I was alternating solo and coop play in the beginning of the game's existence. Gradually I began to favour 2-player games (with an occasional 3- or 4-player). However, at the time of the core set, solo seemed at least as hard as coop, often harder. Lately I have almost ceased to play solo. Yet, I still do, usually when I build a new deck and want to test it on its own. And having played some of the recent quests in the 2-player mode, I was almost shocked (though I had anticipated it) how much easier the game is solo. Of course, you cannot take any deck against any quest, but the general mechanic, and the trickery of the solo play, is just far less dangerous.

Also, not only from the difficulty and unpredictability point of view, I find the cooperative mode far more interesting. Not least because you can take unusual decks that would hardly be competitive on their own.

A question. I have not recently played much 3- and 4-player games. Are they much harder that 2-player? I know some quests, especially those with many surge cards, tend run out of the rails easily.

2 player I think is the sweetspot for this game. However, I usually play solo because I can only get together with my gaming friend so often...and I do think solo is quite fun to though. I tried two handed a handfull of times before but I never really liked it...I didnt like controlling 2 players...it just felt wierd.

Anyways, I only have so many 4 player games under my belt but I feel like the difficulty really depends on the quest in 3-4 player. I am 0-5 against Assualt on Osgiliath in 3-4 player. It turns from an easy quest in solo to a monster with 3-4 players. Me and my buddies all had our most powerfull decks that we used against Assualt on Osgiliath and we went 0-5... that quest is really cool with multiplayer and very very hard! Also, to catch an orc is extremely hard multi. But generally, I think most quests are fairly easier with 3-4 players...save a handfull.

Cool topic

Solo is also fun because the games are much shorter and easier to keep track of. Sometimes multiplayer gets to be too much and you start to lose interest.

That being said, I have only had a little experiance, compared with solo, but 4 player games are easily my favorite. They are incredibly fun, especially if you create synergy between the decks. There are cards like the ravenhill scout (I think that's the name) that suddenly become really good. I played with a four player team that set up a Hama combo with Dunedain Cache and hand upon the bow so he could mow down enemies off the top of the deck. It was a lot of fun and really only possible in 4 player (I tried with fewer players but there are just too many combo pieces that have to come together). I also built a mono blue ultra secrecy deck with songs of erendil to soak up everyone else's threat so they could go crazy with Frodo, Boromir, and ohuh Gandalf. That was fun too. Four player kicks butt, but some quests are totally insane, Osgiliath (already mentioned) and nightmare shadow and flame. The games can take a very long time, especially considering the deck building prep work, so you have to have a hardcore crowd, but it is satisfying to say the least.

About 6 months I went into 2 handed because I found solo to be getting too boring and easy. Drawing 2 encounter cards every turn gives the encounter deck more combos and sets up the theme of the quest. For example, when I play NM PiP solo a lot of times the scroll bouncing and enemy maneuvering with the scroll never shows up, because with only 1 card a turn, I can usually deal with it before the next staging step. 2 cards ensure that their is some interaction between encounter cards.

Unfortunately I only have 1 friend in the are who plays so I have never played 3 or 4 player.

I agree with DukeWellington. Solo can be fun if you just want a quick game, but multiplayer allows you to make crazy decks and creates a much more memorable experience. I've made decks with absolutely no quest power or no combat and they can be very effective. But it absolutely gets harder with more players. There are so many treacheries like "Each player adds an enemy" or Archery X or even cards that remove time counters can be brutal.

In a 4 player game of Druadan Forest you are lucky to survive more than 2 rounds. Turn 1 you could get one treachery that removes everyone's resources, then another one that removes all heroes from the quest unless they pay a resource. Well, I guess we're questing for zero this turn and everyone raises their threat by 20. Eleanor and Northern Trackers are pretty much mandatory in 4 player.

So you might be stuck playing quests from the first two cycles unless you really coordinate your decks. But it's still a ton of fun.

True for some quests, untrue for others. I will agree the game seems to be balanced the best for 2 players, but putting a blanket statement over every quest claiming solo is super easy isn't accurate.

Of course there are exceptions, particularly in the earlier quests. But I'd be hard pressed to find any quest since Heirs of Numenor that is easier with 4 players than 1. Of course the difficulty in 4 player depends a lot on how much you coordinate your decks.

The Three Trials is very difficult solo.

Of course there are exceptions but they really seem to be dwindling. I remember when Massing at Osgiliath came out, it might have been the very first quest that was clearly easier in solo mode. Now, I think Return to Mirkwood may be the last one where solo is the hardest option -- but my experience is sometimes limited as I haven't played some of the quests enough (in certain modes, especially solo) as I said above.

Scrying is one strategy that can very often undo a quest in solo mode. Denethor and Henamarth can just tell you all you need to know, which takes away a lot of suspense.

Comparing 1 players to 4 isn't really fair. Find me a quest that's harder with 2 than 4. Just about every quest is harder with 4. But since Heirs? How about The Steward's Fear? Every engagement punishing enemy happens to you, it's a scenario that makes you do everything at once. I mean it's all subject to opinion, and each way to play has its pros and cons, but I would argue you could find a quest or two per cycle that is harder solo then it is with 2 players.

Three Trials is pretty tough solo, I'll give you that. But it's still easier with 2 than 4.

Steward's Fear has a few cards that are brutal in 4 player. A treachery that does 1 damage to each non-unique character and another one that adds one location per player to the staging area. Sure, you can choose who engages which enemy, but you still get the same number of enemies per player.

The point is, while there are a few quests that are difficult solo or 2 player, they are all beatable. Meanwhile, some quests are completely unplayable with 4 players and you are lucky to last 2 turns.

Morgul Vale is also more difficult solo. Multiplayer is a lot easier.

Interesting, I would completely disagree about Morgul Vale. I've always found Morgul Vale easy solo as long as you can stay below Murzag's engagement. There is no time threat at all, so you can just build up for several turns and then take down the captains the same turn you engage them.

Virtually every treachery in that quest is an "each player" treachery, so it gets exponentially harder with more players.

Yeah, I would agree with you that 4 player is the hardest, it makes everything way more random. But look at quests that are "unbeatable," and you can't find one that is while playing two player. That's all I meant really, it's the most balanced for two player. The other caveat is when you're playing with more players you have more cards available too, so you can focus on doing something very well, which is always fun when deckbuilding. The most options exist for 2 player deck building for the same reasons, it just balances the best. I don't find solo boring though, but that could just be my preference.

There is no time threat at all,

Doesn't Morgul Vale have a built in 'time threat' with that "To The Tower" card or somesuch?

There is no time threat at all,

Doesn't Morgul Vale have a built in 'time threat' with that "To The Tower" card or somesuch?

Yeah, but in solo it never comes close to being a threat.

True for some quests, untrue for others. I will agree the game seems to be balanced the best for 2 players, but putting a blanket statement over every quest claiming solo is super easy isn't accurate.

Nightmare Knife in the Dark solo...

There is no time threat at all,

Doesn't Morgul Vale have a built in 'time threat' with that "To The Tower" card or somesuch?

Yeah, but in solo it never comes close to being a threat.

Depends on your deck.

Doesn't Morgul Vale have a built in 'time threat' with that "To The Tower" card or somesuch?

Not really, because To The Tower doesn't progress over time, only by encounter card effects, so it's not that big an issue if you're playing solo.

Solo : easy and boring especially if deck built against a specific quest - coop solo is missing one huge aspect of the game as is soluo (solo playing two decks)

Duo (two) : nice and normally a bit more easy than 3 players - best mode for deck building synergies

Trio (three) : nice and pretty difficult - best way to play the game imho

Quatro (four) : very difficult and long and boring waiting for your turn sometimes - multiple tricks difficult to follow, misplay can occur frequently on new quests

My 0.02€

Solo: boring, i don't like

Duo: - two handed: the best way to test and build decks before play in 'oficial' games

- two players: good if nobody else is ready to play

Three: interesting

Four: epic ^^

I would agree that 3-4 players tends to be more challenging than 1-2 players, but I think that' s a result of the fact that if you are playing with 3-4 players you probably haven't tuned all your decks to synergize perfectly with each other and with the quest. With 9-12 heroes on the board it is much easier to put together combos that trivialize most quests, but people just don't.

I would agree that 3-4 players tends to be more challenging than 1-2 players, but I think that' s a result of the fact that if you are playing with 3-4 players you probably haven't tuned all your decks to synergize perfectly with each other and with the quest. With 9-12 heroes on the board it is much easier to put together combos that trivialize most quests, but people just don't.

I can definitely see this is the case. With twelve heroes, each of the four decks can focus on a single main area (and have everything else within the fifty cards as a nice bonus). I am sure the encounter deck will be going off crazy in many of the recent quests, and especially the Tests of Wills will run out quickly unless at least two players possess three copies in their decks, but still, I have a feeling four decks might handle a lot.

Since I posted the topic, I have experienced many three-player games, and those games (even recent quests) were usually slightly easier than two-player coops. But I have built all three decks to work together.

I mostly play this game solo because there aren't many people who play it in my area, in fact, I think I was the one who introduced it to all those who know of it. But anyway, I have two brothers who will play with me, but there not as into it as I am so we only play occasionally. so I play single mostly but think that the game goes up in challenge with 3-4 players. I also enjoy the chat that goes around with 3-4 players as opposed to single. anyway, like solo well enough but would like to play more multiplayer.

I mostly play this game solo because there aren't many people who play it in my area, in fact, I think I was the one who introduced it to all those who know of it. But anyway, I have two brothers who will play with me, but there not as into it as I am so we only play occasionally. so I play single mostly but think that the game goes up in challenge with 3-4 players. I also enjoy the chat that goes around with 3-4 players as opposed to single. anyway, like solo well enough but would like to play more multiplayer.

Have you tried octgn? there are some people ready for playing