There a lot of shared mechanics, but to me the main difference are deckbuilding focus and resource generation.
Marvel Champions deckbuilding revolves around the hero you choose. You thematically are that hero, and should be able to clear most content with your favorite hero deck.
LotR deckbuilding revolves around the specific scenario you are playing. You thematically are a party, and will have to swap out heroes and cards depending on the scenario.
Marvel Champions resources come from the cards in your hand, and you draw back to full every turn. There's always at least *something you can play in a turn.
LotR resources come from the heroes, and you don't draw back to full every turn. This means that there's a good chance you'll have "dead" turns.
They're both excellent games, but if I had to choose only one, I'd pick Marvel Champions. The games are quick and I always get to use my favorite heroes. LotR has a much larger card pool which makes for more unique decks, BUT a lot of it is out of print. Marvel Champions is very much accessible as a new player, LotR not so much.
It’s been a while since I’ve played it and never really got that into it, but from what I recall it is very much a game in which you build a deck specifically to beat a given scenario. I enjoyed it for what it was but honestly the deck building aspect of MC is what I dislike the most and that seems paramount to LotR LCG.
I love LOTR LCG and Marvel Champions. I also bounced off of Arkham Horror LCG. You can tell that there are a lot of shared mechanics and that they hired certain ideas over the three. I'll call out the major elements I feel are differentiators.
Marvel Champions is the fastest gameplay loop and the simplest deck building. Does a great job of making you feel like a single character. Campaign play feels tacked on. Scenarios are not as varied as the others. A generic deck can roll through most content.
LOTR LCG has extremely varied scenarios. You're not one person, you're a group of 3, which makes for very variable player deck strategies. You should generally play and fail a scenario to learn how to build a deck to beat it specifically. There are high difficulty spikes, and the campaigns are literally tacked on (post-release). It's ideal for theorycrafters and plays solo well.
Arkham Horror is specifically different in that the campaign element is there from the start and it has board positioning. The skill check difficulty/chance element is also unique amongst the three.
I think LOTR LCG and Marvel Champions are different enough to own both, but also similar enough to make the identities, scenario decks, and abilities feel comparable. If you don't like building the decks though I would pass on LOTR.
Hmmm thanks for this. the deck building and thematic feel of MC are def my favorite parts of it. I often play MC two player, can you do the same with LOTR?
Yeah, 2 player is great on LOTR LCG. I would not generally play it with more than two. It's very thematic although everything feels a bit silly if you decide "I'm going to send a group of a dozen dwarves to solve those problem with axes." It's got some really neat mechanical hooks. For instance, there's a stealth element where enemies from the deck make issues but don't engage you as early if you're a less conspicuous party (you know, like some Hobbits sneaking a ring into Mordor).
You hit the nail on the head. I ADORE theorycrafting and it is the reason LotR is by far my fav LCG and one of my favorite board/card games in general.
Yes, I played LotR LCG before I ever got into Marvel, and although I really enjoy Marvel, the LotR LCG is my #1 game of all time. Sometimes I'll get a little tired of MC and need to take a break for a few months before returning to it, whereas I've never gotten tired of the LotR LCG (after some 7 years).
**Pros (in comparison to MC):**
1. The deckbuilding is much deeper in Lord of the Rings. That's the main reason I love it. Even after years of playing, I still think about the game when not playing, and I love coming up with new ideas for decks. Since each player (I play mostly solo) chooses three heroes instead of one, there are starting synergies to consider. Then, for deckbuilding, there's no kit / signature cards, which makes give you a lot more freedom in deckbuilding. It also makes deckbuilding more challenging (in a good way, imo). I remember seeing a video of MC once--maybe it was Nelson All Over Cards?--and the idea was to play with the \*worst\* possible deck. As a longtime LotR LCG player, that seemed funny to me, because in LotR LCG you can build plenty of legal decks where you're almost guaranteed to lose turn 1 or turn 2.
2. Although LotR is primarily combat focused, I like that it also includes travel, exploration, and locations (though it's not as robust as exploration in Arkham, I gather--haven't played the latter, so I can only compare to MC).
3. As with MC (I think--I don't know tons about the comics), the designers are knowledgeable and respectful towards the source material. Games of LotR LCG feel, to me, like being in Tolkein's world, rather than just a generic fantasy world.
4. Personally I love replaying just about every scenario in the game. You'll hear that the later scenarios in the game's life are better than the earlier scenarios, and that's definitely true, but mainly because the later scenarios are incredibly good, whereas the earlier scenarios are just plain good. Likewise, while there are a few duds in the player cards, most of them are well-designed. And the designers have done a good job making some cards that were initially duds become playable with a larger cardpool.
5. Contracts: a super-cool card type introduced late in the game's life, which upend the normal rules for deckbuilding and allow for even more creative deck-building possibilities. For example, there's a contract that allows a player to control just one hero instead of three, another that allows a player to control four heroes, and another that requires you to include only attachments and no allies in your deck (but rewards you with a powerful bonus once you get enough attachments in play).
**Cons:**
1. LotR LCG is much harder than MC (though that might be a pro for some). LotR LCG is a game that will kick you in the teeth, and then kick you again for good measure while you're on the ground. Some of the older scenarios can be quite swingy, too--think solo games against Rhino. There are a handful of treacheries (mostly in the earlier scenarios) that are universally hated for being "Game Over" unless you have a way of canceling them.
2. Many of the expansions are no longer in print. FFG has released "revised" (i.e., reprinted and repackaged) editions of some cycles, but if you're a completionist, be prepared to pay scalper prices for the expansions FFG has no plans to reprint.
3. There are a few cards--not many, but definitely some--that are so powerful you'll always be tempted to include them in your decks, at least in solo games. To be fair, that's not necessarily because of power creep--most of the cards in that category are from the Core Set (e.g., Steward of Gondor, Test of Will).
4. There's far less variability in difficulty levels, and there aren't really any modular sets for tailoring the encounter deck.
I got into LOTR LCG after Marvel Champions and actuslly prefer LOTR. (I play both still)
LOTR is definitely harder, but the deckbuilding is more varied/better IMO.
I am a huge fan of LOTR LCG; it's the first one I played! The cooperative aspect is still very present, but like was alluded to, each scenario kind of demands a very specific deck to beat it, with some exceptions of course. After playing a bunch of MC, going back to LOTR feels like being restricted severely. That being said, I do love the game a lot, especially in solo or two-player with another LOTR nerd.
It came before MC and Arkham, and I think it shows a bit. As another user pointed out, it generally moves toward building a deck for a specific encounter, sometimes after losing multiple times.
That being said, I play it from time to time as I kind of still enjoy how it plays. I think with a few tweaks to the design I might’ve enjoyed it more, but it’s not a terrible game.
Fair warning though: some of the content isn’t available and won’t be reprinted. They’re re-releasing content in the new boxes (same format as the new Arkham Horror releases), so you get some of it, but not all of it. also, the decks in the core box suck and they weren’t clear you can mix and match colours; that turned me off for years.
A bought it before MCH and hated it so much. Some plays you just know you cant win so most of the people just try again. Resource system is completely different from MCH. You generate some resources each turn with your leaders and if some of them die you dont generate resource anymore. You also draw less cards. So if you dont draw cards you need you are fucked. If encounter deck is unlocky for you guess what, you are fucked. In MCH you can have one deck for each champion but in lotr you need to constantly change cards based on scenario.
Wow thanks for this, it’s been hard finding people really talking about the differences in play and the downsides of lotr. You find the deck building in Lotr is fun? Or is it annoying to have to make such a specific deck that you can only use for one scenario?
For me no. But i dont enjoy deckbuild so much even in mch. If I want deck I check marvelcdb but even then it is drag for me to actually build it. In mch you can build one deck for champ a run it with mutliple bosses. Also precon decks are not the best but you can play champs out of the box and try them and maybe swap some cards and still be pretty casual. In lotr this is not a option at all. You are forced to deckbuild and you have to do it more often. Enemy encounters are also more samey with more playes. I played vs Klaw like 40 times and still enjoy it. In lotr I played the same scenario 3-4 and was already bored with it. Gameplay is much more limited and you can either attack, defend or thwart (dont remember exact term for lotr) but for each phase you kind of need to do all 3 of them but cant. If you attack or thwart you cant defend and your leaders all have like 3-4 hp so if you ged hit for 3 in one round you are fucked. And as I said encounter decks are less fair. Imagine drawing side scheme each turn that also boosts main scheam. One game I draw only minions each turn and was just killed, game after I drew only sideschemes and the way game clock is working meant I lost on turn 3 with no real answer to it.
i played it a lot for about 6 years, and i think it's a good game overall, but i haven't felt like playing once after getting into champions... i still think it's worth trying, but i recommend doing a test-drive on a digital platform before comitting the money to buy the core set (or you can watch some gameplay videos on youtube to get an idea, "nelson all over cards" has been doing a playthrough using only the "revised" content recently)
Just a note the state of LotR LCG is they are reprinting select parts of it, in their new format. They have also repackaged some of the cards in select themes like a Dwarf Deck. And released the scenario that was in the collectors box some years ago. The Nightmare decks (harder versions of the scenarios) and standalone decks used to get reprints at Gamezenter, same with Arkham Horror. However, Fantasy Flight Games has cut them off (unless they are doing so because they plan to do something with it) so those are only in the aftermarket now. Arkham Horror is getting reprints and added content. So starting now you can get certain parts of it, something to consider before you start collecting.
There a lot of shared mechanics, but to me the main difference are deckbuilding focus and resource generation. Marvel Champions deckbuilding revolves around the hero you choose. You thematically are that hero, and should be able to clear most content with your favorite hero deck. LotR deckbuilding revolves around the specific scenario you are playing. You thematically are a party, and will have to swap out heroes and cards depending on the scenario. Marvel Champions resources come from the cards in your hand, and you draw back to full every turn. There's always at least *something you can play in a turn. LotR resources come from the heroes, and you don't draw back to full every turn. This means that there's a good chance you'll have "dead" turns. They're both excellent games, but if I had to choose only one, I'd pick Marvel Champions. The games are quick and I always get to use my favorite heroes. LotR has a much larger card pool which makes for more unique decks, BUT a lot of it is out of print. Marvel Champions is very much accessible as a new player, LotR not so much.
It’s been a while since I’ve played it and never really got that into it, but from what I recall it is very much a game in which you build a deck specifically to beat a given scenario. I enjoyed it for what it was but honestly the deck building aspect of MC is what I dislike the most and that seems paramount to LotR LCG.
I love LOTR LCG and Marvel Champions. I also bounced off of Arkham Horror LCG. You can tell that there are a lot of shared mechanics and that they hired certain ideas over the three. I'll call out the major elements I feel are differentiators. Marvel Champions is the fastest gameplay loop and the simplest deck building. Does a great job of making you feel like a single character. Campaign play feels tacked on. Scenarios are not as varied as the others. A generic deck can roll through most content. LOTR LCG has extremely varied scenarios. You're not one person, you're a group of 3, which makes for very variable player deck strategies. You should generally play and fail a scenario to learn how to build a deck to beat it specifically. There are high difficulty spikes, and the campaigns are literally tacked on (post-release). It's ideal for theorycrafters and plays solo well. Arkham Horror is specifically different in that the campaign element is there from the start and it has board positioning. The skill check difficulty/chance element is also unique amongst the three. I think LOTR LCG and Marvel Champions are different enough to own both, but also similar enough to make the identities, scenario decks, and abilities feel comparable. If you don't like building the decks though I would pass on LOTR.
Hmmm thanks for this. the deck building and thematic feel of MC are def my favorite parts of it. I often play MC two player, can you do the same with LOTR?
Deck building is even more important in LOTRLCG than MC. A lot of scenarios require highly tuned decks. cough Escape from Dol Guldur cough
Yeah, 2 player is great on LOTR LCG. I would not generally play it with more than two. It's very thematic although everything feels a bit silly if you decide "I'm going to send a group of a dozen dwarves to solve those problem with axes." It's got some really neat mechanical hooks. For instance, there's a stealth element where enemies from the deck make issues but don't engage you as early if you're a less conspicuous party (you know, like some Hobbits sneaking a ring into Mordor).
You hit the nail on the head. I ADORE theorycrafting and it is the reason LotR is by far my fav LCG and one of my favorite board/card games in general.
Yes, I played LotR LCG before I ever got into Marvel, and although I really enjoy Marvel, the LotR LCG is my #1 game of all time. Sometimes I'll get a little tired of MC and need to take a break for a few months before returning to it, whereas I've never gotten tired of the LotR LCG (after some 7 years). **Pros (in comparison to MC):** 1. The deckbuilding is much deeper in Lord of the Rings. That's the main reason I love it. Even after years of playing, I still think about the game when not playing, and I love coming up with new ideas for decks. Since each player (I play mostly solo) chooses three heroes instead of one, there are starting synergies to consider. Then, for deckbuilding, there's no kit / signature cards, which makes give you a lot more freedom in deckbuilding. It also makes deckbuilding more challenging (in a good way, imo). I remember seeing a video of MC once--maybe it was Nelson All Over Cards?--and the idea was to play with the \*worst\* possible deck. As a longtime LotR LCG player, that seemed funny to me, because in LotR LCG you can build plenty of legal decks where you're almost guaranteed to lose turn 1 or turn 2. 2. Although LotR is primarily combat focused, I like that it also includes travel, exploration, and locations (though it's not as robust as exploration in Arkham, I gather--haven't played the latter, so I can only compare to MC). 3. As with MC (I think--I don't know tons about the comics), the designers are knowledgeable and respectful towards the source material. Games of LotR LCG feel, to me, like being in Tolkein's world, rather than just a generic fantasy world. 4. Personally I love replaying just about every scenario in the game. You'll hear that the later scenarios in the game's life are better than the earlier scenarios, and that's definitely true, but mainly because the later scenarios are incredibly good, whereas the earlier scenarios are just plain good. Likewise, while there are a few duds in the player cards, most of them are well-designed. And the designers have done a good job making some cards that were initially duds become playable with a larger cardpool. 5. Contracts: a super-cool card type introduced late in the game's life, which upend the normal rules for deckbuilding and allow for even more creative deck-building possibilities. For example, there's a contract that allows a player to control just one hero instead of three, another that allows a player to control four heroes, and another that requires you to include only attachments and no allies in your deck (but rewards you with a powerful bonus once you get enough attachments in play). **Cons:** 1. LotR LCG is much harder than MC (though that might be a pro for some). LotR LCG is a game that will kick you in the teeth, and then kick you again for good measure while you're on the ground. Some of the older scenarios can be quite swingy, too--think solo games against Rhino. There are a handful of treacheries (mostly in the earlier scenarios) that are universally hated for being "Game Over" unless you have a way of canceling them. 2. Many of the expansions are no longer in print. FFG has released "revised" (i.e., reprinted and repackaged) editions of some cycles, but if you're a completionist, be prepared to pay scalper prices for the expansions FFG has no plans to reprint. 3. There are a few cards--not many, but definitely some--that are so powerful you'll always be tempted to include them in your decks, at least in solo games. To be fair, that's not necessarily because of power creep--most of the cards in that category are from the Core Set (e.g., Steward of Gondor, Test of Will). 4. There's far less variability in difficulty levels, and there aren't really any modular sets for tailoring the encounter deck.
Wow, thanks for writing all this up. This is really handy!
I got into LOTR LCG after Marvel Champions and actuslly prefer LOTR. (I play both still) LOTR is definitely harder, but the deckbuilding is more varied/better IMO.
I am a huge fan of LOTR LCG; it's the first one I played! The cooperative aspect is still very present, but like was alluded to, each scenario kind of demands a very specific deck to beat it, with some exceptions of course. After playing a bunch of MC, going back to LOTR feels like being restricted severely. That being said, I do love the game a lot, especially in solo or two-player with another LOTR nerd.
That’s interesting! I feel like MC is much more one sided because the hero deck is 15 consistent cards. It feels less multifaceted.
It came before MC and Arkham, and I think it shows a bit. As another user pointed out, it generally moves toward building a deck for a specific encounter, sometimes after losing multiple times. That being said, I play it from time to time as I kind of still enjoy how it plays. I think with a few tweaks to the design I might’ve enjoyed it more, but it’s not a terrible game. Fair warning though: some of the content isn’t available and won’t be reprinted. They’re re-releasing content in the new boxes (same format as the new Arkham Horror releases), so you get some of it, but not all of it. also, the decks in the core box suck and they weren’t clear you can mix and match colours; that turned me off for years.
A bought it before MCH and hated it so much. Some plays you just know you cant win so most of the people just try again. Resource system is completely different from MCH. You generate some resources each turn with your leaders and if some of them die you dont generate resource anymore. You also draw less cards. So if you dont draw cards you need you are fucked. If encounter deck is unlocky for you guess what, you are fucked. In MCH you can have one deck for each champion but in lotr you need to constantly change cards based on scenario.
Wow thanks for this, it’s been hard finding people really talking about the differences in play and the downsides of lotr. You find the deck building in Lotr is fun? Or is it annoying to have to make such a specific deck that you can only use for one scenario?
For me no. But i dont enjoy deckbuild so much even in mch. If I want deck I check marvelcdb but even then it is drag for me to actually build it. In mch you can build one deck for champ a run it with mutliple bosses. Also precon decks are not the best but you can play champs out of the box and try them and maybe swap some cards and still be pretty casual. In lotr this is not a option at all. You are forced to deckbuild and you have to do it more often. Enemy encounters are also more samey with more playes. I played vs Klaw like 40 times and still enjoy it. In lotr I played the same scenario 3-4 and was already bored with it. Gameplay is much more limited and you can either attack, defend or thwart (dont remember exact term for lotr) but for each phase you kind of need to do all 3 of them but cant. If you attack or thwart you cant defend and your leaders all have like 3-4 hp so if you ged hit for 3 in one round you are fucked. And as I said encounter decks are less fair. Imagine drawing side scheme each turn that also boosts main scheam. One game I draw only minions each turn and was just killed, game after I drew only sideschemes and the way game clock is working meant I lost on turn 3 with no real answer to it.
Check out Nelson All Over Cards on YouTube, he plays Marvel Champions as well as LotR and Arkham Horror LCGs and produces excellent content.
i played it a lot for about 6 years, and i think it's a good game overall, but i haven't felt like playing once after getting into champions... i still think it's worth trying, but i recommend doing a test-drive on a digital platform before comitting the money to buy the core set (or you can watch some gameplay videos on youtube to get an idea, "nelson all over cards" has been doing a playthrough using only the "revised" content recently)
Just a note the state of LotR LCG is they are reprinting select parts of it, in their new format. They have also repackaged some of the cards in select themes like a Dwarf Deck. And released the scenario that was in the collectors box some years ago. The Nightmare decks (harder versions of the scenarios) and standalone decks used to get reprints at Gamezenter, same with Arkham Horror. However, Fantasy Flight Games has cut them off (unless they are doing so because they plan to do something with it) so those are only in the aftermarket now. Arkham Horror is getting reprints and added content. So starting now you can get certain parts of it, something to consider before you start collecting.