Let's try this again. LCG thread people.
What are you playing? planning to buy? Something you loved/hated?
same as the other day, Doomtown and Ashes are more than welcome.
I recently switched from Netrunner to Thrones 2 as my main game. I do really like Netrunner, I just didn't enjoy having to(or rather being expected to, in most cases) play a game I don't enjoy very much for every time I want to play the game I do enjoy. Thrones is pretty great though, as much as it is just classic units and combat stuff it has a lot of great touches.
Really tempted to get all the saga expansions of LotR. Only got the core set so far but am really in the mood for some middle-earthing.
I just have that feeling that as soon as the boxes arrive, I will just drown in cards and don't know where to start.
I just want to play some EPIC adventures without analyzing the meta and building a deck.
>>43787551
I'm the anon from the previous thread that had never played a LCG till then. Bought the starter set for Doomtown and loving it. Can't wait to get more sets to expand the game!
>>43788736
How is GoT 2, especially in comparison to Netrunner? I'm thinking about picking it up, but I have no real idea what it's about.
>>43789186
Good to hear that you like the game. Personally I still waiting for get my cores and stuff.
>>43788736
what are the reasons of why you don't enjoy that much Netrunner in comparison to aGoT 2.0? Personally I think a problem with any game of this type is a really rigid meta in the sense people will often try to build the deck that is belived to be the best.
>>43788908
Care to explain me how does LoTR works? I mean in short how does the "evil" deck works and the same for the fellowship. I still kinda don't get much of the game other that the game is played on co-op and if one wins all the other does also.
Thrones is the GOAT multiplayer LCG. Oh my God the fragile alliances and table politics are through the roof awesome
Is the CoC anon around here? I kinda got interested in CoC LCG. the question is how big is the card pool now? also tell me what makes it interesting? try to sell it to me
>>43790725
how does multi works for aGoT? I mean I know each player has to fill a role (by given in a card) but how does this role works in the game? is that true that you start with a "suggested" aliance and a suggested rival to defeat?
>>43787551
I've only got Conquest, unfortunately very few people play it but from the 2 games I've had with a friend it's pretty fun, I feel like I have too few cards with just core + 2 expansions though
>>43790930
They're not suggested.
Every position on the Small Council (The roles you allude to) has a benefit, a position it "supports", and two positions it "rivals".
You cannot make any challenges against a player you support, but you receive a bonus Power for defeating positions you rival.
You choose your positions every turn, hence leading to the "fragility" of the alliances mentioned, as you might be unable to attack a player one turn, and then rewarded for doing so the next.
>>43789424
I'm not the guy you asked, but I do own both (only the core set of both, but better than nothing.) Give me a few minutes and I'll write up my thoughts on the differences.
If you want a TL; DR, I think GoT 2 is a great game in general, well worth the price.
Specifics to follow.
>>43791019
So let me get it right. one turn you play as one position in the Small council and for the next one you can change that position and with that your allies and rivals during THAT turn, right?
>>43791194
Yes. In fact I think you have to change your Small Council title every turn
>>43787551
I played the shit out of AGOT 1.0. My LGS has a small but very competitive meta, and a few of the players have been to Worlds and placed top 8 a couple times.
>the fucking New York players
A few of them came down for a store championship last year and rolled house on almost everyone
Fucking great game though. I want to get into 2.0 when the card pool gets a little bigger. Are they going to bring back Shadows and naval mechanics?
>>43791046
So here's my thoughts off of the core sets of both games:
Firstly, GoT is easier to explain/understand. The fact that its turn structure is more akin to that overwhelming titan MtG makes it very easy to explain to people who have some experience with TCGs/LCGs.
In Netrunner's favor, but also to its detriment above, is the asymmetry of its gameplay. Corporation decks do not work like Runner decks. Their basic mechanics are different. That does lead to an interesting series of choices, but it also makes it a little confusing. Whereas everyone essentially works the same in GoT.
This distinction carries to general layout, as well. Game of Thrones has 5 main card types, used by every deck. Characters, Locations, Attachments, Events and Plots. You play your locations close to you (like lands in MtG), your characters beyond them, you play attachments on whatever they affect, you discard events as you use them, and Plots have their own area. Again, it's intuitive to general card games. If you've played Magic, you can look at a Game of Throne game, and get a fairly solid guess of the relative positions ("Oh, that guy has a lot more dudes, he's probably winning combat") Whereas Netrunnner's asymmetrical board layout is more flavor-ful, but can be byzantine to new players. The runner alone has 5 card types, the corp another 6. Yes, operations and events are functionally identical, as are the identity cards, but that's still 2 shared card types, then 3 for the runner, and 4 for the corp. that's 9 functional types.
(cont)
>>43791194
Yes. To clarify, you choose which position you want in turn order, which is decided by your initiative for the round. So one round you may go first and get the position you want, next round someone else might take it before you can.
>>43791213
I don't think you have to change it, I think it's just fairly resource consuming to try and stay on one, since everyone can just react to that. I'll check the rules really quick.
>>43791255
We may have just house rules it. We have it that you're not allowed to alternate between just 2 titles and that you have to choose each one at least once.
>>43791247
1.0 was fun but it got crazy complicated. The Agendas were my favorite thing ever though
>building Noble Cause for melee
>either winning within 2 turns or failing in spectacular fashio n
It was the ultimate glass cannon and I loved it. I hope Agendas like that come back
>>43791255
>>43791213
Just checked the rules, and while you don't have to change every turn, I did learn I've been playing it incorrectly.
What happens is, every turn, one of the positions (two in three player games) become unavailable to choose, and then players take turns secretly picking cards, before revealing them all at once.
That's...interesting. I don't know that I like it. In my group, we have the roles clearly visible, and you pick them in turn order, which makes your role selection part of the strategy. If one guy has a big army, pick a role he supports, so he can't attack you.
I guess we'll play several rounds with the actual rules, to see how that changes things.
>>43791255
(cont)
Now, I could go on and on explaining each faction and how they work in Game of Thrones, and what not, but I'll skip that to sum up one thing that my friend noted, and how it ties to the two games.
My friend is not a great fan of Netrunner, because, in his words, it's mostly "flash", in that, so little of what it does seems to directly tie to the goal of the game, i.e acquiring agenda points. You're making runs on things hoping to fish them out, but you have no guarantee you'll get them. You drop them in your servers, but you don't want to spend a lot advancing them, because you know the runner will immediately charge in.
In Game of Thrones, it's all about Power. And EVERYTHING can help lead you to it. Only good at Intrigue? discard their cards down, and get to a point where you're making unopposed challenges. That's free power. Good at military? Kill their dudes until you're making unopposed challenges. Good at power? Try not to let them kill all your dudes. There's a focus in Game of Thrones that we find lacking in Netrunner.
One last note on the differences between the two is that Game of Thrones plays two OR MORE players, while Netrunner is a TWO player game. That's not an insubstantial difference. I played 7 games of GoT before I tried a Joust.
(one last cont)
>>43791438
Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about that either. I liked the strategy of knowing what everyone picked
>>43791436
I'm still mad that The Old Way got de facto banned in melee. So much chaos
>>43791438
Personally, I like both games, but, after playing Game of Thrones, I feel a little like I like Netrunner in SPITE of its design choices, while I like Game of Thrones BECAUSE of them.
I will make one big caveat to all of my notes so far: As noted, I only own 1 core set of both games. So this is all based solely off of the core decks provided with both games. Netrunner may be a lot more direct and engaging once you build your decks from the multiple packs you've picked up. If that's the case, then just know that Game of Thrones handles itself better with the core product.
I'm not dealing with a meta, I'm dealing with them as boxed products. Maybe as Chapter packs come out, or I get my hands on Netrunner extensions, these notes will change.
>>43791522
Good to hear that the new Thrones decks are decent out of the box. 1.0 core set decks were miserable
>>43791960
They are a little weird, in that, by the rules' own admission, none of them are technically legal. But I actually like it, as the decks are all "Combine Faction X and Y, add the following Neutral cards." which gives you at least two potential paths to victory that are moderately different.
So for Doomtown, Actions cards that can activate during Noon only last till Noon right? So if a shootout happens does that end that cards effect? I would assume Sundown phase ends it as well.
Also when do you reshuffle your deck on say a gambling phase where you can't draw 5 cards for the lowball hand, do you just roll with the cards you draw or do you reshuffle the discard pile then draw 5?
>>43789868
The way LotRs works is thus:
You build a specific encounter deck, which has a set of quest cards. The quest cards have the win conditions on them, and are often a series of 2-3 steps, though some can be more, and there's a few that are just one.
Players then bring their own decks they've built, each with heroes to run them. Heroes all have various effects, and a key point is that you can never have two of the same character on the table(even if they're different kinds of card). Synergy is a big key to the decks, especially for the harder encounter decks.
From there, you play against the deck. It's got two big stages. The quest stage requires you to send characters on the quest, at which point you reveal cards from the encounter deck to fight against you. These can be enemies, locations, or cards with various effects. Once you've figured out questing, you move on to combat, where enemies will attack you, and then you attack back.
The game can be murderously difficult, and quite a few quests have a fuck you order of effects that if they come up in the right place, can end a game right there, even if you were doing very well otherwise. At the same time, that difficulty keeps the game very fresh, and LotR does not suffer from the issue of becoming very easy once you figure it out like so many other co-op games do.
Saga expansions are generally fuckers as well, with a lot of very weird mechanics and quests. Helm's Deep is easily one of the hardest quests in the game, because it's a deck that requires both extensive amount of questing power and combat power, and is specifically designed to prevent the sort of deck controlling effects that most combat decks utilize.
>>43791255
>>43791438
>>43791522
Thanks anon, much appreciated. Would you recommend playing GoT with only two players? The gf is interested, and I'd like to play something substantial with her.
https://youtu.be/47hmvjcKg2k
Are CCGs dead?
>>43792866
It's definitely playable with 2, and it shines with multiplayer.
If it's pretty much guaranteed to be just you two playing, I don't know that I'd recommend it, but if you're looking at something like "two nights a week two player, 1 multiplayer game on the weekend", I think it'd be fine.
From a technical stanpoint, as there are 8 factions arranged 2 to a core deck, you can conceivably have 28 different deck combinations from the core box, meaning you and your GF could conceivably play between 10-15 games before you had to start repeating options. (It should be 14, but unless you're rigorous, it's likely you'll have to repeat because the other player took one of the teams you needed for your new deck.)
The base suggested decks are
Starks and Greyjoys
Baratheons and Night's Watch
Tyrells and Lannisters
Martells and Targaryens.
One thing that may irritate your GF is that the dragons in the core set are still just Hatchlings, so the Targaryens are a little less 'Burn it all' then she may be expecting. They do have a "Dracarys" card, representing the dragons roasting a character, but only one copy.
I will say I'm already excited for chapter packs, given the cards that have been spoiled in some of them. They have a couple that are perhaps the best flavor-mechanics match ups I've ever seen.The Targaryens are getting an attachment called "Crown of Gold." It makes the Attached Character a King, and gives them -4 Strength, killing them if they hit 0 Strength. The picture is of a cauldron of molten gold.
Vaes Dothrak destroys Weapon Attachments. The Ward card makes a character a Stark, but can only target characters of 4 strength or less. Theon Greyjoy has exactly 4 Strength.
It speaks to a level of thought and wit on the designers' part that makes me excited.
>>43793586
The flavor to balance ratio in this game is my favorite part.
Why did they "reboot" Game of thrones? Will it happen with others games? I'm interested in picking another LCG besides Netrunner but that sort of scares me.
>>43794847
They may reboot other games, it's hard to say.
The reasons they give for rebooting can be summed up in the following categories:
-We didn't really know how to make a Living Card Game when we first made Game of Thrones.
They point to this as being the reason that "Influence" existed in the game, because originally Gold was returned to the pool after the marshalling phase.
-We found things that needed fixing, and could be handled more elegantly in a new edition.
Attachments were considered weak, because you couldn't start the game with them, and because they were easy to remove. They had to add a rule to the game to limit decks that drew a ton of cards each turn, etc.
And, well, the game came out in 2002. The artwork was starting, in some cases, to get dated.
Really, this article from their website handles it pretty well:
https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2014/11/11/the-things-we-do-for-love/
Or if you go to the product page, and click "Read More", they have a list of the differences and some of the reasoning.
It basically boiled down to "We wanted to keep making this game, but we were basically out of stuff to add, and there were problems that needed to be addressed, so we figured a new edition would be the best path."
Honestly, as a guy who's played both, I like the new direction, but also think you could bash together a combination of 2nd Ed and 1st Ed cards pretty easily.
>>43794847
well if you look here in this thread, aGoT 1.0 got some serious balance issues and the game would get really crazy in very few turns. think in something like Modern/Legacy Magic.
>>43793586
Thanks. It'll only be us two playing, but since she doesn't have any interest in Netrunner, I might get GoT. In fact, I'll look at my FLCS tomorrow.
>>43795497
It seems pretty reasonable, then. I'll probably invest in GoT rather than LoTR, then.
>>43792241
Guys please I can only manage enough money for a few LCG, don't make me want them all please...
>>43795497
Which other game have chances for a reboot? I mean which other NEEDS one? Warhammer maybe?
>>43792079
I don't think any LCG comes with legal decks as the "Starter decks"
>>43796070
I will tell you if you're considering LotRs, then to look around and make sure people play.
You can play alone, yes, but the game really, really wants other people, and it's one of the more niche LcGs.
>>43796095
LotR decks are legal starting decks.
>>43796070
Honestly, I couldn't tell you. In LCGs, as with most categories, I'm competently informed about the ones I know about, and completely ignorant of others.
I've only played Conquest twice, and didn't even realize Call of Cthulhu was one.
I'd assume they'd do it in something close to chronological order. Or IP relevance.
I do know that playing Conquest, I felt like their rules could be better laid out, and I wondered that a game set in the endless war of 40k was 2 player only.
>>43792123
>>43792123
Noon actions last until the end of Sundown. Shootout actions last until the end of the shootout, and Resolutions only affect that specific resolution.
Whenever you have to draw a card and can't, you shuffle back up and draw however many you're missing.
So if you go to draw for lowball, but there are only two cards in the deck, you draw the two, shuffle, then draw three more.
>>43796105
>LotR decks are legal starting decks.
A standard deck in LotR is 50 cards, the starter deck is 30. It is not a legal deck.
>>43792972
Are you suggesting that LCG is the way to survive now in a market dominated by Magic and the japanese card game in turn?
Could you post the rest?
>>43792972
fuck this guy for listing it in 3 parts with different titles.was still entertained enough
>Taking the Black is now shipping
The hype is real
Tell me ladies (the ones who play aGoT) what would you do if this thing enters to play?
>>43798031
Milk of the Poppy.
He and his brother both scream to be rendered blank.
>>43798143
heh poppy milk.
So poop milk is required, correction IS A MUST to deal with the heavy hitters in 2nd edition it seems
>>43798192
Oh, there's other tactics against him and Robert.
Ice, the Stark Weapon attachment, can take him out.
Tywin Lannister with a good income plot can level a massive military challenge on a single body.
The Tyrells have a lot of Stand abilities, so they don't particularly care.
The Martells can drop some serious power on a single lord or lady with Dawn and Doran.
The Targaryens can conceivably execute him with a Plaza of Punishment, or Unsullied, assuming they have Dracarys in hand.
I don't fully disagree with you that the heavy hitters in the game make you WANT to take them out quickly. That's part of what makes them Cool. Stannis is infuriating, Robert Baratheon is terrifying. Catelyn and Eddard make maybe the single worst defense to fight against. (Eddard with Ice basically reads "If you attack me in Military, you will lose a character")
For one game, I had Doran Martell, Danaerys Targaryen, and Dawn on the field. That's a minimum of a Strength 7 Danaerys, moving up over time to a strength 19. No one knew how to deal with that.
In my group, we call it "Big Plays". That there's more attention demanded, because the actions being taken MUST be taken into account more often than not. In some games, a lot of turns you can just focus on what you're doing, and ignore your opponent. GoT 2e has too many huge power shifts for that.
>>43796443
Thanks for clearing that up. Makes much more sense.
>>43798031
Poppy, Put to the Sword, Ice, Dracarys!
>>43798403
>Daenerys and Doran in play
Was this a kingslayer game? Or just building whatever?
bumpin' with qt kung-fu master
>>43798928
The core set doesn't have enough to make legal decks, as mentioned >>43792079, so the core suggests using pairings listed here >>43793586.
From a flavor standpoint, the idea is about the hoped-for alliance between the two.
