Are there cards left unspoiled? Or are we only getting Gimli from Leadership?

What is really really cool is that it stops treacheries from being attached (aka condition attachments) to that hero! Invunerable to condition attachments is pretty dang cool!!!

I find that "cool feature" highly questionable. There is no treachery attachment in any of the Lord of the Rings Saga's that does not allows you to choose a hero it's going to be attached to. The only time I see it being useful is when you need to attach a "limit 1 per hero" attachment, while all other heroes already has this kind of attachment. For all it worth, it can even harm if you there is an encounter attachment that will do less harm on a hero with this boon, but because of that boon you wouldn't be able to attach it to him.

There are still 3 more boxes of Saga left after this (as well as possibly some POD/GenCon quests). The fact that the quests before Treason of Saruman don't have such treacheries doesn't matter since the boon isn't earned for those quests. There could be treacheries with wording like the Sack objectives in "We Must Away..." from the Hobbit sagas where they attach to characters based on stats/threat.

There are still 3 more boxes of Saga left after this (as well as possibly some POD/GenCon quests). The fact that the quests before Treason of Saruman don't have such treacheries doesn't matter since the boon isn't earned for those quests. There could be treacheries with wording like the Sack objectives in "We Must Away..." from the Hobbit sagas where they attach to characters based on stats/threat.

I'm bringing up the quests before the Treason of Saruman not because you can use that boon in them, but because they depict the main tendency. If this tendency continues - then this boon might be not as good as it sounds. If not - then good on us.

The Road Darkens and both POD/GenCon quests actually contain condition attachments (Grievous Wound, Song of Sleep, Dreadful Song) that are attached to a specific hero or a restricted set of heroes. And even if the main tendency was different, the boon's +1/+1/+1 boost would still be pretty amazing. So I don't really understand the argument here.

The Road Darkens and both POD/GenCon quests actually contain condition attachments (Grievous Wound, Song of Sleep, Dreadful Song) that are attached to a specific hero or a restricted set of heroes. And even if the main tendency was different, the boon's +1/+1/+1 boost would still be pretty amazing. So I don't really understand the argument here.

Yeah, the PODs, I unfrotunately don't have them so I couldn't take them into the account. So, to this moment, the only treachery attachment that this boon could actually prevent (theoretically, of course) would be Grievous Wounds.

To understand the argument here, one must follow the trail of discussion to its root. The +1/+1/+1 part was never even in question, the argument is exclusively about the usefulness of the treachery attachment immunity part of the boon.

tried Helms Deep - epic fail. Stupid ending with no riders of rohan.

sigh. was really looking forward to this. Thanks FFG.

tried Helms Deep - epic fail. Stupid ending with no riders of rohan.

sigh. was really looking forward to this. Thanks FFG.

What would you like to be there? An objective "Riders of Rohan" ally coming into play with 10 willpower, 10 attack, 10 defense and 10 health that does not exhaust to quest, attack and defend?

tried Helms Deep - epic fail. Stupid ending with no riders of rohan.

sigh. was really looking forward to this. Thanks FFG.

I should be careful defending a quest I haven't played yet, but it seems to me that if you want the scene from the book, you need to create it with player cards: Helm! Helm!, Charge of the Rohirrim, Legolas and Arod, Eomer and Firefoot, Theoden, Herugrim, and Steed of the Mark (Snowmane, when it comes out).

Just like we are able to sacrifice someone other than Gandalf to the Balrog, I suspect the intent is that we can create our own ending to the battle of helm's deep. Secrecy Hobbit FTW!!!

I agree, it's going to hurt me in two of my campaigns. Something funny is that if Aragorn was a Fallen Hero, you still bring him back as Fellowship Aragorn (you still pay the +1 threat penalty and you don't get to play the cool new Boon on him). The plus side is you can still use all your Aragorn attachments on him. The downside is you lose his sphere and abilities and no new Tactigorn either.

Edit: if Aragorn was one of your heroes and he wasn't on the Fallen Heroes list, you get to swap him out for free.

So even if Aragorn was a hero,you can start this quest with 3 heroes(with the Felowship hero),right?

As in the previous saga expansions, you start every quest with 3 heros plus a fellowship hero (here: Aragorn). The special thing about the first quest of Treason of Saruman is that one of your heros will be a captive starting in Quest 1. So you should plan your deck for only 3 heros accordingly.

Thank you again!Can you please tell me if all cards are on CardGameDB?

Looks like they are all up there: http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/lotr/lord-of-the-rings-card-spoiler/_/lord-of-the-rings-saga-expansions/the-treason-of-saruman/

Thank you!

But there must be 5 burdens,not 2.

Edit:Actually there are 5 burdens,because there are 4 Poisoned Counsels!

Looking at the art on these cards, almost any other art depicting Orthanc, be it Steaming Vent or Plain of Isengard, is a much better depiction of Orthanc than the actual art on Orthanc. That's a bit disappointing.

So, are there any leadership cards at all in this box?

Sounds too good to be true

You have obviously never played Leadership to its full potential. Best sphere IMO.

And the swearing whenever you mention "Leaders***" really needs to stop. We're all entitled to our opinions but no one wants to see that profanity.

Ha-ha. Ok, guys, this is it. For eons I was using the term "leadershit" on this forum, and some other people did too out of fun, but now this ******* comes in, doesn't likes it, reprots me for this, and guess what? They issue me a warning. For "leadershit". I'm just saying a farewell, because I'm obviously will never stop using it, especially just because some jerk is too noble to tolerate it on the same board his majestic feat honored us enough to tread.

I don't think you understand me, just as I didn't understand you about your feelings of Leadership. I don't see myself as noble or majestic or somehow superior to you. I am just a very religious person who is offended by swearing. I did not report you, just requested that you stop. You have made your comment, and I respect your decision even though I may not agree.

With the emerging "ent deck", I think it is, strangely enough, better not to use the Treebeard hero but the ally Treebeard instead. I'm bummed that the hero that goes with a trait doesn't help that trait at all.

So, are there any leadership cards at all in this box?

Sounds too good to be true

You have obviously never played Leadership to its full potential. Best sphere IMO.

And the swearing whenever you mention "Leaders***" really needs to stop. We're all entitled to our opinions but no one wants to see that profanity.

Ha-ha. Ok, guys, this is it. For eons I was using the term "leadershit" on this forum, and some other people did too out of fun, but now this ******* comes in, doesn't likes it, reprots me for this, and guess what? They issue me a warning. For "leadershit". I'm just saying a farewell, because I'm obviously will never stop using it, especially just because some jerk is too noble to tolerate it on the same board his majestic feat honored us enough to tread.

I don't think you understand me, just as I didn't understand you about your feelings of Leadership. I don't see myself as noble or majestic or somehow superior to you. I am just a very religious person who is offended by swearing. I did not report you, just requested that you stop. You have made your comment, and I respect your decision even though I may not agree.

With the emerging "ent deck", I think it is, strangely enough, better not to use the Treebeard hero but the ally Treebeard instead. I'm bummed that the hero that goes with a trait doesn't help that trait at all.

I felt the same dismay over Tactics Théoden not having any synergy with Rohan characters. This is why I am so excited about the new Spirit Théoden. Even so, I can see the Treebeard hero fitting into Ent decks, especially because of all of the excellent Ent allies in the Lore sphere (with more on the way) - it will just end up being a different kind of deck than one based on Ally Treebeard's resources and ability.

Plus tree beard hero allows you to play ent draught or ent moot first turn without having to play an ent ally first.

Treason of Saruman player cards are on the deck builder on cardgamedb.com

OK, so I see that there's an enemy version of Grima in the third quest, and so the question naturally arises - what if you're using Hero Grima? I can't see anything that would stop you doing so, and since you can't have two versions of the same unique character in play at once, I feel like that means the enemy should just get discarded without resolving him?

It's in the rule insert that you can't. Same with Saruman. If someone I was playing with wanted to use Grima at Helm's Deep though I'd say go for it. Maybe Ol' Wormtongue had a change of heart!

Well, even without the insert, I would rule it that way: as soon as Grima enemy enters play, discard Grima hero from play.

And you cannot play frodo as well according to rule book

Somewhat analogous situation in The Morgul Vale AP, with the Faramir objective:

"When setting up The Morgul Vale, stage 1A instructs the players to search the encounter deck for the To the Tower objective card and add it to the staging area. This card represents the Mordor troop escorting Faramir to the tower of Minas Morgul. Since the players are trying to rescue Faramir in this scenario, the objective reads: “Remove Faramir from the game.” This means that no version of Faramir can be used by the players when playing this scenario"

If there isn't any text like that in the rules insert for this box, there probably should be!

Well, even without the insert, I would rule it that way: as soon as Grima enemy enters play, discard Grima hero from play.

Actually, the rules state that the second copy of a unique card cannot enter play, not that the first one is discarded to make room for the new one.

It's in the rule insert that you can't. Same with Saruman. If someone I was playing with wanted to use Grima at Helm's Deep though I'd say go for it. Maybe Ol' Wormtongue had a change of heart!

Yeah, I actually really wanted to do that. After all, Theoden offered him the chance to show his true loyalty, so we could just play out an alternate universe in which he took the chance.