Articles Reviews Next of Ken, Volume 21: The LCG Edition, starring Lord of the Rings LCG and AEG's War of Honor
 

Next of Ken, Volume 21: The LCG Edition, starring Lord of the Rings LCG and AEG's War of Honor Next of Ken, Volume 21:  The LCG Edition, starring Lord of the Rings LCG and AEG's War of Honor Hot

NOK_Banner

Come on in for Next of Ken, where this week I'll be talking about two recent entries into the growing LCG realm;  FFG's popular new Lord of the Rings Living Card Game, and Alderaac's Legend of the Five Rings-based War of Honor boxed set.  Join us, won't you?

 


A puffin' on his pipe in his Hobbit-hole

Lord_of_The_Rings_TCG_BoxI know I've talked about Lord of the Rings LCG in a previous installment, but I finally took the plunge and started deckbuilding.  You may remember I was a little lukewarm about the game originally; the "out-of-the-box" play was frustrating and really boiled down to luck, and whether you drew enough allies early.

Still, I felt that there was something more in the game system.  I liked the notion of a cooperative CCG/LCG, as it was a pretty unique concept to me (though a natural evolution really, given the popularity of co-ops these days.)

Sadly, you really do need two core sets, at the very least.  With this though, you do have a lot of options.  I decided to build two 'main' decks and two support decks.  The first deck was based around Theodred/Aragorn/Eowyn, and was a heavy-hitting quester with cards to help mitigate bad luck against Treachery and Shadow cards.

It was also a resource machine, using Theodred's ability coupled with Steward of Gondor to generate ridiculous amounts of points to spend on allies and attachments.

The second "main" deck is meant to do the rest of the lifting with Legolas/Gimli as the big fighters, and Beravor for a splash of Lore and card churning to help get the two big fighters tanked up.

My brother and I ran these two decks against the first scenario, and it was literally like night and day from our first sessions with the core decks.  We had fists full of cards, tons of resources, were able to plow through quests and creatures alike.  I was routinely questing with 10+ Willpower (that's a lot, if you haven't played the game) and he could easily chop down even the most ferocious beasties in a couple of turns, max.  I think Gimli finished the game with 7 attack (again, that's a lot.)

Our threat was still in the mid-thirties, and we never really felt like we were in danger.  Contrast that to our attempt at playing with just a pair of the core set decks, and from turn twoBeravor on we were scrambling for our lives.

I know that the base quest is meant to be something you can stomp all over once you start tweaking your decks--it's rated a "3 of 10" in terms of difficulty.  I get that.  However, it does make me realize that the core decks are fairly rotten in terms of quality.  That's disappointing to a degree.  We're not buying random booster packs here...but we're seeing limitations of card distribution in other ways.  At the very least, we're not beholden to random packs, so that's a plus for certain.

I like the game though.  I like working together, I like customizing the decks, and the artwork on these cards is just flat-out gorgeous.  There are plenty of card combos, and the card pool will keep expanding as they release their chapter packs.

I don't have the same initial "high" that I had when first playing Decipher's Lord of the Rings back in 2001, but I have a strong feeling that, in the long run and given the histories of both companies, this will fare much better in the long run.  I'm willing to enjoy the ride for now.

Lord of the Rings fans are truly blessed; between War of the Ring, Lord of the Rings, Lord of the Rings LCG, Lord of the Rings Confrontation, and Middle-Earth Quest, there are plenty of good-to-great games to play in the Middle-Earth setting.  I can only hope that Fantasy Flight will eventually bring the same joy to Star Wars fans with the same plethora of great games.

At any rate, I expect to see this in a lot of "Top 10" lists come the end of this year.  Will it make mine?  Don't know yet, you'll just have to wait and see!

 


 

 

An oath against the shadows, denying the dark

War_of_HonorHere's a contrasting view of the LCG model, though admittedly one that is based on a time-proven CCG--AEG's recent War of Honor release.

War of Honor is AEG's answer to the LCG format, and a way to hopefully lure players into the larger CCG world. Legend of the Five Rings, upon which War of Honor is based, is one of the oldest and longest-lasting of the CCG industry, surviving not one but TWO "gluts".

There is no cooperation here.  Players play the role of different houses, hiring characters to wage war for them and destroy their opponent's provinces.  The setting is a mythological feudal Japan (Rokugan), so not only will you need to deal with samurai and ninja, but also dragons and demons of the deep who seek to corrupt everything they touch.

I always found Legend of the Five Rings to be a fairly fun game, especially in multi-player.  In my opinion it wasn't a great two-player game precisely because of what I felt was the game's biggest flaw--"all or nothing" combat.

When players fought battles, they totaled up the strength of their army and compared it to their opponent's.  If you lost, you lost EVERY character who participated.  If there was enough overflow, the defended province was also destroyed.  What this meant was that if you lost by 1 or 51, the outcome was the same; your entire army was obliterated.

This was insanely frustrating and usually meant in a two-player game that once you made that minute miscalculation, all that was left was the mop-up.

We played it quite a bit casually in the 90s, enjoying a lot of multiplayer brawls.  But a friend of mine stationed in the Air Force moved away for awhile and got into the competitiveAkodo_Hiroshi scene, and when he returned none of our weaksauce decks were any match for his.  The game at that level was brutally fast--Lion clan could start destroying provinces on turn two, and woe be unto you if you were unprepared for that type of assault.

As a result, the rest of us dabblers moved away from playing the game, and I think one of my earliest trades on BGG was dumping the rest of my leftover L5R cards.

With War of Honor, AEG looks to hook back in the folks who moved away from the game, or provide a "complete in a box" experience for those who want to play in the rich Rokugan setting without having to take the plunge down the endless rabbit hole of booster packs.

In the box you get decks for four clans; the ferocious Lion, the sorcerous Phoenix, the enlightened Dragon, and the nefarious Scorpion.  Right off the bat, War of Honor does a great job at providing four different style decks right out of the box.  Legend of the Five Rings was great in how it provided alternate victory conditions; it was something that Magic flirted with early on but never comitted to like L5R did.  The bad thing was that to get all the pieces to pursue the alternate victory paths, you had to buy lots of boosters.  Thankfully, all the tools you need for each of the paths to victory are present inside each deck.

The box is a typically-sized square box with kind of odd-shaped compartments; I still haven't quite figured out how to tuck everything in as they may have intended.  That's really my only complaint about the components though.  The artwork on the cards is fantastic, you get four solid, varied decks to play, plus all the tiles that you need, and a solidly put-together instruction booklet

For those who are coming back to the game, one key difference is that War of Honor provides a new "Paths to Victory" set-up, which as far as I can tell is completely new for this game.  It provides a defined, structured path to victory.  Also, to compensate for the difficulty in moving closer to the more difficult victory conditions, you get bonuses for each "rung" as you progress.  This doubly serves to limit degenerate instant wins as well as give each strategy a boost as it advances toward the endgame.

L5R_ArtworkThe other completely new element are the Fortress tiles.  Before the game, players create a small 'map' of tiles that they use to create a layout for the game.  This layout determines who can use some of the actions on those tiles as well as which players may ally with each other.  Before War of Honor, L5R had the typical "Don't attack me, attack him!" prolonged whining/pleading thing going on; now there is considerably more structure provided.

As for the rest?  It's pretty much the same game, just way more balanced than it was in the earliest of days, I think.  Or at least, more balanced in terms of this being a self-contained set.

Players generate gold, hire personalities, play actions, and wage war on each other in an attempt to win through one of the four paths of victory.  You can win militarily by destroying all opposing provinces, through honor by accumulating enough of it, through "enlightenment" by getting all five elemental rings into play (a task unto itself), or by dishonoring all of your opponents.

The multiplayer aspect is what I think makes the game, though I've heard L5R veterans argue that the 2-player game is the "true" version, and the version that was played in tournaments.  At any rate, War of Honor runs with the multiplayer concept.  With the tile layouts and cards that encourage alliances, not to mention the natural tendency of the game to involve diplomacy and combined assaults to bring down another player, the game shines in its multiplayer format.

The only part I think I'd warn players against is that if you're coming from a "dabbled in LCGs" arena, War of Honor is going to be a LOT to take in.  Remember that Legend of the Five Rings came out during a very different era of CCG design, and is comparatively quite complicated--several leagues more complicated than the Lord of the Rings LCG, for example.  It's not that the game is unapproachably difficult to learn, but it will require more involvement than casual players may be expecting.

There's still the issue of the "all or nothing" combat that I'm probably never going to be enamored with...seriously, losing everything because you miscalculated by one point really and truly sucks, and it can lead to some fairly timid gameplay as the risks for losing battles can be quite high.  In a multiplayer game at least you will likely have time to rebuild as players tend to focus more on whomever is winning, allowing you to crawl back in your hole and recruit an army anew.

 

 


 

 

I don't know if the world is moving entirely away from CCGs.  Their popularity has certainly waned to the point where only the biggest names remain.  However their stamp has been indelibly made on game design--neither War of Honor nor Lord of the Rings LCG would exist without the CCG design philosophies and influences.  Although the distribution may change permanently to a more fixed, controllable method, it's pretty clear that the notion of customizable card games will stay with us for quite some time to come.

That's all I've got for this week.  As always, comments and feedback are extremely welcome.  I'll see you in seven.

 

 

Powered by JReviews
Comments (15)
  • avatarBlack Barney

    yay for a shout out for Lord of the Rings TCG. That game was my bread and butter, yo

  • avatarStormcow

    I was an L5R tourney player back in the day, and the big build-up simply doesn't happen in 1-on-1 competitive play. Either you have the military edge, in which case you attack, or you can sit and go for honor, in which case your opponent attacks. Resulting in earlier battles, smaller armies, and more manageable losses.

    In a multiplayer game at least you will likely have time to rebuild as players tend to focus more on whomever is winning

    This might not be so true for War of Honor - since you don't need to eliminate the strongest player to win a military victory, it's possible to sneak a win on points. It's then easier to treat the weaker players as a VP pinata rather than force a confrontation with a stronger player. True, there's always room for diplomacy and negotiation, but pretty much any conflict game can use that excuse.

  • avatarFrohike

    With LOTR I don't quite get the multiple core set thing unless you're playing 4 player. A lot of people say that 2nd or third set is needed to make the game more playable, though, so I'm just kind of curious.

    I haven't had serious issues with the single core, but I only play duo games. The quests can get difficult, but that's part of why I've enjoyed my playthroughs so far; from what it sounds like, mixing and matching from multiple cores makes the game perhaps a little too easy? At that point does the fun of the game consist more in building your decks and seeing how effective you can make them?

  • avatarmadwookiee

    Agreed w/ Stormcow - tourney L5R wasn't really like that at all. In fact, I think that all-or-nothing combat was a feature, not a bug, precisely because it prevented the game from degenerating into a staring contest.

    I played the hell out of that game for most of the last decade - I still think it was one of the finest CCG's ever made. Still might be, as far as that goes, but I haven't played in years.

  • avatarKen B.

    Well, for LOTR LCG I'm not ready to write off the game as being too dependent on deck construction; after all, we are talking about the easiest quest. If we cake walk through the other two core set quests, well, then you might have a point. Somehow though, I doubt they will be so easy. Stay tuned for further reports.

    And I should clarify on the big build-up thing for L5R; main point number 1, military rush decks of old were *fast*. Mind-numbingly so. My comments were more on casual play, where there was some time to build up. There was usually a few turns of this, then, came the inevitable battle. The player who initiated it hoped he'd done his math correctly. At any rate, either the defender did not block and lost a province, or a battle ensued in which the fate of the entire game rested.

    I think in tourney play there was no time for build-up. You either got savaged, or were running something that could defend itself long enough to turbo honor (like those old Crane decks, I think.)

    Regardless, I found 2-player L5R less than satisfying, and the focus of War of Honor seems to be squarely on multiplayer. Based on my own experience, I prefer it that way. L5R was a fantastic multiplayer game; I think only Jyhad was one I liked more in that format.

  • avatarHex Sinister

    LotR really shines if you have a dedicated partner to play it with. I don't think I'd really bother with more than 2 players.

    I don't agree that you need two LotR cores if you're just playing 2p. We've been playing with one core and the two expansions and it's totally enough unless you're hardcore. I don't want people to be deterred because they think they have to invest in two sets. Just pick up some expansions instead.

    The quests do seem to be getting easier for us. Experience and skill make a big difference I think.

    What's cool about LotR is you can plan, have long term strategy, prepare for or mitigate bad events. Other co-ops just sling shit in your face and you're helpless. That happens here too, but you can create your own luck in this (custom deck) environment. I find that a lot more satisfying than the usual "We're doomed - game over!". You can turn the tide in LotR.

  • avatarThirstyMan

    I really like LoTR as a solo game. It has theme and it can be nail biting.

    Due to me being dead for the last 20 years, I also picked up some core MtG decks recently. I decided that I'm not that keen on MtG as it really doesn't have much of a theme. Interesting gameplay, but not for me...

    On an aside, how do you beat LoTR with a tactics deck because it has no willpower to do quests? Is it really just using Legolas to beat guys to get through the locations???

  • avatarKen B.

    I don't think you can win against LOTR solo with a single-sphere Tactics deck, for just that reason.

    Splash Eowyn in to give Gimli and Legolas the Willpower backup. After that, I dunno.

    In 2p, you've got the delegation of duties thing so one deck doesn't have to do it all.

    I've seen some solo tri-sphere decks listed online, I don't know how many cores they had to use for them but it's probably only one.

  • JJJJS

    I'm not understanding the importance of multiple core sets for LOTR LCG. Since it's a co-op, it seems like cheating to increase the number of options available to players by purchasing another core set. Even if that's how it has to be done, that's a crummy game system that forces you to buy two of everything just so you can play it.

  • avatarKen B.

    The chapter packs have 3x of all the cards, so that's not an issue.

    The issue is that you are allowed to pack 3x of any card, but the core set only gives you 2x and 1x of certain cards. Some of these cards are ones you definitely want 3x of (Steward of Gondor, Dwarven Tomb.)

    You are supposed to build 50 card decks, but are only given 120 total player deck cards in the base game. If you jam two spheres together and strip out 10 cards, you'll have your two 'tournament legal' decks, but with little variety or options available to you.

    I should stress you don't *have* to buy two core sets. Four people can play this fine with just one; each taking one of the single-sphere decks and rolling with it. You'll need 2d10 for each extra player beyond 2 so you can track their threat.

    Really, you determine your level of involvement. However, I have heard it stated many times, do not expect to beat the harder scenarios solo with just one of the core decks...it will drive you mad, and you will need to be *extremely* lucky to even have a chance.

  • JJJJS  - re:
    Ken B. wrote:
    I should stress you don't *have* to buy two core sets.


    You say that now, but in your review you said "you really do need two core sets, at the very least." In your description of why one needs two core sets, you make an airtight case that the game is not playable with just one core set. To me, that is a fatal flaw.

    That's nice that four people can play just fine, but this is a 2-player game, not four. Providing enough components to make the game playable as intended should be the first rule of publishing.

    I don't mean to come off all nasty, but I'm tired of games that make us do the work in making the games we buy playable. It seems like half the reviews lately have talked about house rules or reworking this or that or downloading some document from TOS from the designer and, in this case, buying the game twice. I feel like I'm back in the thick of the DND hobby. Something I was trying to get away from by moving over to board games.

  • avatarKen B.

    For deckbuilding, yeah, I did say that. And I'm not trying to backpedal from that. But understand my perspective; I'm an ex-CCGer. I get mad when my deck doesn't do what I want it to. So to me, I needed two core sets to do deck construction.

    For two-player, out of the box, I think you'll need to look at the combination you take very carefully; make sure one can quest, and one can fight or disrupt the enemies that keep popping out. It's doable, but frustrating for someone like me.

    I will admit I wish they'd made a starter set with just 3x of everything. I'd have paid $10 more for it. It is a valid criticism that it does not.

  • avatarmads b.

    two player with one sphere decks works great out of the box. Of course deck building would make things easier (and more tournament like since there's only 30 cards in the base decks), but you don't need that to get lots of fun from the game.

    Also, when soloing I usually play with two hands. Makes for a better game, I think.

  • avatarBearn

    If you get the 3 core sets you can actually build an unbeatable solo play deck against any of the scenarios out there. This was actually the killer for me and had me dumping it asap. they advertise it as solo playable and push that quite a bit when in reality the game is best played with TWO players. If you go to 4 players the games ease comes right back down to solo play for difficulty.

    It's just one of those games that has a sweet spot for # of players and you really cannot fluctuate from it if you want a challenge.

  • avatarGreen Lantern

    War of Honor looks great. I miss playing L5R and this might be my ticket back in. Thanks for the review Ken.

Only registered users can write comments!
Text Size

Top