Posted on

Why I like Arkham Horror: The Card Game better than LOTR LCG

Scroll down to see more content

*Programming note – I wrote this weeks ago and forgot to publish it. So here is a bonus article for you this week. Getting it ready to publish put me in the mood to play Arkham again so I hope those of you with interest in the game find it fun to read.*

Before I talk about what improvements I think Fantasy Flight Games made with Arkham Horror: The Card Game, I want to preface this by saying that I don’t think that LOTR LCG is a bad game and I can understand why many people have and continue to enjoy it.  I think there are a couple of areas where it didn’t meet my expectations and went in a direction I wasn’t anticipating.  As a result, by the time I decided to stop playing the game, I was disappointed.  At the same time, just because I felt let down, please do not let what I have to say about LOTR LCG offend you or take away from something you love.  I just want to share why, for me, Arkham Horror: The Card Game is turning out to be everything I had hoped and has restored my faith in the Living Card Game format.

The LOTR LCG release that broke quite a few players with its difficulty.

I should also briefly introduce myself and say that I am kind of the ideal candidate for the Living Card Game system.  Like many millennials, I grew up playing Magic: The Gathering and Pokemon TCG along with dabbling in quite a few other card games.  I eventually burned out on the tournament scene and stopped playing any kind of CCG.  When I heard about the LOTR LCG, I was immediately interested as it sounded like it was going to fix a lot of the problems with CCGs.  I am a solo gamer so the prospect of playing a card game (which almost always require two players) was also very appealing.  I played through the Heirs of Numenor/Against the Shadow Cycle and bought most of the Saga boxes that came out as well so I had a pretty good-sized collection and had spent hundreds of dollars on LOTR LCG before deciding that it was no longer a good fit for me.

Let’s start with my biggest complaint about the Lord of the Rings LCG.  It is a tough game and much more of a puzzle to solve than I was expecting when I started.  Truthfully, I don’t mind a tough game.  I like the Dark Souls/Bloodborne video games series as an example of this.  However, the LOTR LCG was consistently challenging and many scenarios require you to tailor your deck to beat them.  That obviously takes time and plenty of thinking in between games.  More significantly, you often have to play a scenario to see how it works to try and pick apart how to beat it.  Then you can adjust your deck and keep adjusting it until you manage to beat the scenario.  The harder scenarios can take a minimum of 3-4 attempts to beat.  While on one hand, there is something addicting about this.  I’d often lose a scenario and be extremely driven to find a way to advance.  On the other, it is also frustrating when you lose that second or third time because you STILL can’t figure out how to beat it.  Some players may really enjoy this kind of challenge but the puzzle-y nature of the difficulty was not really what I wanted and as Fantasy Flight Games released more and more scenarios, the difficulty went up which caused my frustration to increase too.

Peter Jackson may not have rated him, but Fantasy Flight certainly did!

Unfortunately, this frustration was also coupled with the fact that I feel like LOTR LCG, up until the point I stopped playing, never fully delivered on its promise that there would be a rich set of decks to choose from.  In my experience, there is usually one or two decks that are clearly more powerful than the rest and you have to use those decks frequently to beat the hardest scenarios.  For example, the Dwarves deck that uses Dain and the Glorfindel deck that can be played solo or with two players are great examples of this.  It is no coincidence that I remember these two decks fairly well after not playing the game for roughly five years.  I had to use them a lot which became boring and it was often unthematic like using a huge number of dwarves to quest in Gondor.  When you couple this with the difficulty I previously mentioned, that is why I finally got to a point where I decided that I wasn’t having enough fun with LOTR LCG to justify buying more of it.

Investigators help make each deck feel unique and give you deckbuilding options in Arkham Horror.

I think Arkham Horror improves on these problems in a couple of ways.  Arkham Horror does not feel as much like a puzzle and while I’ve only played through Dunwich Legacy so I’m not as far into it as I was with LOTR LCG, I do find the difficulty on Standard to be pretty much spot on.  I don’t win every scenario but I don’t need to try multiple times to beat them and I also don’t have to fiddle around with deck construction so much either.  Best of all, the way Arkham uses investigator cards leads to more varied deckbuilding opportunities.  While some investigators are clearly better than others, for example, Zoey Samaras would be preferred compared to Skids O’ Toole by most people, it still feels like there are more ways to arrive at a successful result in Arkham than there were in LOTR LCG.

Locations cards create a sense of exploration in Arkham TCG.

Arkham makes some smaller improvements on its predecessor as well.  I really like how locations function in Arkham compared to LOTR.  While I want to give LOTR some credit and say that there were some interesting locations and innovative quests that help pave the way for Arkham, I love how Arkham uses the locations almost like a map in a board game where you can explore and gather clues.  Once you move to a location for the first time, you flip the card and see what the location is like and any effects it has on you.  While there is a formula to locations, I still enjoy the suspense of what does THIS location actually do and where do I need to go to advance in the scenario?  In LOTR, locations tended to have a different effect.  You usually asked yourself the following question: Does this location seem dangerous enough that I need to get it off the board or not?  If a location didn’t dramatically make your enemies stronger or raise the threat against you considerably, there was no reason not to just ignore it since you were always racing against time to finish a given quest.  This never felt as thematic or as satisfying as I wanted and I much prefer Arkham’s opportunities for exploration.

Image courtesy of hallofbeorn.com.

Another thematic improvement which is mostly due to the theme/subject matter of the two games is who can serve as allies.  The Arkham Horror world borrows some from H.P. Lovecraft but a lot of it is populated by Fantasy Flight Games’ own creations.  This works well in the card game because the Allies you call upon are often not significant characters in Lovecraft’s universe.  You may call upon allies to take damage for you and be knocked out or driven insane and honestly, that’s too bad for them!  It’s kind of inevitable in a Lovecraftian environment, in fact.  In LOTR, big name characters can be used as allies.  For example, Arwen can be an ally and then later removed from the game.  Thematically speaking, it’s hard to imagine this happening to her in any circumstances.  She faced down how many ringwraiths in the movies, for example?  It is hard to reconcile this with how she can die to a wide variety of orcs, wargs, foul men, and other minor threats.  This definitely causes some thematic disconnects when playing LOTR that I was glad to see were not an issue in Arkham.

A couple of other small improvements that I appreciated was how Arkham prevents the need to do lots of math each turn by only having simple skill checks where the value rarely gets above 10.  In LOTR LCG you have to add up the threat against you and all of the characters who are questing that turn.  While many turns it might be between 10 and 15, in later scenarios, you can easily get up to 30 or 40 and it takes a minute to add all that up.  Sure, it’s just basic math to add everything and then subtract it from each other, but if you are at all distracted while playing, it may take a try or two to get the final number which becomes annoying. 

While I alluded to this previously, I also really like the way deckbuilding is done in Arkham.  You build a deck upfront that should be versatile and will hopefully carry you through an eight-scenario campaign.  In each game, you will gain experience which you can use to either swap out a couple of cards or more likely, upgrade your deck to more powerful cards.  This helps give the game an RPG feel and is extremely satisfying.  Seeing your character grow over the course of a few games is a neat mechanic and it doesn’t cause you to have a bunch of extra rules to keep track of like in some board games where you’re constantly learning new skills.  As I mentioned previously, LOTR can often require deckbuilding in between each scenario to prepare yourself for the challenges of each one.  While I don’t mind deckbuilding too much, I didn’t enjoy having to tinker frequently to solve the puzzles that many scenarios present you with.  There is also no upgrade system or “growth” in the deck until you buy new cards from Fantasy Flight Games so you’re left with a system that isn’t quite as rewarding.  The main thrill in LOTR LCG is solving the puzzle and being able to move the narrative along too which is rewarding to be sure but I find the system in Arkham to be more fun and less frustrating.

As I said at the beginning, I enjoyed LOTR LCG overall and while I did get frustrated and eventually sell it, I appreciate the time I spent with it.  When I think back, I remember the thrill of buying new cards and beating a difficult scenario (finally!) but I also appreciate how Arkham improves upon LOTR LCG.  If you like solving puzzles and tweaking your deck often, LOTR might be the better game for you.  However, if you favor narrative, exploration, and an RPG-like leveling system, then I think you’ll really enjoy Arkham Horror: The Card Game.

26 thoughts on “Why I like Arkham Horror: The Card Game better than LOTR LCG”

    1. Uh oh, did a Gen X’er sneak in here? 😉 That’s what I would put you at anyway if I had to guess. Arkham Horror has a lot of different varieties so I’d say look into the various games and give it a try! They’re all pretty good and its mostly a matter of figuring out which one appeals to you the most.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  3. I never played the Lotr card game though I do have the core set, got it as a gift I think. It makes sense that game design would improve over time.
    😀
    People into these games should enjoy this post. I found it an entertaining read as well.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Thanks for giving it a go, Stew! LOTR LCG is a good game and some people really love it still. I think it depends heavily on how much you like to solve puzzles. If you ever find yourself with some free time, you’ll have to crack it open and tell us what you think!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. Its great fun, if you ever are in the mood for a board or card game. I wouldn’t be surprised if I write a bit more about Arkham in the coming months as I play it more too. Thanks as always for reading, John! 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  5. Didn’t realize how expensive these card games could get! Looking at LOTR LCG on Ebay, etc, I’m glad I’m just spending money on figures & paint (which adds up way too quickly)
    Thanks for the reviews, probably won’t invest in either one but enjoy reading thorough reviews of products that provide a balanced perspective.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. LOTR LCG would be expensive if you try to buy it all now. The game had regular releases for years so there is a ton of content out there for it. I also don’t know how “in print” it is since the game is old and all board game makers are having trouble with shipping from China too so that might explain the prices you saw a little bit. While its probably a good deal to buy all of the game that you can in a lot, it is meant to be collected slowly over time so that it is a more reasonable cost. It also isn’t like CCG’s where you buy anything blind so you know roughly how much it costs upfront which I like too.

      With that said, I don’t think I’d recommend LOTR LCG because MESBG has better theme and narrative to it, overall. You’re already in the right place and spending your money wisely, I’d say!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  6. I largely agree with your review. I absolutely LOVED the Lord of the Rings: The Living Card Game and did have a complete collection at one point (including all the Nightmare packs), but have sold it all for some of the reasons you mention, as well as another reason.

    The gameplay I think was great and generally so was the theme and uniqueness of most quests. What led me to sell it eventually was the fact that some cards were, like you mention, pretty much auto-includes in pretty much any deck you’d make. I didn’t mind that per se if the card was useful and helpful, but it does limit options and I never really enjoyed the time investment in making new decks from scratch. So what ended up happening was that I’d use pretty much the same deck against any quest and then tweak it slightly whenever I played a new quest and received new player cards. But that meant that 90% of my collection of player cards was pretty much left unused, taking up space and having been quite a financial investment.

    Because of the high difficulty I didn’t want to experiment with weaker decks because that would take even a lot more time and result in a lot more fails. So eventually it just kind of burned me out. I would spend a lot of money and time and then get my ass kicked multiple times for what felt like quite arbitrary reasons. As you mention, it’s a bit ridiculous how powerful some very generic enemies such as Orcs are in the game, especially when you’re playing as these famous heroes. I agree with your point that if they swapped the named heroes with FFG’s own creations, that aspect at least would be much better.

    I agree that they got the difficulty more right in Arkham, which makes it more fun. Campaign progression with XP to upgrade cards is also a much more satisfying system than just swapping any card you want, but all the cards (supposedly) being pretty much the same power level. There’s less of a sense of progression.

    All that said, the core gameplay is quite solid and FFG has announced a revised edition where they’ll add campaign boons and burdens (like from the Saga boxes) to the regular cycles. So I may just re-enter the game to try it out. But yeah I do enjoy Arkham more for the reasons you mention. If they used Arkham’s campaign and XP system, I think the LotR LCG would be a complete winner and I’d probably buy it again in an instant.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. I’m glad to hear that you had similar experiences but also a bit bummed because I think the game never fully reached its potential. They just didn’t balance the card pool very well and they didn’t make enough decks viable to keep the game interesting, especially as they increased the difficulty and made casual decks even harder to win with. Its a shame but I think they kind of lost sight of what made the game great as time went on.

      I didn’t realize that the revised edition would change the gameplay up. I’d like to see them redo the card pool more because the scenarios themselves are nice and the card artwork is generally top notch. If they can fix some or all of the problems that developed over the game’s life, I think they have a pretty strong card game in there.

      Of course, I don’t think either one of us is made out of money so I don’t necessarily mind that the game isn’t for me any longer. I don’t know if I can keep up with Arkham and LOTR LCG at once, even if I want to!

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  7. Couldn’t agree more Jeff.
    I’ve only played the digital version of LotR, and it disappointed me somewhat. I’d already played Arkham at that point so that could be part of the reason why.
    I didn’t like the deckbuilding or the story progression anywhere as near as much as I did with Arkham, and it was very much a case of play, lose, adjust deck, repeat.
    However, if they were to go back and use Arkham’s core mechanisms to re-do the game, then I’d be queueing up for it, as I love the LotR’s theme.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. If you like puzzles, LOTR might actually be more appealing but if I played Arkham first, I don’t think I could go back either. Its a shame that the theme was lost in LOTR because like you, that is what draws me in, much more than the gameplay itself. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and as my wife likes to say, “Great minds think alike!”.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I grew up on LOTR. The world fascinated me and started me towards games like D&D. I guess there’s a whole generation out there that did the same. Tolkien’s got a lot to answer for… all good, of course!
        ‘Great minds think alike’? Don’t let me drag you down to my level whatever you do!😉

        Liked by 1 person

  8. I’ll be honest, I still haven’t found time to play the LotR game that I picked up, (along with a few expansions) yet, but the thing really is I’ve never gotten into CCGs. even though (as a Gen-X’er) I was around and in the target geek market when M:TG came out, along with a pile of other games. A bit old for Poke’Mon or YuGiOh, though. 😉
    Still, I have to admit I don’t really “get” deck building, even though it’s included in games like Warhammer Underpants and Marvel Champions (in MC we’ve just used base decks rather than customise them).
    After reading this I just hope the LotR stuff I’ve got is early enough in the release cycle that filthy non-card-gamer-casuals like myself and Marouda can still understand, enjoy, play and win games!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You were the right age to buy and own the most valuable Magic cards and it sounds like you didn’t! By the time I got in, those cards were expensive for a kid to be able to buy and fairly rare.

      In regards to deck building, I tend to look for other people’s decks and then tweak them to my liking. I have built a few decks where I change the original deck idea quite a bit but usually I only swap out a couple of cards that don’t work for me as well as the person who built the deck. There’s no shame in that in my book and I think its fun. I will say that the appeal of deck building is that its something to think about outside of playing the game which is nice. If you do build your own deck and do well, you feel a sense of accomplishment too. Kind of like making a really good army in wargaming, I suppose. Its yours, you made it, and you were successful with it!

      With that said, I do hope that you and Marouda actually like LOTR LCG too. I actually played it with an ex-girlfriend and she didn’t like it all. I guess that is yet another reason why she is an ex 😉 The game isn’t overly complicated to learn or play, but the deck-building aspect is kind of frustrating because you will quickly find that you have to use the most powerful decks in the game to do well at some scenarios. Some people enjoy that challenge but I found it was too much and sapped the joy and theme from the game. When you do get around to playing it, I’d be curious to hear what you think of LOTR!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Yeah, I was around at the time but card games just never had any appeal to me really. I did pick up a set and boosters for some Marvel game as well as a coule starter sets of a Star Wars CCG, but only played the Marvel one once (never even played the SW one) and ended up giving them away a few years ago to Tarmor.
        While I understand the concept, I still don’t “get” deck building though. I understand that the more cards you add the less likely you are to draw any specific card, but then why wouldn’t you just avoid any cards that are sub-optimal and only add in the most powerful ones? And the MC game doesn’t seem to have any limit to the number of cards in a deck – at least that I could find…
        Then again, I don’t enjoy list building in minis games either. Once they turned heavily away from creating thematic armies in a simple/straightforward way and much more heavily towards min-maxing rule breakpoints, setting up synergistic combos using auras/combos/special rules and cards, it really put me off.
        Being realistic, it probably won’t be anytime soon for LotR. We’ve had a lot of MC expansions trickle in over the last year, and we pretty much end up needing to relearn the game every time we take an extended break from it!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. It sounds like you had some Overpower cards. I remember that game even if I didn’t play it. I think games like Overpower show the pitfalls of CCGs. The games are here today and gone tomorrow and they’re basically worthless if their player base abandons it sadly.

        Deckbuilding does require some practice and it isn’t for everyone. Fortunately, its easy to find decklists online for pretty much any game. I would recommend finding some content with tips on how to deckbuild for Marvel Champions and try to apply them to any decks you build. There’s a chance there that you might grow to enjoy it a bit more or maybe not! The good thing is that you don’t have to love it to enjoy LCG’s!

        Like

      3. That’s the one! It was Overpower. I ended up giving my cards to Tarmor a few years ago, from memory. We’ve got some time off for Christmas now, but a lot of lot of stuff to do (as always), and LotR isn’t anywhere on the agenda. I would like to get in a game or two of Marvel Champions at least as the releases for that thing keep on piling up!
        I understand in theory what you’ve written about Deck Building, but it just doesn’t gel or appeal to me at all. Then again, I’m not one for putting together “powerful” wargaming lists that min-max or take advantage of all the synergies anymore either, I actually find it off-putting about 40k these days as that game in particular has become so dense with way too many layers of special rules. I think it’s a combination of preferring to just play when I can, and play thematically, and the fact that I’m so bloody tired all the time, and would rather paint or play a videogame or watch something than make lists or read rules. Funny how we change over the years, eh?

        Liked by 1 person

      4. I hear you on not having enough time. I’ve started a campaign of Arkham Horror Card Game and can’t seem to find the time to actually finish it even with the fact that I’m having fun every time I play. I hope you’re able to get some gaming in over break. I’ll certainly be trying to myself!

        I can understand the fatigue on list building. You spend a lot of time thinking about various things as an adult and while I know some people enjoy thinking about the games they’re playing, some of us have less time and capacity to do so. There’s absolutely no shame with just finding a deck you like online and using it as is for that reason, I’d say. In fact, that might be what works best for you right now.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Yeah, I won’t mind looking into it for a simpler game like MC, especially if we get a lot more games in and/or start to have trouble on the higher difficulty levels. Just with SO many heroes yet to play (and you want to play them a few times to really get a feel for them and enjoy them) that’s lower on the list. My venting there was largely about 40k, which I’d like to play, but I just can’t be bothered with the amount of research needed to play more than a very basic game these days. I’ll probably try to have a play with One Page Rules or something similar…

        Liked by 1 person

      6. I didn’t address it enough probably but I have to say that what you described of 40k (and I have no doubt its true) does not sound appealing to me either, mate. I think having all those synergies and stuff sounds too complicated and quite frankly unfun if you’re playing on a casual level. I’m sure there are plenty out there that enjoy it, however.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. Yeah I was a lot more interested in mechanically complex games when I was younger but as I’ve gotten older I’ve found that often they just add complexity for complexities own sake. Not to mention many redundant “unique” rules that really just duplicate one another under different names. Wargames are all an abstraction at best anyway so adding layers upon layers just adds to the potential for unforseen abuse in 40k. I’d rather play than delve deep into how rules interact.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. Absolutely, mate! I second that and can only add that I don’t need some nerd explaining to me all these complicated rules that I wasn’t aware of/didn’t understand very well while they hand me a quick loss too 😀

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment