So does anybody know how many Saga expansions ffg will make for each book? Do you think it will be same like Hobbit? Or do you guys think 3?

Also, what do you guys think about the quests? Cuz its kinda confusing to me since Khazad-Dum is VERY simular to what happened in the book and people won't like another quest about when the fellowship goes through KD if its pretty much the same....I wonder what they will do to solve that problem. Same goes with Carhadres (however you spell it) Dead Marshes, Watcher in the Water, And Siege of Cair Andros is not a whole lot differant than the siege of Minis Tirith. plus more.....

What do you guys think?

The Saga Expansions are not meant to be "the books" or w/e. We will defiantly see some major plot lines from the books in them, but they are not going to be telling the story of the books. They are just set in the books and focus on a "part" of the book. For example The Battle of Helms Deep would make a great Saga expansion. An entire series that just tells this one battle, 6 interconnected quests. Stuff like that... or we could see a Saga Expantion on Fairimer defending Henneth Annûn for example... something only mentioned in the books.

I think that the Saga expansions are what this game should always have been. When most people talk to me about this game what they are looking for is a quest orientated game dripping in theme. The Saga expansions seam to be FFG trying to pull the game back towards this by allowing special rules that esist only for that expansion, allowing them to make much more interesting and thematic quests as they are not bound by the general rules of the main game.

As for how many? I think we will see 2-4 a year every year this game is out.

So these are going to be totally differant then the Hobbit saga expanions? cuz in the Hobbit Saga expansions, both boxes followed the books very closely and went through all the main events in the book. I assumed that these upcoming Saga expanions would do the same by following the 3 LOTR books and going through all the main events that happened like they did in the Hobbit.

I would think it'll be two per book like the hobbit boxes. I think for the 2nd fellowship box it'll condense what we had in the darrowdelf cycle. Where the first two quests will possibly involve caradhas, the watcher, and moria and the last quest would be the skirmish at rauros falls. I think it would be really cool if for the rauros falls quest there was an objective Boromir who took damage each turn. The quest would then have to be completed before Boromir dies (although he would need a lot of HP for this to be feasable)

we will see, but I do not think it will be like this.. at least I hope it will not be. The events may be close to the books but they are not encompassing the books, only sections of it. If they don't then as people have said everything will double up. I guess we will see but I strongly doubt we are looking at a linear progression though the events of the books, but instead parts of the books examined in great detail.

well even if they are "examining" portions of the books in "great detail" it still seems they are doing so in a linear fashion starting with the first book and going from the escape of the shire, battle at weather-top, and flight to the ford. As with most debate the true answer will likely fall somewhere in the middle

I'm hoping for 3 per book, since there is just so much ground to cover. I do definitely think we'll be seeing a linear progression of quests meant to recreate the storyline of The Lord of the Rings in exactly the same way that the two Hobbit boxes aimed to recreate The Hobbit. It's been stated in no uncertain terms in the preview that revealed the Black Riders expansion:

"As in the game’s other Saga Expansions, The Hobbit: Over Hill and Under Hill and The Hobbit: On the Doorstep, each scenario in The Black Riders follows the events of the classic story by J.R.R. Tolkien as faithfully as possible. . . . It is the first of a series of Saga expansions that eventually will allow players to replay Frodo's epic journey from the Shire to Mount Doom, as well the dramatic events experienced by other members of the Fellowship."

So I expect it will be just like The Hobbit, putting in as much of the book as they can. They will have to skip parts just because there is too much to fit in, again as they did with The Hobbit (no capture by the elves of Mirkwood, for example).

I wonder, too, how they will differentiate the saga quests from some of the existing quests, but they already ran into this problem with the Hobbit boxes. Flies and Spiders is similar in theme to Passage through Mirkwood, but they are very different scenarios. But Conflict at the Carrock is just like We Must Away Ere Break of Day -- those scenarios are not radically different in terms of gameplay and general strategy. So I guess we've already seen both sides of that coin.

In a way it's fortunate that we haven't seen the LotR storyline until now. The team has had more time to refine their approach in making unique quests that stand apart from one another. I do think we'll see some more duplicated themes, like the party going through Moria, but I expect those scenarios will have some unique mechanics that will set them apart from the Khazad-dum expansion and Dwarrowdelf APs.

we will see, but I do not think it will be like this.. at least I hope it will not be. The events may be close to the books but they are not encompassing the books, only sections of it. If they don't then as people have said everything will double up. I guess we will see but I strongly doubt we are looking at a linear progression though the events of the books, but instead parts of the books examined in great detail.

What makes you think that? What proof do you have? Why wouldn't it be different from the previous same type of expansion Hobbit boxes? having 6 quests on Helms Deep idea is more like a video game not this game.

no proof. This is what I think though. What proof do you have that it is not? It isn't like the Hobbit boxes told the entire story.. they focus and told specific parts of the story. I expect this to continue. Still people my be right.. but i doubt it.. at least I hope the boxes won't. It will really suck to have double up on so much of the content. The way I am talking about will have a the same deep thematic quests but allow them to pull stories and lines of play from all over the books, restricting to a linear progression though the books would be a terrible mistake.. and probably hurt sales, as why would you want to buy the same quests a 2nd time. People that post here will not mind as they are fanboys, but the average gamer will not buy a box with quest lines they have already paid for in cycles.

"As in the game’s other Saga Expansions, The Hobbit: Over Hill and Under Hill and The Hobbit: On the Doorstep, each scenario in The Black Riders follows the events of the classic story by J.R.R. Tolkien as faithfully as possible. . . . It is the first of a series of Saga expansions that eventually will allow players to replay Frodo's epic journey from the Shire to Mount Doom, as well the dramatic events experienced by other members of the Fellowship."

I am afraid, as GrandSpleen already pointed out, FFG already spoiled that it's going to be just like how it was done with The Hobbit and it's going to be awesome.

exactly.. it is already said by FFG that they are going to follow the hobbit example and focus on small parts of the story.. am am surprised people are thinking otherwise.

I think everybody agrees here, they just don't realize it.

the lord of the rings, despite popular belief (though most here will of course know this already), is not a trilogy. it's a single novel, consisting of 6 books published in 3 volumes....

that is 2 books per fellowship,towers and king

i dont say this to be pedantic....because i feel its important to the way things will work if ffg go this way...

the black rider is book 1. we get 3 quests in that. therefore i simply think each book = 3 quests therefore there will be 18 quests in all....6 saga packs

i think this will be over 3 years, no more than 2 saga packs per year, and 1 cycle in those years

so that is over the next 3 years:

6 saga packs

3 deluxe packs and cycles

i see no problem at all with the quests. as others have said you can make 2 quests in the same place very different by their mechanics

however if ffg dont want to do this there is so much material they coud easily skip over certain areas.

they cannot, at least i hope they wont skip over the major areas such as khazad dum, but in the next pack for instance, we could have;

'passage through moria' - this would have to feel different to khazad dum and dwarrowdelf

'flight to lothlorien' - completely new area

'attack on the great river' - again new area..

EDITED - wrote alot about frodo and sam splitting with the company and how they would deal with having 3 parties in each pack, before i realised that frodo and sam are in a whole other book!

so the interesting thing is, if i stay with the idea of ffg going down the 'books' route, then will we see a pack completely devoted to frodo and sam? becuase that is afterall how the volumes are split up - gandalf, aragorn, merry pippin etc. in the first book (1 saga pack) then frodo and sam in the next (2nd saga pack)

seems a little strange but it may be the best way for it to work. there is such a big difference to frodo and sams journey compared with the others it would seem a little wierd to have both in 3 quests.

rich

exactly.. it is already said by FFG that they are going to follow the hobbit example and focus on small parts of the story.. am am surprised people are thinking otherwise.

I don't know what your thinking.....The Hobbit boxes covered every single part of the journey that wasn't just wandering or talking. They did not include: First part with unexpected party ( I dont see how they could have made that into a quest.) Then they didn't include Rivendel (Can't make a quest out of that) Then they didn't include the short stay with the eagles (cant make a quest of that) they didnt include beorn (nothing to do for that) I suppose just maybe that they could have included something with the elven King but prob not. Then from there on they covered just about all of the book. I don't see what parts that they skipped in the HObbit boxes and only focused on main parts.

Don't mean to sound offensive or mean,

Khamul

the lord of the rings, despite popular belief (though most here will of course know this already), is not a trilogy. it's a single novel, consisting of 6 books published in 3 volumes....

that is 2 books per fellowship,towers and king

i dont say this to be pedantic....because i feel its important to the way things will work if ffg go this way...

the black rider is book 1. we get 3 quests in that. therefore i simply think each book = 3 quests therefore there will be 18 quests in all....6 saga

...

rich

THANK YOU RICH!!!

The Lord of the Rings 'Trilogy' is a retelling that belongs to Peter Jackson. The Lord of the Rings is a single novel split into three volumes for economic feasibility (because printing in Britain was expensive in the 1950s).

To tell the true i like idea of the adventure pack with some new story rhrn in the book. Previous card game already done this a lot.

But why not? I love art of the cards....

the lord of the rings, despite popular belief (though most here will of course know this already), is not a trilogy. it's a single novel, consisting of 6 books published in 3 volumes....

that is 2 books per fellowship,towers and king

i dont say this to be pedantic....because i feel its important to the way things will work if ffg go this way...

the black rider is book 1. we get 3 quests in that. therefore i simply think each book = 3 quests therefore there will be 18 quests in all....6 saga

...

rich

THANK YOU RICH!!!

The Lord of the Rings 'Trilogy' is a retelling that belongs to Peter Jackson. The Lord of the Rings is a single novel split into three volumes for economic feasibility (because printing in Britain was expensive in the 1950s).

you're welcome

im very pleased that ffg decided to go down the books route. im not sure if it was intentional....of course it makes sense to split such a large volume into parts even if they werent, and there's a natural stopping point in rivendell.

on a not completely unrelated point i saw the most awful thing recently....the hobbit book, only in two parts! who would of knew that decades after existing perfectly fine as 1 novel, it would be 'reinvented' in two parts???

rich

Well, there only are about 14 main parts in the Hobbit:

1. The whole first part with dwarves coming and party.

I wouldn't count the travel from Bag End to Trolls a main part

2. Trolls + the troll cave part

3. Rivendel

4. Misty Mountains + Goblin King

5. Riddles in the Dark

6. Warg + Eagles

7. Beorn

8. Mirkwood

9. Elven dungeon + barrels

10. LakeTown

11. Smaug

12. battle of Laketown

13. Rebuilding of the wall of Erebor

14. Battle of 5 armies

Correct me if i missed any big parts.

But I'd say that in the Hobbit Boxes they covered all the parts that had action and were able be made in to a quest.

yes- i think they did pretty well in the hobbit. i personally would prefer more emphasis on the adventuring part rather than the fighting parts...not sure if that will come across well. for instance, i love the 1b of road to rivendel. 20 progress points are nice becuase it gives the feeling of the wilderness.

in the hobbit i only got the adventuring feeling whenever i drew hobbit lands and the dreary hills. not that im saying the trolls/giants etc arent adventuring, they are a different type- an encounter type of adventure, whereas i want more travelling adventure.

this is of course difficult to do without making it boring, but i have high expectations for this style in the black rider at least, i really hope it conveys the style of the first book...which as i often say, i think is the best

rich

THANK YOU RICH!!!

The Lord of the Rings 'Trilogy' is a retelling that belongs to Peter Jackson. The Lord of the Rings is a single novel split into three volumes for economic feasibility (because printing in Britain was expensive in the 1950s).

That is insanely naive and misplaced. Peter Jackson is really, really not responsible for the popular conceptualization of LotR as a trilogy.

THANK YOU RICH!!!

The Lord of the Rings 'Trilogy' is a retelling that belongs to Peter Jackson. The Lord of the Rings is a single novel split into three volumes for economic feasibility (because printing in Britain was expensive in the 1950s).

That is insanely naive and misplaced. Peter Jackson is really, really not responsible for the popular conceptualization of LotR as a trilogy.

Fine, New Line Cinema's marketing division is. Regardless, the movies are sold and referred to as a trilogy, the books are not (at least not correctly).

I agree with GrandSpleen. Just because lotr is techically one big novel split into 6 books divided in 3 novels doesn't mean it's not a trilogy. At least in my case long before the movies, lotr had always been a trilogy.

I agree with GrandSpleen. Just because lotr is techically one big novel split into 6 books divided in 3 novels doesn't mean it's not a trilogy. At least in my case long before the movies, lotr had always been a trilogy.

But it's not a trilogy. The volumes (i.e. FotR, TT, RotK) don't stand alone as individual narratives. One must read the entire Novel to get the story. Other trilogies (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Iron Man, etc.) have installments that are episodic and do stand alone (Jackson's movies do stand alone as well, unlike the three volumes) and also create a larger narrative, that makes them trilogies.

EDIT: from Wikipedia:

One of the most popular "trilogies" of fantasy books, The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien, is not a trilogy, though it is often referred to as such. Tolkien regarded it as a single work and divided it into a prologue, six books, and five appendices. Because of post-World War II paper shortages, it was originally published in three volumes. It is still most commonly sold as three volumes, but has also been published in one-volume and seven-volume editions (six books and the appendices).

You totally missed my meaning. Tolkien's original publishers are responsible for diving the series into a trilogy. It has nothing to do with movies. I get that movie bashing it totally chic among fans, but get your history straight.

Out of the examples above the same case can be made for star wars, each episode hardly stands alone but instead was crafted as one large sweeping saga, breaking off at either of the first two movies brings too many questions (who is the emperor? Han is in cryptonite? Darth is Luke's dad?) Whereas the Indy and Iron Man movies have concrete endings (and more than 3 movies (we all know iron man 4 is coming))

There is obviously a large disconnect between what the lord of the rings was conceptualized to be and what its format has grown to become over time and I can see both points to arguing it either way....

that said....c'mon its a trilogy