As primarily a solo player, I can see where richsabre is coming from. For someone that plays primarily co-op, there's nothing stopping them from playing a solo game every now and then to utilize cards like Denethor. For someone in richsabre's situation, there isn't an option to play cooperatively every once in a while (barring online play). Sure, he could play two decks, but I agree that two decks is too unwieldy and being able to peer into both hands gives you an effective starting hand of 14 that feels way too unbalanced. Playing two hands makes me feel like I'm cheating. So my point is that the co-op player has a few cards that he can still use, even if they are primarily solo. The only option for a solo player to use co-op cards is to find another player (not always possible) or play two decks.

I guess the final option is to make your own rules for co-op cards in solo play, but that makes it harder to share experiences and relate to other players and is generally frowned upon.

hi all- its your friendly neighbourhood complainer again

ok firstly the co -op thing- i dont have anything against it, i live in a very sparsely populated area, and several hundred miles away from the nearest game store....so unless sheep are going to grow opposeable thumbs then that aint happening....also i just dont want to....call me insocialable if you want, but my game time is me time. my time to get absorbed in middle earth and let my mind wander away......so thank you for your offer of co-op play, maybe in the future....

at the chance of sounding like a complete idiot i wil admit that some of the more constructive responses have indeed help me see the counter argument....i appreciate where you are all coming from......i really do

but (yep there's always a but) my point still remains. to wraith---i see your point, however when you say that i want 100% of card solo, well......100% of all cards are co-op playable.....so yeah, in my books its not asking the world, just a level playing field.

bohemond- im am neither foolish nor interesting in player pyschology, if i wanted to make myself feel better id go and buy a puppy. there are many instances in life where it is reasonable to ask for a product to be inclusive of everyone....and as stated above i dont particularly (or at all) want pure solo cards anymore- im just asking for all cards to be playable by all....i mean you're the expert---would that be unrealistic from a design point of view? (thats a genuine question, not a snide remark)

anyways, as stated the sheer weight of opposing player opinions i will fight this no more....i was raising the point on the forum to see what the forum's reaction was.....if i just wanted to grill ffg i would have sent them my forum message- this i did not, i merely sent them an inquisitive message

anways

Very interesting topic in this thread! I also thought about usability of cards regarding solo/co-op aspect, and were a little bit disappointed at first, like you. But after a while, my opinion changed. I agree with Bohemond. Some cards don't explicitly state that they're better for solo, but they are.

He already noted Denethor. It's the same with Henamarth. Knowing 100% what will be coming from the encounter deck is much much better than knowing 33% in a 3 player game. In addition, you're not allowed to talk about non-revealed cards in the encounter deck, so Needful to Know is another example where a solo player benefits more than co-op players. (Hey, that's a Dwarrowdelf card! )

Then there's Bilbo. I find him great in Solo games (every round 2 cards drawn, that's great), but in a 4 player game, his ability will make you benefit only each 4th turn, and his stats only add up to 6, but he costs 9. He's merely worth his Hobbit trait (Fast Hitch...), my brother even refuses to play with him in our 2 player games.

Some cards like Steward of Gondor are very powerful, but unique. This usually leads to only 1 player having 3 copies of SoG in his deck, and only 1 player having 3 copies of Horn of Gondor in his deck (let's assume he bought 3 core sets). So unique cards generally are "restriced co-op use" cards. And there's quite a bunch of unique cards. If in a 4 player game 1 player plays Gandalf for 5, then another player having Sneak Attack + G in his hand is blocked. Or there will be only 1 Radagast, even if 2 players would like to have an Eagles-centered deck.

Or take Ever Onward. In a co-op game, this card is expensive (3 res) for negating a (probably only small) threat increment of only 1 player. In solo game, if you have this card, you can quest with absolutely nobody and kill a lot of enemies you're currently fighting. This can be pretty handy. It's the same with Thicket of Spears (although I've got to admit that it's pretty hard to pay it solo, because every hero needs to have a Tactics icon).

So don't be too disappointed, FFG is also doing something for solo gamers (Although scaling really could be improved - yes I'm looking at you, RtM...)

Regards,

Pete

thanks for your reply pete...yes those reasons are the reasons i have 'yielded' in a way, there are indeed cards that i didnt think about at first (**** your haste richsabre!), however i am putting this thread on the back burner for a few packs to see what fruits they bring in player cards

if things get better/worse for these exclusive cards then i will re-think my opinion on the matter

rich

I'm also a solo-exclusive player, and I also agree with the original points that there are increasing numbers of cards that cannot be played in a 1 player game, which is a worry. I suppose at the minute I'm lucky in that I can afford to buy these adventure packs at will, but it does rankle that there are more and more co-op only cards being included in these packs. Redhorn Gate had one, Road to Rivendell has two, so are we expecting Shadow and Flame to have six? While it's true that nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to buy these things, it would be nice to see a better balance. Denethor has been mentioned as being a highly valuable solo card, but is he precluded absolutely from being used in a co-op game? No, of course not. The point is, it doesn't work both ways, and it can irritate some people.

Pete, I take your point about Radagast, but Gandalf's text means it isn't long until the second player can bring him out. And I presume, when playing co-operatively, you'd choose different spheres, so the other unique guys won't pose a problem. Whether a card is better in solo or not is slightly off the mark, I think, though. It's not a matter of having a card that is better in solo or better in co-op, it's about cards that are impossible to play solo. Whether having other cards that work better in a solo game makes up for this or not, I don't think so, because these cards that work better in solo can be used in co-op. The cards that work in co-op like these controversial spirit ones cannot be used in solo. That is the contentious issue, to me.

It's been said before, many times, that this is a 2-player game that, as luck would have it, can also be played solo effectively. I'm starting to look at it that I'm lucky that it can, because it's a truly great game. There are other great games that I have that require another person, and so require a level of organisation that I'm just too lazy to effect, so at least I have this one that I can take off the shelf whenever the fancy takes me.

yes, agreed spalanzani, though you must be brave to side with me- prepare to have your head bitten off

Think of how I feel? I play mostly a dwarf deck that is tactics heavy with some leadership. You're complaining that 1 card was worthless for you. I had about 70% of the cards being worthless for me!

richsabre said:

We shall see!

Don't forget to post the FFG reply (if you get one - I sent them an email about the SW LCG in September and it took about five weeks for them to basically tell me nothing...)

ok thanks for the info....thats err promising haha

I am just very happy that FFG makes a number of their games very suitable for solitaire play rather than just having solitaire introductory scenarios.

I'm also exclusively a solo player. I'm still learning the play of this game and still working through the Core quests with each pre-made sphere using only the core cards. But at my level, I have found use for the 'useless' cards like Wandering Took. There is a need (at least with the core decks) to have some "Startrek red shirts" - someone has to die. WT makes a nice sacrificial defender. As I start building my own multi sphere decks, I expect that he and some other cards will make nice book-marks (or coasters).

I also expect that as I get more experience, I may house rule some of the more interesting multi-player only cards to adapt their mult player role to solitaire.

Tom

twm47099 said:

cheers tom! i atually like that idea, perfect for my tolkien collection

richsabre said:

That's what my son did with his Middle Earth (ICE) CCC otherwise useless commons.

Tom

richsabre said:

Valyrian Steel said:

but (yep there's always a but)

richsabre said:

Ned Stark always said that anything before the word "but" doesn't really count

ahhh you may be correct there haha

woah crazy forum set out....anyone else getting half a screen?

Yeah, my weird quote box combined with your quote of that seemed to break the thread haha. Not sure how mine came out that way either.

/whispers - i think we may have broke the forum

You know, I'm actually more concerned about the opposite happening, that people will only focus on the solo ability of this game and not care enough about multiplayer. I won't speak for the europeans and other nationalities but here in the US, our culture is so individualistic. There's enough people sitting by themselves watching TV, using their ipoods, playing WOW, etc. and not interacting with people. What happened to getting out and being social! This is what's great about boardgames in general, you get to interact with people face to face! I think it's great that FFG emphasize the multiplayer aspect of the game over the solo, maybe that will encourage some of you to stop only playing solo and find a friend to play with.

Besides, joining together as a team is what LOTR and Tolkien are ALL ABOUT!!! He would be proud to have a game that rewards us for working with others to overcome evil! What your complaining about is directly against the spirit of Lord of the Rings and I can't support that.

Narsil0420 said:

I think that's a little unfair to say, especially since richsabre has agreed with previous points and said he would be fine with cards that are designed to be used in both without excluding either group. He and other solo players are not (anymore) asking for cards to be made that can only be used solo, just that cards can be used by all players. I agree that fellowship and cooperation against evil is a large theme in Tolkien's works, but I don't think this is a thematic discussion. This is about someone paying for cards they can't use. And with a fixed distribution method, he can't even sell them. I agree that these new cards are an awesome way for cooperative players to start seeing interactions between decks, but when it comes down to it, a portion of their consumer base is being alienated by the card design. Maybe not everyone can be pleased, but that doesn't mean that those who aren't can't complain about it.

Interesting topic...I haven't been around for too long but I'd like to share my point of view on the matter.

First off, sorry rich if you feel like your head is in danger of being bitten off...You are an enthusiastic poster, and obviously passionnate about this game, and thus, the last thing I want to see is a fellow forumite feeling ostracized.

However, I feel that many legitimate arguments have been made on the other side of the fence, and I tend to lean more on the multiplayer side. Usually, CCG expansions are way more massive than LCG ones...with many, many playable cards for all factions and flavours. Personally, I tend to see the whole cycle as one big expansion, because frankly,10 new player cards per expansion ? That's not much...but at the same time they are fixed and the need for new Encounter deck content is really important because the game depends on it to stay alive and keep growing. I think we ought to wait and see the end of the cycle before we determine that solo play has been gimped, however legitimate the feeling is. 10 different player cards (hero included) is a small sample...60 new cards will be more like it.

Like Narsil0420, I also had the odd feeling that Solo play was more prevalent than Coop. I do not know if it is true...maybe it comes from the many posts on the forum that concern Solo play. It always left me with the feeling that Solo was for the ''hardcore' who want to excel at deckbuilding and that multiplayer was not exciting or challenging enough. There even was a thread complaning that the game was too hard, and that solo was nigh-impossible. In that thread, I posted that different players want different things, and that Solo play attracts players who are looking for a bigger challenge. Maybe I am wrong (Rhosgobel with 4 players ? Good luck cancelling all the treacheries...)...but I never felt like Solo players were left in the dust.

In closing, I love this game, and I especially love multiplayer since I can specialize my deck and really feel like I'm collaborating with my friends (instead of simply winning at their expense). Therefore, I would not really be in favor of exclusively Solo cards (as it has been said, some cardsalready do that without advertising it). Besides, on the 60 cards that will compose the whole cycle, I believe the vast majority will be quite usable (and useful) to the solo player.

spalanzani said:

That's true, but there's nothing anyone can change about it. If designers create a card having a solo player in mind, the mechanic of that card's effect requires only 1 player, and therefore will be playable in multiplayer games, too. (As long as the designers don't add "Only play this card if there's only 1 player in the game" or something like that. But that would be excluding the card from multiplayer games without any reason...) If the designers have a card in mind which works for only 2 or more players (threat transfer e.g.), that mechanic just can't work with only 1 player.

Sure, you could add an alternative text to make such a card usable in solo play, too. But jhaelen already stated that the textbox is insufficient for that, or we need magnification glasses

So I guess the situation won't change much in future.

spalanzani said:

Yes that's true Can't wait until I find some time to try the new hero from Road to Rivendell, or open the Massing at Osgiliath pack waiting for me on my desk...

Greetings,

Pete

Narsil0420 said:

i have already adressed this- i live in the middle of nowhere- i play the game to get away from people- please dont state that im going against the spirit of tolkien-if anyone is tolkien obsessed on here it is me. i have read much on tolkiens personal level though his notes and letters and he was much more interested in other facts than 'social inclusion' his works came about through a love of mythology and language, and adventure. i get immersed in all 3 of those playing solo, so no, i dont think tolkien would chide me for not playing co op.

it is wrong for you to assume everyone has the methods/means to go out and find play teams. not everyone lives a well populated/ well facilitated area. not everyone has transport. not everyone wants to.

i do not sit at home on my pc all day. i do not sit and watch tv all day. there is nothing on the box that states 1-2 players but you really should be being more social you know

I think most of the arguments for/against the different card distributiions have been covered already, so I won't re-hash those.

Just as a point on whether co-op/solo play predominates, the quest log shows a heavy bias in favour of solo play. Due to the lower scores which generally follow from playing 1 or 2 player games, this can lead to the odd situation I've had, of a better than average score for each of the 4 numbers of player games, but a wore overall average as a result of playing a lot of 3 and 4 player!

Obviously, the quest log isn't a definitive record of what people play, but it's the best guide we have.

richsabre said:

Are you referring to your local area or the UK ?

Dam said:

haha both! which is worse! where i live there's only one road- out of it -quickly if you have sense