After playing a LOT of solo games, I've decided that the current rule set for solo is flawed. It's so heavily skewed towards first hand draw and the luck of the encounter deck that my likelihood to win or lose usually becomes apparent by the end of the second round regardless of what I do.

I've tried playing solo by controlling two teams (ie- one person playing two player) but it always feels forced. There has to be a more elegant solution. I've tried playing using these rules: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/69038/expanded-solo-variant-v0-8 But I feel that using only a single 50 card deck for 5 heroes is too limiting and there are serious issues regarding card effects.

Does anyone have any suggestions of ways to improve/rewrite the solo play experience?

What are your thoughts on the solo play rules you linked? Have you made any personal revisions?

hendersondayton said:

In general, playing 5 heroes was okay but drawing 2 cards per turn from a 50 card deck felt odd. The 50 card limit felt too restrictive for that many heroes and after three or four rounds I found that I was pretty much guaranteed to get cards I really wanted, especially if I used Bilbo or some of the cards that let you draw extra. Drawing 2 encounter cards was okay, but it did mean that threat could spiral out of control really fast if you get the wrong combinations. This is true of a two player game, but I found that the missing 6th hero made a big difference in questing, especially in the early rounds. Overall, the difficulty evened itself out so that isn't the problem I have.

The biggest problem I have with this rule set is that there are a lot of cards that are difficult to interpret due to the nature of treating the solo game as two player for card rule purposes. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I remember spending a lot of time thinking "Huh, what should I do about that card?" It really takes away from the fun. Also, these rules as written mean that ranged characters are pretty much useless.

Right now I'm leaning towards options that very simply make the normal solo game easier. Here's some that I'm thinking about:

1. Using four heroes instead of three. To figure out starting threat use 3 times the average of the threat of the four heroes.

2. Expand deck size to 60 or 70 and draw two cards per turn.

3. Play without shadow cards. I know this removes some of the random fun, but it is a very simple way to reduce difficulty.

4. Still not sure what to do about the ranged property.

I know these modifications will make the game easier, but I'm not sure if they will be enough to offset the problems created by the single draw from the encounter deck. Quests that are very dependent on specific encounter draws literally take twice as long for solo players to complete. But drawing twice from the encounter deck dramatically increases the difficulty for the solo player so I'm not sure how best to tackle that problem.

Any suggestions?

The way I play solo really just revolves around modifications to the combat rules. I play with three heroes, and each one can engage an enemy rather than one enemy per player, then any left over attack my little fellowship. Initially I'd forgotten about shadow cards, but playing with them is never much hassle. If a hero has engaged an enemy, then he attacks and that's it, there's no enemy-attacking-first bit. I found that playing the rules as they stand invariably kills off the entire band within about half a dozen rounds, and I never win. The shadow cards still give the enemy a bit of an unpredictable edge, anyway, I feel.

I must admit, Ranged and Sentinel don't really get much of a look-in, though things like Dunedain Cache (I think that's the one, anyway) are useful fodder to have in the deck for triggering Eowyn's ability.

ive only ever play the offical solo way, and i cant say i have any worries about it.....i mean the scalings only going to get better, i can remember how impossible it seemed to begin with when this game first came out, but it is getting better (apart from return to mirkwood), though i cant say i can predict games as you state though perhaps becuase im so caught up in the theme of the game im not paying as much attention as you,

if im perfectly honest when you start messing with the rules its only going to mess things up down the line when a new keyword or action is released and your current house rules dont work at all with them, this is one of the reasons i dont touch variants with a ten ft. pole, as you say the one you tried there were alot of translation problems as the rules didnt quite fit....... personally id rather move onto another game if it was so unberable before you invest too much money

I completely agree with with Rich. Changing the rules is just going to make things really unbalanced. The game plays perfectly fine solo. If you are relying on a "opening hand" then you need to look at your deck build. I've beaten every quest in the game solo, wit ha variety of different deck styles. From mono, to 4 sphere. IMO, there is nothing wrong with solo play, in fact I think it is fantastic. Also as Rich said, as the card pool gets larger, it just gets easier and easier to do the old quests... 5 heroes?!! lol wtf man that is insane.

Some simple ways to modify the rules to make the game easier:

1) Start with a lower threat level (minus 5, for example)

2) Have a pool of extra points (1,2 or 3) which you can assign to your heroes (WP, attack, defense, HP)

3) Add one ally for free (doesn't have to be in round 1)

Yesterday I was been thinking about a way to make Dol Guldur playable for solo. I got the idea of adding a fourth hero (which can't be imprisoned) who has only 1 point in each stat , but who is able to collect resources (could be limited to a sphere or not). Perhaps I will also lift the one-ally-per-round restriction. I might try this over the next weekend, to see if it works.

I'm not saying that you can't win on the official solo rules. I've beaten all of the scenarios solo except for Dol Guldur and Return to Mirkwood. What I'm saying is that it is too dependent on things totally outside of player control and therefore too random for my tastes. For example, compare the solo game to the 2-player game. The latter is very challenging but through good deck builds and skillful play you can usually overcome some bad draws and get through most scenarios on a regular basis. The 2-player game has a predictable level of difficulty that feels constant from one game to the next.

Now look at solo play. Even using the deck builds everyone around here touts as being the best ever, the solo player is very much at the mercy of the encounter deck. Even though you are only drawing one encounter card per turn, without the abilities of the three other heroes and their cards there's little a solo player can do to combat a really bad run of encounter cards. There's been many situations where by round three it's obvious that the solo game is hopeless through no fault of strategy or deck design but rather an unfortunate series of draws from the encounter deck. This is especially true of scenarios like Rhosgobel where you need specific cards to come up.

I'm trying to find a way to make the solo game less random and more based on player skill and deck design. I think the solution lies in somehow increasing the rate of encounter draws while simultaneously compensating in some way for the increased difficulty.

To Booored, the 5 hero solo rule set is a lot harder than you might think. Check out the link I posted to the PDF of the rules. You have to draw 2 encounter cards per turn and all of the X values are set for 2 players not 1. In a way it's like playing a normal 2 player game with 5 heroes instead of 6. The problem with it is that there's a lot of rules that get wonky when you play that way so it's really not very fun.

booored said:

Style75 said:

I do not think this is true. You in fact have MORE control over the encounter deck in solo than in multiplayer as a single card effects can completely lock down the encounter deck rendering it mute, due to it only drawing a single card, while in multiplayer there are multiple cards coming off the encounter deck, so it is harder to control.A well built solo deck will beat a quest most of the times you play it. In fact I find the solo deck building experience to be extremely rewarding. When you start playing solo it seams hard, then after some deck building the quests seam trivial. This to me is the essence of deck building. Unlick 2+ player games you can not rely on the other players to handle things either, so the deck building process is much more complex and rewarding.

If your deck can not handle the "surprise" draws it is the fault in the deck building, not in the game rules. Or it is the fault of the player not understanding the encounter deck. The encounter deck dose not change, after playing ten or so times or more you start to get a very strong understanding of what is a threat, and when you need to blow your defensive cards. Most solo losses, I believe, that are not related to deck construction are just from players not fully understanding what the encounter deck can throw at you and planning accordingly. I know my own solo losses almost always occour when I forget about a threat and over commit in teh quest phase, or acidently use all my resources and forget to leave a counter open or somthing. My point, is these losses I find are almost universally missplays. It is very strategic, much more than 2 player imo.

Try being more creative in your deck building maybe. I do agree that most of the decks posted about the place are pretty lame. Pretty much any deck with Eowyn, witch are very common, is basically wasting a control slot, dramatically weakening the deck.

Do not get me wrong solo game IS different form multiplayer, still I think it is a very rewarding game mode and I honestly can not see much of a problem with it.

I sit in the camp of the solo game being a flawed and poorly marketed feature of this game. I do not believe the game is rewarding or fun, even when I win, solo, because I feel that the victory was earned by luck, and not by the build of my deck. There are too many opportunities for the encounter deck to screw over a solo player, and too few card abilities that benefit a solo player (as opposed to abilities like sentinel and ranged that make co-op play more interesting).

Honestly, I found that the simplest way to make a solo game more enjoyable is to give yourself a smaller deck. 30 cards is enough, I think, to randomize your chances of getting that one card you really need, but small enough to assure that your draw will still be effective when you need it to be.

With some of the more powerful player cards out, maybe 30 isn't the answer. But I think the answer is found somewhere within the deck-building rules. Perhaps you have a minimum of 30 cards, but only two of any one card can be in the deck. Maybe only one copy of each card... etc. There are a lot of variations to be found that could make the game more interesting and enjoyable. I myself am going to explore the concept of a 50-60 card deck where I can have four copies of each card in there.

Whatever you choose, let us know if you find something that works!

I can't offer any solo alternatives other than 'campaigning' to make it more fun and challenging (same deck through a cycle or all quests), but that does not sound like the solution you are wanting. I simply can't relate. I think the solo experience is great fun and a good challenge.

Woz said:

+1 to this, i still stand by my previous point of playing with fire when varienting an LCG that is still in its youth....this game has a long way to go and alot of new fun aspects to be made.....i mean look at the new ambush keyword coming up.....but if you're varienting in the games first adventure cycle, just think how many changes you're going to have make a year down the line, however if you think that the game is too luck based, then i do not think anything FFG comes up with is going to change that.

For the last few months I have been testing my own variant on the solo play. So far I haven't found it unbalanced or makes the game too easy. It helps compensate though.

1. You pick any three heroes regardless of sphere.

2. Ignore spheres for costs unless a card specifically requires it (in other words a card says pay a specific sphere resource). Any resource can be used to pay for cards.

3. Lastly you can use cards from any sphere when building your deck but you must stick to the minimum deck size.

Simples.

The_Big_Show said:

Sorry to be critical, but have you ever even come close to losing with these house rules?

Woz said:

I agree, I just do not understand why there is even a need for a custom solo rule...

Well, that's because many people feel that many quests are ridiculously hard to do solo.

Sorry to be critical, but have you ever even come close to losing with these house rules?

Absolutely. I have probably a 60% win ratio across most stories. That's all. It does not guarantee me a win at all. What it does is balance out the game in solo mode (assuming just one set of heroes). Some quests such as Escape from Dol Guldor remain incredibly hard. Hills of Emyn Muil is the only one that I have never failed under this method, but then I never failed it playing normally either.

Now, to counter that, if you are a very competitive player who does really well already then I wouldn't even suggest these rules. I tried this idea out because I am not a master deck builder and I find the game very hard as a solo player.

It may sound easy to deck build this way but there are a lot of very good cards and more coming out with every new pack. You still have to balance cost ratios, and mix of allies and other cards.

Legolas of Darkwood said:

Yep. I'm one of them!

I enjoy this game in it's multiplayer aspect but I bought it primarily because it was advertised as solo playable. But the game is far too hard to play solo as it currently stands.

The_Big_Show said:

Not only very difficult, but completely designed for co-op play. How many abilities in this game assist co-op players (ranged, sentinel, even a hero card that is virtually worthless in a solo game)? There is a lot more ease involved for co-op players, and this goes far beyond the notion that solo play is helped out by only one encounter card draw.

most people on here know me as a strong thematic player...i do not spend time analysing cards and decks to make an all powerfull deck etc. however i still do not see this game as too hard solo...perhaps because ive never played it any other way, but i still find all but dol guldur and RTM about the right level of difficulty, and 2 quests out of 9 being too hard is perfectly fine with me

perhaps my win/lose ratio expectations are lower than everyone elses....personally i have no problem with trying 7 times to complete a quest, it just adds to the replayabilty for me

richsabre said:

So you only play the solo games as the rules were written? No revisions?

hendersondayton said:

yes...since its release....beaten all but dol guldur and return to mirkwood, admittedly i dont play any other games, so i can devote all my love and attention to this