Using the ringdb "Hall of Fame", these are the highest listed with deck title (with type in bracket if it isn't obvious from the name or heroes) for each combination. That doesn't mean they're necessarily the most powerful, however. For a given sphere combination, what heroes/archtype do you think would be the most powerful?

Using the abbreviations D - leadership, L - lore, S - spirit, T - tactics

DDD LeBoromir, LeDenethor, LeFaramir (Family of Leaders)

DDL LeDenethor, Hirluin, Erestor (The Rapid Charge of Outlands!)

DDS Amarthiul, Elfhelm, SpEowyn (Rohan, meet Dunedain)

DDT LeDenethor, Sam, TaBoromir (Now it's time for... Deorwine) [sword-thain Deorwine, build him up]

DLS Dain, Bifur, Oin (Quad Sphere Dwarf Deck *COTR deckbox*)

DLT Sam, LoPippin, TaMerry (Stings Like a Bee) [hobbit secrecy]

DST LeDenethor, Arwen, TaAragorn (The Grudge) [TaAragorn superhero]

LLL Mirlonde, LoPippin, Rossiel (Become the Forest *CotR deckbox*)

LLD LoAragorn, Damrod, Amarthiul (Dunedain Trappers)

LLS Mirlonde, Rossiel, Galadriel (Victory-a Secret)

LLT --none listed--

SSS Arwen, Caldara, Eowyn (I Will Survive)

SSD SpGlorfindel, SpMerry, LeDenethor (All Signs Point to Yes)

SSL SpGlorfindel, Arwen, Elrond (Forest Gump) [Vilya]

SST SpGlorfindel, Galadriel, TaBoromir (Seastan's Boromir)

TTT TaEowyn, Hama, TaTheoden (The Rohirrim Arrive)

TTD Hama, Legolas, LeFaramir (Blacken the Sky *CotR deckbox*) [combat deck]

TTL TaEowyn, TaMerry, LoPippin (Eowyn Esquires and Ents!)

TTS Gimli, Thalin, SpEowyn (Beorn's Path 3 -- Escape From Dol Goldur) [core set only]

LLT is probably an Ent deck.

There is a strong bias in this thread against 2-hero decks.

Beyond that, I'm not really sure sphere-distribution is a very meaningful way to break it down. I mean, the best S/T/T deck is probably a Boromir deck, but is the best Boromir deck an S/T/T deck? Does it matter whether a Rohan deck distributes its heroes S/S/T or S/T/T, and in fact is a S/S/T Rohan deck really all that different from an S/T/T Rohan deck? Is it important whether an Ent deck distributes L/L/T or L/T/T or even goes L/D/T to get Leadership Faramir? And where does Hero Gandalf fit in all of this?

It'd probably make more sense to create broad archetypes and debate what the best is in each archetype. What's the best Rohan deck? The best Dwarf deck? The best Boromir deck? The best Ents deck? But then, of course, we run into trouble with how we define the archetypes. Is "best Hobbit deck" a thing? Best Beorn deck? How far down that rabbit hole are we going to go? Best deck built around OHUH Gandalf?

Beyond that, given the numerous different ways that quests stress your deck and the numerous different ways that decks fight back, the whole concept of "best" is kind of silly. Which is a better combat deck, Boromir Aggro or Hama/Thicket? Both pretty much trivialize combat, but they do it in different ways, and they'd each shine against different quests. Some decks are objectively good, and some are objectively bad. I'm on board with there being "tiers" of decks. But is Boromir better than Caldara? Kind of depends.

It's not that I don't think some things are better than others. I can give you my top 10 heroes, no problem. But the ten best *decks*? Eh. With things that have this many moving parts, I prefer to paint with much broader strokes. Show me a deck and I can tell you if it's great, good, okay, or unplayable. But ranking decks against each other seems fruitless.

I think the hypothetical most powerful deck would be a deck that has the highest expecting winning percentage against the set of all nightmare quests. It would take a lot of playing to get even one outing against each quest, though, and probably vastly more to establish a statistically significant difference between two powerful deck.

"Best" is a separate question, of course. The most powerful deck may be objective, but "best" is rather subjective. I suspect many of us would be more happy playing a deck that won 75% of the time than one that won 100% of the time, even though the latter deck is definitely more powerful.

It's a good point about the sphere distributions probably not being the best way to look at the problem. Supposing TaBoromir was part of every "most powerful" tactics configuration, the optimal Boromir deck should have only one sphere combination.

Yeah I'm not sure going by likes gets you the information you want. The most loved DLT deck may be a hobbit deck, but who would argue that it's more powerful than an Ent deck with that same sphere breakdown?

But I appreciate you gathering the stats, it's really interesting to look at.

I think the hypothetical most powerful deck would be a deck that has the highest expecting winning percentage against the set of all nightmare quests. It would take a lot of playing to get even one outing against each quest, though, and probably vastly more to establish a statistically significant difference between two powerful deck.

"Best" is a separate question, of course. The most powerful deck may be objective, but "best" is rather subjective. I suspect many of us would be more happy playing a deck that won 75% of the time than one that won 100% of the time, even though the latter deck is definitely more powerful.

It's a good point about the sphere distributions probably not being the best way to look at the problem. Supposing TaBoromir was part of every "most powerful" tactics configuration, the optimal Boromir deck should have only one sphere combination.

I just cannot help but wei gh in here in regards to the "best" or in my honest opinion "broken" player decks we now get from time to time. "I suspect that many of us would be more happy playing a deck that won 75% of the time than one that won 100% of the time, even though the latter deck is definitely more powerful"

To me this honestly could not be more correct or spot on and I feel like this new generation of decks that are more or less unbeatable are actually somewhat damaging to our amazing game.

I like Easy Mode. Well, Sleazy Mode. I never remove cards from the encounter deck. But I prefer building tribal decks that fit the theme and location of the quest, and within those confines, I don't have a lot of tweak room to make powerful decks for multiple quests.

But I don't view this game as a game. I view it as a vehicle for a narrative. And if I die and have to reset the game 9 times out of 10, there's no story in it for me. I think my current success rate stands around 33% overall (non-Nightmare and non-POD), and I'm totally happy and OK with that.

Essentially I just want Nightmare quests to be at an achievable level again.....

Nightmare isn't designed that way. This is what regular quests are for.

Essentially I just want Nightmare quests to be at an achievable level again.....

Nightmare isn't designed that way. This is what regular quests are for.

Sort of, except that nightmare quests also 'fix' many quests that didn't quite turn out right the first time, especially in the earlier cycles. As a more recent example, many people might be looking forward to the harder version of Escape from Mount Gram which was just released. That is a great quest in terms of fun factor, but even building a highly thematic deck I found it to be a cake walk (and I don't find most quests easy) -- increasing the difficulty would increase the replayability a lot, but the only mechanism to do that is through a nightmare version.

I like Easy Mode. Well, Sleazy Mode. I never remove cards from the encounter deck. But I prefer building tribal decks that fit the theme and location of the quest, and within those confines, I don't have a lot of tweak room to make powerful decks for multiple quests.

But I don't view this game as a game. I view it as a vehicle for a narrative. And if I die and have to reset the game 9 times out of 10, there's no story in it for me. I think my current success rate stands around 33% overall (non-Nightmare and non-POD), and I'm totally happy and OK with that.

I try to make my decks both as thematic as possible whilst also as powerful as possible and while I allow certain exceptions overall I try to stick with the theme as much as I can. See a 33% or even like 25% win rate against newer nightmare quests and quests like carn dum would be fantastic. Even a 15% win rate would honestly be great.

But Its more like a 2% win rate unless you use uber decks and uber decks usually have to make A LOT of unthematic choices. I don't want to use a completely unthematic deck and I also don't want to beat the quest without any chance of losing.

Couldn't agree more re the game being a vehicle for a narrative and yeah exactly if I have to scoop after the 2nd or 3rd round like ten times in a row there is no story OR fun involved.

Essentially I just want Nightmare quests to be at an achievable level again.....

Nightmare isn't designed that way. This is what regular quests are for.

Sort of, except that nightmare quests also 'fix' many quests that didn't quite turn out right the first time, especially in the earlier cycles. As a more recent example, many people might be looking forward to the harder version of Escape from Mount Gram which was just released. That is a great quest in terms of fun factor, but even building a highly thematic deck I found it to be a cake walk (and I don't find most quests easy) -- increasing the difficulty would increase the replayability a lot, but the only mechanism to do that is through a nightmare version.

Amon Din. Exact same situation. Amon Din is easily one of the easiest quests in the game.

Nightmare version instead of being anywhere from like 5 to 8 difficulty is a solid 9/10 and is harder than the majority of other nightmare quests. We could get the exact same situation with Mt Gram. I definitely hope that we do not!

The simple fact I constantly update my decks with new player cards and am still able to consistently beat the majority of quests proves that this is not the case. It is only a select few quests and nightmare quests that I feel the issue lies in and am just worried this will get worse. I know that it is only a select few quests that this is affecting but I really want to beat tougher quests without running an unbeatable deck and I want to be able to play nightmare again!

I have to say, that here you even admit it is only a few select quests. Sure, there is a minority of players that enjoy playing quests that are extremely difficult, but the vast majority of quests can be beaten with relatively mediocre decks and can be enjoyed by those that don't want to create extremely powerful decks, but choose to create more thematic ones. Personally, I feel that the percent of difficult quests is close enough to the percent of players that enjoy them.

I also don't really understand the point of playing decks that COMPLETELY trivialise the game. To me there isn't really any point playing the game if there is 0% or even less than 5% chance you are going to lose. What exactly are you achieving by bludgeoning the encounter deck over the head so hard that it will never beat you no matter what it does?

Obviously it must be really cool (and a very proud moment) to create a deck that works that well and is so abusable like that and once again kudos to those that do but after that first game why ever play that quest with that particular deck ever again...? I know that to some the game and each quest are just a puzzle that needs solving and once solved can be won without fail if you use the correct "solution" but I feel like there are far more people that don't want to "solve the puzzle" every time and instead want to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat, have thrillingly close wins and/or demolish the quest but ONLY once they get going and overcome the initial hurdles rather than before they even start the first quest phase. Also I feel like the majority of players want to be able to play a quest with the same deck and have fairly different results and a different level of challenge each time rather than it being more or less the same every time you play it.

You basically answered it. For me, it is enjoyable to create a deck that has a win rate as close as possible to 100% because I look at it as a puzzle. Being able to play a quest 10 or 20 times in a row and winning each time is fun to players like me. I want to see how consistent I can make my deck, no matter how much "bad luck" the encounter deck can throw at me. Again, sure, maybe that type of player is in the minority, but the vast majority of quests can be beaten with thematic decks with only some being difficult enough to warrant a deck change.

Or perhaps I am completely out of touch at this point and the majority of people both use and love these new types of decks...?

I think you are probably accurate in saying that the majority of players would enjoy the game how you want to play. In my opinion, though, it is out of touch to think that the game should be designed with only one type of player in mind, regardless of whether or not they are in the majority. Some quests may be unbeatable by thematic, fun decks and that is okay. Some quests may be complete pushovers for the strongest decks and that is okay.

Some quests will be complete pushovers for thematic, fun decks and that, also, is okay (perhaps these quests, that you view as pushovers for your fun, thematic decks are the correct difficulty for a less skilled deck-builder). But that doesn't mean we should make all quests that same difficulty level, even if that kind of player was in the majority. It simply would be unfair to other kinds of players.

In summary, in case I've gotten a little off track, it is completely okay to have a wide variance in the difficulty of quests, some of which may be too difficult for a fun, thematic deck and that's perfectly fine.

Also, as a side note, disregard the term "easy mode" and call it "thematic mode". There really shouldn't be so much opposition to this alternate play mode but a lot of opposition comes from it being called "easy" mode.

I like Easy Mode. Well, Sleazy Mode. I never remove cards from the encounter deck. But I prefer building tribal decks that fit the theme and location of the quest, and within those confines, I don't have a lot of tweak room to make powerful decks for multiple quests.

But I don't view this game as a game. I view it as a vehicle for a narrative. And if I die and have to reset the game 9 times out of 10, there's no story in it for me. I think my current success rate stands around 33% overall (non-Nightmare and non-POD), and I'm totally happy and OK with that.

I try to make my decks both as thematic as possible whilst also as powerful as possible and while I allow certain exceptions overall I try to stick with the theme as much as I can. See a 33% or even like 25% win rate against newer nightmare quests and quests like carn dum would be fantastic. Even a 15% win rate would honestly be great.

But Its more like a 2% win rate unless you use uber decks and uber decks usually have to make A LOT of unthematic choices. I don't want to use a completely unthematic deck and I also don't want to beat the quest without any chance of losing.

Couldn't agree more re the game being a vehicle for a narrative and yeah exactly if I have to scoop after the 2nd or 3rd round like ten times in a row there is no story OR fun involved.

You should play Dwarves if you want to play Nightmare thematically! That is, if you are okay with using Steward of Gondor (probably the only required unthematic card you would have to include).

I have no real interest in playing unbeatable decks, though I think they're neat to see as a curiosity and I think they'd be fun to make. However, while you seem to think they're bad for the game and support errata strongly, I think they mostly don't affect the game, and am extremely wary of errata. (Caveat -- I've played no nightmare quests nor multiplayer with strangers.)

Is the presence of uber decks making unbeatable regular quests more common? I'm not convinced. Every cycle has seemed to have some really tough quests, and my personal nemesis (Morgul Vale) is several cycles in the past.

Is the presence of uber decks making player cards weaker? Again, I'm not convinced. "Definitely nowhere near as strong as we used to get?" I'm not seeing that. There's not a single player card in Flame of The West I look at and say "what earthly good is that", and Armored Destrier from the latest AP is one of my favorite cards in a long time and *dang* powerful. Perhaps it's true that there's less independently and obviously powerful cards than there is in (say) the Core set, but that's been true for a long time -- outside of the core set, how many "staple" cards that are worth their space in every deck actually exist? Daeron's Runes and Warden of Healing in Lore and pretty much nothing in the rest (although I'm coming to the opinion that Honour Guard is worth its deck space in every tactics deck). So tying the usefulness of card with other cards is a long-long-time theme, and also not a bad thing -- my favorite new cards are ones that make old cards worth playing, so that the effective card pool expands.

Does uber decks make Nightmare decks more brutal than they used to be? I have no knowledge here, so I concede this could be the case. I do recognize some quests could use some beefing up or fix some problem that might make it less fun, and would be more interested in Nightmare if they also included a semi-nightmare mode. Maybe it could be simulated by reducing each of the nightmare cards to 1x?

Does errata solve the problem of uber decks? It might stop a particular broken deck, but there's no shortage of uber decks, and no one is forced to actually play a broken deck. Errata also poses the danger of making a useful card into a coaster, as was done to Master of Lore and Horn of Gondor. From where I'm sitting, no broken *deck* justifies errata, only a broken card.

However, if I ever do start playing pick-up cooperative, I could see where the existence of uber decks might bother me. I sit down to a quest that I think is going to be a difficult challenge, my partner draws half his deck and sets up a Superhero do-it-all hero in the first turn and walks over the deck, reducing my role to providing a little extra questing and another encounter card reveal -- not fun. But I suppose it'd be equally not fun if my partner is sitting down to a quest that he wants to stomp as thoroughly as possible and is appalled when I pull out an experimental deck built around exploiting Fatty Bolger. The problem isn't the decks, it's differing expectations, and trying to eliminate decks at any point in the power spectrum by rule is neither possible nor desirable.

To some extent we do the damage to ourselves, too. We pick a concept or theme or hero we want to build around, but then we ruthlessly trim and optimize until we've created the very best deck *of that type* that we know how to build -- and with a full card set, that deck may be honestly stronger than enjoyable for most regular quests, while still not being strong enough to be enjoyable against most nightmare quests. We know that a deck is going to be most consistent if we have exactly 50 cards and have 3x of every non-unique card that's important to our deck, often 3x of every unique that's important as well. But if you honestly consider variety more important than efficiency, you could easily bloat the deck or reduce the 3x and put in more differently named cards, making the deck play differently from game to game depending on what comes up. A "worse" deck, but perhaps a more enjoyable deck and a more challenging quest. I was intrigued by someone who *randomly* filled his deck with player cards of the appropriate spheres, and just worked with what he happened to draw. That completely removes the joy of deckbuilding and virtually eliminates clever combos, but man -- it really *would* be fun.

When I finish running through my Dori fellowships, my next plan is to shuffle my hero cards into a deck, shuffle out six at a time and make a fellowship out of them, whatever they are. I'd have to make an exception for Elladan/Elrohir though, unless they get allies in the near future.

With that said, I really am curious what the optimal hero combination actually is for each type of deck, either though I feel no obligation to use it .

Looking at archtypes, I can actually make a pretty good guess on some of the stereotypical lineups, based on my deck analysis earlier this year. This is in the context of solo only. Here goes, not in order in inherent strength:

Outlands: Hirluin-LeBoromir-Theodred

Hirluin is obvious, and monosphere works for Lord of Morthand. LeBoromir boosts the Hunter of Lamedon and also supports Gondor allies you can slap Sword of Morthond. Theodred gives resource acceleration. The weakness here is initial questing. When City of Corsairs comes out, Imrahil will need to be one of the heroes.

Eagles: ?-?-?

When I did analysis I didn't look up the hero lineups used in the Eagles decks. Now I'd go with TaTheoden/TaEowyn/Mablung.

Ents: ?-?-?

My analysis had three Ent decks (Entmoot users), only one of which had hero Treebeard. That lineup was Treebeard-Elrond-SpGlorfindel, obviously relying on Elrond for red ents and using SpGlorfindel for his low threat. I think Treebeard-Elrond-TaEowyn might be better, essentially making it LLTT for ents. However, 2/3 ent decks relied on ally Treebeard instead, and with good reason since his resource accumulation is useful both for readying ents and paying for them. So the optimal Ent deck may not have Treebeard in it. Maybe instead: Elrond/Grima/TaEowyn for a first turn Treebeard? Another option might be LeFaramir/Grima/TaEowyn, since LeFaramir's ability is so useful for readying, although Elrond/Vilya gives you access to Elrond's Counsel to get some of that threat back.

Noldor: Arwen-?-?

My analysis was when Noldor was still coming out, so my sample of Noldor decks was one, Arwen/Elrond/Erestor. Now Arwen/Cirdan is a formidable one-two punch and I suspect part of the best deck. But would the third be Erestor, or Elrond to play all manner of allies, or somebody else?

Silvan: Celeborn-Haldir-Galadriel

Celeborn and Galadriel both enhance the Silvan allies, Haldir gives you an attacker and access to Lore silvans and The Tree People (though Galadriel gives Lore access once she gets her ring). Since the Silvans are about the allies, Eomer and Imrahil are also useful for Silvan decks, due to their leaves-play abilities.

Hobbits/Secrecy: Sam-LoPippin-TaMerry

In my analysis of 100 decks, seven had two or more hobbits, and four of those were this exact lineup -- all seven had LoPippin and one of the Merrys. SpMerry as a TaMerry sub takes away a combat action, but gives repeatable threat reduction to stay in secrecy. When looking at TaEowyn decks I also saw LoPippin/SpMerry/TaEowyn, starting threat of 18 with repeatable threat reduction.

Non-hobbit secrecy wasn't really a thing at the time, but with TaEowyn/SpGlorfindel combining for 11 starting threat, there's a lot more options available now.

Dwarf: (Dain or Thorin) - Nori - Ori

In my dwarf analysis, nearly all the dwarf decks had either Dain or Thorin, but none had both. Dain is essential with multiple dwarf decks, but in a lone dwarf deck Thorin and his powerful 5-dwarf ability make a very strong competitor. Ori's 5-dwarf card draw is a staple, and so was Nori's threat reduction for playing dwarves. I'm not honestly sure whether Dain or Thorin is better for the solo dwarf deck.

Traps: Damrod - ?<lore> - ?

Traps, Damrod, and ally Anborn make a trap deck. The rest could be some other type, though Forest Snare is the Dunedain deck's best friend. Halbarad-LoFaramir-Damrod would benefit from both Forest Snare and Ranger Spikes, but I'm guessing is not the best.

Dunedain: Halbarad-TaAragorn-Mablung

I think Amarthiul-Elfhelm with some sort of Aragorn (and of course, an Armored Destrier) is going to be better than this.

Gondor: LeBoromir - ? - ?

Since Boromir boosts Gondor allies the Gondor trait isn't so important for the heroes (though Visionary Leadership works on heroes). The two Gondor decks in my sample used Erkenbrand/Elanor and LeAragorn/Beregond, both of which don't have much initial questing. LeBoromir-LeDenethor is likely part of the best Gondor lineup.

Rohan: SpTheoden-SpEowyn-Eomer

Thematic and powerful, though with Theoden's discount I'm not sure swapping Eowyn to tactics to reduce initial threat by 3 would be a bad plan.

My analysis mostly didn't focus on individual hero, but one grouping is too obvious to ignore:

Gandalf-Elrond-Galadriel

Gandalf's ability and Wizard Pipe work abusively well with Vilya, while Galadriel's ability keeps the high threat stable and the cards coming.

Some other heroes that decks are built around, with my guesses:

Rossiel-Mirlonde-LoPippin. Out of the Wild gets a secrecy discount and can power up Rossiel.

Elrohir-Elladan-Arwen. Strong quester that can give resource to resource-fueled defender/attacker pair.

TaBoromir-Galadriel-SpGlorfindel. Who am I to argue with Seastan's Boromir?

Caldara-Arwen-Cirdan. Get two strong allies in the discard in time for the first planning phase.

Looking at archtypes, I can actually make a pretty good guess on some of the stereotypical lineups, based on my deck analysis earlier this year. This is in the context of solo only. Here goes, not in order in inherent strength:

Outlands: Hirluin-LeBoromir-Theodred

Hirluin is obvious, and monosphere works for Lord of Morthand. LeBoromir boosts the Hunter of Lamedon and also supports Gondor allies you can slap Sword of Morthond. Theodred gives resource acceleration. The weakness here is initial questing. When City of Corsairs comes out, Imrahil will need to be one of the heroes.

Eagles: ?-?-?

When I did analysis I didn't look up the hero lineups used in the Eagles decks. Now I'd go with TaTheoden/TaEowyn/Mablung.

Ents: ?-?-?

My analysis had three Ent decks (Entmoot users), only one of which had hero Treebeard. That lineup was Treebeard-Elrond-SpGlorfindel, obviously relying on Elrond for red ents and using SpGlorfindel for his low threat. I think Treebeard-Elrond-TaEowyn might be better, essentially making it LLTT for ents. However, 2/3 ent decks relied on ally Treebeard instead, and with good reason since his resource accumulation is useful both for readying ents and paying for them. So the optimal Ent deck may not have Treebeard in it. Maybe instead: Elrond/Grima/TaEowyn for a first turn Treebeard? Another option might be LeFaramir/Grima/TaEowyn, since LeFaramir's ability is so useful for readying, although Elrond/Vilya gives you access to Elrond's Counsel to get some of that threat back.

Noldor: Arwen-?-?

My analysis was when Noldor was still coming out, so my sample of Noldor decks was one, Arwen/Elrond/Erestor. Now Arwen/Cirdan is a formidable one-two punch and I suspect part of the best deck. But would the third be Erestor, or Elrond to play all manner of allies, or somebody else?

Silvan: Celeborn-Haldir-Galadriel

Celeborn and Galadriel both enhance the Silvan allies, Haldir gives you an attacker and access to Lore silvans and The Tree People (though Galadriel gives Lore access once she gets her ring). Since the Silvans are about the allies, Eomer and Imrahil are also useful for Silvan decks, due to their leaves-play abilities.

Hobbits/Secrecy: Sam-LoPippin-TaMerry

In my analysis of 100 decks, seven had two or more hobbits, and four of those were this exact lineup -- all seven had LoPippin and one of the Merrys. SpMerry as a TaMerry sub takes away a combat action, but gives repeatable threat reduction to stay in secrecy. When looking at TaEowyn decks I also saw LoPippin/SpMerry/TaEowyn, starting threat of 18 with repeatable threat reduction.

Non-hobbit secrecy wasn't really a thing at the time, but with TaEowyn/SpGlorfindel combining for 11 starting threat, there's a lot more options available now.

Dwarf: (Dain or Thorin) - Nori - Ori

In my dwarf analysis, nearly all the dwarf decks had either Dain or Thorin, but none had both. Dain is essential with multiple dwarf decks, but in a lone dwarf deck Thorin and his powerful 5-dwarf ability make a very strong competitor. Ori's 5-dwarf card draw is a staple, and so was Nori's threat reduction for playing dwarves. I'm not honestly sure whether Dain or Thorin is better for the solo dwarf deck.

Traps: Damrod - ?<lore> - ?

Traps, Damrod, and ally Anborn make a trap deck. The rest could be some other type, though Forest Snare is the Dunedain deck's best friend. Halbarad-LoFaramir-Damrod would benefit from both Forest Snare and Ranger Spikes, but I'm guessing is not the best.

Dunedain: Halbarad-TaAragorn-Mablung

I think Amarthiul-Elfhelm with some sort of Aragorn (and of course, an Armored Destrier) is going to be better than this.

Gondor: LeBoromir - ? - ?

Since Boromir boosts Gondor allies the Gondor trait isn't so important for the heroes (though Visionary Leadership works on heroes). The two Gondor decks in my sample used Erkenbrand/Elanor and LeAragorn/Beregond, both of which don't have much initial questing. LeBoromir-LeDenethor is likely part of the best Gondor lineup.

Rohan: SpTheoden-SpEowyn-Eomer

Thematic and powerful, though with Theoden's discount I'm not sure swapping Eowyn to tactics to reduce initial threat by 3 would be a bad plan.

My analysis mostly didn't focus on individual hero, but one grouping is too obvious to ignore:

Gandalf-Elrond-Galadriel

Gandalf's ability and Wizard Pipe work abusively well with Vilya, while Galadriel's ability keeps the high threat stable and the cards coming.

Some other heroes that decks are built around, with my guesses:

Rossiel-Mirlonde-LoPippin. Out of the Wild gets a secrecy discount and can power up Rossiel.

Elrohir-Elladan-Arwen. Strong quester that can give resource to resource-fueled defender/attacker pair.

TaBoromir-Galadriel-SpGlorfindel. Who am I to argue with Seastan's Boromir?

Caldara-Arwen-Cirdan. Get two strong allies in the discard in time for the first planning phase.

Glaurung's "Thorin Company" deck which I played for years (and many more did as well i'm sure) uses Dáin and Thorin, as well as Ori. I also think it's a nice partial replacement of Steward of Gondor. I really like both in the same deck.

Also, now that we have Strider just around the corner, Glorfindel & Eowyn 2 hero secrecy might become a thing, especially if that deck type is getting more than, you know 2 cards. With Herugrim and a couple RIvendell Blades (both in-sphere), they both take care alone of most of questing and attacking. Add in ally Arwen, some Defenders of Rammas, Boromir ally + Raiment of War, and for card draw you have x3 Foe-Hammer, as well as x3 Westfold Horse-breeder, x3 Steed of Imladris and x3 Elven-light, you could make a pretty powerful team.

Looking at ringsdb published decks, sorting by author to detect different versions of the same deck, and excluding decks with non-dwarves (but not trying to separate out multiplayer decks), this is the count I get for dwarves with dwarven powers:

97 Dain

52 Ori

46 Thorin

39 Nori

24 Oin

22 Bombur

As you say, there are a lot with Thorin and Dain in the same deck. It looks like Dain-Thorin-Ori is a little bit more stereotypical than Dain-Ori-Nori.

Decks using Anfalas Herdsman (sure Outlands deck indicator), only using most recent from a given creator (minimum 5 to qualify)

32 Hirluin

9 Beravor

9 LeDenethor

9 Gandalf

8 SpGlorfindel

7 Elrond

6 LeAragorn

6 Arwen

6 Galadriel

5 LoAragorn

5 TaBeregond

5 Erestor

Hirluin was obvious, though I was surprised how many decks lacked him. The others all fall into the category of resource acceleration, card draw, or multi-sphere -- except for SpGlorfindel and TaBeregond, selected for their hero stats.

Looking at archtypes, I can actually make a pretty good guess on some of the stereotypical lineups, based on my deck analysis earlier this year. This is in the context of solo only. Here goes, not in order in inherent strength:

Outlands: Hirluin-LeBoromir-Theodred

Hirluin is obvious, and monosphere works for Lord of Morthand. LeBoromir boosts the Hunter of Lamedon and also supports Gondor allies you can slap Sword of Morthond. Theodred gives resource acceleration. The weakness here is initial questing. When City of Corsairs comes out, Imrahil will need to be one of the heroes.

Eagles: ?-?-?

When I did analysis I didn't look up the hero lineups used in the Eagles decks. Now I'd go with TaTheoden/TaEowyn/Mablung.

Ents: ?-?-?

My analysis had three Ent decks (Entmoot users), only one of which had hero Treebeard. That lineup was Treebeard-Elrond-SpGlorfindel, obviously relying on Elrond for red ents and using SpGlorfindel for his low threat. I think Treebeard-Elrond-TaEowyn might be better, essentially making it LLTT for ents. However, 2/3 ent decks relied on ally Treebeard instead, and with good reason since his resource accumulation is useful both for readying ents and paying for them. So the optimal Ent deck may not have Treebeard in it. Maybe instead: Elrond/Grima/TaEowyn for a first turn Treebeard? Another option might be LeFaramir/Grima/TaEowyn, since LeFaramir's ability is so useful for readying, although Elrond/Vilya gives you access to Elrond's Counsel to get some of that threat back.

Noldor: Arwen-?-?

My analysis was when Noldor was still coming out, so my sample of Noldor decks was one, Arwen/Elrond/Erestor. Now Arwen/Cirdan is a formidable one-two punch and I suspect part of the best deck. But would the third be Erestor, or Elrond to play all manner of allies, or somebody else?

Silvan: Celeborn-Haldir-Galadriel

Celeborn and Galadriel both enhance the Silvan allies, Haldir gives you an attacker and access to Lore silvans and The Tree People (though Galadriel gives Lore access once she gets her ring). Since the Silvans are about the allies, Eomer and Imrahil are also useful for Silvan decks, due to their leaves-play abilities.

Hobbits/Secrecy: Sam-LoPippin-TaMerry

In my analysis of 100 decks, seven had two or more hobbits, and four of those were this exact lineup -- all seven had LoPippin and one of the Merrys. SpMerry as a TaMerry sub takes away a combat action, but gives repeatable threat reduction to stay in secrecy. When looking at TaEowyn decks I also saw LoPippin/SpMerry/TaEowyn, starting threat of 18 with repeatable threat reduction.

Non-hobbit secrecy wasn't really a thing at the time, but with TaEowyn/SpGlorfindel combining for 11 starting threat, there's a lot more options available now.

Dwarf: (Dain or Thorin) - Nori - Ori

In my dwarf analysis, nearly all the dwarf decks had either Dain or Thorin, but none had both. Dain is essential with multiple dwarf decks, but in a lone dwarf deck Thorin and his powerful 5-dwarf ability make a very strong competitor. Ori's 5-dwarf card draw is a staple, and so was Nori's threat reduction for playing dwarves. I'm not honestly sure whether Dain or Thorin is better for the solo dwarf deck.

Traps: Damrod - ?<lore> - ?

Traps, Damrod, and ally Anborn make a trap deck. The rest could be some other type, though Forest Snare is the Dunedain deck's best friend. Halbarad-LoFaramir-Damrod would benefit from both Forest Snare and Ranger Spikes, but I'm guessing is not the best.

Dunedain: Halbarad-TaAragorn-Mablung

I think Amarthiul-Elfhelm with some sort of Aragorn (and of course, an Armored Destrier) is going to be better than this.

Gondor: LeBoromir - ? - ?

Since Boromir boosts Gondor allies the Gondor trait isn't so important for the heroes (though Visionary Leadership works on heroes). The two Gondor decks in my sample used Erkenbrand/Elanor and LeAragorn/Beregond, both of which don't have much initial questing. LeBoromir-LeDenethor is likely part of the best Gondor lineup.

Rohan: SpTheoden-SpEowyn-Eomer

Thematic and powerful, though with Theoden's discount I'm not sure swapping Eowyn to tactics to reduce initial threat by 3 would be a bad plan.

My analysis mostly didn't focus on individual hero, but one grouping is too obvious to ignore:

Gandalf-Elrond-Galadriel

Gandalf's ability and Wizard Pipe work abusively well with Vilya, while Galadriel's ability keeps the high threat stable and the cards coming.

Some other heroes that decks are built around, with my guesses:

Rossiel-Mirlonde-LoPippin. Out of the Wild gets a secrecy discount and can power up Rossiel.

Elrohir-Elladan-Arwen. Strong quester that can give resource to resource-fueled defender/attacker pair.

TaBoromir-Galadriel-SpGlorfindel. Who am I to argue with Seastan's Boromir?

Caldara-Arwen-Cirdan. Get two strong allies in the discard in time for the first planning phase.

Outlands: Obviously Lord of Morthond is insane, but I really like the non-mono-leadership Outland decks out there right now. Some good ones with Gandalf or Hero Elrond to give you two or three heroes capable of paying for all your Outlands allies. There are Erestor/LeaDenethor/Hirluin, Gandalf/Bifur/Hirluin, and Gandalf/Loreagorn/Hirluin decks on RingsDB that I would prefer to a mono-leadership version at the moment.

Eagles: Mablung is obviously MVP because of how expensive Eagles are. Leadership Denethor is also a huge champ-- he can pass a resource to Mablung to help pay and he gives you Steward access, as well as Sneak Attack for your Descendents. I'd probably go Mablung / LeaDenethor, and then either TaBoromir (to maximize the usefulness of Support) or T'Eowyn (for questing / keeping your threat under control).

Ents: I agree that you probably want Ally Treebeard over Hero Treebeard. I'd say Gandalf / T'Eowyn / Lore Pippin or LeFaramir / T'Eowyn / Lore Pippin. Gandalf gets you Narya, Faramir gets you the ready on engagement, the other two keep your starting threat low. Elrond and Grima are also solid contenders, as are Mablung and TacMerry.

Dwarf: Don't sleep on Thorin / Ori / Bombur. Bombur + two Lore heroes means Thorin / Ori are both going to be activated by turn 2 almost all of the time, because there are just so many 1- or 2-cost Lore dwarves right now. (But yeah, Thorin vs. Dain is always an open question in solo, and Dain always wins in multiplayer.)

Caldara: Eowyn + Arwen. Best Caldara lineup, though Galadriel and Cirdan can always be solid subs.

Decks using Anfalas Herdsman (sure Outlands deck indicator), only using most recent from a given creator (minimum 5 to qualify)

32 Hirluin

9 Beravor

9 LeDenethor

9 Gandalf

8 SpGlorfindel

7 Elrond

6 LeAragorn

6 Arwen

6 Galadriel

5 LoAragorn

5 TaBeregond

5 Erestor

Hirluin was obvious, though I was surprised how many decks lacked him. The others all fall into the category of resource acceleration, card draw, or multi-sphere -- except for SpGlorfindel and TaBeregond, selected for their hero stats.

I think the Warrior of Lossarnach would be a much better indicator for an Outlands deck. Lots of people use Anfalas Herdsman with Ethir Swordsman in any garden-variety Spirit/Lore deck. Extra durability to the Swordsmen, plus cheap willpower from the Herdsmen.

Decks using Anfalas Herdsman (sure Outlands deck indicator), only using most recent from a given creator (minimum 5 to qualify)

32 Hirluin

9 Beravor

9 LeDenethor

9 Gandalf

8 SpGlorfindel

7 Elrond

6 LeAragorn

6 Arwen

6 Galadriel

5 LoAragorn

5 TaBeregond

5 Erestor

Hirluin was obvious, though I was surprised how many decks lacked him. The others all fall into the category of resource acceleration, card draw, or multi-sphere -- except for SpGlorfindel and TaBeregond, selected for their hero stats.

I think the Warrior of Lossarnach would be a much better indicator for an Outlands deck. Lots of people use Anfalas Herdsman with Ethir Swordsman in any garden-variety Spirit/Lore deck. Extra durability to the Swordsmen, plus cheap willpower from the Herdsmen.

Hunter of Lamedon. He doesn't buff other Outlands and his Response is limited to drawing Outlands cards.

Hunter of Lamedon. He doesn't buff other Outlands and his Response is limited to drawing Outlands cards.

Nah, I've used him in Gandalf decks to discard the top card of the deck when I don't need it.

I was surprised about the omission of LLT. I have had several decks with those, usually based around Haldir who is usually at his best with another low-threat Lore hero and a Tactics hero to supply weapons, etc. Mirlonde, Legolas is thematic, but the ranger way with Damrod is also possible. Even Imrahil can play the Tactics role and keep pulling Galadhon Archer and Lórien Marksman for their enter-play effects and ranged abilities.

Hunter of Lamedon. He doesn't buff other Outlands and his Response is limited to drawing Outlands cards.

Wouldn't be surprised to see this ally been cut in outlanddecks these days....