I think for the second fellowship box we will see hero versions of the rest of the fellowship, Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas and Gimli, with a new ally (or objective ally/hero) version of Gandalf.

I think looking at the saga expansions we have to forget for a moment the history of the game and think of new players, think of the saga expansion as it's own thing. If a new player picks up the next saga expansion only to find obscure heroes instead of the actual heroes from the game I think they'd be very disappointed. Experienced players want to see every character covered, of course, and we will, but for the saga expansions we should be concerned with getting the most accurate LOTR experience we can. That mean's up-to-date heroes who synergise perfectly with the new quests. At the moment it's not even possible to play a tri sphere three hunters deck.

And remember the second hobbit box? We all expected gwahir, thuranduil etc, and we got instead the main characters of the story, all tied together in a unified theme (the controlling five dwarves thing.) And like that box, throughout the saga we will also see ally versions of the fellowship members, so in a one or two player game you can get all nine in play.

I would also like the cycles that fit in around these releases to mirror the theme of the saga expansions. i.e a shire based one, a lothlorien based one, to fill in any locations or characters we might miss.

And Anduril Please. Soon.

Exactly this!

There’s a lot that can be guessed as we know they’ll follow the books closely.They’ll also want to add heroes from the parts of the books the saga expansion is based on, as they did in the hobbit and black rider sagas now already.That said, here’s my wild guess:

1^st book = Black riders: Sam, Merry, Pippin, Fatty (+Frodo)+3 quests spoiled.

2^nd book = Fellowship: Aragorn(T), Legolas(Lo), Gimli(Le), Boromir(S) (+Frodo) (no Galadriel)+3 quests from Rivendell to Rauros falls: Ring goes south, Moria, Breaking fellowship.

3^rd book = Treason of Isengard: Eomer(T), Erkenbrand(Le), Theoden(S), Treebeard(Lo)+3 quests in Rohan: Fangorn, 3 hunters, Helm’s deep.

4rd book = The two towers: Sam(T), Gollum(Lo), Faramir(Le), Mablung/Anborn?(S) (+Frodo)+3 quests journey to Mordor: Muil/Marshes/Ithilien, Passing Morgul/stairs, Tunnel/Shelob/Tower.

5^th book = War o/t ring: Eowyn(T), Merry(S), Theoden(Le), Eomer?(Lo)+3 siege & battle quests: defending M.tirith, battle of P.fields, black gate/last stand.

6^th book = Return o/t king: Frodo(Le), Sam(S), Maggot(T), & no clue. (+Frodo for 1^st 2 scenario’s)+3 quests: Land of shadow, Mount. Doom, Scouring shire.

Doesn't sound too far off but then again, I'm no lore expert only thing I would rethink would be the Treebead and Gollum heroes. We haven't had any non people heroes so I don't think they would do that at this point? Also, don't think Gollum would be a hero at all as he's more a mixed bag, isn't he? I could easily see Treebead as an ally though, and please, more ents in the future

well, we got beorn in his bear form as a hero...that's sorta non-people-like.

but i disagree that we will see the same heroes over and over in these sets. that creates too many problems for deck building, pickup games, etc. and it's just not fun to design (i'd think) and doesn't provide much variety. i think we'll probably see hero/ally versions of all 9 between the Core Set and the 6 Sagas (don't forget some are in the Core Set - which is required for play - so they may not feel the need to update those) of the Fellowship but that's it.

i'd be awfully disappointed/unhappy if we got 3-4 versions of the same heroes over the course of 6 sagas.

Hm, that wasn't how I read it the first time but now you mention it and after re-reading it I have to agree with you. There's just no way we'll see more than one version pr. hero in the lotr saga packs. That would be a big waste.

i'd be awfully disappointed/unhappy if we got 3-4 versions of the same heroes over the course of 6 sagas.

This is why I'm hoping we DON'T get another version of Aragorn (specifically) in the second FoTR saga. That would make three. And I think it would be much better to save him for an epic version in the RoTK sagas.

I know I'm late to the party and people are trying to move on,

but to go back to whole Bombadil/Barrow-Down thing.

The most problematic thing about skipping Old Forest bit of story is that it leaves plothole in the story; why didin't Nazguls just overpowered Aragorn and 4 Hobbits and just took the Ring at Weathertop?

Not all nine Nazguls were present, and Aragorn did put up a hell of a fight, but without the Burrow-Blades, that scene becomes a huge plot-hole, for Burrow-Blades can be as devastating to Nazguls as Morgul-Blades can be to the mortals.

Frodo crying out name of Elbereth and swinging that Arnorian Blade (on top of being a race he never heard of, being an Elf Friend, guided by man of higher race, and the fact Frodo had One Ring in his possession) gave Witch-King doubts and mis-givings and second-gussed himself started thinking what-if these so called 'hobbits' are as mighty as the High Elves or Man of Numenor? That's why he retreated after marking Frodo with Morgul-Blade, take a small victory and retreat before something bad happens to him.

However, without Burrow-Blades there is nothing that could harm Nazguls present on Weathertop and no reason for Nazguls to not press on even further after Frodo gets stabbed on the shoulder even with Aragorn putting up a fight.

Tom Bombadil and Goldenberry would've made a great Objective Ally, powerful yet costly that could had fun interactions with various song cards we already had,

Old Man Willow and other evil trees would introduce 'evil' trees to the fans of movie, and fighting them could've been an interesting mechanic,

But most of all, Burrow-Blades would've been perfect for the upcoming Campaign Mode and Boon attachments.

Should the Hobbits have nice lunch and sit down for nap or keep riding on to Bree?

How many of your heroes could rally to Frodo before the evil wights of Carn Dum take them?

Will Frodo be able to succesfully rescue his captured friends? Or will he use the One Ring and abandon them, saying there was nothing to do?

I mean there were so many choices Frodo had to make in the book, the burrow-down quest would virtually write itself into a campaign scenario.

So I would like to respectfully disagree that FFG have picked the 3 of the best events from the first book to be their quests.

Yes the expansion is called the Black Riders, and Old Foreset seems like anomoly, but the blades hobbits aquired at the burrow were essential part of successful defence at Weathertop, fits right into the new boon mechanic, Bombadil would've been no trouble with game's objective ally mechanic, and fan's been hinting they wanted something arcaic for a while; fighting wights from Carn Dum in the old, abandoned tombs of Cardolan sounds very arcaic to me.

I know I'm late to the party and people are trying to move on,

but to go back to whole Bombadil/Barrow-Down thing.

The most problematic thing about skipping Old Forest bit of story is that it leaves plothole in the story; why didin't Nazguls just overpowered Aragorn and 4 Hobbits and just took the Ring at Weathertop?

Not all nine Nazguls were present, and Aragorn did put up a hell of a fight, but without the Burrow-Blades, that scene becomes a huge plot-hole, for Burrow-Blades can be as devastating to Nazguls as Morgul-Blades can be to the mortals.

Frodo crying out name of Elbereth and swinging that Arnorian Blade (on top of being a race he never heard of, being an Elf Friend, guided by man of higher race, and the fact Frodo had One Ring in his possession) gave Witch-King doubts and mis-givings and second-gussed himself started thinking what-if these so called 'hobbits' are as mighty as the High Elves or Man of Numenor? That's why he retreated after marking Frodo with Morgul-Blade, take a small victory and retreat before something bad happens to him.

However, without Burrow-Blades there is nothing that could harm Nazguls present on Weathertop and no reason for Nazguls to not press on even further after Frodo gets stabbed on the shoulder even with Aragorn putting up a fight.

Tom Bombadil and Goldenberry would've made a great Objective Ally, powerful yet costly that could had fun interactions with various song cards we already had,

Old Man Willow and other evil trees would introduce 'evil' trees to the fans of movie, and fighting them could've been an interesting mechanic,

But most of all, Burrow-Blades would've been perfect for the upcoming Campaign Mode and Boon attachments.

Should the Hobbits have nice lunch and sit down for nap or keep riding on to Bree?

How many of your heroes could rally to Frodo before the evil wights of Carn Dum take them?

Will Frodo be able to succesfully rescue his captured friends? Or will he use the One Ring and abandon them, saying there was nothing to do?

I mean there were so many choices Frodo had to make in the book, the burrow-down quest would virtually write itself into a campaign scenario.

So I would like to respectfully disagree that FFG have picked the 3 of the best events from the first book to be their quests.

Yes the expansion is called the Black Riders, and Old Foreset seems like anomoly, but the blades hobbits aquired at the burrow were essential part of successful defence at Weathertop, fits right into the new boon mechanic, Bombadil would've been no trouble with game's objective ally mechanic, and fan's been hinting they wanted something arcaic for a while; fighting wights from Carn Dum in the old, abandoned tombs of Cardolan sounds very arcaic to me.

i just re-read this chapter this week (going through the books again) and unless i'm a complete fool (which is totally possible!)...this kinda mischaracterizes that chapter.

when aragorn knows that the black riders are near he has everyone get near the fire says and has them hold flaming brands (not burning brands as the card is named!).

when frodo puts on the ring, he does stab at the foot of the nazgul but no contact is made.

so, the nazgul didn't expect any resistance (aragorn: "there seem to only have been 5 of the enemy. why they were not all here, i don't know; but i don't think they expected to be resisted") - they thought they would surprise them at weathertop - and were afraid of the fire brands that aragorn was wielding. two of the nazgul halted when frodo took out his sword but the 3rd kept moving forward and stabbed frodo.

while it's true the weapons are what merry uses at the end - the weathertop encoutner wasn't really revolving around the weapons the hobbits got at the barrowdowns.

While I agree that it would be better to stick to main characters for these sagas, let's also keep in mind they are supposed to be able to be played in conjunction with the core set. We already have version of Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas from the core. I do think we will see some newer versions of them in the sagas, of course. But I would rather see them in the first saga from The Two Towers (in the form of the Three Hunters, with some appropriate hunting synergies), than just another random version just to fill the FoTR saga out. I think that Gimli and Legolas probably have a better chance of being included at this point than Aragorn, if any of them do get included.

However, I DO think that Boromir is a good candidate, even though we've had two version of him now.... simply because both of his versions were added in AP's and not in the core, which falls outside of FFG's intention to make these playable without any AP's. So I see him as definitely being included in the FoTR saga as a hero prior to the "breaking". Unless he gets snuck into the Black Riders somehow (which would have us all completely off-guard... hint, hint, FFG!), he pretty much "has to" be in the second saga. Or we won't have him at all for these. Which would be heretical.

As for other candidates? I know based off the Hobbit sagas, we would expect "main" characters, but not many of us expected Beorn. So I would have no problem seeing FFG include Galadriel/Celeborn in the second saga as a hero. They did play a pretty important role for a good portion of that book, and in setting the fellowship up for success down the road. Haldir could even be an outside possibility.

With all that being said, I guess it's not too early to speculate on the 2nd saga line-up. Here's my very unofficial odds-on betting handicaps to be included as heros:

Boromir - 1:3

Gimli - 1:8

Legolas - 1:8

Galadriel - 1:15

Celeborn - 1:20

Aragorn - 1:25

Haldir - 1:30

Bill the Pony - 1:1,050

Bombadil is as special as it gets. It hard to argue that. You might not like him (as any character) but he is certainly one of Tolkien's most beloved, or most often mentioned, characters. To not include him, and at the same time have the likes of Elfhelm or Dúnhere (as much as I like them), not to mention Eleanor, Beravor, Mirlonde, is bordering folly.

As for the heroes in this saga, the fact remains it is meant to be played with only a core, so Boromir is a given, even though we've seen him twice in expansions. But because we've seen him twice as a hero, I guess next time he will be an ally (probably Tactics), also because he doesn't fit Lore and Spirt that much.

Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, on other hand, already feature in the core set. But there must be some heroes, and it will likely be those that play a big part in the Fellowship, not the likes of Galdor or Círdan.

Bombadil is as special as it gets. It hard to argue that. You might not like him (as any character) but he is certainly one of Tolkien's most beloved, or most often mentioned, characters. To not include him, and at the same time have the likes of Elfhelm or Dúnhere (as much as I like them), not to mention Eleanor, Beravor, Mirlonde, is bordering folly.

i'm obviously in the minority on these boards but i simply don't agree. there's a reason he's not been included in any LOTR movies (either the cartoon or the live action) - it's largely a pointless chapter written when tolkien wasn't sure what he wanted out of a hobbit sequel (and based on his kid's doll!).

on the other hand, for game purposes, characters like elfhelm and dunhere are needed to flesh out the different races of middle earth and to provide variety of characters available from which to build a theme deck - bombadil is not needed to flesh out any race/trait.

i'm not arguing that bombadil's not mysterious and opens up a lot of questions as to what he is (it seems like even tolkien didn't really even think that through) but it makes so much more sense to me to have a dunhere than a bombadil, from a pure game design standpoint.

edit: with all that said, we still don't know that we won't see him in this saga; we know we don't get a full quest in the barrowdowns but perhaps the locations will pop up, he'll be an ally or an objective ally. all of which i'd be okay with!

With all that being said, I guess it's not too early to speculate on the 2nd saga line-up. Here's my very unofficial odds-on betting handicaps to be included as heros:

Boromir - 1:3

Gimli - 1:8

Legolas - 1:8

Galadriel - 1:15

Celeborn - 1:20

Aragorn - 1:25

Haldir - 1:30

Bill the Pony - 1:1,050

My hopes lie with Bill the Pony.

Bombadil is as special as it gets. It hard to argue that. You might not like him (as any character) but he is certainly one of Tolkien's most beloved, or most often mentioned, characters. To not include him, and at the same time have the likes of Elfhelm or Dúnhere (as much as I like them), not to mention Eleanor, Beravor, Mirlonde, is bordering folly.

i'm obviously in the minority on these boards but i simply don't agree. there's a reason he's not been included in any LOTR movies (either the cartoon or the live action) - it's largely a pointless chapter written when tolkien wasn't sure what he wanted out of a hobbit sequel (and based on his kid's doll!).

on the other hand, for game purposes, characters like elfhelm and dunhere are needed to flesh out the different races of middle earth and to provide variety of characters available from which to build a theme deck - bombadil is not needed to flesh out any race/trait.

i'm not arguing that bombadil's not mysterious and opens up a lot of questions as to what he is (it seems like even tolkien didn't really even think that through) but it makes so much more sense to me to have a dunhere than a bombadil, from a pure game design standpoint.

I agree with you here. Each race and faction should be fleshed out in earnest so players can choose a theme and have lots of options. Gondor is getting all the love right now with the "Against the Shadow" cycle, which is awesome, but through the course of the game the Eagles, Elves, Rohan, Dunedain, and most notably of all - the Dwarves have all been developed to varying degrees.

When Tom Bombadil enters the picture, however, he is a loner and has no race or faction affiliation to build upon. Someone in an earlier post also said that no ally card could do him justice since he is considered one of the most powerful characters in Tolkien canon; therefor, I am totally fine with his absence.

With that said, I really like the idea of making "The Black Riders" expansion totally Hobbit based in theme to build upon that particular faction.

Just to clarify, I don't think we will or should see multiple versions of the same hero within the saga. I just was concerned that we wouldn't see them at all - in favour of Galadriel, Haldir etc - because we already have existing versions.I just want to see the rest of the fellowship in the next box.

I agree the core set versions of these heroes are great, but like I said, I would like to see up to date heroes that synergise together, and with the theme of the quests (as the previewed Hobbits seem to do so well.) As I mentioned earlier it's not even possible to play a tri sphere three hunters deck. I'm sure it's possible to assemble an effective one with the current versions, but it would hardly be one of the best in the game.

Having said that, I concur that a Tactics Aragorn would be perfect for ROTK.

to the comments on weathertop plotline: the reason the nazgul didnt attack further is stated that they knew the company had about a fortnight's hard travelling between them and the ford. they knew the ford was the obvious direction hence an ambush was a good plan which would have worked were it not for glorfindel...who most certainly is powerful enough to take on the nazgul

i dont see any plot mistakes there, apart from some poor leadership choices on behalf of the witchking, who should have realised help would be near so close to rivendell

as for bombadil: tolkien's very early draft included bombadil much more actively....theres even a part where the riders are following the hobbits and bombadil turns round and raises a hand- they stop and cannot follow as he has complete power over them. whilst this obvious is completely different, i think bombadil is a perfect choice for a character in this game, as unlike films, plays, computer games etc. this is much more narrative driven

to the comments on weathertop plotline: the reason the nazgul didnt attack further is stated that they knew the company had about a fortnight's hard travelling between them and the ford. they knew the ford was the obvious direction hence an ambush was a good plan which would have worked were it not for glorfindel...who most certainly is powerful enough to take on the nazgul

i dont see any plot mistakes there, apart from some poor leadership choices on behalf of the witchking, who should have realised help would be near so close to rivendell

as for bombadil: tolkien's very early draft included bombadil much more actively....theres even a part where the riders are following the hobbits and bombadil turns round and raises a hand- they stop and cannot follow as he has complete power over them. whilst this obvious is completely different, i think bombadil is a perfect choice for a character in this game, as unlike films, plays, computer games etc. this is much more narrative driven

As is notes in an earlier post Bombadil is his own faction. That might not be enough to base a hero on. BUT reading Rich's post I find it natural if he could have his own sphere maybe? Like Bilbo from the Hobbit saga expansion sets. We'd get a really cool character to be a hero, and really go with the lore. Or what do you think?

thats an interesting thought, and one i would love to see happen. unfortunatly though i do not think ffg will want to dedicate so much emphasis on him, if he appears at all, to give him his own sphere

although......it could be a trade off situation. he has his own sphere, his own powers, but by putting in a dedicated 'bombadil' sphere you are essentially watering down your deck with a hero who has little or no player cards he can play. that could make very interesting deck building choices.

or another choice, as you say with the bilbo idea, is that he could be a 4th hero, that again allows you to play 4 heroes but at a cost. another problem with this is that we already have a 4th hero with frodo, so you would have 5 heroes in play

rich

to the comments on weathertop plotline: the reason the nazgul didnt attack further is stated that they knew the company had about a fortnight's hard travelling between them and the ford. they knew the ford was the obvious direction hence an ambush was a good plan which would have worked were it not for glorfindel...who most certainly is powerful enough to take on the nazgul

i dont see any plot mistakes there, apart from some poor leadership choices on behalf of the witchking, who should have realised help would be near so close to rivendell

as for bombadil: tolkien's very early draft included bombadil much more actively....theres even a part where the riders are following the hobbits and bombadil turns round and raises a hand- they stop and cannot follow as he has complete power over them. whilst this obvious is completely different, i think bombadil is a perfect choice for a character in this game, as unlike films, plays, computer games etc. this is much more narrative driven

As is notes in an earlier post Bombadil is his own faction. That might not be enough to base a hero on. BUT reading Rich's post I find it natural if he could have his own sphere maybe? Like Bilbo from the Hobbit saga expansion sets. We'd get a really cool character to be a hero, and really go with the lore. Or what do you think?

I really doubt they will create a separate faction for him, since we already have a separate ring-sphere for the Black Riders, and I anticipate that they will keep that faction going throughout the entire Ring-cycle sagas (FoTR, TTT, and RoTK). To create a 2nd separate sphere for Bombadil would simply be ponderous for the game.

I could definitely see him as an ally, and it would seem to be a fitting spot for him based on his roles in the book. I agree that it would be hard to accurately recreate him and his "power" (undefined as Tolkein left that) in the game, but since he never directly engaged in combat in the books (and seemed to actively avoid it), my thoughts is that he should have a very potent non-combat ability, with no actual ability to directly engage or contribute to combat. Much like The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game, he should be invincible, but with no ability to be damaged or contribute damage. That part is easy enough to do, but what about will-power? He should have a high amount of willpower as well, but not so much that he instantly lets you beat every quest site by himself.... THAT's the hard part of how to convey him to me. Perhaps they could convey his strengths and abilities by either giving him an amazing attack/defense but with a text line that prevents him from attacking/defending, like so:

Tom Bombadil (unique neutral ally), cost - 6

Willpower - 20

Attack - 20

Defense - 20

Health - 1,000,000,000

Limit 1 copy of Tom Bombadil per deck.

Tom Bombadil cannot attack or defend. While he is in play, no enemies may engage any player, and his willpower is reduced by X for every enemy in play, where X is the number of players in the game (X can never be lower than 2). If Tom Bombadil's willpower is ever reduced to 0, remove him from the game. Whenever Tom Bombadil quests, reveal 1 additional card from the enocunter deck.

I wasn't sure how much of a cost to put on a card like that, but really, that ability is good enough that he probably be the first 10-cost ally in the game. I had to add that last "add encounter" line to keep him from being a giant permanent escape card. Especially for a solo player, and any sort of sniper deck (aka Legolas/ranged/Yeow Bow/HOTB/etc/Dunhere), that could just keep enough enemies offf the board to keep Tom's ability indefinitely.

Looking at it again, I'm not sure I really like that build. I had to add that last "add encounter" line to keep him from being a giant permanent escape card. His stat points are useless, and they just sit there as an acknowledgment of their usefulness. So now I'm trying to find a way to represent his powerful stats and NOT have them be useless (and in the process, not have him be a giant escape card that just sits there), as well as represent some of his power in the form of options to the players:

Tom Bombadil (unique nuetral ally), cost - 6

Willpower - X

Attack - X

Defense - X

Health - ∞

Tom Bombadil cannot attack or defend. X is the number of players in the game.

Action: Any player may pay 1 resource to raise X +1 (X may never be lower than 2) for the remainder of this round.

Action: Discard Tom Bombadil to return X number of enemies engaged with any number of players back to the staging area.

Action: Exahaust then Discard Tom Bombadil to deal X amount of damage divided among any number of enemies in play.

I think I like this version of him much better. Very powerful, but VERY costly in terms of playing him, and also in terms of then using him.

As much as it pains me to refer to anything of Tolkien's as "unimportant", Tom Bombadil is about as close as it gets for me. I tend to agree with Dain on this one. Tolkien had a way of drawing out dialogue, dicriptions, and was just plain.... wordy... at times. Usually, i relish the extra detail (one of the reasons I also love Tom Clancy novels for military/espionage thrills), but I will openly admit to rushing through a lot of the stuff with Tom Bombadil in it. (Sorry, Rich... I know you love ALL things Tolkien lore).... (and don't tell Brownmantle about my admission.... he may disown me as a RL friend... he LOVES Bombadil). I guess I should say that my opinion about the CHARACTER of Bombadil is one of interest, but the actual reading about him gets to be a bit laborious.... and really isn't important to the main story. I think he plays an important role as an unexplained mystical being, and THAT is important in the overall history of Middle Earth to me.

Before anyone cries "foul" at Dain and I, keep in mind that Tolkien himself said much the same about Bombadil. In response to a letter from one of his readers, Tolkien described Tom's role in The Lord of the Rings:

"Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment.' I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in The Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyse the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function."

Before anyone cries "foul" at Dain and I, keep in mind that Tolkien himself said much the same about Bombadil. In response to a letter from one of his readers, Tolkien described Tom's role in The Lord of the Rings:

In response to a letter from one of his readers, Tolkien described Tom's role in The Lord of the Rings:

"Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment.' I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in The Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyse the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function."

fantastic find - and one that really mirrors my thoughts towards the character.

I think that all this discussion about Bombadil being relevant as a character is quite useless. I'm pretty sure without any doubt that we'll eventually see him in the game, the question is when, and how. After all, he's part of the story, and a very interesting one at that, whether people like him or not. Not seeing him would be like cutting any other character from the game because he/she is unpopular. And considering Caleb Grace and the design team are clearly fans of the books and know every little detail and name from the world of Middle Earth and want to expand on them (that's why I do believe we'll see the Ithryn Luin at some point (copyrights permit), as well as the cultures from Harad and the far east) I think it's a given we'll see Bombadil in the game. Now, whether he'll be an objective, an ally or whatever (I think he'll be both by the time this game is done) is subject to pure baseless speculation. But to me, the (possible) fact that we won't see him in the Black Riders means only that he will be in a future cycle.

@benhanses- i think bombadil to me at least, represents the full stop in the sentence. most of the time you go by and never notice it, and its completely insignificant, but remove it and you lose so much of the story's structure (i rather like that comparison.....).

despite tolkien never really giving the full story on him, i think that remains the one question i would ask....though im pretty sure the answer would be 'i dont know who is is either.'

either way, those two chapters that he features in are two of my favourite, there is something special there that i cant quite describe, that goes beyond the silly poems and nonsense that he sings

rich

I think that all this discussion about Bombadil being relevant as a character is quite useless. I'm pretty sure without any doubt that we'll eventually see him in the game, the question is when, and how. After all, he's part of the story, and a very interesting one at that, whether people like him or not. Not seeing him would be like cutting any other character from the game because he/she is unpopular. And considering Caleb Grace and the design team are clearly fans of the books and know every little detail and name from the world of Middle Earth and want to expand on them (that's why I do believe we'll see the Ithryn Luin at some point (copyrights permit), as well as the cultures from Harad and the far east) I think it's a given we'll see Bombadil in the game. Now, whether he'll be an objective, an ally or whatever (I think he'll be both by the time this game is done) is subject to pure baseless speculation. But to me, the (possible) fact that we won't see him in the Black Riders means only that he will be in a future cycle.

i don't think having a discussion on tolkien and the books in a forum about a game based on tolkien's books is usless at all. it's part of the fun and draw of the game, after all.

not everything has to be about game play or "useful" to every person reading a given thread.

it's the snide, holier-than-thou comments that are "quite useless."

@Dain: I love talking about Tolkien and the books and lore, but this is a thread about the new Black Riders preview, or rather, about the Black Riders expansion in general. And considering that and the fact that this whole discussion started because we were not really sure whether or not we were going to see Bombadil and the Barrow downs and the Old forest and all that, it makes you feel that posts should be about that. That said, while reading these posts I wasn't sure whether people here were just having byzantine discussions about Bombadil that didn't really matter in the context of the game, or if people just didn't care about the topic and were just derailing the thread further by having interesting conversation about Bombadil. It now seems like it was the latter, contrary to what I believed when I wrote that post.

So yeah, I'm sorry if I sounded rude or anything, and I'm not going to deny I do sometimes comment off-topic, but is it really rude or "holier than thou" to want to stay on topic and expecting people to do the same?

@Dain: I love talking about Tolkien and the books and lore, but this is a thread about the new Black Riders preview, or rather, about the Black Riders expansion in general. And considering that and the fact that this whole discussion started because we were not really sure whether or not we were going to see Bombadil and the Barrow downs and the Old forest and all that, it makes you feel that posts should be about that. That said, while reading these posts I wasn't sure whether people here were just having byzantine discussions about Bombadil that didn't really matter in the context of the game, or if people just didn't care about the topic and were just derailing the thread further by having interesting conversation about Bombadil. It now seems like it was the latter, contrary to what I believed when I wrote that post.

So yeah, I'm sorry if I sounded rude or anything, and I'm not going to deny I do sometimes comment off-topic, but is it really rude or "holier than thou" to want to stay on topic and expecting people to do the same?

it came across as "you all aren't discussing what i think should be discussed in this thread, so it's utterly useless to talk about this."

but, no harm, no foul my friend.

I think that all this discussion about Bombadil being relevant as a character is quite useless. I'm pretty sure without any doubt that we'll eventually see him in the game, the question is when, and how. After all, he's part of the story, and a very interesting one at that, whether people like him or not. Not seeing him would be like cutting any other character from the game because he/she is unpopular. And considering Caleb Grace and the design team are clearly fans of the books and know every little detail and name from the world of Middle Earth and want to expand on them (that's why I do believe we'll see the Ithryn Luin at some point (copyrights permit), as well as the cultures from Harad and the far east) I think it's a given we'll see Bombadil in the game. Now, whether he'll be an objective, an ally or whatever (I think he'll be both by the time this game is done) is subject to pure baseless speculation. But to me, the (possible) fact that we won't see him in the Black Riders means only that he will be in a future cycle.

i don't think having a discussion on tolkien and the books in a forum about a game based on tolkien's books is usless at all. it's part of the fun and draw of the game, after all.

not everything has to be about game play or "useful" to every person reading a given thread.

it's the snide, holier-than-thou comments that are "quite useless."

Yes sure.

I think for the second fellowship box we will see hero versions of the rest of the fellowship, Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas and Gimli, with a new ally (or objective ally/hero) version of Gandalf.

I think looking at the saga expansions we have to forget for a moment the history of the game and think of new players, think of the saga expansion as it's own thing. If a new player picks up the next saga expansion only to find obscure heroes instead of the actual heroes from the game I think they'd be very disappointed. Experienced players want to see every character covered, of course, and we will, but for the saga expansions we should be concerned with getting the most accurate LOTR experience we can. That mean's up-to-date heroes who synergise perfectly with the new quests. At the moment it's not even possible to play a tri sphere three hunters deck.

And remember the second hobbit box? We all expected gwahir, thuranduil etc, and we got instead the main characters of the story, all tied together in a unified theme (the controlling five dwarves thing.) And like that box, throughout the saga we will also see ally versions of the fellowship members, so in a one or two player game you can get all nine in play.

I would also like the cycles that fit in around these releases to mirror the theme of the saga expansions. i.e a shire based one, a lothlorien based one, to fill in any locations or characters we might miss.

And Anduril Please. Soon.

Exactly this!

There’s a lot that can be guessed as we know they’ll follow the books closely.

They’ll also want to add heroes from the parts of the books the saga expansion is based on, as they did in the hobbit and black rider sagas now already.

That said, here’s my wild guess:

1^st book = Black riders: Sam, Merry, Pippin, Fatty (+Frodo)

+3 quests spoiled.

2^nd book = Fellowship: Aragorn(T), Legolas(Lo), Gimli(Le), Boromir(S) (+Frodo) (no Galadriel)

+3 quests from Rivendell to Rauros falls: Ring goes south, Moria, Breaking fellowship.

3^rd book = Treason of Isengard: Eomer(T), Erkenbrand(Le), Theoden(S), Treebeard(Lo)

+3 quests in Rohan: Fangorn, 3 hunters, Helm’s deep.

4rd book = The two towers: Sam(T), Gollum(Lo), Faramir(Le), Mablung/Anborn?(S) (+Frodo)

+3 quests journey to Mordor: Muil/Marshes/Ithilien, Passing Morgul/stairs, Tunnel/Shelob/Tower.

5^th book = War o/t ring: Eowyn(T), Merry(S), Theoden(Le), Eomer?(Lo)

+3 siege & battle quests: defending M.tirith, battle of P.fields, black gate/last stand.

6^th book = Return o/t king: Frodo(Le), Sam(S), Maggot(T), & no clue. (+Frodo for 1^st 2 scenario’s)

+3 quests: Land of shadow, Mount. Doom, Scouring shire.

Doesn't sound too far off but then again, I'm no lore expert only thing I would rethink would be the Treebead and Gollum heroes. We haven't had any non people heroes so I don't think they would do that at this point? Also, don't think Gollum would be a hero at all as he's more a mixed bag, isn't he? I could easily see Treebead as an ally though, and please, more ents in the future

well, we got beorn in his bear form as a hero...that's sorta non-people-like.

but i disagree that we will see the same heroes over and over in these sets. that creates too many problems for deck building, pickup games, etc. and it's just not fun to design (i'd think) and doesn't provide much variety. i think we'll probably see hero/ally versions of all 9 between the Core Set and the 6 Sagas (don't forget some are in the Core Set - which is required for play - so they may not feel the need to update those) of the Fellowship but that's it.

i'd be awfully disappointed/unhappy if we got 3-4 versions of the same heroes over the course of 6 sagas.

Who are you callin' non-people?

In all seriousness, I'm glad that they printed Beorn-in-bear-form as a hero. It makes sense because he single-handedly slew Bolg in the Battle of Five Armies so definitely plays a major part in the story. I'm not so sure about seeing Gollum as a hero, that kinda blurs the lines of what it would mean to be a hero. In terms of the story, Gollum is always an antagonist. Even when he is ingratiating himself to Frodo, it is only to gain his trust so that he can lead Frodo and Sam to Shelob's Lair in Cirith Ungol. He makes a lot more sense to me as an objective, or possibly an ally (with some rather severe limitations).

Whether or not they ever print characters like Treebeard or Gwaihir/Landroval as heroes is a very important design question for this game. While these characters definitely had a large impact on the stories, they exist somewhat on the periphery. They are more like agents of power that members of the fellowship (Merry and Pippin for Treebeard, Gandalf in the case of the Eagles) ask for aid. While this seems thematically to place them squarely in the ally category, one of the great things about this game is providing the means to transcend the story. In both cases, these powerful entities are voluntarily bound to a certain region (Fangorn, and the Eyrie), but they both are persuaded, by members of the fellowship, to step outside of these self-imposed boundaries, to help in the War of the Ring. What if they had chosen to do so on other occasions?

While I can see the designers choosing to only represent "major" characters as heroes, I would personally really enjoy having hero cards for the more peripheral characters. Being able to create alternate narratives is one the aspects of this game (along with the deep strategy) that really appeals to me.