The Big Board-Gaming Catch-All

I think the main difference between LCG and card game with expansions is LCGs involve building your own decks ahead of playing the game, unlike a game like Dominion, San Juan, or any other typical card game.

Other than that, yes, it's basically applying the board game with expansion business model to CCG style gameplay.

MonoCheli wrote:

I finally got Power Grid to the table with a couple of great guests last night we had a great time. I had played it a couple times before but the guy teaching it was near the end of finishing his PHD in math something and he housed us all very soundly every time. I like how it punishes you for being in first and through out the game you are trying to not be the best player while not completely loosing either. I think it a very good game and hope to play it more. Sadly my wife has stated after seeing it played that she will never play it "It has too many numbers on the board and you have to plan ahead, so you'll win every time"

We played PG the other day after a long hiatus. Compared to a lot of newer games out tere, it's almost streamlined in comparison. Great game.

Gravey wrote:

So I don't know much about LOTR:TCG, because it's an LCG which was a little too close to CCG for my prejudices—though Dominion is practically an LCG at this point. But it's basically a card game with expansions, and calling it an "LCG" is just a made-up term to attract CCG players, isn't it? I am led to believe it's very good though, and IIRC Demyx and Shoptroll play it, yes? Well it was only $40, so in case I stand one little chance, here comes the jackpot question in advance: what are you doing New Year's Eve? Playing Lord of the Rings: The Card Game.

We really enjoy LOTR. The LCG aspect makes it less spendy than regular CCGs because you won't be chasing rares all the time since everyone gets the exact same cards. Also, each new pack has another scenario to play on top of the three you get with the base game.

Break time during our first game while Mrs. Gravey feeds the baby. Currently making no progress (literally) through the first stage of the beginner scenario. Verdict so far: "This is like one of your kinds of games."

"Well, we can't return it, so... press on? With no more shadow cards?"

So I'm definitely not going to tell her about the Kickstarter for Up Front.

First game of Lords of Waterdeep with the wife. We both picked it up quickly and worked through the system without much trouble, and it was surprisingly quick. Really enjoyed it.

Any little errata that we might have missed in our first play-through that makes a difference?

Gravey wrote:

I am led to believe it's very good though, and IIRC Demyx and Shoptroll play it, yes?

Sorry, but that wasn't us -- you might be thinking of us playing Netrunner, another Fantasy Flight LCG.

I'd like to give LotR: The Card Game a try at some point, though, it sounds neat!

Speaking of Netrunner, I feel like I'm getting the hang of it a little more and might be able to play it now without flipping the table. This is good since we picked up the first data pack and I'm actually interested in trying the new identities, etc. I like the game but the game sure doesn't like me!

EDIT: Also, I think I like the LCG format. It allows you to optionally refresh the game at regular intervals if you want, but doesn't require the huge spending and rare chasing of a CCG. I do agree that there isn't too much difference between an LCG and a game that gets regular expansions like Dominion, but I like Dominion's expansions as well.

Sat down to the first game of Castle Panic with my niece and my mom, who are bound to be the two most frustrating people to try and teach a game to. All in All I think we did pretty well for our first time, and my niece even pointed out a couple of good strategies I myself would have missed.

There were times we had to tell her "Angelina, of course you want to trade that card, otherwise it won't help us all win the game". If it weren't for having two monsters in our Castle Ring at one point (and the fact that we kept getting green cards but no one rolled in the green zone) we might have been victorious.

Of course, I didn't realize there were optional "Make the game easier for younger players!" rules as well. I'll probably use some of those as well.

I kind of want my own copy of the game now, too.

I thought LCGs suffered from the 'If you want to have a balanced set with more options, you need to buy multiple copies of the same thing'.

Daughter and I played the family rules of Flash Point last night. We both found it a little easy, though there were quite a few explosions, and we were down to about 5 black cubes, err, I mean damage tokens We will definitely play again, but move right on to the more advanced rules.

1Dgaf wrote:

I thought LCGs suffered from the 'If you want to have a balanced set with more options, you need to buy multiple copies of the same thing'.

I imagine that it depends on the game, but for the GOT LCG, this is definitely true. Frankly, I think that sometimes the LCGs can go to far in the amount of content that they put up for sale. I like the concept but would appreciate it to be toned down, at least for GOT.

Dysplastic wrote:
1Dgaf wrote:

I thought LCGs suffered from the 'If you want to have a balanced set with more options, you need to buy multiple copies of the same thing'.

I imagine that it depends on the game, but for the GOT LCG, this is definitely true. Frankly, I think that sometimes the LCGs can go to far in the amount of content that they put up for sale. I like the concept but would appreciate it to be toned down, at least for GOT.

Definitely true for LOTR as well. While there is no rare chasing, there are still strong cards that you only get 1 copy of per set. So if you want to put multiple copies in your deck, you need to buy multiple sets.

Some say you can't deck build at all in LOTR without multiple base sets. While not true, it definitely is a game changer.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Dysplastic wrote:
1Dgaf wrote:

I thought LCGs suffered from the 'If you want to have a balanced set with more options, you need to buy multiple copies of the same thing'.

I imagine that it depends on the game, but for the GOT LCG, this is definitely true. Frankly, I think that sometimes the LCGs can go to far in the amount of content that they put up for sale. I like the concept but would appreciate it to be toned down, at least for GOT.

Definitely true for LOTR as well. While there is no rare chasing, there are still strong cards that you only get 1 copy of per set. So if you want to put multiple copies in your deck, you need to buy multiple sets.

Some say you can't deck build at all in LOTR without multiple base sets. While not true, it definitely is a game changer.

Not in the expansions though. They have three copies of every card per pack. I know some people buy multiple copies of the core set, but we haven't seen a need. (Also, since LOTR is a co-op game, there's no need to "stay competitive" which usually fuels purchases of CCGs)

edosan wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Dysplastic wrote:
1Dgaf wrote:

I thought LCGs suffered from the 'If you want to have a balanced set with more options, you need to buy multiple copies of the same thing'.

I imagine that it depends on the game, but for the GOT LCG, this is definitely true. Frankly, I think that sometimes the LCGs can go to far in the amount of content that they put up for sale. I like the concept but would appreciate it to be toned down, at least for GOT.

Definitely true for LOTR as well. While there is no rare chasing, there are still strong cards that you only get 1 copy of per set. So if you want to put multiple copies in your deck, you need to buy multiple sets.

Some say you can't deck build at all in LOTR without multiple base sets. While not true, it definitely is a game changer.

Not in the expansions though. They have three copies of every card per pack. I know some people buy multiple copies of the core set, but we haven't seen a need. (Also, since LOTR is a co-op game, there's no need to "stay competitive" which usually fuels purchases of CCGs)

Ah good to know. I gave up on the game with just the base set, wasn't sure how the expansions worked.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Definitely true for LOTR as well. While there is no rare chasing, there are still strong cards that you only get 1 copy of per set. So if you want to put multiple copies in your deck, you need to buy multiple sets.

Some say you can't deck build at all in LOTR without multiple base sets. While not true, it definitely is a game changer.

Same goes for Android: Netrunner, although the data packs have 3x copies of every card. I haven't seen a need to get extra base sets though. I think most of the rares are either "unique" cards (1 copy in play at a time) or "Console" (1 copy per deck) cards.

To be honest, I'm not sure why they just don't do a low-volume "deckbuilder kit" for each base set which has 1 or 2 copies of the uncommons/rares so you don't have to buy extra base sets.

shoptroll wrote:

To be honest, I'm not sure why they just don't do a low-volume "deckbuilder kit" for each base set which has 1 or 2 copies of the uncommons/rares so you don't have to buy extra base sets.

I think you just answered your own question.

And all this is why I've kept away from LCGs.

How reasonable is it to think I can teach and play Battlelore with my 11 year old daughter who has very little strategy gaming experience? She seems keen, and lord knows I can't get anyone else to play.

My wife has enjoyed Penny Arcade The Game: Gamers vs. Evil. However, we have only played it on the iPad. I've also recently played Legendary: A Marvel Deck Building Game. It is cooperative, and a lot easier to grok than LoTR LCG.

We also recently played a game of Libertalia. She enjoyed it, but I'd like to get in a few more plays.

Gravey wrote:

Now I was trawling BGG Geeklists for low-to-mid complexity two-player games, preferably card, preferably thematic, that can be played in about half an hour. Games like Lost Cities, Stone Age, and Race for the Galaxy keep popping up, plus games we already own (Carc, Citadels, Dominion, Pandemic).

Race for the Galaxy is probably my favorite in this category. It has a somewhat steep learning curve due to the icons on the cards, but I found that once I learned it, it's not very difficult to play.

Lords of Waterdeep also comes to mind.

Demyx wrote:
Gravey wrote:

Now I was trawling BGG Geeklists for low-to-mid complexity two-player games, preferably card, preferably thematic, that can be played in about half an hour. Games like Lost Cities, Stone Age, and Race for the Galaxy keep popping up, plus games we already own (Carc, Citadels, Dominion, Pandemic).

Race for the Galaxy is probably my favorite in this category. It has a somewhat steep learning curve due to the icons on the cards, but I found that once I learned it, it's not very difficult to play.

Lords of Waterdeep also comes to mind.

Eminent Domain is quite nice, IMO. The wife likes it, too. It's not Race of the Galaxy, as it appears at first glance. And another vote for Stone Age; always a big hit around here.

7 Wonders come up in any of your discussions?

Other popular ones around the Minarchist house lately (all involving cards, but not necessarily "card-based"): Tobago, King of Tokyo, Dixit (not 2p, sorry). Seasons looks cool too but I just got it yesterday so I can't tell you how it plays yet.

The LOTR:TCG core set is a little anemic. So my LCG prejudices were confirmed in that LCGs straddle the line between board games + expansions, and CCGs. Not as bad as the latter (e.g. no random boosters) but not as good value as the former: you're still encouraged to keep buying, as a core set doesn't feel like a complete game, like something like Dominion.

In any case, LOTR isn't what we're looking for. I can see how it would play fast once you have all the phases down, but it's otherwise a little too complex and brain-burning than what we're looking for. We didn't even finish the first stage of the scenario—we weren't making any progress, and two of my heroes died.

So: one used copy of LOTR:TCG for sale, punched and only played once.

Now I was trawling BGG Geeklists for low-to-mid complexity two-player games, preferably card, preferably thematic, that can be played in about half an hour. Games like Lost Cities, Stone Age, and Race for the Galaxy keep popping up, plus games we already own (7 Wonders, Carc, Citadels, Dominion, Pandemic).

Mrs. Gravey wants it to be clear that she's not a "wife" gamer. It's just that right now we happen to be looking for a "wife" game, i.e. a card game we both can play in the evening, in the couple hours after the baby is down and we've eaten and cleaned up, and before our brains shut down.

Any other suggestions (while BGG is down)?

Race can be very quick, but it 'suffers' from a lack of player interaction ( base game,mwhich i own).

People complain about the icons, but I like them and liked learning them.

7 Wonders is good for large groups, but I dont think it would be much fun with two people.

Aristophan wrote:

My wife has enjoyed Penny Arcade The Game: Gamers vs. Evil. However, we have only played it on the iPad. I've also recently played Legendary: A Marvel Deck Building Game. It is cooperative, and a lot easier to grok than LoTR LCG.

We also recently played a game of Libertalia. She enjoyed it, but I'd like to get in a few more plays.

Minarchist wrote:
Demyx wrote:
Gravey wrote:

Now I was trawling BGG Geeklists for low-to-mid complexity two-player games, preferably card, preferably thematic, that can be played in about half an hour. Games like Lost Cities, Stone Age, and Race for the Galaxy keep popping up, plus games we already own (7 Wonders, Carc, Citadels, Dominion, Pandemic).

Race for the Galaxy is probably my favorite in this category. It has a somewhat steep learning curve due to the icons on the cards, but I found that once I learned it, it's not very difficult to play.

Eminent Domain is quite nice, IMO. The wife likes it, too. It's not Race of the Galaxy, as it appears at first glance. And another vote for Stone Age; always a big hit around here.

7 Wonders come up in any of your discussions?

Other popular ones around the Minarchist house lately (all involving cards, but not necessarily "card-based"): Tobago, King of Tokyo, Dixit (not 2p, sorry). Seasons looks cool too but I just got it yesterday so I can't tell you how it plays yet.

Of course 7 Wonders came up! The only "problem" with that for two-player is that, like Dungeon Petz, it requires a dummy player, which is just added hassle. 7W sees a lot of play with us otherwise.

Race for the Galaxy is a game that I've wanted to try for ages—Eminent Domain too.

I would have bought Libertalia yesterday (we don't own a pirate game!) instead, but they were sold out. It's at least one of the FLGS' "guaranteed fun" games (don't like it, return for a full refund).

I think Legendary is out. Mrs. Gravey would just try to build a deck of only Rogues.

Thanks for the suggestions!

Gravey wrote:

Now I was trawling BGG Geeklists for low-to-mid complexity two-player games, preferably card, preferably thematic, that can be played in about half an hour. Games like Lost Cities, Stone Age, and Race for the Galaxy keep popping up, plus games we already own (7 Wonders, Carc, Citadels, Dominion, Pandemic).

Mrs. Gravey wants it to be clear that she's not a "wife" gamer. It's just that right now we happen to be looking for a "wife" game, i.e. a card game we both can play in the evening, in the couple hours after the baby is down and we've eaten and cleaned up, and before our brains shut down.

Any other suggestions (while BGG is down)?

Got Forbidden Island for the wife this Christmas and we love it so far. Simple, quick, and left a much better first impression than Pandemic for some reason. Might be up your alley if you're interested in the co-op angle.

We also got a game of Ora et Labora in this afternoon, and man am I hitting myself for not having played it for the past couple of months. Such a clever and satisfying base game that ends up being quite relaxing from a competition perspective with only 2 players. Don't think anyone would call it light though.

My daughter and I enjoyed Smash Up. You can play more than 2, but it works fine with 2 players. You have 8 factions and you start the game by picking 2 of them ( we did it randomly ). You then shuffle the two factions together and attempt to smash bases. When a base is smashed, it is scored. There are usually 3 scores to gain, the person with the most points at a base will get the first place value, the next the second place value, and if playing with more than 2, the third gets the third place value. The different cards have different abilities, as does some of the bases. It is a complete game, no more cards to buy ( until the first expansion sometime later this year ).

I'd be a bit wary about Forbidden Island depending on how often you'll play it. I've had it for a while; I bought it as a gateway game. It's decent enough and there are some nice discussions to be had about plans, but I've never quite felt it had enough meat to entertain me in the long run.

If you're willing to buy it as an addition to the shelf, something to bring out when non-gamers come round, then I think it could be worth it. But for something to sustain you after repeated plays? I'm not sure it's quite right.

Browed a hojillion two-player/card game Geeklists (like the most appropriate She's Asleep! - Games for time poor couples with infant(s)) and came up with this short list of ten light quick two-player card(-ish) games:

Balloon Cup
Battle Line
Biblios
Eminent Domain
En Garde
Jaipur
Jambo
Lost Cities
San Juan
Scarab Lords/Minotaur Lords

Some didn't make the cut cos of theme (me interested, wife probably not: Cold War: CIA vs KGB, Manoeuvre), table space (Camelot Legends), complexity (Glory to Rome, Race for the Galaxy), or not actually being card games (Agricola, Stone Age, Thurn & Taxis).

San Juan and Lost Cities showed up on almost every list, so they should be the front runners. Additional good news there is that San Juan can lead to Race for the Galaxy and Glory to Rome—not that I know much about any of things other than that some of them look much more appealing to me than others (Eminent Domain and En Garde for sure).

In any case, next step is submitting them to the wife for her consideration, and in the meantime of course soliciting comments from you fine folks.

If you're interested in En Garde, look at the two Flash Duel games instead. more interesting version designed by a videogame designer.

1Dgaf wrote:

I'd be a bit wary about Forbidden Island depending on how often you'll play it. I've had it for a while; I bought it as a gateway game. It's decent enough and there are some nice discussions to be had about plans, but I've never quite felt it had enough meat to entertain me in the long run.

I would highly recommend looking in to the pnp fan expansion from BGG they add a bunch of roles as well as different island layouts that add a bunch more replayability to the game.

Artscow link

My wife and I have enjoyed the added roles and different map layouts quite a bit and they make the game have some nice legs and add difficulty after you get better at the game.

1Dgaf wrote:

If you're interested in En Garde, look at the two Flash Duel games instead. more interesting version designed by a videogame designer.

+1!

We also find ourselves playing a bunch of Ascension because it is quick to setup and plays quickly too.

El-Producto wrote:

How reasonable is it to think I can teach and play Battlelore with my 11 year old daughter who has very little strategy gaming experience? She seems keen, and lord knows I can't get anyone else to play.

I wouldn't think that it would be out of the question. I'm not familiar with Battlelore specifically, but Memoir '44 and Battle Cry are pretty straight forward. I would think you could simplify things to make it easier. Remove cards that might cause confusion, that sort of thing.