Hi, i've been playing lotr lcg casualy for a long time and i want to expand my collection a bit. I have two first cycles complete, both hobbit boxes and first two sagas. Scenarios i enjoyed the most were dwarrowelf cycle and the worst were the hobbit ones. Sadly i'm not a fan of dwarf decks and most of what i have support this playstyle. I can only buy one big box. My choices are:

>Get treason of saruman and continue with the saga.

>Get wilds of rhovanion because i enjoy dale theme.

>Get heirs of numenor and continue with relase order.

Help me decide guys. I like playing solo. I'm eventually planning to get more but one bog box is what i can get atm.

Heirs will probably disappoint you because of the challenge level and how some of the mechanics invalidate a good deal of your card pool (thinking of Battle and Siege questing).

Wilds is a solid purchase and you basically get a new, immediately playable deck archetype in the box. The characters are not so iconic, but if you enjoy delving into the relatively unexplored peoples of Middle-Earth, this is a good one. You would probably be pretty satisfied with your purchase. It's also going to be the easiest one to find, as many older boxes only come into print occasionally.

Treason is a very solid box with great quests and play cards alike. If you're enjoying the campaign, it's a good buy. You also get a hero who opens up the Rohan archetype in a very big way, as well as a couple of other cards which support Rohan in general. You have some Rohan cards, based on what you wrote, although not any of the newer stuff.

I'd go with either Treason of Saruman (if you like Rohan) or Wilds of Rhovannion (if you like Dale). Treason is probably the harder of the two as far as the quests go, but both are good boxes overall.

It depends. If you plan on playing/buying progression style, go with Heirs. This probably isn't the best idea, because you'll face stocking issues, difficulty, and not be up-to-date with the community.

You could go with Treason of Saruman if you really love the source material, and pick up some other expansions later.

If I were you I'd go for Wilds, even though I've doomed myself to option A. You may want to pick up the older cycles in the future, but you'll have some strong deck types and a great experience with this and your current collection.

I feel strongly that playing progression will give you the best challenge, or intended challenge, as you play the game you play as it was developed and the quests will feel appropriately difficult, the story and your journey will feel more cohesive. When I go back and play some earlier quests they can be easier, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but I find beating a quest quickly is the best way to get less play out of it.

That's my preference anyhow.

The wilds is awesome card wise because you get basically an incredible deck archetype in the box, that is super fun and can be powerful. (Although I have added a handful of cards from other packs).

I won't start the saga boxes until I tackle the finale of the haradrium cycle so no help from me there!

I'm sure you will have fun whatever you decide but that's just my 2 cents

My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that each cycle was developed and tested with core + all player cards from that cycle. So with the sole exception of the core set and Return to Mirkwood AP, playing it "progression style" is *not* playing it as it was tested. I'm not against progression style, I played that way myself -- but I was lucky enough to enter the game at a point where I was able to acquire the first three cycles quickly, so I was always able to keep moving forward and catch up to the full card pool quickly. I hesitate to recommend progression style to new players because I know they will be at the mercy of erratic availability, and think it's better for them to jump in at the current cycle, whatever that is.

Because of errata, a new player doing progression style actually has a more difficult task than the original players. They don't have the option of Hama lock for Shadow or Flame, and their dwarven swarms have been deprived of We Are Not Idle. Even Boromir is less useful, and even the early Eagle/Rohan decks from the first cycle give no benefit to Horn of Gondor.

The new starter pack, obviously intended as a new entry point into the game, features heroes presumably from the newest cycle and player cards in the decks from every previously released cycle/saga.

Sounds like treason is recommended.

I would go with Wilds you can play dale and with the cards you have, can make some strong decks and you’d be current.

5 hours ago, dalestephenson said:

My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that each cycle was developed and tested with core + all player cards from that cycle. So with the sole exception of the core set and Return to Mirkwood AP, playing it "progression style" is *not* playing it as it was tested. I'm not against progression style, I played that way myself -- but I was lucky enough to enter the game at a point where I was able to acquire the first three cycles quickly, so I was always able to keep moving forward and catch up to the full card pool quickly. I hesitate to recommend progression style to new players because I know they will be at the mercy of erratic availability, and think it's better for them to jump in at the current cycle, whatever that is.

Because of errata, a new player doing progression style actually has a more difficult task than the original players. They don't have the option of Hama lock for Shadow or Flame, and their dwarven swarms have been deprived of We Are Not Idle. Even Boromir is less useful, and even the early Eagle/Rohan decks from the first cycle give no benefit to Horn of Gondor.

The new starter pack, obviously intended as a new entry point into the game, features heroes presumably from the newest cycle and player cards in the decks from every previously released cycle/saga.

Yes good point on the errata! I didn't use Boromir very much but I played him without errata, same with the horn until the spot on the game when they received errata.

You are correct that they playtested with a single core and a deluxe but I would be surprised if I'm the only one who finds that earlier quests get easier and easier. This is especially true for Dwarrodelf, in my opinion when I play them they are downright easy. Of course I have everything printed for the game so that may also be more about having more options but I suspect that's not the case.

No one has to have the same experience as me, I'm just offering What my preference is to give more points to consider! You make some good points I forgot to mention, thank you!

8 minutes ago, player1683311 said:

Yes good point on the errata! I didn't use Boromir very much but I played him without errata, same with the horn until the spot on the game when they received errata.

You are correct that they playtested with a single core and a deluxe but I would be surprised if I'm the only one who finds that earlier quests get easier and easier. This is especially true for Dwarrodelf, in my opinion when I play them they are downright easy. Of course I have everything printed for the game so that may also be more about having more options but I suspect that's not the case.

No one has to have the same experience as me, I'm just offering What my preference is to give more points to consider! You make some good points I forgot to mention, thank you!

I feel like if I tried Angmar Awakens cycle with just one Core plus the cards in the set, I’d just end up sobbing silently to myself in the corner.

Just because it's possible to win doesn't mean it's probable. Imagine Carn Dum and wastes of Eriador holy s***

On 8/7/2018 at 3:55 PM, player1683311 said:

Just because it's possible to win doesn't mean it's probable. Imagine Carn Dum and wastes of Eriador holy s***

Yeah I'd forgotten you'd done that Seastan, touche