The first supplement to Reiner Knizia's <i>Lord of the Rings</i> game does a great job of expanding the strategy and variety of his successful colalborative board game.
It is a shame about the Military Victory thing; it's so completely unlike Knizia to get that wrong. I don't know what went awry there, if his playtesters were just such fans of the books that they never really tried for the military victory, or what (we didn't take it seriously either until it became clear that it was the way to go).
Anyway, definitely get the Black Gate card through BoardGameGeek, I wouldn't play without it.
Playing with Friends & Foes is definitely tougher than the base game, so I recommend going back to starting Sauron on 15, and working your way down again. It seems that starting him on 12 with F&F seems about right once you've got a few games under your belt.
Re: [Board/Tactical Game]: Lord of the Rings: Friends & Foes, reviewed by ShannonA (5/5)
I'm not sure that I own a board game that needed an expansion less than LotR did. It seems that this expansion is well thought of, and that's cool. But I'd recommend to anyone thinking of purchasing it that they play it first if possible. I did, and I was very happy to have saved the money.
__________________
-PJ
"One of the benefits of autism is that there are only comfortable silences." -someone
Re: [Board/Tactical Game]: Lord of the Rings: Friends & Foes, reviewed by ShannonA (5
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShannonA
Well I contrariwise think that F&F is one of the best developed & integrated supplements that I've played for a board game.
Well, that's good. I meant it when I said I was cool with it being well thought of, it doesn't bother me at all that my fun =/= everyone else's fun.
I didn't like how much it changed the game. I thought that the original struck an excellent balance between following the novel and being a playable game. I felt like the foe track/military victory deviated strongly from that, and the moderately increased strategic depth wasn't worth the trade. It was also, as has been pointed out, not well balanced.
Edit: It's late, and I'm not expressing myself well. I'm trying to say that I'm interested in hearing anything else you have to say. (The original text made it sound like I hadn't read the review, but I have.) Sorry.
__________________
-PJ
"One of the benefits of autism is that there are only comfortable silences." -someone
Re: [Board/Tactical Game]: Lord of the Rings: Friends & Foes, reviewed by ShannonA (5
Speaking as someone who was a huge fan of the base game, I do sort of agree with you. The base game is a teriffic classic, and theming does take a minor hit in general with Friends & Foes (although the new Bree board is very nice). If you're a casual fan of the game who plays a few times a year, F&F is not a big win, because the added complexity is not entirely trivial.
On the other hand, I also agree with Shannon that this is still an very nice expansion, with the caveat that you must use the Black Gate card. It adds lots of interesting choices, ratchets up the tension quite a bit, and and as long as you're using the Black Gate card and so making the military victory much more difficult, the theme is still quite good. If you've played the base game a lot and find yourself craving some variety, Friends & Foes fits the bill.
I have both expansions. If given the chance (i.e., we've got 5 or 6 players, and all are experienced), we tend to use Sauron, and I feel that one is very easy to recommend if you like the base game. In practice, we don't use Friends & Foes nearly as often, but it's fun when we do, and I'm glad to have it.
Chris
Quote:
Originally Posted by vbh70s
Well, that's good. I meant it when I said I was cool with it being well thought of, it doesn't bother me at all that my fun =/= everyone else's fun.
I didn't like how much it changed the game. I thought that the original struck an excellent balance between following the novel and being a playable game. I felt like the foe track/military victory deviated strongly from that, and the moderately increased strategic depth wasn't worth the trade. It was also, as has been pointed out, not well balanced.
Edit: It's late, and I'm not expressing myself well. I'm trying to say that I'm interested in hearing anything else you have to say. (The original text made it sound like I hadn't read the review, but I have.) Sorry.
Linear Mode
