hmmm as far as auto-lose or one hit death sort of situations there are only really a few quests that will actually feature these sort of effectsand even then you are sort of expecting it because those particular quests are so notoriously difficult or punishing so you can sort of prepare for these effects. Most loses I encounter are towards the end of a game so I still get to play the majority of a game and even with the loss have fun. I personally love the mechanics of this game and think that they work really well but again am biased because I love the setting and the mechanics tie into the setting and theme so well. The mechanics have definitely gotten a lot better as the game has progressed and admittedly some earlier quests are very basic compared to newer quests but nightmare can definitely address and fix this issue as can handicapping yourself with weaker (but maybe more fun?) decks.

A little on the subject of auto-lose cards, one thing that I wonder about is what people mean. For example, I can sometimes hit a board state where the balance is such that a normally OK card becomes auto-lose. Precious few quests, as Psychorocka says, have actual auto-lose cards, which I take to mean cards that can defeat you no matter what your board state is. If a card defeats you because you have precarious board state, or made a stupid decision that entailed the risk of auto-losing (eg defending against an attack with an objective ally that cannot leave the game, and not taking into account a shadow effect that could cause the character to die in one hit) then that's actually not, in my view, the game's fault, but poor play by the player.

This means that I honestly think that only a very small number of quests have auto-lose cards (the notorious Sleeping Sentry is one card of this type). Usually cards that look like auto-lose are actually just part of each quest's challenge. I recently had real trouble winning The Thing in the Depths, because I was playing my decks as though the final boss fight was a normal boss fight, which it isn't, and this meant that certain shadow effects kept defeating me. I did not really change the decks between plays, but changed how I approached combat.

I don't know. I am very much not trying to be defensive about this game, and it is undoubtedly hard and unforgiving sometimes (and the rules can be complex because of inconsistent wording, which is annoying). It requires investment (financial and temporal), but it is now very rare to find a quest that can, in one turn, defeat you, with one card. That particular criticism is fair at the start, but now a little dated. If it were the case, then it is absolutely bad design - no question there! Big hitting enemies are not 'one-hit-death', really, but problems to be solved. If we don't solve it, then sure, it's one-hit-death, but then that's more about how we play the game more than the design. But given the time and money requirement, I think all LCGs should be considered a lot before investment.

Thanks very much! Yes that's exactly what I meant by "one hit kills." If it's my bad and I learned something, then so much the better, yet if the game has certain states that make it unavoidable, that's bad design. Problems to be solved make the best games, I think, and deck building challenges just give me a chance to do something I love and your recent experience with the Thing in the Depths kind of tells me this is my type of challenge. I change my deck strategy very slowly as I want to give it enough iterations to judge it's effectiveness, but I tend to change different tactics with that build on the fly and it sounds like this game rewards that. A real plus! Let me ask though please, has your investment in this game been worth it to you monkeyrama?

No problem, quite happy to answer that! Although bear with me if this gets verbose...

I got this game when it first came out, so I've been collecting since the beginning, and have seen it gradually mature into a much better game than when it started - although I'm not that active on this forum, I've also been here for years now, and have generally found it to be a positive place, the usual internet bickering aside! The recent expansions for the game in particular have started to develop interesting mechanics that keep quests challenging throughout their duration (early quests often front-loaded difficulty, which was not great design).

I play many board games socially (when I can) but LOTR is the game for me, because it is mechanic heavy and plays to a theme I enjoy. I like the puzzle (whereas the games I play with other people tend to be clever but lighter games - 7 Wonders is a big favourite, as it Takenoko etc.). So for me, LOTR is my solo game that keeps my brain ticking over on something that is not work. Having a deck slowly piece together in my mind and then trying to make it work in reality is part of the fun for me. For that reason I don't net-deck, even though my own decks kinda suck most of the time! (although I have no problem with net-decking whatsoever)

I also don't get to play as much as many people on the forums do. I am a lecturer, and during semester I struggle to play more than once a week (if that), and therefore I don't have the nightmare packs (not enough time) and I still don't have the latest saga expansion, as I'm catching up on the current Dreamchaser cycle, and I haven't played in over a week, as I'm deep in a period of marking... The current release rate is about spot on for me, and it's absolutely worth it to keep up the collection. One major benefit of the game is that it travels well. If I go to a conference or something similar, I can pack 2 decks and 2 scenarios in a corner of my bag and get the break I need from work after the conference papers finish each evening. All I need is a decent floor space or desk space and I can play, so crappy hotel rooms are no problem!

The only problem I get sometimes is when a quest is on the harder end of the scale, as I don't deck build quite as quickly as others (or as often) and so if the decks I'm currently running hit a wall, it can take ages to beat it (so I have still not won against the last two Angmar cycle packs...). Really beastly quests can stump me for ages, and I usually turn to a few favourite decks to beat them.

As to the reward of solving a puzzle, that's a big part. The Thing in the Deeps situation, eg, was caused because I couldn't quite hit the right tempo between the two quests stages. The scenario changes completely between Stage 1 and Stage 2, and I kept moving too quickly or too slowly. I switched out one hero (sadly dropping Faramir to add in Mablung) and tweaked one deck to include 4 more allies for defense, and that was all it took to shift the play style to beat it. It was satisfying, and if puzzle solving is a draw then this game has it in spades. It is definitely the case that more recent cycles have tried to avoid insta-kill cards and instead offer a more consistent pressure on decks, and I really do think that the developers are starting to hit a sweet-spot in this respect. It's a sign of maturity for the game, as early cycles were less good at this. I like that even if I get a good board state I can rarely switch off my brain, but I also rarely feel like I lost because I could do nothing to prevent it.

Finally, on the rules issue, although the game can be played solo, and sometimes the rules are a little complex in terms of some interactions, you do not need to house-rule to make it work. I don't house-rule at all, and while some combos or cards can evidently be made to be broken (honorable mention to Seastan here among those who show how to break the game, which I find endlessly amusing!), if you don't wanna do that, then don't. The lack of a competitive scene is the final, big draw for me. I used to play 40K in a very competitive club, and I just got bored, because if you didn't play whatever the current power army was, why show up? With this game, I control to a large extent that side of it, and if I don't like a quest, I just don't play it and instead focus on the ones I enjoy.

Hope this helps you make your decision. I am also a big fan of LOTR and the extended world, so that obviously draws me in. Now if only they'd release a Faramir hero that usurps Boromir as a powerhouse...

That wasn't verbose at all, and very informative, Thank You! Okay now I'm really convinced I'll like Lord of the Rings for many reasons my research here has uncovered and I've already discussed so I won't bore you with that further. Most importantly, you confirmed what I thought about the game. That it gets better with the later cycles. I had kind of guessed that as one: all systems evolve and two: one of the designers on another solo game I'm getting into had some design ideas I REALLY liked and came from Lord of the Rings having joined it later in the cycles. The space consideration and puzzle aspect are HUGE for me and what you said about the difficulty answered some of my most important design questions as well ESPECIALLY coming from someone else who has encountered the WarHammer 40k rules set. A game, that for me, is all about paying your dues, studying, picking a strategy, adapting tactics on the fly and getting better, which I love, but I was hoping the players mindset wasn't like that everywhere as I've always wanted to learn to paint well. However, Zombicide Black Plague looks like it could scratch that same itch, is soloable, has 1/8 th the footprint, and gives me a LOT to paint. Hmmmmm. You may have just given me a great idea! Not playing doesn't mean I can't still follow the lore (which I love) Anywho, I digress wildly. Back on topic however you (and others here as well) have convinced me to give it a go. I'd like to follow the path of the releases but that's just not available. What would you suggest for a starting solo kit that would give me the flexibility to puzzle solve? What are the best of those later sets where the "kinks" had been worked out? Can you help me develop a starting set, so to speak? I'm liking the look of the Lost Realm and Angmar Awakened cycle, (all currently available.) but surely I'll need some cards from preceding sets right? Especially since you just said that (along with CrusaderLord) the last two cycle packs were pretty beastly right? So maybe that's not the best starting point? So any suggestions as to kit? Also am I right that if I play two decks as most suggest, that I'll definitely need two core sets? Thanks again for all the help! : )

If you are joining late, like I did, pick a race/faction/tribe... that's your favorite and look below what packs to buy.

https://talesfromthecards.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/new-player-buying-guide/

Personally the quests are what make the game fun so I tend to buy more deluxe expansions as they give more quests per $/€. Adventure packs give more player cards per $/€. So decide if you want to grow your card pool for deck building or your quest pool for playing. Heroes cost the sme no matter waht you buy (except hobbit sage gives a good $/€ per hero, but they are ver dwarf heavy)

A bit of topic but might be good to know for a new player who still wants to spend money on other games.

Yes I'm joining quite late and finding that there are some canny opportunists who are really taking advantage of folk that don't do their research! (Economically, I mean, not on these forums.) So please, am I right that I can start ANYwhere? I'd really like to get the Lost Realm and Angmar Awakens. To spare you my previous walls o' text, I am trying to replace my favorite solo game that's ALL about exploration which is space prohibitive and where my favorite character was an Artemis / Ranger type. So Lost Realm/Angmar looks PERFECT, the fact that CrusaderLord is a solo player who enjoyed all but the last two packs in the cycle is a plus, however he and Monkeyrama have mentioned the difficulty of those last two packs so I'm not SURE. Also, it's available. THANK YOU for that site. It will be a big help! That's some deep research to dive into, just what I was looking for. It should honestly be a sticky for new players along with the resource sheet PsychoRocka linked. I hadn't made the exact link that adventure packs = stuff to deck build with and Deluxe Expansions = stuff to play, is that right? Also I've now read this in several threads, why is being Dwarf heavy a bad thing? Is it for a play reason or is there some reason they just aren't popular with fans of the Mythos? Also, you're not off topic, this was very helpful Thank You! : ) My starting kit so far 1 Core, the Lost Realms, the entire Agmar cycle. I'm also looking at Grey Havens/Dream chaser cycle as adventure plus water looks too good to pass up and that has been mentioned by my "mentors" as well. Again, some of this is based on recommendation some is based on availability. Sound good so far?

I hadn't made the exact link that adventure packs = stuff to deck build with and Deluxe Expansions = stuff to play, is that right? Also I've now read this in several threads, why is being Dwarf heavy a bad thing?

Both deluxe expansions and adventure packs contain a mixture of player cards and quests. Specifically, a deluxe contains 3 quests and more player cards, whereas an adventure pack contains one quest and 10 different player cards including the hero. Additionally, adventure pack quests will include some generic encounter sets found in the preceding deluxxe expansion as well as the quest-specific one, so you need the deluxe to play those quests.

As to being Dwarf-heavy, there's nothing wrong with Dwarves other than some players find Dwarf decks boring, but some of the Dwarf cards (certainly most of the heroes in the Hobbit Sagas) are really only useful in a dedicated Dwarf deck, so you don't get much flexibility out of them.

hmmm as far as auto-lose or one hit death sort of situations there are only really a few quests that will actually feature these sort of effectsand even then you are sort of expecting it because those particular quests are so notoriously difficult or punishing so you can sort of prepare for these effects. Most loses I encounter are towards the end of a game so I still get to play the majority of a game and even with the loss have fun. I personally love the mechanics of this game and think that they work really well but again am biased because I love the setting and the mechanics tie into the setting and theme so well. The mechanics have definitely gotten a lot better as the game has progressed and admittedly some earlier quests are very basic compared to newer quests but nightmare can definitely address and fix this issue as can handicapping yourself with weaker (but maybe more fun?) decks.

A little on the subject of auto-lose cards, one thing that I wonder about is what people mean. For example, I can sometimes hit a board state where the balance is such that a normally OK card becomes auto-lose. Precious few quests, as Psychorocka says, have actual auto-lose cards, which I take to mean cards that can defeat you no matter what your board state is. If a card defeats you because you have precarious board state, or made a stupid decision that entailed the risk of auto-losing (eg defending against an attack with an objective ally that cannot leave the game, and not taking into account a shadow effect that could cause the character to die in one hit) then that's actually not, in my view, the game's fault, but poor play by the player.

This means that I honestly think that only a very small number of quests have auto-lose cards (the notorious Sleeping Sentry is one card of this type). Usually cards that look like auto-lose are actually just part of each quest's challenge. I recently had real trouble winning The Thing in the Depths, because I was playing my decks as though the final boss fight was a normal boss fight, which it isn't, and this meant that certain shadow effects kept defeating me. I did not really change the decks between plays, but changed how I approached combat.

I don't know. I am very much not trying to be defensive about this game, and it is undoubtedly hard and unforgiving sometimes (and the rules can be complex because of inconsistent wording, which is annoying). It requires investment (financial and temporal), but it is now very rare to find a quest that can, in one turn, defeat you, with one card. That particular criticism is fair at the start, but now a little dated. If it were the case, then it is absolutely bad design - no question there! Big hitting enemies are not 'one-hit-death', really, but problems to be solved. If we don't solve it, then sure, it's one-hit-death, but then that's more about how we play the game more than the design. But given the time and money requirement, I think all LCGs should be considered a lot before investment.

Thanks very much! Yes that's exactly what I meant by "one hit kills." If it's my bad and I learned something, then so much the better, yet if the game has certain states that make it unavoidable, that's bad design. Problems to be solved make the best games, I think, and deck building challenges just give me a chance to do something I love and your recent experience with the Thing in the Depths kind of tells me this is my type of challenge. I change my deck strategy very slowly as I want to give it enough iterations to judge it's effectiveness, but I tend to change different tactics with that build on the fly and it sounds like this game rewards that. A real plus! Let me ask though please, has your investment in this game been worth it to you monkeyrama?

No problem, quite happy to answer that! Although bear with me if this gets verbose...

I got this game when it first came out, so I've been collecting since the beginning, and have seen it gradually mature into a much better game than when it started - although I'm not that active on this forum, I've also been here for years now, and have generally found it to be a positive place, the usual internet bickering aside! The recent expansions for the game in particular have started to develop interesting mechanics that keep quests challenging throughout their duration (early quests often front-loaded difficulty, which was not great design).

I play many board games socially (when I can) but LOTR is the game for me, because it is mechanic heavy and plays to a theme I enjoy. I like the puzzle (whereas the games I play with other people tend to be clever but lighter games - 7 Wonders is a big favourite, as it Takenoko etc.). So for me, LOTR is my solo game that keeps my brain ticking over on something that is not work. Having a deck slowly piece together in my mind and then trying to make it work in reality is part of the fun for me. For that reason I don't net-deck, even though my own decks kinda suck most of the time! (although I have no problem with net-decking whatsoever)

I also don't get to play as much as many people on the forums do. I am a lecturer, and during semester I struggle to play more than once a week (if that), and therefore I don't have the nightmare packs (not enough time) and I still don't have the latest saga expansion, as I'm catching up on the current Dreamchaser cycle, and I haven't played in over a week, as I'm deep in a period of marking... The current release rate is about spot on for me, and it's absolutely worth it to keep up the collection. One major benefit of the game is that it travels well. If I go to a conference or something similar, I can pack 2 decks and 2 scenarios in a corner of my bag and get the break I need from work after the conference papers finish each evening. All I need is a decent floor space or desk space and I can play, so crappy hotel rooms are no problem!

The only problem I get sometimes is when a quest is on the harder end of the scale, as I don't deck build quite as quickly as others (or as often) and so if the decks I'm currently running hit a wall, it can take ages to beat it (so I have still not won against the last two Angmar cycle packs...). Really beastly quests can stump me for ages, and I usually turn to a few favourite decks to beat them.

As to the reward of solving a puzzle, that's a big part. The Thing in the Deeps situation, eg, was caused because I couldn't quite hit the right tempo between the two quests stages. The scenario changes completely between Stage 1 and Stage 2, and I kept moving too quickly or too slowly. I switched out one hero (sadly dropping Faramir to add in Mablung) and tweaked one deck to include 4 more allies for defense, and that was all it took to shift the play style to beat it. It was satisfying, and if puzzle solving is a draw then this game has it in spades. It is definitely the case that more recent cycles have tried to avoid insta-kill cards and instead offer a more consistent pressure on decks, and I really do think that the developers are starting to hit a sweet-spot in this respect. It's a sign of maturity for the game, as early cycles were less good at this. I like that even if I get a good board state I can rarely switch off my brain, but I also rarely feel like I lost because I could do nothing to prevent it.

Finally, on the rules issue, although the game can be played solo, and sometimes the rules are a little complex in terms of some interactions, you do not need to house-rule to make it work. I don't house-rule at all, and while some combos or cards can evidently be made to be broken (honorable mention to Seastan here among those who show how to break the game, which I find endlessly amusing!), if you don't wanna do that, then don't. The lack of a competitive scene is the final, big draw for me. I used to play 40K in a very competitive club, and I just got bored, because if you didn't play whatever the current power army was, why show up? With this game, I control to a large extent that side of it, and if I don't like a quest, I just don't play it and instead focus on the ones I enjoy.

Hope this helps you make your decision. I am also a big fan of LOTR and the extended world, so that obviously draws me in. Now if only they'd release a Faramir hero that usurps Boromir as a powerhouse...

That wasn't verbose at all, and very informative, Thank You! Okay now I'm really convinced I'll like Lord of the Rings for many reasons my research here has uncovered and I've already discussed so I won't bore you with that further. Most importantly, you confirmed what I thought about the game. That it gets better with the later cycles. I had kind of guessed that as one: all systems evolve and two: one of the designers on another solo game I'm getting into had some design ideas I REALLY liked and came from Lord of the Rings having joined it later in the cycles. The space consideration and puzzle aspect are HUGE for me and what you said about the difficulty answered some of my most important design questions as well ESPECIALLY coming from someone else who has encountered the WarHammer 40k rules set. A game, that for me, is all about paying your dues, studying, picking a strategy, adapting tactics on the fly and getting better, which I love, but I was hoping the players mindset wasn't like that everywhere as I've always wanted to learn to paint well. However, Zombicide Black Plague looks like it could scratch that same itch, is soloable, has 1/8 th the footprint, and gives me a LOT to paint. Hmmmmm. You may have just given me a great idea! Not playing doesn't mean I can't still follow the lore (which I love) Anywho, I digress wildly. Back on topic however you (and others here as well) have convinced me to give it a go. I'd like to follow the path of the releases but that's just not available. What would you suggest for a starting solo kit that would give me the flexibility to puzzle solve? What are the best of those later sets where the "kinks" had been worked out? Can you help me develop a starting set, so to speak? I'm liking the look of the Lost Realm and Angmar Awakened cycle, (all currently available.) but surely I'll need some cards from preceding sets right? Especially since you just said that (along with CrusaderLord) the last two cycle packs were pretty beastly right? So maybe that's not the best starting point? So any suggestions as to kit? Also am I right that if I play two decks as most suggest, that I'll definitely need two core sets? Thanks again for all the help! : )

I play two-handed solo, and I get by with only one core set. Usually, my decks focus on different spheres, so there's very little (if any) overlap between the two. The core came with fewer than three copies of some desirable cards, but it's quite possible to make do without, and I certainly wouldn't recommend buying a second core set simply because you're playing two-handed! (If you're playing 3-4 decks, or if you really want extras of those cards regardless of how many decks you're playing, on the other hand...)

Also, you may already know this from your research (and I apologize if it's already been mentioned), but adventure packs require the corresponding deluxe expansion in order to play them (except Mirkwood cycle, which just needs the base set). For this reason, if you're looking for the best value, you may want to start with a cycle where both the deluxe expansion quests and a few of the adventure packs appeal to you.

Got it thanks! Only planning one core set as I'm probably only going to play two decks. Are you saying that it's not really a good idea to play multi-sphere decks? So one tactics/spirit and one leadership/lore to cover all bases isn't great? I didn't know that adventure packs required certain deluxe expansions but the online retailers very kindly point that out before you order thankfully! So far my starting kit is: One core the Lost Realms / Agmar cycle and I'm leaning heavily towards Grey Haven / Dream chaser with The Ruins of Belegost for a kind of dugeon crawl feel. If I can only play two one sphere decks they will probably be Tactics / Spirit. Do you think that's a good start? Thanks again for your help!

I hadn't made the exact link that adventure packs = stuff to deck build with and Deluxe Expansions = stuff to play, is that right? Also I've now read this in several threads, why is being Dwarf heavy a bad thing?

Both deluxe expansions and adventure packs contain a mixture of player cards and quests. Specifically, a deluxe contains 3 quests and more player cards, whereas an adventure pack contains one quest and 10 different player cards including the hero. Additionally, adventure pack quests will include some generic encounter sets found in the preceding deluxxe expansion as well as the quest-specific one, so you need the deluxe to play those quests.

As to being Dwarf-heavy, there's nothing wrong with Dwarves other than some players find Dwarf decks boring, but some of the Dwarf cards (certainly most of the heroes in the Hobbit Sagas) are really only useful in a dedicated Dwarf deck, so you don't get much flexibility out of them.

Okay, I think I understand. So my above kit looks okay then for a starting solo player? I was going to avoid Sagas entirely as they seem to change the game somewhat and I'm not really sure what they add for someone who isn't playing with a deep knowledge of the Middle Earth story and for whom, really doesn't have that as a motivator to play. I'm interested in the mechanisms and exploration. Thank You! : )

Got it thanks! Only planning one core set as I'm probably only going to play two decks. Are you saying that it's not really a good idea to play multi-sphere decks? So one tactics/spirit and one leadership/lore to cover all bases isn't great? I didn't know that adventure packs required certain deluxe expansions but the online retailers very kindly point that out before you order thankfully! So far my starting kit is: One core the Lost Realms / Agmar cycle and I'm leaning heavily towards Grey Haven / Dream chaser with The Ruins of Belegost for a kind of dugeon crawl feel. If I can only play two one sphere decks they will probably be Tactics / Spirit. Do you think that's a good start? Thanks again for your help!

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that multi-sphere decks aren't a good idea! (I tend to use a Leadership/Tactics deck paired with a Lore/Spirit deck, myself.) What I meant is that when playing two-handed, you're probably not going to have two decks which share a sphere (like a Leadership/Lore deck paired with a Leadership/Spirit deck, for instance).

Okay, I think I understand. So my above kit looks okay then for a starting solo player? I was going to avoid Sagas entirely as they seem to change the game somewhat and I'm not really sure what they add for someone who isn't playing with a deep knowledge of the Middle Earth story and for whom, really doesn't have that as a motivator to play. I'm interested in the mechanisms and exploration. Thank You! : )

Saga expansions actually don't change the game that much on their own. You can still play the three expansions in each of the saga boxes with the only change being the addition of an additional hero with a unique sphere, who doesn't count against your three heroes per deck. However, they also give you the option of playing the quests in Campaign Mode. In Campaign Mode, you may earn boon cards or burden cards which are added to your deck and carry over to the next game in Campaign Mode.

Got it thanks! Only planning one core set as I'm probably only going to play two decks. Are you saying that it's not really a good idea to play multi-sphere decks? So one tactics/spirit and one leadership/lore to cover all bases isn't great? I didn't know that adventure packs required certain deluxe expansions but the online retailers very kindly point that out before you order thankfully! So far my starting kit is: One core the Lost Realms / Agmar cycle and I'm leaning heavily towards Grey Haven / Dream chaser with The Ruins of Belegost for a kind of dugeon crawl feel. If I can only play two one sphere decks they will probably be Tactics / Spirit. Do you think that's a good start? Thanks again for your help!

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that multi-sphere decks aren't a good idea! (I tend to use a Leadership/Tactics deck paired with a Lore/Spirit deck, myself.) What I meant is that when playing two-handed, you're probably not going to have two decks which share a sphere (like a Leadership/Lore deck paired with a Leadership/Spirit deck, for instance).

Okay, I think I understand. So my above kit looks okay then for a starting solo player? I was going to avoid Sagas entirely as they seem to change the game somewhat and I'm not really sure what they add for someone who isn't playing with a deep knowledge of the Middle Earth story and for whom, really doesn't have that as a motivator to play. I'm interested in the mechanisms and exploration. Thank You! : )

Saga expansions actually don't change the game that much on their own. You can still play the three expansions in each of the saga boxes with the only change being the addition of an additional hero with a unique sphere, who doesn't count against your three heroes per deck. However, they also give you the option of playing the quests in Campaign Mode. In Campaign Mode, you may earn boon cards or burden cards which are added to your deck and carry over to the next game in Campaign Mode.

Ah that clarifies it. So they give what is usually a one off game a sense of persistence and progression via the boon / burden cards? Would you recommend them to add to a starting solo kit? Do I understand you right in that they give you a 4th hero to start with so that means an extra resource each turn right? Thank You! : )

The saga series do have an extra hero who also gains a resource each turn to largely be spent on new specific items that they can use and also can spend on neutral cards.

In the non saga cycles there are many quests that give you an extra starting ally to help you and who you must protect - this is particularly true in Angmar Cycle. So quite often you will start with 4 characters whichever sets you choose.

In terms of your starting kit - personally i prefer the deluxe and cycles over the saga boxes ones - the main reason for this is that i find the cycles are a bit more inventive in their quests and whilst they do follow the settings of the main story they divert into different ideas, while the saga concentrates on you playing the actual story events.

This said if you go with a core set and jump straight to Lost Realms and Grey Havens then you may find it quite tough as you will have missed out on early player cards that do build up the deck choices. I will agree the quests get better from the Mirkwood Cycles onwards but this was the place where you got some core cards to help you get started. There is no right or wrong answer to this, if you like the theme of a Cycle then you are more likely to play it so i say go with that, but if you do find it too hard you may need to backtrack into Mirkwood Cycle to get some extra player cards. I am not an expert on dual decks as i play one deck so my experiences may not be same.

A quick aside - if you want to play hobbits as heroes and have support cards for them then you do need the first saga box Black Riders - i only had that one saga box for ages and only now have bought Flame of the West skipping the rest. The Black Riders does have quite good quests in it and are not the hardest out there either.

My own favourite cycles are Khazad Dum and Dwarrowdelf and Lost Realms and Angmar - the former is overall not as tough as more recent quests and has some really great quests in it. I have still skipped Heirs of Numenor (high difficulty level) and would not recommend Voice of Isengard (time rules) over other deluxe box sets. Also i would not recommend Hobbit boxes unless you want a load of Dwarf heroes and items - these Hobbit box quests are not the best ones around. Important to note that the Hobbit labelled boxes were not the place to buy the Hobbit based cards and heroes (if you not familiar with the storylines you may make this assumption).

Finally Ruins of Belegost is an excellent quest theme with lovely cards and artwork but is very very very hard to play as written. Get it yes but don't play it first as it will set a high bar.

The above is all my own opinions and wont reflect everyones, my website has some more personal thoughts on the quests - it may help a bit > http://crusadersgolf.co.uk/board-games/lord-of-the-rings-lcg/

One thing to remember about tough quests, especially as a beginning player, is that there's no moral shame in easing the difficulty level by adding a resource to each hero during setup, or going all the way to easy mode. A deck that can't beat an easy quest consistently needs major surgery, but a deck that can't beat a very hard quest may still be fun to play against most of the quests -- and may still be fun to play against a hard quest on an easier difficulty level. If you find you can't beat Carn Dum with the cards you have, getting more cards in order to beat it needn't be your first priority.

The saga series do have an extra hero who also gains a resource each turn to largely be spent on new specific items that they can use and also can spend on neutral cards.

In the non saga cycles there are many quests that give you an extra starting ally to help you and who you must protect - this is particularly true in Angmar Cycle. So quite often you will start with 4 characters whichever sets you choose.

In terms of your starting kit - personally i prefer the deluxe and cycles over the saga boxes ones - the main reason for this is that i find the cycles are a bit more inventive in their quests and whilst they do follow the settings of the main story they divert into different ideas, while the saga concentrates on you playing the actual story events.

This said if you go with a core set and jump straight to Lost Realms and Grey Havens then you may find it quite tough as you will have missed out on early player cards that do build up the deck choices. I will agree the quests get better from the Mirkwood Cycles onwards but this was the place where you got some core cards to help you get started. There is no right or wrong answer to this, if you like the theme of a Cycle then you are more likely to play it so i say go with that, but if you do find it too hard you may need to backtrack into Mirkwood Cycle to get some extra player cards. I am not an expert on dual decks as i play one deck so my experiences may not be same.

A quick aside - if you want to play hobbits as heroes and have support cards for them then you do need the first saga box Black Riders - i only had that one saga box for ages and only now have bought Flame of the West skipping the rest. The Black Riders does have quite good quests in it and are not the hardest out there either.

My own favourite cycles are Khazad Dum and Dwarrowdelf and Lost Realms and Angmar - the former is overall not as tough as more recent quests and has some really great quests in it. I have still skipped Heirs of Numenor (high difficulty level) and would not recommend Voice of Isengard (time rules) over other deluxe box sets. Also i would not recommend Hobbit boxes unless you want a load of Dwarf heroes and items - these Hobbit box quests are not the best ones around. Important to note that the Hobbit labelled boxes were not the place to buy the Hobbit based cards and heroes (if you not familiar with the storylines you may make this assumption).

Finally Ruins of Belegost is an excellent quest theme with lovely cards and artwork but is very very very hard to play as written. Get it yes but don't play it first as it will set a high bar.

The above is all my own opinions and wont reflect everyones, my website has some more personal thoughts on the quests - it may help a bit > http://crusadersgolf.co.uk/board-games/lord-of-the-rings-lcg/

Thanks CrusaderLord! Okay I think I have my starting kit, which may be difficult, but that's okay actually I LIKE that and the reality is I just have to wait until the earlier stuff becomes available. My starting kit will be: One core, The Lost Realm with the entire Angmar cycle, Grey Havens with the entire Dreamchaser cycle, and Ruins of Belegost for the occasional "Get dem loots! No, RUN you fool!" experience. I love the themes (Rangers, Sailors, and tricks with the discard pile what's NOT to love?) and variety of these deluxe sets and have seen trusted reviews on both by marcowargamer who enjoys and recommends them highly (but does so in spite of the difficulty) I'll get as much of the earlier stuff as I can but I want to add A deluxe with all of it's cycle when I do. I'm completely avoiding Sagas for now, seeing the Deluxe/Cycle combo as the most efficient use of investment. I'm not too worried about the difficulty because I enjoy that AND because I intend to play the 24 quests completely randomly, building up a score card based on a win/loss setup rather than a linear "play your way through the adventure" setup. Sound good? What early adventure packs/deluxe sets that are available do you feel have the most important building blocks that are must have for approaching that difficulty though remembering that I don't house rule or use easy mode based on the reasons I listed above?

One thing to remember about tough quests, especially as a beginning player, is that there's no moral shame in easing the difficulty level by adding a resource to each hero during setup, or going all the way to easy mode. A deck that can't beat an easy quest consistently needs major surgery, but a deck that can't beat a very hard quest may still be fun to play against most of the quests -- and may still be fun to play against a hard quest on an easier difficulty level. If you find you can't beat Carn Dum with the cards you have, getting more cards in order to beat it needn't be your first priority.

Thank You I really do appreciate the input! I actually enjoy the challenge. I expect to send a few "scouting runs" to Carn Dum and always prefer exploratory surgery to just outright playing God. Part of the draw is to learn what the designer's intentions were, and it's fun to think about why they thought one or the other design was balanced and why they made things the way they did. Changing bits around to suit myself is, to me, rather the equivalent of photo shopping the Mona Lisa just because I don't like her attitude. It's not mine to mess with someone else's art, specifically if I'm trying to learn what art IS.