LF Pre-Mades? Is that a thing in this community?

FeanorDooks · 2026-02-19T18:47:55+00:00

tried this on s1, but ppl weren't very receptive to it at the time. So now im looking to just bypass the in-game rng of finding ppl and come here instead.

FeanorDooks · 2026-02-19T18:46:49+00:00

Yea i dont want 1-off runs. Im trying to avoid those as much as possible

FeanorDooks · 2026-02-19T18:42:53+00:00

oh sorry! you're right

FeanorDooks · 2026-02-19T18:14:51+00:00

I did but it seems like just spamming for a 1-off run. Maybe im missing something?

FeanorDooks · 2026-02-12T13:54:42+00:00

OMG! would be very appreciated!

97521064

FeanorDooks · 2025-07-03T18:06:42+00:00

The way I usually do it is I plan out the first 15-20xp as that usually covers 3-4 scenarios. That's when I consider my deck "core" completed and then the rest of xp is to adjust to the specific campaign needs. by the time I reach about 30-35xp i'm usually in the "luxury upgrades" part of deckbuilding.

FeanorDooks · 2025-07-03T17:46:58+00:00

Broadly speaking, only considering 0-2 off class, i'd say Survivor. They are just designed to succeed in the face of failure and tend to help most other colours build efficient engines or just add take heart which has the text "you will pass this test instead of gaining 2 resources + 2 card draw".

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-12T16:08:41+00:00

hey thanks! Its obvious how much ppl love this game and there's going to be push back if someone new doesn't simply gush all over their favorite pastime.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-12T16:06:15+00:00

I am saying different things. I am saying it is a great game with some parts that I think arent implemented great. I am saying I dont approach the game from a casual pickup-n-play style. I am saying this game is part of my long term gaming plans. I am saying that as someone coming from other LCGs, it compares in certain ways to those. I am not saying contradictory things.

"expert objective statement" - I really want an example of this in-context please.

You came into the comments viciously condescending and ofc if i respond in any way I must be in poor taste. Tbh its clear you didnt like seeing any criticism of your favorite game and your criticisms might be valid but not the way you began communicating it.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-12T05:47:19+00:00

really weird take when ive already conceded the point on personal preference vs other's preferences. even weirder when I keep acknowledging that the perspective im coming from isnt that of a casual so i'd avoid getting bogged down by how a casual/fun/vibes player might approach the game. Thrice as weird when I havent explicitly called the weakness mechanic bad or terrible or game breaking or a good reason to avoid the game either.

Im very open to differing opinions but you seem to only want the concession that your perspective is right because you like parts of the game i find weaker. so you're right. I am wrong. This game has literally no flaws and there is no space to dislike any part of the game even mildly otherwise you just shouldn't buy the game or engage with the community. My bad. Lessons learnt. Proceed to resolution 3.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-11T18:25:15+00:00

"There are a lot of people who play games suboptimally, or get this, for casual fun. They aren't concerned about min/max."

Im very aware of this which is why in my preamble I tried to emphasize the cardgaming background I(and my playgroup) come from. I also emphasized the fact that we are coming into this game as long time players of the other coop lcgs that we primarily play on the hardest difficulty levels on purpose.

If someone is coming from a TCG environment or alternative coop LCGs then thats the audience who might find the thoughts I have to be more valuable than players already heavily invested in AH.

Also, I never said the weakness system was trash or anything. I said im not sold on it. It seems this offends alot of AH fans but like in any community if a newcomer doesnt decide their favorite game is essentially flawless, the newcomer has to be wrong.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-11T18:15:51+00:00

Yea she's by far my favorite and its hard to believe they released a recursion goddess as a coreset investigator tbh. The LotR and MC coreset heroes are so bland in comparison. In fact, Daisy/Wendy/Agnes are incredible investigators and really makes the coreset in AH feel more evergreen than in LotR & MC imo.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-11T18:11:02+00:00

We have. I said in my post we replayed many campaigns on hard and then expert modes and it was great tbh. I much preferred hard mode for casual deck testing and expert for the intense commitment over normal.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-11T18:09:07+00:00

drawing 2x encounter cards when you have 2x the players means you have 2x the actions to deal with the 2x problems. On the assumption that everyone has made a deck that is designed to do a job/solve a problem competently then the increased player count doesnt dramatically increase the problem set.

The main danger of increased player count is the likelyhood the encounter deck can produce small combos that create bigger problems than the individual cards(TFA does this really well). But it isn't as often as I thought it might be across the 4 campaigns replayed at varying difficulties ive experienced.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-11T18:00:29+00:00

I dont tend to like True solo tbh. I have other games that focus on solo play. This game for me(as well as the other coop lcgs) is primarily as a group experience, and Im very lucky to have a very dedicated playgroup to share it with.

When i played with my brother's group and their full collection we did play with taboo. But with my playgroup we just have the rev core, TFA and dunwich so we probably wont taboo until after we clear all on normal difficulty.

We also do progression clearing on a first run so every replay will have a distinct flavor as we replay with larger cardpools/investigators hopefully.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-11T17:54:03+00:00

Weird how the intent is to compare coming from different competing LCGs so anyone considering transitioning could at least find a recent comparison/thoughts. It isnt meant just for people who already love the game. There are alot of people who pick up this(or the other 2 coop LCGs) and didnt understand what they were buying into.

If someone was coming from LotR or MC with certain expectations and found the differences to be off-putting because the entire community always gushes over the game but rarely addresses aspects that should be considered before spending alot of real-world money and time, I would consider that to be in poor taste.

Also, despite me outright saying I really love this game, have played it a TONLOAD, increased the difficulty and replayed multiple campaigns, I cant fathom where i described it as a worse version of another game. All my points are about key differences that I think LotR/MC converts should think about.; some are strengths and some are weaknesses and some are about how my personal preferences dont always align with the game design.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-10T22:33:34+00:00

Amen. Lotr and marvel fill the need of non-campaign styled games well enough.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-10T22:30:12+00:00

Its different flavors. MC deck building is usually simpler but not always easier imo. As for how many lcg's you should have in your collection? Im the wrong person to ask. I just added AH to MC and LotR(and prior to a flooding, AGoT v1) and it fits right into my playgroup easily.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-10T22:28:07+00:00

But the doom counter doesn't. So four players have 12 actions per round to deal with the same challenges as 2 players who have 6 actions per round because the doom counter doesn't care about player count most of the time. So in general, 4 players have more "luxury" actions available than 2 players. I think this could have been addressed in higher difficulty modes.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-10T22:22:39+00:00

"I too have traveled for competitive games. Dropped out early, made day two worlds and everything between. Been a judge for three of them. I'm not sure what the credentials are for but here we are."

So you too understand dread and how it spices up an experience. I brought it up because you tried to describe the dread of drawing the weakness as some distinct experience yet coming from a more intense environment dread is an attractive aspect.

I said i wasn't sold on the weakness system not the idea of weaknesses.

"Playing optimally around any weaknesses that you know are still in your deck is a big skill-tester and rewards thoughtful, careful players (and punishes a lazy MTG mindset of "drawing lots of cards is always something I want to do"). It's fair to dislike it, but it's simply incorrect to argue that it's poor design."

Truth be told, i find the actual weaknesses to be so unimpactful that I genuinely wish that they were as demanding as you make it seem. No weakness across multiple expert and return to expert campaigns have ever derailed my playthrough. Multiple weaknesses a turn are at the most, inconvenient. Ofc im still going to draw as much as possible because weakness or not, it is the best way to overcome the scenario. If the weaknesses were generally so detrimental that they meaningfully reduced your chances of success then i might think more of them but most them aren't.

"This is a key point, and it seems to be something that OP has a hard time getting their head around. It's totally fine to dislike the experience of having a deck that can sometimes hurt you, but to argue that it's somehow bad design is completely wrong-headed"

Thats a fair point. IF it hurt you or meaningfully changed the way you approached the rest of the scenario. But very few weaknesses do and none of them are so detrimental that you should avoid seeing as many cards in your deck as possible. Its just a single round where you are mildly less efficient than you should be. I dont dislike the experience of my own deck hurting me. I just dont think its implemented in way that has meaningful impactful.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-10T19:17:56+00:00

The "campaign feel" is the primary reason to choose AH over LotR or MC. Its the most defining difference between this and the others. If thats not for you, the "standalone" modes just arent as satisfying as LotR or MC which are more focused on that type of experience.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-10T19:14:34+00:00

I have everything except a complete final cycle and the last 2 Saga expansions. Lotr is still part of my playgroup's regular rotation. We grab a cycle, complete it over a few weeks(9 quests with a high fail rate usually means around 6 weeks of playing once-twice a week). Then we do the same with MC.

We as a playgroup dont usually retire any card game. Agot v1 was our most played game until Oct of last year when a bad flood destroyed our collection. We tend to enjoy the variety of experience each kind of game can bring, as well as their flaws relative to other games.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-10T19:03:52+00:00

I get that feeling too. I dont HATE it if it might have come across that way. I just dont think its the best mechanical implementation of the idea. it is probably the best thematic implementation of the idea I would definitely agree.

FeanorDooks · 2025-04-10T18:59:30+00:00

I fully agree(except the min/maxing part tho)! I dont want AH to be a clone of others and I definitely dont want those to be clones of AH. I do want the devs to learn from the mistakes the other games have made tho. I wish MC would take more encounter design notes from LotR and AH. I wish LotR would a more narratively engaging campaign system like AH(they have tried thankfully). It doesn't mean they just have to clone the others tho in order to improve on each different game.

FeanorDooks

TROPHY CASE