Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
29 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game» Forums » General

Subject: This of Pathfinder the card game rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mitchell Lurcook
United States
Kingsport
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So I like the idea of Pathfinder, the persistent decks and characters, that sounds cool to me. But I read a few things that apparently its really easy. So I found the LotR card game. That sounds cool, but the lack of a persistent deck bums me out a little.

This said, what would you recommend? The main people I would play with with would be my wife and a buddy of mine, we are fans of both universes.

I plan on posting this in the Pathfinder thread too to get both sides. The price tag of LotR is way more appealing, but the 2 player max *Unless I wanna get another copy) kindof bothers me, its not a huge deal, just kind of a bummer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Rob
United States
Tampa
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Not for nothing but you can easily play four with a single core game. You just have to use scratch paper, dice, etc... to record the threat levels of players 3 and 4.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goulette
United States
Santa Clara
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've never played pathfinder so unfortunately I can't compare. But LoTR:TCG is a really great game that my wife and I have had fun getting into. We are newcomers to the game. To stick with the game you will need to do some deck building to help adjust your deck to beat various scenarios (which can be very difficult!). I use this web site to quickly make and save my decks electronically:
http://ddddirk.github.io/lotrdb/
Then it is super easy to put them together.

I have never played with more than 2 but there is no reason why you can't play with 3 or 4 with one core set. The only reason they say you "need" two core sets is so that everybody has their own threat tracker dial. The core set comes with two. And with four I guess you might run out of the damage tokens. So, the only thing you will need is a piece of paper to keep track of the third players threat. No big deal. The limited number of tokens can be solved with whatever tokens you have lying around or stickers to put numbers on them. These might work if you have sticker printer paper:
https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/82965/custom-stickers-tok...

Now, having a second core set is nice because you get extra copies of certain cards that you can throw in while deck building (since some cards only come with one or two copies in the core set but you are allowed to have up to three in your deck). But I would recommend buying adventure packs before buying a second core. The adventure pack expansions always have three copies of every card. If you really get into it, then buy a used second core some time down the road. Not needed.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ira Fay
United States
New Haven
CT
flag msg tools
designer
:-)
badge
Fay Games logo
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The saga expansions add persistence with boons and burdens, which is quite a lot of fun. Check those out if you want persistence in LotR.

I particularly love the story and varied design ideas in LotR.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ingmar Hauge
Norway
Kvernaland
flag msg tools
It's cold outside. There's no kind of atmosphere. I'm all alone. More or less. Let me fly. Far away from here. Fun fun fun. In the sun sun sun...
badge
Darn, I'm Dwayne Dibbley again....
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As one who has played quite alot of both games I'll give you my 2 cents.

Of the two Lord of the Rings is my favorite, but I play it 99% solo which is a fantastic experience. I've never tried it with 3 though so I can't tell if that will drag out a bit. What LotR demands to really enjoy it is commitment. I used to play a little now and then for a few years but this year I decided to dive in and try and get through a lot of the scenarios.

That is were commitment comes into play I realized, getting to know the cards, characters and starting to build and tune decks and that is when this game shines.

I've played a little more than halfway through the third installment of the Pathfinder trio so far with the same two friends and 3 player PAC seems an optimal number to me. We've had a great time through each adventure and the character development is very well implemented. If you happen to go for PAC I'd skip the first 2 and go straight for the Wrath of the Righteous as it is harder and has more potential for developing your characters.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Groll
Germany
Marburg
Hessen
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
WolfVonhinslik wrote:
So I found the LotR card game. That sounds cool, but the lack of a persistent deck bums me out a little.


What do you mean with a lack of persistent decks in LotR? You build your deck and it will persit from game to game. If you want to have something like a progression, to show the increase of experience of your heroes, you can certainly have that in LotR as well. The boons and burdens for the campaign mode have been mentioned, but there are other options as well. For instance you could limit yourself to playing the adventures in sequence (including the adventure pack cycles or just the saga expansions) and only use player cards that had been released up to that point. Once you beat a scenario (or a saga box) you "unlock" all the player cards from that box and can use them for enhancing your deck. This would certainly make it a bit more challenging to win the game as you limit your options for the first couple of scenarios, but it would give you a similar feel of achievement like in Pathfinder when you add cards to your decks.

I own both games, but have not touched Pathfinder. Somehow it does not grab me like LotR does, which might be attributed to the lackluster presentation of the Pathfinder cards (the LotR cards ooze theme). And the scenarios in LotR are much more varied than they are in Pathfinder (at least in recent years they got much more creative).

Right now I am thinking about selling my unplaid Pathfinder base set (and the character expansion) as the box is taking up just too much space on my shelf (it is huge in comparison to LotR (which, with an organizer can easily hold cards of many expansions).
So I would choose LotR any day over Pathfinder.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall
United States
Dalton
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I've got both, and can easily recommend LotR over PF. The latter is not too bad, but it just feels so similar each time. The quest design of LotR offers a multitude of different victory conditions, while PF is pretty much just grinding through each location until you single out the Henchman/Villain and finish them off.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Alton
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
Paper 'Mech - winner 'Best Overall Design' in the 2016 1-page PNP Contest
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Croatia
Zadar
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It depends on what kind of game you would like to play. I have both and right now I can't get my hands off Pathfinder Rise of the Runelords (I like rolling dice blush). But I must admit, after I finish it, I don't think I'll play it again.
As with LoTR I'm constantly playing it, replaying it, getting new quests, revisiting old ones with new cards, building decks, tweaking them, building them anew.....pfew...so much fun and so little time to do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James C
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I played LOTR with a four player group using only one core set (supplemented by one copy of an adventure pack every couple of weeks or so) for the better part of two years. It was a blast and we loved every minute of it.

We only broke down and picked up a second core set a month or so ago because we found some of the later quests too difficult without extra copies of certain cards contained in the core set.

As for character progression, that is admittedly lacking. Heroes don't "level up" or anything like that. But each new adventure pack (which sets forth a new quest) comes with new cards you can incorporate into your deck. This includes new weapons, new characters, and new abilities. If you're like most players, you'll take from these what appeals to you, beefing up your deck, and perhaps swap out some lesser cards. So your deck will typically remain persistent with some minor revisions between quests.

(You could just add all the new stuff to your existing deck, but once your deck gets too large, the downside of not drawing the cards you want most kicks in, and you'll feel the pressure to keep your deck lean - typically around 50 cards per player.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James C
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
anaturalharmonic wrote:

I have never played with more than 2 but there is no reason why you can't play with 3 or 4 with one core set. The only reason they say you "need" two core sets is so that everybody has their own threat tracker dial. The core set comes with two. And with four I guess you might run out of the damage tokens. So, the only thing you will need is a piece of paper to keep track of the third players threat.



Here's a form you could use for your four-player games:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/104592/lotr-threat-tr...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitchell Lurcook
United States
Kingsport
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I settled with Pathfinder, mainly because have the money (And I like the pirate themed one). I however plan on getting this too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam Cook
United States
Denton
Texas
flag msg tools
*beep*
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pathfinder is probably the right choice honestly. I much prefer the LotR LCG, but it's much easier to teach Pathfinder and get a game going with other players, and it doesn't require any deckbuilding ahead of time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
secoAce -
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's my take on some significant differences between the two games.

Pathfinder gives you that satisfaction in leveling up and developing your character along the way as you take him/her with you on each scenario through the whole Adventure Path. It's easy to get attached and invested in a character when you take him along for for so long through the games.

But note that each Pathfinder Adventure Path--that's the base set plus its 6 Adventure Decks--are complete but standalone campaigns meaning that you have to start with new characters from the beginning with each new Adventure Path set. People who were not aware that is how the original Pathfinder RPG APs worked were shocked and outraged when the 2nd PACG was released. So far there are 3 PACG Adventure Path sets, but with each Adv Deck having 5 scenarios and with 6 ADs + Intro scenarios, a single AP set can run really long time!

You begin a new scenario game session with your character's development from where you last left off in the previous session. And youu start out with a fixed number of type of cards for your player deck, but you can use additional cards that you acquire during the game session. So in that way, it's sort of like a semi-mini-pre-constructed deck and semi-mini-in-game deck building game.

The gameplay, however, can be rather mechanical. If you're familiar with the Pathfinder universe and especially had played the RPG Adventure Path for that particular PACG set, then the setting is more familiar. But if you're not, then there isn't much flavor text really create the story. There are wiki storylines written for the RPG versions that you can refer to so you can create the backdrop of the story, and someone has put together a file with story elements for each AD. Those will help draw out the game. Otherwise, the game quickly because a boring card flip, dice roll, and draw.

As for difficulty, it is a fairly easy game to cruise along although you do have to pay attention that you don't linger too long in the game because there is a limited number of turns you can take with card decks supplies being the game's timer. when a deck runs out, you lose. But each new AP set coming out is a little more difficult than the one before. And each AP set has a very different setting with some minor mechanical changes.

LotR:TCG is the complete opposite in theme and mechanics. The cards just ooze with theme especially if you're a LotR fan. Whereas the PACG artwork is just OK, the LotR artwork is truly a work of art unbelievable.

You don't play a single character but manage a party of heroes and allies but you really get that same sense of urgency to complete your adventure as you do from the actual books/movies. There are different difficulty ratings with different scenarios, but game generally is hard, I mean HARD! I'd advise playing on Easy Mode at first, then move on to the normal game, and if that's not enough of a challenge there are always Nightmare decks!

You control a party of heroes and allies so the game isn't about developing characters, but about going on adventures and quests. I have to say, even losing a scenario, which can be devastating, can still give a satisfying gaming experience because the game draws you into the setting so that it really feels like you're taking part in the adventure.

The game sort of works like a traditional TCG where you need to build a pre-constructed player deck before you play. That is the biggest turnoff for may people even considering the game. Scenarios are varied enough and plays different enough that you really do need to customize an optimal new player deck for each scenario. But for many, this is considered part of the game--the preparation of your player deck on how to best meet the challenges of the upcoming adventure. I would face a new scenario and encounter deck blind with the last player deck I used with the expectation of not being very successful. i will then see what different abilities I need with the new encounters as I play through it for the first time, then go back to rebuild a better equipped deck and run through the adventure again.

While both games requires a significant time and money commitment, I find PACG to be more casual-friendly and you can just romp through a game session. With LotR, you almost need to study the game, learn the card interactions, and develop strategies to really get the most of it so there is more depth there.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Nopa
United States
Addison
Texas [TX]
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'll give my opinion since I own both and enjoy them both.

Pathfinder does give you persistent character development. That's one of its greater strengths. It's fun to not only find and acquire new items and weapons, but to also gain card feats and skills through finishing quests. It gives a great sense of development and urges you to play more to become stronger. It plays well with a few people (around 3 is the sweet spot...moderately easy), but the difficulty starts to vary once you go beyond that (more locations with more cards per player requires more cooperation to finish each quest successfully).

Where it's weak is (caveat, I'm mostly through the first cycle only - Rise of the Runelords), the quest variety is very same-y. It's mostly just find the villain, then temporarily close other locations and beat him. Also, unless you're playing with Class decks and the organized play variety, the gamestate shouldn't be messed with (how all the cards in the box are organized as some cards can eventually be permanently removed from the campaign, while you also don't add higher level cards until you reach certain scenarios), and that can become a fiddley mess if you don't organize it well.

After you get the game down, there's fairly limited strategy (at least in the first cycle).

What's available?
3 different adventure cycles
2 organized play cycles
variety of class decks (for use in organized play)

The organized play stuff you can purchase directly from Paizo's website. They do require the 2nd or 3rd core box, but give you all the setup information and tell you what cards to proxy. (you can also purchase printed versions of the organized play cards)

Otherwise, you just want to get a core and the cycle that goes along with it (Adventure decks 2-6)

Lord of the Rings is quite the inverse, and I always find it interesting when people come and ask and expect the two to be very similar, when in fact, they are not.

Lord of the Rings is one of my favorite card games, ever. Each scenario is very imaginative and unique, and will often require new strategy to beat. I've never come across a scenario that felt the same as a previous scenario... and that's quite a feat if you look at the number of releases in the line (with big boxes having 3 each). The theme is fairly strong as well. I think what makes it the most interesting for me is that you feel like there's a stronger bit of synergy with the deck that you build (vs Pathfinder where you're just looking for the single strongest card and doing the math)...so you're looking to build combos.

The point where this game is harder for most people is that some quests can be very difficult... and can be very luck based (more so than Pathfinder, because in Pathfinder, most of the luck is in the dice and sort of with card draw). In addition, the deck building aspect may turn off non-card game players. The difficulty can be brutal until you gain enough experience, but because of the above, the game can also be highly rewarding.


So the answer to which one you should get will depend on your players. People who want a highly rewarding card game should generally go with Lord of the Rings... while people who want more of a board game/rpg experience should generally go with Pathfinder. But there's nothing to stop you from liking and enjoying both...
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pauli Vinni
Finland
Espoo
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmm... Very different games...

For Pathfinder I would recommended to get Wrath of the Righteousness or the Upcoming Mask of Mummy, because they are harder than the original Rune lords...
As it has been said, the quest are quite repetitive, but Character developing is fun.

For LOTR two cores and Saga expansions.
The game is more demanding, but also more rewarding. It is better as game, because there is more variation.

But all in all it depends on what you like. At this moment I play more Pathfinder, but just because it is easier to other players and character development is fun. But the replay ability is not so good IMHO.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darth Heisenberg
Spain
Death Star
A galaxy far, far away
flag msg tools
"Apology accepted, Captain Needa."
badge
"Say my name"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why choose? Get both

LOTR can be very expensive if you buy all there is.
PF is also expensive, but less so, if you do the math.

Both are nice, I'd get LOTR core + mirkwood cycle or at least some APs, and a complete PF cycle too. Play both then keep playing as you see fit

Even just LOTR core should give you a hint on whether you will enjoy the game, and it's not expensive. PF base game alone would fall short.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitchell Lurcook
United States
Kingsport
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What expantjions exactly will i need to get for the whole persistent LotR.

I will probably pick up the base game next week when I get paid.

I went with the pirat pathfinder, because I really like the theme.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Nopa
United States
Addison
Texas [TX]
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
WolfVonhinslik wrote:
What expantjions exactly will i need to get for the whole persistent LotR.

I will probably pick up the base game next week when I get paid.

I went with the pirat pathfinder, because I really like the theme.


For Lord of the Rings you will want:

The Black Riders [1st part of the Fellowship of the Ring]
The Road Darkens [2nd part of Fellowship of the Ring]
The Treason of Sarumon [ 1st part of the Two Towers]
The Land of Shadow (to be released soon) [2nd part of the Two Towers]

all of the above are deluxe saga expansions.
You'll also probably want

Fog on the Barrow Downs
The Old Forrest

both of the above are single scenario packs with no player cards. They can be added to the above for campaign play to take you through the story at certain parts...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darth Heisenberg
Spain
Death Star
A galaxy far, far away
flag msg tools
"Apology accepted, Captain Needa."
badge
"Say my name"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
WolfVonhinslik wrote:
What expantjions exactly will i need to get for the whole persistent LotR.

I will probably pick up the base game next week when I get paid.

I went with the pirat pathfinder, because I really like the theme.


What do you mean by persistent?

If you mean playing the actual books, then, as already stated, you will need the saga expansions. just check the LOTR LCG page here at bgg. It's well explained.

Then again people say they are very hard to play using just a core game.

I would get just the core, play it a lot, read the boards, then make an educated decision.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Netherlands
Eindhoven
Noord-Brabant
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LOTR - Lcg 's persistence is its story line as all quests can be placed in chronological order.
Yet you are able to play them out of order and when you choose to.

Pathfinder is a deckbuilder based on the dominion mechanism, in which you build and refine your deck within game. And can make use of good cards from earlier games. Also your hero improves his stats during games so he gets stronger and stronger after each game.

LOTR Lcg is a deckbuilder based on the Magic the Gathering where you build a deck, before you start playing, by choosing a deck and 3 heroes from your complete card pool (=all the player cards and heroes you have in your collection, which increase as you buy new expansions).

You use your deck or decks to engage a certain quest and then refine your deck (by taking cards in and out) accordingly if your deck doesn't hold up to the quest. Each quest can be replayed with different deck at any time.

The game does offer additional persistence through 2 game modes.

1. 'Unofficial' Progression style - This is based on the living card game model of LOTR:LCG. You may only use the cards that were out, when the quest was released. You can only continue to the next quest if you've beaten the current quest. After each completed quest you gain the cards from the next Adventure pack, and you can create more stronger decks or improve your current deck.

2. 'Official' Campaign mode - First introduced at blackriders. You play all the quests in chronological order and write the results (score & deaths) of each quest down in an campaign log, and may only proceed to the next quest once you've completed current quest. But you may use any cards you have available. But if a hero dies (= in the discard pool at the end of the game) he is permanently dead for the entire campaign and cannot be used in next quests still open in the campaign.
Also during the campaign, heroes can earn positive effects (=Boons) and and negative effects (=burdens). And these stay active during all future quests of the campaign.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
banana
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And I might add that LOTR is very quick to set and play. True, this does not account for the time you spent deckbuilding, but more often then not, you will end up having a couple of decks built on a permanent basis, thus reducing the amount of time to set up the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bridge
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
LOTR is definitely more challenging than Pathfinder: ACG so if you are looking for a harder game LOTR is a good direction to go.

The lack of a consistent deck can be a little frustrating but a lot of people like to do progression style decks where they start a scenario or adventure cycle with cards that were available at a time and then add/switch out cards as they continue along scenarios.

There is also a campaign mode for the adventures that follow the novels that has a similar "watch your deck evolve" type feeling like Pathfinder.

Lastly, you can always mitigate this by adding a sideboard to your LOTR deck, swapping out Heroes and other cards when you encounter a quest that leans towards a different style of play.

The cooperative nature of LOTR is also way more enjoyable for me than in Pathfinder. I enjoy both and still own both but I have devoted much more to LOTR.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Nopa
United States
Addison
Texas [TX]
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ryodu wrote:
The lack of a consistent deck can be a little frustrating but a lot of people like to do progression style decks where they start a scenario or adventure cycle with cards that were available at a time and then add/switch out cards as they continue along scenarios.


This is my favorite way to play. The power creep of later cards (on the player side) is so strong, it makes earlier scenarios a bit too easy. This keeps the game in better balance.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Grant
United States
Fairview
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rokkon wrote:
WolfVonhinslik wrote:
What expantjions exactly will i need to get for the whole persistent LotR.

I will probably pick up the base game next week when I get paid.

I went with the pirat pathfinder, because I really like the theme.


For Lord of the Rings you will want:

The Black Riders [1st part of the Fellowship of the Ring]
The Road Darkens [2nd part of Fellowship of the Ring]
The Treason of Sarumon [ 1st part of the Two Towers]
The Land of Shadow (to be released soon) [2nd part of the Two Towers]

all of the above are deluxe saga expansions.
You'll also probably want

Fog on the Barrow Downs
The Old Forrest

both of the above are single scenario packs with no player cards. They can be added to the above for campaign play to take you through the story at certain parts...


Don't quite agree with this.

Here's the deal--I LOVE the Fellowship and first Two Towers Saga Expansions. They are thematic, interesting Quests and the Boons and Burdens from campaign mode DO give the persistence that the OP is looking for.

BUT! From a gameplay point of view, unless you want to play single-player with a hobbit deck I don't think there's enough variety of player cards in those boxes to build really GOOD decks. Hell, even the aforementioned Sam/Merry/Pippin (TBR) Hobbit deck is going to be pretty sub-optimal without some of the other cards out of the APs...and that's going to make those Quests HARD. Like...really hard. Remember, the OP is a newbie. We know the game well enough that us advanced players shouldn't have that much of a problem adapting to what the encounter deck throws at us even with a limited deck but hitting a wall again and again in those quests could be really frustrating for a new player.

Also--as cool as I think Fog on the Barrow Downs and The Old Forest are, as a starting point for the game that buy-in without player cards is a little tough unless money really is no option. I can see why you put it there though, it DOES add to the play experience in Campaign Mode.

For my money, the best play-experience for new players is to buy a single core set and as many of the original Shadows of Mirkwood APs as you can afford to get in one go. The more the better, just so you start with a larger player cardpool but don't go overboard if you don't know if you'll like the game. The reason I suggest this as the best way to get the game is that starting from the beginning will allow you to continue the story started in the Core Set but more importantly, the first APs really do act as a kind of tutorial to the game. Conflict made us deal with Big Bads, Hills made us learn how to deal with location stack, Journey made us have solutions for treacheries and Dead Marshes and Return mix up the established formula to show us how the quests would play with us in the future. So that would look something like this:

1) Core Set
2) Hunt for Gollum AP
3) Conflict at the Carrock AP
4) A Journey to Rhosgobel AP
5) The Hills of Emyn Muil AP
6) The Dead Marshes AP
7) Return to Mirkwood AP

The only possible downside I see doing it this way is that while the STORY progresses through the APs it doesn't give you any mechanical progression. Unless you tweak your decks between quests they aren't getting better. If that is an absolute MUST, then I would go for something like this:

1) Core Set
2) Return to Mirkwood AP
3) Khazad-dûm Deluxe Expansion
4) Over Hill and Under Hill Saga Expansion
5) On the Doorstep Saga Expansion

This setup would allow you to play though the Hobbit Boxes with a decent cardpool for building one or two strong Dwarf Decks. Khazad-dûm and Return to Mirkwood are really just there for the Player Cards they offer but you could choose to play their Quests out of order if you wanted to. More importantly, the Hobbit Boxes DO have some sense of progression as you can gain powerful items from doing certain things in some of the quests that you can then take along for the rest of the Hobbit Quests. Not as strong a sense of progression versus the other Saga Expansions but it's complete (Unlike the LotR Sagas which are only halfway through right now) and more newbie-friendly.

Still, unless the progression is an absolute MUST, I would go for the Mirkwood Cycle. It's just a better starting point for new players.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.