7theye: You can play chess where a rook can move diagnoally if you want. It's your game just like this is. But two handed solo, as the rules are written, is easier then playing solo or multiplayer and is not an officially reconginized way to play.

When you play 2 handed is like playing both sides in chess, not like moving the rook diagonally, this is a really stupid example/argument you made there m8.

7theye: You can play chess where a rook can move diagnoally if you want. It's your game just like this is. But two handed solo, as the rules are written, is easier then playing solo or multiplayer and is not an officially reconginized way to play.

When you play 2 handed is like playing both sides in chess, not like moving the rook diagonally, this is a really stupid example/argument you made there m8.

That depends, playing chess as both sides is accepted as a good though exercise but 'not' a real game. Tracker1 (who plays a lot and whom I respect as a skilled player) basically seems to be of the opinion that playing two handed is quite similar to this - a good exercise but not a real game.

Personally I've only tried it once and found it too much effort. However some of the things that Tracker1 says wouldn't happen in a real co-op game (I play steward of Gondor on the second player) are things I have done in co-op if I knew the other deck (usually my wife's) needs resources a lot more than mine.

I'm struggling to understand why there is so much scrutiny being placed on this game in particular.

Consider the following:

- The Twilight Imperium forums have entire conversations about how players have changed the rules to meet their needs. At no point does anyone feel that their experience is invalidated.

- I've played the Star Wars LCG by myself. The rule book say it's for 2 to 4 players. In no way do I feel that this rule somehow invalidated my experiences,

- Arkham Horror is a 1- 8 player game, but I have the option of controlling 8 investigators by myself. I then have the option to plan out my entire team's actions. This is allowed per the rule book

We all play board games the way we want to all of the time. So, what's the "meta-game element" that has brought so much scrutiny to this game?

Here's another example: two people play a pick-up game of LotR and have the same hero. Often the game will commence anyway (it's not worth the time to redesign decks). This issue is discussed much less often of these forums, but the issue of table talk seems to spring up much more often (and with more passion). why?

Rapier said mostly everything I needed to. I also would never play with someone that wants to have matching heroes. Redesigning a deck is easy and should not take long anyways unless your playing against a quest deck you have never played against before, but then it would most likely not be a "pick-up" game.

Attempting to limit "table talk" in a co-op game is the definition of antithesis. And the issue of "table talk" is not comparable to your example of having matching heroes. "Table talk" is an issue of communication and is not even possible in solo play. Having matching heroes is a repetition issue that FFG manages by placing quantity capacities and you have to pay attention to it even in solo play. These 2 issues are not the same at all.

7theye: You can play chess where a rook can move diagnoally if you want. It's your game just like this is. But two handed solo, as the rules are written, is easier then playing solo or multiplayer and is not an officially reconginized way to play.

When you play 2 handed is like playing both sides in chess, not like moving the rook diagonally, this is a really stupid example/argument you made there m8.

That depends, playing chess as both sides is accepted as a good though exercise but 'not' a real game. Tracker1 (who plays a lot and whom I respect as a skilled player) basically seems to be of the opinion that playing two handed is quite similar to this - a good exercise but not a real game.

Personally I've only tried it once and found it too much effort. However some of the things that Tracker1 says wouldn't happen in a real co-op game (I play steward of Gondor on the second player) are things I have done in co-op if I knew the other deck (usually my wife's) needs resources a lot more than mine.

Two-handed play is fundamentally different than playing both sides in chess as you're talking about cooperative and controlling two "players" with the same goal vs. competitive, when you're essentially playing against yourself. Again, tending to play all types of games from pure solo to 4 player, I would completely disagree that two-handed play is an "exercise, not a real game". It's different, I'll definitely grant that, but people are vastly overestimating how much it makes the game easier. Indeed, against certain scenarios that are tougher for 2 players than 1 player, two-handed solo is much more difficult than pure one-handed solo (and of course, the reverse is true against other quests). In fact, I originally started experimenting with two-handed play when I was able to fly through certain scenarios solo and wanted a greater challenge, and two-handed play was able to grant this.

Finally, to quote the actual table talk rules:

Players are permitted and encouraged to talk to one

7theye: You can play chess where a rook can move diagnoally if you want. It's your game just like this is. But two handed solo, as the rules are written, is easier then playing solo or multiplayer and is not an officially reconginized way to play.

When you play 2 handed is like playing both sides in chess, not like moving the rook diagonally, this is a really stupid example/argument you made there m8.

That depends, playing chess as both sides is accepted as a good though exercise but 'not' a real game. Tracker1 (who plays a lot and whom I respect as a skilled player) basically seems to be of the opinion that playing two handed is quite similar to this - a good exercise but not a real game.

Personally I've only tried it once and found it too much effort. However some of the things that Tracker1 says wouldn't happen in a real co-op game (I play steward of Gondor on the second player) are things I have done in co-op if I knew the other deck (usually my wife's) needs resources a lot more than mine.

Two-handed play is fundamentally different than playing both sides in chess as you're talking about cooperative and controlling two "players" with the same goal vs. competitive, when you're essentially playing against yourself. Again, tending to play all types of games from pure solo to 4 player, I would completely disagree that two-handed play is an "exercise, not a real game". It's different, I'll definitely grant that, but people are vastly overestimating how much it makes the game easier. Indeed, against certain scenarios that are tougher for 2 players than 1 player, two-handed solo is much more difficult than pure one-handed solo (and of course, the reverse is true against other quests). In fact, I originally started experimenting with two-handed play when I was able to fly through certain scenarios solo and wanted a greater challenge, and two-handed play was able to grant this.

Finally, to quote the actual table talk rules:

Players are permitted and encouraged to talk to one

another during play, and to work as a team to plan and

execute the best course of action. Players can discuss

anything they would like, but they cannot name or read

out loud directly from cards in their hand, or from cards

that they have seen but the rest of the players have not.

The funny part is that a strict reading of the letter of the rule doesn't even prohibit you from showing your hand to another player. The only things specifically prohibited are: 1) naming a card (verbally) and 2) reading out loud directly from your cards. This means you can allow another player to read it, you just can't read it out loud! Similarly, 2-handed play wouldn't even break this rule technically, since you aren't naming or reading anything out loud, just reading them to yourself.

And yes, I know I'm being a bit ridiculous here, but I use it to agree completely with what tacomen said above:

Attempting to limit "table talk" in a co-op game is the definition of antithesis. And the issue of "table talk" is not comparable to your example of having matching heroes. "Table talk" is an issue of communication and is not even possible in solo play.

I'm afraid I don't have enough experience of playing two handed to comment on how similar or not it is to other game types. I'm merely going on what others have said. (Notably so far, only Tracker1,7theye and yourself have actually expressed an opinion on whether two handed is fundermentally different or only a bit different).

My theoretical position is that I agree with you, that playing two handed and playing co-op with another is basically the same. Although I think your reprinting of the table talk rule has made me feel that I'm actually wrong.

For example - in two player, I may go first and use Denethor (hero) to look at the top card of the deck, decide I can't deal with it and move it to the bottom (the rules disallow me from discussing it with the table).

In two handed, I may know that player 2 can deal with that card and keep it on top of the deck.

This element of the hidden knowledge is the part that is changed the most in my mind (not what players have in hand - but what players may have revealed to themselves about the encounter deck).

As for your ridiculous assertion about being able to show the cards to other players, it may not actually state this in the rules but I think it clearly is the case that the whole point of hidden knowledge is that it's hidden - some of the basic assumptions about card games (your hand is secret information) must surely come into play here - I don't think you can expect every game to reprint such absolute basics. - Since you yourself claim this is ridiculous I'm sure that you understand where I'm coming from

That said I also feel that your statement about "two handed being seen as easier" is probably the fundamental issue here. I suspect if 7theye thought it wasn't "cheating" (easier) this thread

wouldn't have been made. Tracker1 also wouldn't have stopped playing two handed.

You yourself adopted the variant to look for more difficulty (Which seems perfectly legitimate as well providing that it's acknowledged as a variant). I think the accusations of cheating are far too serious for what we're actually talking about - the word is too highly emotive to actually fit the topic, at least for me. Others in this thread may feel differently.

I think the goal of the table-talk rule, was to allow players to not be played by each other - it's an attempt to preserve the hidden information aspects of the game even from your own team. I play a lot of co-op games and it's really difficult to balance the hidden information aspects when everyone is on the same side - you need to allow communication or you can't win (or people aren't really working together so its not co-op) but if you have too much then games can be "solved" by the best player.

Edit: To clarify that I know Raven1015 know's his ridiculous argument is absurd and not to make it seem like I took him seriously when he seemed not to be serious

7theye: You can play chess where a rook can move diagnoally if you want. It's your game just like this is. But two handed solo, as the rules are written, is easier then playing solo or multiplayer and is not an officially reconginized way to play.

When you play 2 handed is like playing both sides in chess, not like moving the rook diagonally, this is a really stupid example/argument you made there m8.

However some of the things that Tracker1 says wouldn't happen in a real co-op game (I play steward of Gondor on the second player) are things I have done in co-op if I knew the other deck (usually my wife's) needs resources a lot more than mine.

I am sure many players will build decks with another player and try to fine tune the synergy between the two decks. Maybe if two players play together for a long time they will get to know each others tendencies and play styles, so that they build really tight decks together and will make many of the same choices in game play, but even then I cannot picture that another player will make the same exact choices as another.

Until recently I actually used to think that many players would make the same choices, but after seeing the results of 2 Duplicate Tournaments where players are given the same encounter deck and player deck arranged in the same order, i have yet to see a game that is 100% the same as another player. There has been about 20 players in each tournament, and each game was different.

Looking at a 2 player game with this lens, there are many choices that each player will make that might slightly vary from another player, and it could, for better or worse, have a big impact on the game. So, when I think about 2 handed solo, A player has complete control over all of those choices and even the structure of both of the decks and knows intimately how the decks can work together. In my opinion the 2 handed solo player has a greater advantage when compared 2 real players.

I absolutely don't think there is anything wrong with playing 2 handed solo, and do not look down upon it at all. I just think it is important to recognize that playing this way allows a player to create a more optimum strategy for winning that is not easy to replicate in a real 2 player game, unless one player is calling all the shots for the another player. Even if they come to what seems to be a mutually agreed upon strategy by working together it might not be what either of them would have figured out if playing alone

Of course the skill of the 2 players can be factored in, but that's a bit more difficult to asses how that will impact game results. For instance, if you had a very good player with an inexperienced player, and there was some table talk and strategizing, but the experienced player did not dominate the game. They might win, but if each player played the same game 2 handed solo, I'd bet that the more experienced player would have the best results out of all 3 games, with the inexperience player having the worst score and the match they played together being right in the middle. Of course that's all just speculation.

Of course that's all just speculation.

Sounds like you should run a two-player duplicate tournament sometime to me

Maybe even a two player tournament with two players playing together then apart - if enough interest could be found.

That said I also feel that your statement about "two handed being seen as easier" is probably the fundamental issue here. I suspect if 7theye thought it wasn't "cheating" (easier) this thread wouldn't have been made. Tracker1 also wouldn't have stopped playing two handed.

You yourself adopted the variant to look for more difficulty (Which seems perfectly legitimate as well providing that it's acknowledged as a variant). I think the accusations of cheating are far too serious for what we're actually talking about - the word is too highly emotive to actually fit the topic, at least for me. Others in this thread may feel differently.

Agreed. The whole framing as "cheating" is why the debate is so impassioned, I imagine. If it was framed as, "Is two-handed a variant?", then I doubt there'd be much disagreement. The fundamental assertion that two-handed play is easier has to be broken down into parts:

- Two-handed play is easier than solo play with one deck: This depends on the quest. However, the claim that two-handed play is always easier than solo is just false. Again, depends on the quest. The Druadan Forest is a good example of a scenario that I've just absolutely dominated with one deck, but is much more challenging two-handed. Into Ithilien is another example, where I wouldn't say I beat it easily with one deck, but two decks was more challenging personally.

- Two-handed play is easier than an actual 2-player game: This is pretty much what Tracker is saying (not to put words in your mouth, Tracker), and I agree. Having played plenty of both, the level of coordination you get playing two-handed solo can't be matched by even 2 players who work really well together. However, there is extreme variance among 2 player games. When playing with an inexperienced player, I follow table talk pretty much to the letter, because it's too tempting to dominate. When playing with people I play with often, the cooperation is high, and we usually give resources to each other more often than ourselves, as an example.

I think the underlying tension was that to call it cheating means that two-handed makes it easier in both cases. In the first case, this is not true, and in the second case, it is. Is it a variant? Sure. Is it cheating? No. There are a variety of reasons why people play two-handed: wanting to see more of the encounter deck and its synergy, wanting to take advantage of ranged/sentinel, wanting to build more specialized decks than are possible in pure solo, etc. My point is not to say that two-handed solo doesn't make the game different, my point is that it doesn't make it different enough that we can invalidate people from participating in discussions because they play two-handed. It's not equivalent to someone playing both sides in Star Wars and giving strategy input.

Anyway, thanks Rapier for engaging in constructive internet discussion. It shouldn't have to be called out specifically, but with so many bad examples out there, thanks for debating in a productive and non-trollish spirit!

Just for the record, some matches I played 2 handed seemed easier for reasons I mentioned in terms of control I had over both decks. A scenarios difficulty certainly varies depending the number of players. Generally, When I was playing 2 handed I had easier victories when playing by myself then I did when playing the same scenario with another player even if they were using a deck I created. of course, we might have had a tougher encounter draw, but my suspicion was the the difficult increase was due to some of the choices that the other player made or how our collective choices differed. Basically it seemed easier when I could see both hands and make all the choices.

One of my main reason for not playing 2 handed has to do with the extra bookkeeping, i can certainly see how it allows a solo player to come up with great synergy between the decks and use cards and keywords not really suitable to solo play. It's just too finicky for me. Another reason, is I don enjoy building 2 decks that work together, unless it is with another player. I can see myself trying to set up more broken card interactions, or setting up the decks that allow one deck to excel and carry the wait of the game while the other just provides card draw or resources for the other deck. Basically, when I was building some of these decks i was creating a partner deck that would be the suckiest deck for another player to play, because all that deck would do was support my deck which was doing most of the cool stuff. In 2 handed solo play that is no big deal, with another player that's pretty lame, unless they enjoy that role. That sort of became my approach, and of course each player can set there own limits for how they deal with this, but for me it became a boring exercise, because both decks sucked on their own, and were worthless for solo play which I enjoyed more anyway.

I have no problem with playing it either way and love playing 2 handed and with others. I agree completely that this is a rule to stop one player from running things in general play, but should be implemented according to your group of players. Tracker is dead on about the appeal of 2 handed as well, it opens strategies up that might not work with friends/pick up players.

I would agree with Raven1015 in that it depends on the quests as to whether 2 handed solo is actually easier or harder than pure solo. A good example is the Fords of Isen and To Catch an Orc quests from the new VoI expansion. These two quests are significantly easier solo than two-handed solo (in my opinion) because drawing multiple encounter cards per round really allows those encounter cards to synergize with one another. I feel that the argument that pure solo is harder really only counts for a few of the newer quests and was truly more of a problem in the beginning when the quests didn't compensate well for having extra players. Now, most quests include on the quest cards (reveal or add 1 card per player), which has helped make the scenarios more balanced no matter how many players are playing.

As for table talk, I don't really abide by the rule because I too think it is a little pointless and not very thematic in my mind (i.e. if you are on a quest or in a battle, you would more likely yell to someone "hey, put on your citadel plate so that troll doesn't kill you the first time he swings at you" than you would say "hey, take one of my three Gondorian shields I happen to be carrying with me). That is just me though, I have never understood the point of the rule (even the idea that one shouldn't dominate the game is really something that should be policed by the group). A lot about this game has grown and developed over the past three years and the table talk rule is one that really only stands to frustrate the true co-op aspects of this game imo. Some people may like it and that is cool, but for me I find the game far more enjoyable when I can strategize with my 'team' rather than strategize to myself and hope we are on the same page.

Either way the 'spirit of the game' is to have fun, so whatever floats your boat.

Just talk. The point of the game is to have fun and what's the use of inviting your friends over to sit silently and read to yourselves. The best social games (particularly co-op ones) are actually built around encouraging communication. Mechanically, many of them don't even require multiple players. The options are all face-up and on the table for everyone to see. The fun comes through the communication between players as they argue, debate and contribute to the decisions that must be made every turn. They are as much a social exercise as they are a game. This is the same reason I don't play 2 handed solo. While it may mechanically smooth out the game, the social aspect is lost and I think that's too integral a part of the game to go without. I'll play normal solo, but it's not the same as sitting across from someone and trying to work together to win.

Preserving a little of each player's privacy in LotRtCG is both thematic and helpful for developing features which encourage communication. Player A can't tell Player B what Denethor sees coming in the quest phase, but I think it's obvious that such knowledge was meant to be communicated. Wide eyes and a cold sweat when you scry that card are just as engaging as jumping up and yelling "Oh crap! ANOTHER Master's Malice!" Do what feels natural without ruining the game for you.

I don't think it's necessary to include the table talk rule as it's written, but it's an excellent guideline. Encourage open strategizing and also tactful insinuations. The funny thing is, I never had to worry about this rule anyway. When I play, their recommended communication level is just what feels natural to me.

Now that that's settled we can get back to gaming! jk

All players always see the card watched by Denethor, and all speak about keep or send to bottom. All players i know do it. How do you see this question? Is it cheat or ilegal?

I think not. However, if one tournament avoid it by any rule, then players dont do it. But normally, in normal and oficial games, usually do it.

All players always see the card watched by Denethor, and all speak about keep or send to bottom. All players i know do it. How do you see this question? Is it cheat or ilegal?

I think not. However, if one tournament avoid it by any rule, then players dont do it. But normally, in normal and oficial games, usually do it.

Per the rules - the card that Denethor reveals is only available to that player. The other players shouldn't get to see it, and the Denethor player isn't meant to communicate what the card is.

Now it's all a bit fluffy really as most social interaction rules are. I'd like to use a clearer example from another FFG game to illustrate how I think it should be played - although the rules are fluffy and technically Denethor could say "hey guys, I feel we're going to need 4 more willpower than we thought " which doesn't read the name or text on the card - you could say "a lot" instead if you didn't want to read the 4 out at all.

In the Death Angel Card game every turn one player needs to reveal a new encounter card. Some of those cards have the rule Instinct. If that rule is on the card then the player has to make all decisions about the card (targeting choices and things) without consulting the other players. If it isn't they can discuss with other players before resolving the card.

Now I like this as a rule, because it preserves hidden information and means that individuals have to make choices by themselves - but which may influence the entire game. However not all decisions are like this. The preservation of hidden information in a co-op game is appealing because it lets people feel they personally have an impact on the game.

In the lord of the rings card game I've always personally liked to play with the encounter deck knowledge being like instinct - you have to decide without consulting. The reason for this is because it's possible to play without the encounter deck knowledge at all - and therefore if not all players know it then the game can still function.

On the other hand if you tried to apply a strict similar interpretation to the player's hands you would lead to awkward situations - like I have a gandalf in hand, if I play it I can kill the enemy that means you can't quest with Eowyn - if you quest with Eowyn then I won't threat out and lose this round, but I'm not meant to tell you that I can play gandalf. However if I tell you to quest with Eowyn you must know I have a solution to the problem in hand anyway.

It's easier just to let people reveal relevant information from their hand. I mean playing with the whole hand revealed is less good (I know this because sometimes my wife and I have to do that because of our child), the game is better with hidden information. However trying to keep the whole hand hidden all the time leads to well, intentionally trying to make the game harder?

I'd like to play the game with no table talk (poker style) where you aren't allowed to ever discuss the actual cards sometime and see how it goes but more as an experiment than from the belief that it would be more fun playing that way.

As to the main topic - I think I've come round to thinking that playing two handed is different enough that it can effect strategy and deck building; so I would not want the designers to start making cards that worked for it (mainly because I think cards for it would be a bit weak in a standard two player game). Although I doubt that it's different enough to negate the value of people engaging in debate even if that's exclusively what they play.

Besides our community is too small to start cutting people out

The bottom line of the table talk rule is that they try to eliminate the alfa "A" gamer. The truth is that telling other people what to do is a bad thing, but this is "your" parents job to teach you that not the rule book's, so is to judge, misjudge and discriminate other people choices (2hand play etc) ( "i" may feel that playing alone a board game is pathetic, but this is "my" opinion and i will never judge or misjudge any one for doing so )

Here are some other things to think about in 2 handed solo play vs regular 2 player.

When playing with 2 players most players have their own collection of cards, so some very good cards may be in both decks' like both players can have 3 copies on Northern Tracker on a quest that needs location control.

A solo 2 handed player that plays with real cards is less likely to do this since they might only have one core set, but if they had 3 core sets they could do it.

Also, 2 real players are less likely to both have SoG in their deck to play it one of the other players heroes. Sure I have ahd games where 2 players had SoG in the deck, but that was because the deck they were playing was built around a strategy that needed it, so they had every intention to play it on one of their heroes.

A solo player that has 3 cores sets could put 3 copies of SoG in each deck with the hope that it will show up earlier, and then play it on the hero of the deck that needs it.

These are some of the subtle differences that a player can make when he is building 2 decks and playing them as one. Resources and cards will be able to move freely between the 2 decks and strategies within the deck can be developed to take advantage of a player having control over both decks.

Of course, I don't see anything wrong with a player playing 2 handed solo, it's another way to enjoy the game and it can be still very challenging. Personally, i don't think designers should develop cards to support it, but honestly I do not know what a card like that would look like.

Comparing the difficulty of games when playing 1 hand solo play to 2 hand solo play really does not have anything to so with conversation. Since much of that has to do with how a scenario scales with the number of players. The major comparison has to do with 2 hand solo to 2 player game. This is where the table talk discussion is really important. Even players who completly ignore the table talk rule, probably allow some freedom in another player to make a choice, rather then telling them exactly what to do. If you are playing 2 handed solo you are telling both decks exactly what you what them to do. That's the major difference I see between the 2 types of playing, i am pretty sure this makes an impact on the game, does it make it easier? Well that's the question, right. i lean slightly towards yes.

I approve of this thread. Good discussion.

Comparing the difficulty of games when playing 1 hand solo play to 2 hand solo play really does not have anything to so with conversation.

It has everything to do with the conversation because the original implication was that two-handed solo was a form of "cheating" pursued by solo players to make the game easier for themselves. In essence, the implied claim was that players do this instead of playing one-handed solo, rather than two players with table talk (because if another player was available, then they would just play two players, not two-handed solo). That means to me, the real comparison if we're debating the "cheating" argument is two-handed solo vs. one-handed solo.

Here are some other things to think about in 2 handed solo play vs regular 2 player.

When playing with 2 players most players have their own collection of cards, so some very good cards may be in both decks' like both players can have 3 copies on Northern Tracker on a quest that needs location control.

A solo 2 handed player that plays with real cards is less likely to do this since they might only have one core set, but if they had 3 core sets they could do it.

This is a good point. In 2, 3, or 4 player games, it is much easier to load up on A Test of Will Spirit cancellation or threat reduction or Steward, but in two-handed play, I generally can give only one deck 3 copies of such a card.

Comparing the difficulty of games when playing 1 hand solo play to 2 hand solo play really does not have anything to so with conversation.

It has everything to do with the conversation because the original implication was that two-handed solo was a form of "cheating" pursued by solo players to make the game easier for themselves. In essence, the implied claim was that players do this instead of playing one-handed solo, rather than two players with table talk (because if another player was available, then they would just play two players, not two-handed solo). That means to me, the real comparison if we're debating the "cheating" argument is two-handed solo vs. one-handed solo.

Oh sorry, i guess I did not see that comparing the difficulty of one hand to 2 hand solo as being the major sticking point since so much of the difficulty just depends on what scenario one is playing.

I guess I found that the conversation about 2 handed solo compared to a 2 player game in relationship to table talk was the major question at hand here, since the encounter deck functions the same for both ways of playing. Comparing 1 hand solo to 2 hand solo is like comparing apples to oranges, while comparing 2 hand solo to 2 player game is more like comparing a Empire apple to a Pink Lady apple. Their both apples but they taste really different.

I had an idea.

If developers want players to respect 100% the talk rule, then they can release a player card that force us to return to reload our games.

For example, one card like: 'say a letter. If the other player has a card that its first letter is so, then...'. This card forces you to doesn't know absolutyely any card of your friends. So question would be close.

----

After, the problem is the cards in play that returns to one player's hand. . For example, Rumour From the Earth

Finally i designed a card, it is another theme at the end, but it has similar ways...

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/99847-creative-artwork-cards/?p=1060299

It is not the solution of the question talk rule, but it can help us to think about...

I almost always play solo two-handed, but that's mostly due to the size of my deck.

I play everything from solo to 4 handed to 4 player, I've done it all, and the difficulty really depends on the quest.