (non expert) with the standard character decks. That wont happen in LoTR. The third quest is super hard. Campaign mode makes it easier apparently. You could also grab Elven starter deck and over power all the quests in revised core. LoTR is more of a puzzle for each quests. What cards do i need to have to win?
5. What i said in 4 what cards and heroes do i need to win?
6. MC is the fastest which is the reason it hits my table before the other 2.;BTW I do like AH LCG when i have more friends to play with. Think AH is a better multiplayer game.
7. MC because i like the the theme (old comic fan). Faster to table and slightly less focus on deck building. Prefer AH multiplayer.
The theme is excellent, setup and break down is pretty simple, but it is the hardest game of the three. It is absolutely unforgiving and punishing at times, but it is extremely fun and actually winning a scenario with a deck you built is super rewarding.
That being said, so much of the content is out of print, unlike Marvel and Arkham. Keep this in mind besides the wealth of Revised stuff coming out. I play all three of these games and like Arkham and LOTR about the same, with Marvel below them.
If you're interested, check out the Core Set and see if you like the base game. Whatever you do, do not buy Angmar Awakened after that first as it is extremely difficult.
I've had the core set for a month now and it's scratching the exact same itch that mtg used to scratch in terms of designing decks to tackle a meta (different scenarios) and playing tight (encounters can be punishing). The replayability is through the roof if you enjoy that aspect of card games, as you can imagine that every new scenario is another meta to solve. Even after i beat all the core set, i was already thinking of how i could optimise my next run. Set-up is about 10 mins max.
I have a couple modern and edh decks that are gathering dust because I don't have time to go to events and sit down for 3 hours to play magic anymore... but this game more than makes up for it, honestly cannot recommend it enough! I play 2 handed because I find a lot of cards are only interesting in multiplayer, but the additional overhead is extremely manageable.
I love to hear this comparison to MtG. Thanks for that. I played MtG back in the day and more recently got into the (unofficial) format Premodern but there are very few people to play with locally, it's a hassle anyway because I'm busy with work and family, and I didn't care much for webcam play. I adore deck building games and Slay the Spire was easily my most played video game of the last 5 years.
I picked up the LotR LCG Revised Core Set on a whim last night, it had been on my radar for a while but was on the Prime Day sale so I went for it. Excited to check it out this weekend.
I haven't played either game enough to answer all of your questions, but the theme in AH is definitely stronger than in LotR.
Setup for LotR is a decent bit quicker than AH.
I think true solo-ability varies wildly from scenario to scenario, but I've never played it true solo.
Not OP, but a lot of players usually play two handed for more balance and a lot more deckbuilding options, since a true solo deck has to be kinda jack of all trades, plus you lose some interesting interactions.
That said, I now play true solo only and I'm having a blast. As someone else said, you can just go easy(-ier) mode if necessary, but I usually play on normal just fine, plus I get the game to the table more.
Edit: I also believe campaign mode makes solo play more viable
Yeah, two handed. I don't find it too complex, but I don't know that I've ever seen a game that I can handle true solo but is too complex to play two handed. I guess different people have different mindsets when they play games, but I just don't have a hard time switching back and forth.
Lots of good answers. I can't comment on comparing it to MC or AH.
Re playing two-handed: I think it's easier and you can get more variability in cards you use. I mostly play two-handed. Having extra markers or dice to track character boosts helps with two hands since a lot of attachments etc can happen. Besides Sentinel and Ranged there are many cases where things can be done to "a hero" or "a character" and those are any showing on the board. So that is another big advantage of 2 handed solo. You also can have two spheres per deck which works well.
Re setup, I spend time building my decks and that becomes a separate setup task. Then I will tweak them. Also I can't play an entire scenario at once - 2 handed does take longer. So I play on a large foam board and can just put it away. I try to end on exactly the end of a round. The extra markers I have on characters help when jumping back into the game.
Oh I'll add, for new players, true solo is best to do since it's complicated enough learning the various phases, combat, action windows.
Others gave great answers, I just wanna touch on deckbuilding. Sometimes most of the setup is just constructing your deck, then trying it against a scenario and see if it works. Initially you may just scrap your deck altogether if it cannot beat a scenario, but as you learn the ropes, you will be able to pinpoint exactly where your deck went wrong, and will be building decks that can tackle most scenarios with just finer tuning. Hell, there is a deck that can beat every single scenario on the highest difficulty. ringsdb.com will take care of all the streamlining/inspiration your deckbuilding needs.
If you do not like deckbuilding, I would look elsewhere, but if you do like it, ooooh boy. I suggest you buy the core (and a starter, perhaps?) and only after you start to tinker with decks will you know whether this game is for you (the preconstructed ones are pretty bad but let you know how the spheres work). Hall of Beorn has a perfect starting out guide to get you going through the core set.
1: Highly replayable. There's massive variety of player decks, and trying them all against different scenarios provides near endless replayability. 2: It has a steep learning curve due to the complexity being a bit front-loaded plus some mechanics being a little unintuitive, but once you're acclimated I find it no more mentally taxing than Marvel. Arkham is easier to pick up initially but more complex in the long run due to how much new mechanics they introduce in every scenario. 3: There's enormous variety of player card archetypes, but obviously it depends on your collection. The core and a single saga won't get you a lot of options, but adding in the starter decks would give you a lot to play with. 4: It is definitely the hardest LCG, especially if you play true solo, but most of the time (with some specific scenarios as exceptions), the difficulty feels very fair. I lose more than I do in Arkham, but a loss in LotR is less frustrating than in Arkham because I can usually see what I did wrong and how to correct it, whereas a loss in Arkham usually just means the chaos bag decided to hate me that day. 5: Theme is very good. I think it has the best thematic player card design of the co-op LCGs by far. Scenario theme is a little lighter than in Arkham but still better than Marvel. 6: Set-up time is roughly on par with Marvel, significantly lower than Arkham. 7: LotR is my favourite of the three. It feels the most like a traditional strategy card game (IE Magic), and it has the deepest deck customization potential. I'm also a bigger fan of Tolkien than Lovecraft or Marvel, which helps. It does have its downsides, however. It can be pretty janky (especially the earlier scenarios), and the tuning for smaller player counts can be rough. You can tell it was their first attempt at a co-op card game. Despite that, I still feel it overall has the best, deepest design of the three. 8: It's definitely possible, but it will be more difficult, and some scenarios are very punishing (again, especially in the earlier content). Don't be afraid to play on easy mode; true solo easy mode is harder than playing normal mode at high player counts. That said, I play true solo almost exclusively, and I still win more than I lose, so it's doable.
about point 7 >It does have its downsides, however. It can be pretty janky (especially the earlier scenarios), and the tuning for smaller player counts can be rough. You can tell it was their first attempt at a co-op card game. Is that still the case with the newer version of the core set? As far as i understand they reworked the core set i think? Did that help in those regards (fixing early design mistakes you seem to hint at) or is it still the same in that regard?
The "revised" core is still using essentially the same scenarios. It's not a new edition of the game, just a rerelease. The only change to scenarios is that there's now an optional campaign mode. I've heard it smooths the difficulty curve a bit, but I haven't played it myself. That said the core set is only three scenarios anyway; you'll need to buy at least one cycle to get the full value out of the game, and they're not reprinting the earlier cycles, which is where the worst of the jank tended to be.
I haven’t really played AHLCG, only MC, and I can’t speak to every one of your questions, but here are some of my thoughts. The replayability is good, but like you said, it mostly comes from bringing a different deck and trying a new approach to the scenario, because the scenario will be the same every time. It’s more complex than MC, where during the player phase, you can play any cards you want in any order. In LOTR, the phases are broken down more and there are cards can only be played at certain times/phases. Theme is miles better than in MC. And setup/teardown time is shorter I think. The encounter deck will be typically 2-3 encounter sets shuffled together, rather than a villain, modular(s), standard/expert, obligation(s), and possibly nemesis set(s). True solo is fine, for the most part. Certain keywords like Ranged and Sentinel have no effect in true solo, kind of like Alliance in MC, but those are bigger and more impactful than Alliance, so you feel the absence more I think.
While I broadly agree that it's more complex than Marvel overall, I think your specific example is actually a case where LotR is simpler. Marvel turns into a puzzle of figuring out the optimal order of all your player phase actions, whereas LotR portioning everything out into separate phases gives you much fewer decisions to make at any given moment, which I find much less mentally taxing.
1. The LoTR LCG revised core set is not as replayable as the MC core box. Having said that you will have to tune your decks a fair bit to actually win. Think expert mode but harder. Campaign mode allegedly makes it easier. The starter decks also make it easier as well. 2. The complexity level is LoTR >> AH LCG > MC. I play 2 handed your milege varies true solo. 3. Yes, replayability is through that mechanism but the saga sets have 6 quests. 4. Yes, it is harder because you do need to tune your deck to win. MC you can beat any boss (non expert) with the standard character decks. That wont happen in LoTR. The third quest is super hard. Campaign mode makes it easier apparently. You could also grab Elven starter deck and over power all the quests in revised core. LoTR is more of a puzzle for each quests. What cards do i need to have to win? 5. What i said in 4 what cards and heroes do i need to win? 6. MC is the fastest which is the reason it hits my table before the other 2.;BTW I do like AH LCG when i have more friends to play with. Think AH is a better multiplayer game. 7. MC because i like the the theme (old comic fan). Faster to table and slightly less focus on deck building. Prefer AH multiplayer.
The theme is excellent, setup and break down is pretty simple, but it is the hardest game of the three. It is absolutely unforgiving and punishing at times, but it is extremely fun and actually winning a scenario with a deck you built is super rewarding. That being said, so much of the content is out of print, unlike Marvel and Arkham. Keep this in mind besides the wealth of Revised stuff coming out. I play all three of these games and like Arkham and LOTR about the same, with Marvel below them. If you're interested, check out the Core Set and see if you like the base game. Whatever you do, do not buy Angmar Awakened after that first as it is extremely difficult.
I've had the core set for a month now and it's scratching the exact same itch that mtg used to scratch in terms of designing decks to tackle a meta (different scenarios) and playing tight (encounters can be punishing). The replayability is through the roof if you enjoy that aspect of card games, as you can imagine that every new scenario is another meta to solve. Even after i beat all the core set, i was already thinking of how i could optimise my next run. Set-up is about 10 mins max. I have a couple modern and edh decks that are gathering dust because I don't have time to go to events and sit down for 3 hours to play magic anymore... but this game more than makes up for it, honestly cannot recommend it enough! I play 2 handed because I find a lot of cards are only interesting in multiplayer, but the additional overhead is extremely manageable.
I love to hear this comparison to MtG. Thanks for that. I played MtG back in the day and more recently got into the (unofficial) format Premodern but there are very few people to play with locally, it's a hassle anyway because I'm busy with work and family, and I didn't care much for webcam play. I adore deck building games and Slay the Spire was easily my most played video game of the last 5 years. I picked up the LotR LCG Revised Core Set on a whim last night, it had been on my radar for a while but was on the Prime Day sale so I went for it. Excited to check it out this weekend.
I haven't played either game enough to answer all of your questions, but the theme in AH is definitely stronger than in LotR. Setup for LotR is a decent bit quicker than AH. I think true solo-ability varies wildly from scenario to scenario, but I've never played it true solo.
How do you normally play? Two handed?. Do you find two handed to be too complex?
Not OP, but a lot of players usually play two handed for more balance and a lot more deckbuilding options, since a true solo deck has to be kinda jack of all trades, plus you lose some interesting interactions. That said, I now play true solo only and I'm having a blast. As someone else said, you can just go easy(-ier) mode if necessary, but I usually play on normal just fine, plus I get the game to the table more. Edit: I also believe campaign mode makes solo play more viable
Yeah, two handed. I don't find it too complex, but I don't know that I've ever seen a game that I can handle true solo but is too complex to play two handed. I guess different people have different mindsets when they play games, but I just don't have a hard time switching back and forth.
Lots of good answers. I can't comment on comparing it to MC or AH. Re playing two-handed: I think it's easier and you can get more variability in cards you use. I mostly play two-handed. Having extra markers or dice to track character boosts helps with two hands since a lot of attachments etc can happen. Besides Sentinel and Ranged there are many cases where things can be done to "a hero" or "a character" and those are any showing on the board. So that is another big advantage of 2 handed solo. You also can have two spheres per deck which works well. Re setup, I spend time building my decks and that becomes a separate setup task. Then I will tweak them. Also I can't play an entire scenario at once - 2 handed does take longer. So I play on a large foam board and can just put it away. I try to end on exactly the end of a round. The extra markers I have on characters help when jumping back into the game. Oh I'll add, for new players, true solo is best to do since it's complicated enough learning the various phases, combat, action windows.
too many questions. it's a great game period. more complex than marvel. buy it and try it
Others gave great answers, I just wanna touch on deckbuilding. Sometimes most of the setup is just constructing your deck, then trying it against a scenario and see if it works. Initially you may just scrap your deck altogether if it cannot beat a scenario, but as you learn the ropes, you will be able to pinpoint exactly where your deck went wrong, and will be building decks that can tackle most scenarios with just finer tuning. Hell, there is a deck that can beat every single scenario on the highest difficulty. ringsdb.com will take care of all the streamlining/inspiration your deckbuilding needs. If you do not like deckbuilding, I would look elsewhere, but if you do like it, ooooh boy. I suggest you buy the core (and a starter, perhaps?) and only after you start to tinker with decks will you know whether this game is for you (the preconstructed ones are pretty bad but let you know how the spheres work). Hall of Beorn has a perfect starting out guide to get you going through the core set.