The other thing about Ents generally is that because they enter play exhausted, they are by default vulnerable to any treacheries or enemies that trigger off exhausted characters.

I can't comment until I play with them, but I think the entering play exhausted is a big downside. A quick deck can beat a lot of quests in 6-7 turns, so Treebeard is coming in for, at most, 5-6 turns. Could two allies first turn that come in ready to rock be more effective in that situation? Quite possibly. Like Leptokurt says, it's a nice new addition to strategy that really opens things up. Ents kick like a mule, but that early game can be so hard they may not come along in time!

So they've announced the whole cycle before the first AP is even released. This all feels very weird. In either case, I'm excited to see Treebeard and another Rohan hero.

why is this weird?!

all 6 APs of Against the Shadow were spoiled before The Steward's Fear released...

The Morgul Vale announcement: 4/2/2013

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4047

Release of The Steward's Fear: 5/9/2013

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4132

For further reference:

Core Set: 4/20/2011

Hunt for Gollum: 7/21/2011

Length of Time between Releases: ~3 months

Khazad-Dum: 1/6/2012

The Redhorn Gate: 3/1/2012

Length of Time between Releases: ~2 months

Heirs of Numenor: 11/26/2012

The Stewards Fear: 5/9/2013

Length of Time between Releases: ~5 months

Voice of Isenguard: 2/21/2014

The Dunland Trap: 6/???/2014

Length of Time between Releases: ~4 months

Just because it has happened before doesn't mean it's good or normal. It's not surprising, sure, but it's not perfectly acceptable either. It does feel weird to know the name and theme of the last pack before we even get the first one. It's like having the name and an introduction to a chapter of a book well before you get to that chapter. Hell, even before you actually start reading the book. It is a bit annoying.

Actually, it *is* normal.

The Hunt for Gollum release: 7/21/2011

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=2490

Return to Mirkwood Announcement: 7/14/2011

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=2471

The Redhorn Gate Release: 3/1/2012

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=3114

Shadow and Flame Announcement: 3/5/2012

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=3120

So, for the Dwarrowdelf cycle, the announcement was only a couple days after the "general release" article for The Redhorn Gate - barely squeaking by.

The point I'm trying to make is *not* that this is good (or bad - I'm indifferent) but rather, the common complaint seems to be that we know the last pack (well) before we have the first pack. I'm simply showing objective information that this has been the case for 3 of the 4 cycles, and almost the case in the 4th (Dwarrowdelf).

On the one hand, folks are complaining that there isn't enough news. On the other, they complain when we get news - and then they complain that we are getting news of a final pack before receiving the first pack as if that is a new trend - it's objectively not.

Well yeah if you get technical it is actually normal. But my point is, just because something happens doesn't mean it should happen, or that it would be good according to a general consensus. And I think that's exactly the point people are bringing up here. it's that is good or bad. It's not nice to kinda know how a cycle will end before we get to play at least 1 of them.

Anyway, that's the reason I think people are complaining, regardless of whether it is the norm or not.

Anyways.. as some have already tried saying, what about the Rohan hero!? Gamling, Erkenbrand, a tactics Eowyn, who do you think? I definitely expect a tactics hero as there are already 2 spirit from this cycle and a leadership or lore don't really fit Rohan presently.

Better not be tactics Eowyn. Do not want.... I've actually always really disliked her character in the books and movies (and that she kills the witch king..... Stupid....)

Really hope it's someone like Erkenbrand or Gamling instead

While I want tactics Eowyn bad, I don't think that it'll be she, because I think she's reserved for Lord of the Rings saga.

While I want tactics Eowyn bad, I don't think that it'll be she, because I think she's reserved for Lord of the Rings saga.

That does sound much more fitting. She should be in whichever saga box has the battle of Minas Tirith/Pelennor fields in it (last or 2nd last box I would assume).

I would love to get a tactics Eowyn. You could run her with her brother and uncle!

Well as someone already pointed out, it needs to be Tactics or Leadership to even out the sphere distribution for the cycle.

Tactics would fit the mold but maybe we'll see a Leadership hero that fills a gap in the Rohan strategy..

I might be in a minority here, but I hope it's a leadership version of Theoden. He is one of my favorite characters but the tactics version is hard to build a deck around!

I also think Eowyn and Erkenbrand will be saved for a Saga box. Gamling seems real likely and as captain of the guard he could be another good hero for defending!

I think it's gonna be Gamling, and I can see him in Tactics or even in Leadership, though it doesn't fit as good as in Spirit...

I think we are all much better off working the sphere out through statistics first, then use theme to back it up. There should be 2 of each sphere per cycle on average. The alternative is asking 'what does spirit MEAN?', which is a much less structured way to guess an answer.

Theoden is a master tactactian and able warrior (tactics), who fights with everything he has (spirit), he knows many things as a wise king (lore) and he can muster and lead people (leadership). So how do you work out where he fits? He fits better in certain spots, which is also determined by card pool and existing heroes. So it's hard to say.

well ent art is always a difficult one to get i think ... its a mix between not making them look like trees, and not making them look too humanoid. i prefer other depictions, but i do like it

Treebeard does deserve to be that good and remember Ana, it's a good idea thematically to bring him in exhausted because as we know, the Ents are "waking up" and wouldn't it be too hasty to have him ready?

Anyhow, I really think that both The Road Darkens and the Ring-Maker cycle are going to be an absolute blast to play.

I'm sorry but i like a lot the Treebeard art. In fact i love all the artwork in the game.

When i started to play i didnt like, i wanted art like the film, but after i understood is better the work around a lot of diferent artists. It is my approach to see all the card beautiful.

PD: even the trolls of The Hobbit

OHaUH Gandalf vs Treebeard. Assuming an 8-round game where Gandalf/Treebeard enters play on the second round (the earliest likely round without the need of resource acceleration "tricks"). Also assume Treebeard is the only ent in your deck so you're not using his resources to pay for ents.

Here are the numbers of actions that Gandalf can take for each round:

0+2+2+2+2+2+2+2 = 14

Here are the numbers of actions that Treebeard can take for each round:

0+0+1+2+1+2+1+2 = 9

Comparison: Gandalf will get an additional 5 actions, but will cost 1 more resource and 12 threat. Also Gandalf only gets 2 actions if he is used for questing. If you have Treebeard in the deck solely for combat, then the actions come out to 7 for Gandalf vs 9 for Treebeard, but if you "like" the chump blocker strategy (Horn of Gondor, Prince Imrahil, Eomer, etc), then being able to use Gandalf to quest and saving another ally to chump block tends to end up being better.

At times - especially in solo - there may not be an enemy to deal with, in which case Gandalf will lose his 2nd action, but Treebeard will "store up" his 2nd action (though he'd lose his first if he wasn't questing).

The biggest difference that can be gauged without any bias or situational changes is the threat cost of Gandalf (and additional 1 resource cost). If the threat cost isn't likely to make the game any more difficult (your deck has lots of threat reduction), then I would say that it's a pretty close battle. But, due to this threat cost, Gandalf ends up being too costly to play in a lot of decks where Treebeard would excel.

So, I guess I'll tip my hat to Treebeard as the overall better ally. But if you have a deck that can support Gandalf well, there's no reason you can't have both.

I think the combination of these characters is quite formidable. They can practically handle everything on their own: Gandalf will quest, then Treebeard will defend, then they'll combine their attack to guarantee a kill. The heroes will be around to support these two characters rather than the other way around.

OHaUH Gandalf vs Treebeard. Assuming an 8-round game where Gandalf/Treebeard enters play on the second round (the earliest likely round without the need of resource acceleration "tricks"). Also assume Treebeard is the only ent in your deck so you're not using his resources to pay for ents.

Here are the numbers of actions that Gandalf can take for each round:

0+2+2+2+2+2+2+2 = 14

Here are the numbers of actions that Treebeard can take for each round:

0+0+1+2+1+2+1+2 = 9

Comparison: Gandalf will get an additional 5 actions, but will cost 1 more resource and 12 threat. Also Gandalf only gets 2 actions if he is used for questing. If you have Treebeard in the deck solely for combat, then the actions come out to 7 for Gandalf vs 9 for Treebeard, but if you "like" the chump blocker strategy (Horn of Gondor, Prince Imrahil, Eomer, etc), then being able to use Gandalf to quest and saving another ally to chump block tends to end up being better.

At times - especially in solo - there may not be an enemy to deal with, in which case Gandalf will lose his 2nd action, but Treebeard will "store up" his 2nd action (though he'd lose his first if he wasn't questing).

The biggest difference that can be gauged without any bias or situational changes is the threat cost of Gandalf (and additional 1 resource cost). If the threat cost isn't likely to make the game any more difficult (your deck has lots of threat reduction), then I would say that it's a pretty close battle. But, due to this threat cost, Gandalf ends up being too costly to play in a lot of decks where Treebeard would excel.

So, I guess I'll tip my hat to Treebeard as the overall better ally. But if you have a deck that can support Gandalf well, there's no reason you can't have both.

I think the combination of these characters is quite formidable. They can practically handle everything on their own: Gandalf will quest, then Treebeard will defend, then they'll combine their attack to guarantee a kill. The heroes will be around to support these two characters rather than the other way around.

That might all be good and well, but Gandalf's ability to both quest and doing a combat action every single turn is superior to an old tree that can only do this every second turn. Furthermore, early turns are more important in most scenarios. If you wanna assume an 8 round game you gotta survive the first couple of them!

Very very true, and this is part of the reason why I decided I liked Gandalf better than Treebeard earlier in this thread. But Gandalf can't fit into as many decks as Treebeard because many decks can't handle the threat. Also, if you are putting them into a deck that quests very well but is weak at combat, Treebeard being able to do 2 combat actions sometimes makes him a better fit for that deck.

Generally I would prefer Gandalf if you can deal with his threat cost, but Treebeard can certainly be a very good addition to many decks that would implode with Gandalf's presence.

I agree with most of your analysis, but you did not count the difference in stats. Gandalf is a better quester and defender, and an equal attacker. I also think in many games that 8 rounds is on the high end.

Good point about having Treebeard and OHaUH Gandalf working together at the same time. The heroes can go ahead and kick back in their lounge chairs with pipes full of Old Toby, 'cause they won't have to do much else!

Good point about having Treebeard and OHaUH Gandalf working together at the same time. The heroes can go ahead and kick back in their lounge chairs with pipes full of Old Toby, 'cause they won't have to do much else!

I'm picturing a Bilbo-Frodo deck that uses threat reduction, "classic" hobbit stuff like Silver Lamp with Small Target, Fast Hitch, and Elf-Stone to play big allies early on like Gildor, Treebeard, and Gandalf.

After he was spoiled I made a proxy of Treebeard and have been running him in one of my two decks. So far he has actually surprised me by being a bit less powerful than I thought he would be.

I find that the enters play exhausted drawback is actually much worse than I expected it to be.

In most situations in this game the earlier and faster you can get cards out and working for you the better. All it can take to lose is one bad round or one especially nasty encounter card coming out at the wrong time/too soon. I find that almost all situations in which I can play Treebeard I am instead playing other cards that will have an immediate effect against encounter cards I need to fend off/get rid of and sometimes he never hits the board as there are always better options in my hand that will do something straight away and help put me in a better position for the next round. Don't get me wrong when you get him out and going he is incredibly powerful and helps massively but spending 4 resources to get him out exhausted can be a really big deal. Even just getting some much weaker ally out may be crucial to chump block an especially nasty foe or provide the last point or two of attack you need to dispatch a nasty foe.

Not going to take him out or anything but I find hes best when you are already doing quite well and can afford to spend resources on something that will not do anything for a round.

After he was spoiled I made a proxy of Treebeard and have been running him in one of my two decks. So far he has actually surprised me by being a bit less powerful than I thought he would be.

I find that the enters play exhausted drawback is actually much worse than I expected it to be.

In most situations in this game the earlier and faster you can get cards out and working for you the better. All it can take to lose is one bad round or one especially nasty encounter card coming out at the wrong time/too soon. I find that almost all situations in which I can play Treebeard I am instead playing other cards that will have an immediate effect against encounter cards I need to fend off/get rid of and sometimes he never hits the board as there are always better options in my hand that will do something straight away and help put me in a better position for the next round. Don't get me wrong when you get him out and going he is incredibly powerful and helps massively but spending 4 resources to get him out exhausted can be a really big deal. Even just getting some much weaker ally out may be crucial to chump block an especially nasty foe or provide the last point or two of attack you need to dispatch a nasty foe.

Not going to take him out or anything but I find hes best when you are already doing quite well and can afford to spend resources on something that will not do anything for a round.

Also, probably not extensive enough testing yet. These are just first thoughts =)

I agree with most of your analysis, but you did not count the difference in stats. Gandalf is a better quester and defender, and an equal attacker. I also think in many games that 8 rounds is on the high end.

In general, quests do tend to be shorter than 8 rounds, which gives Gandalf an advantage, but even a 6-round game is looking at a 8-10 threat increase, which is pretty substantial.

My opinion is: if you can deal with the threat increase, take Gandalf (and Treebeard?). If you can't keep that threat down, Treebeard is the only logical choice of the two cards. Gandalf is generally more powerful, but his cost is often prohibitive. Treebeard is a great alternative that has a much more reasonable cost, but without the huge drop in power that you would expect from such a cost reduction. You might say that Treebeard is a better value.