Multiplayer

[Kralik]

In case you guys ever want to organize it, Lackey supports up to 10 LotR players (4 is more practical)  8)

[FingolfinFinwe]

hmm a 12 hour game of Lotr?  That'd be confusing.

[Kralik]

4 player games usually take me about 2 hours.

[FingolfinFinwe]

Wow I think that's pretty good.   Our group was probably heading towards 3 hrs for 4 player.  Pushing 4 hrs for 5-6 player.  But some of our players weren't very hardcore into the game and were very indecisive with their under-developed strategies.

Honestly a two player game often goes 50 minutes IRL for us.  Online its much faster.

[TheJord]

NK and I can usually pack 3 games in about 2 hours. Multiplayer games IRL end quick as those with twilight adding decks (ie Ents, Gondor, Rohan) get slaughtered pretty quick, unless you have a top notch deck.

[MR. Lurtzy]

In case you guys ever want to organize it, Lackey supports up to 10 LotR players (4 is more practical)  8)

Where can I find this "lackey"?

[TheJord]

www.lackeyccg.com

[Beorn]

I have almost only played 3-4 player...probably 20% of my games were 2 player. Its really fun...you can gang up on people, make secret alliances...bargaining for twilight can be interesting 

Like a good game of Risk.  lol

[SomeRandomDude]

NK and I can usually pack 3 games in about 2 hours. Multiplayer games IRL end quick as those with twilight adding decks (ie Ents, Gondor, Rohan) get slaughtered pretty quick, unless you have a top notch deck.

Actually, both explosion and choke decks die pretty fast. Choke decks rely on hand-clog, and since hand-clog is UNHEARD OF in multi-player, choke gets hosed pretty fast as well.

[sickofpalantirs]

I have almost only played 3-4 player...probably 20% of my games were 2 player. Its really fun...you can gang up on people, make secret alliances...bargaining for twilight can be interesting 

Like a good game of Risk.  lol

cept in risk, there be no bargaining for twilight there is yelling about cheating more though...dice and all

[Gil-Estel]

I played a multiplayergame last week for the first time in years...I didn't have a multiplayerdeck, so I took my Last Alliance deck. It did pretty well, but they both ran forestnazgul. That was too much to deal with....

[Celebrimbor]

I've had bad experiences playing multiplayer LOTR....particularly because my decks were based on controlling the site-path, which is very bad for that sort of gameplay.  In my experience, playing with multiple opponents is too unpredictable.

[FM]

Usually, Drafting for multiplayer worked nicer than simply bringing decks to the table, since if two players happen to be playing the same shadow side, overlapping makes it TOO powerful to ru through.

[lem0nhead]

That is true but at the same time thats what i love about multiplayer the randomness element. You never know if youre gonna face 1 person whose deck owns urs, or 1 that you can pwn. Or if 2 people are gonna play a deck that combine or if yours works well with another. Its a fun lottery. Sometimes you win sometimes you dont!