And the winner is… Hama with the id 76…

Shiv@n said:

So, we have two cards with the 76 numeration, isn't it? Wrapped, and Háma. Well, another one like the Reponse

Tactics is fun, but it is weak because it's hard to accomplish anything OTHER than killing stuff. Although, I'm generally fine with that. Don't solo play with a mono sphere Tactics deck. Problem solved. (Although, Legolas, Radgast, and Eagles make a solo Tactics deck viable for some quests.)

I don't think Lore is weak at all. I find it to be by far the most versatile of the spheres.

That Gwahir looks wicked! I hope we get him as a hero soon. I've actually been pulling to get Gwahir as a Leadership hero (or possibly even Spirit), but with the ability to spend his resources on Eagle cards.

Not to further lead this thread off topic, but I actually beat Watcher with an all tactics deck the other day. It worked really well. Thalin/Boromir/Legolas. Boromir actually ended up doing questing most of the time and Legolas had plenty of tentacles to kill. I just had to make sure to attack with another ally in case the tentacle backfired on me.

Sprenger said:

Sooner you start doing that the better.. she is a bad card for bad players. I think of her as training wheels for when people do not really know how to play very well. Her ability is trivial when you think of all the other quest fixers.. like say MapMaker / Protector… and her 4 will becomes trivial by early-mid game. Far better to choose a hero that has utility for the entire length of the game.

Sprenger said:

Boromir I am warming up to but I rarely play with him due to his really high threat cost.. though I have made a few decks now where he is key.. so yes.. he is good..

Gimi on the other hand is not so good. Much like Ewyon his abilities are simply not relevant for the majority of the game. While having a hero that can one shot most monsters is great.. you might have noticed that a fully powered up Gimli is way way way over powered. Many of his hits are not being used. If you are combining him with a range character form another team for example.. say Legoas he is hitting for 5 from turn 1.. 6 if you have Dain out. Add a simple blade or axe and we have him hitting say 8. This is of course with out even having a plate and a bunch of wounds.

My point is that you can run other heroes that have effects much more beneficial for longer right to the end game.. if you run Gimli a lot I am sure you have noticed that you end up with way way more attack power than is needed for most turns. This is a waste. So look to other heroes that have ubr game constant effects… Dwalin for example… he also hits for 6 on turn one with ranged support….

And finally Legoas …I'm not going to say that he is crap.. but Brand owns him in almost all ways. There are a few deck archetypes that require Lego.. and yes he is a good card… but Brand defends better, Brand quests better, and has a more relevant effect. He dose have more threat, but I feel that the ability of Lego really works against you if you are not drawing mobs. They are pretty close… but Brand defiantly nudges him out.. the combos that he can drive if why he owns lego… like the combo with beravor for example (the most powerful but only one of the many uptap combos he powers)

The point is that Tactics is still weak. If it was not for the eagles would it even see play?

booored said:

Protector… of Edoras, you mean? With "utility for the entire length of the game?" I think not. It's out there 1-3 turns, depending on when you draw it and how many copies you get. Stand and Fight lets you up that count sometimes, but not every game.

Mapmaker is resource-intensive. If you are paying the cost to up his willpower, that means you're not playing other lore cards with him. They're just dead cards in your hand, and sometimes you are going to want to have those on the table more than you are going to want to have a higher willpower from Mapmaker (even when you desperately need it).

In a multi-player game, I would agree that Eowyn is a "training wheels" card, but in solo play she is a requirement if you want to overcome the quest area. She minimizes the number of characters you need to send on the quest each round. Sometimes, it's nice to know I only have to send her so that I can engage and fight off more enemies with my other characters. I have tried running other spirit heroes in her place, and every time I have compared my results from round to round to what they would have been if she had been on the team instead. In every instance, without exception. I have wished I had run her instead. I had many rounds where my threat increased 2-4 points but wouldn't have had she been questing instead. A 4-5 willpower on a single character is nothing to scoff at.

booored said:

I agree with most of what you said but I have to disagree when it comes to Questing. Sure Brand has a higher Will Power than Legolas but he is pretty useless if he does commit. A Legolas with Unexpected courage combo can single-handly complete a quest. In the games I have played where both Legolas and Brand were on the board, it seemed like Brand was always having to commit while Legolas was doing all the heavy lifting by placing 6+ progress tokens on the active location/quest card each round.

I like both heroes and when Tactics does not have to worry about commit they are scary good.

booored said:

I suppose this goes without saying, but Brand is nothing in a solo game. His ability has NO USE while Legolas can add progress tokens and has a lower starting threat.

booored said:

I, for one, hardly ever use eagles when I add Tactics to my decks. I usually stock up on attachments, events with a few non-eagle allies. Then whatever sphere I'm combining Tactics with will supply the majority of my allies.

Boris_the_Dwarf said:

Protector of Loroien

Boris_the_Dwarf said:

Defiantly, he needs to be combo'd with a resource engine… Steward is usually targeted at a Lore Icon of the deck running mapmaker. Steward is easy to splash in a lore deck though minstrel.

Sprenger said:

Budgernaut said:

Yeah, sorry I forget some people play solo. Yeah.. I am almost always speaking about normal games when I make posts unless I say so… should have been clearer on that. Yeah.. in a solo game it is Lego no competition.

Budgernaut said:

Really?!! Man… give it a go.. Support of the Eagles is just insane.. Try a deck with that card and some eagles to power it… I doubt you will be disappointed. (not sure about solo, as there is little quest power.. maybe team it with spirit / rohan)

Boris_the_Dwarf said:

I really disagree here, and there are many threads on it. I think she in fact makes decks worse in solo as in solo the deck needs to be all about utility and maximising the use of a card for the entire game. I stand by what I said b4.. sure she DOSE do what you say.. but it is a crutch for building a "real" solo deck.. One that works better and imo is more fun as there is more interaction than just tapping a hero each turn like she is one of those bobbing water drinking toys.

The only "real" deck is Rabbit Run for solo Return to Mirkwood. This is still the most viable solo deck for that awful quest as far as I know.

booored said:

Rabbit Run? Specifics?

I have plenty of fun with just tapping one hero, and I think winning more times than not provides plenty of interaction. I have swapped her for Frodo to allow my threat to start at 22, but when you go from holding the line at a minimum to constantly having to raise your threat 1-3 points each round, that's a problem.

I have played my deck (heroes are Bofur/Eowyn/Dunhere) against Return to Mirkwood several times and have fared just fine against it. Do I win every time? No, of course not - no deck wins every game. The encounter cards (regardless of the specific quest) are too random and unwieldy to guarantee a solid strategy will overcome 100% of the time,

Protector of Lorien is a fantastic staple, and I use 2 of them in the deck I play. I could add a third copy but I just can't squeeze it in.

Lastly, I would daresay that solo is the "normal" style of play for most people as opposed to 2+ player games. Unless you have a friend who is into the game as much as you are, it's so much more preferable to just throw down when there's some ample downtime in the privacy of your own home. ("You" meaning the generic you, not specifically you.)

Boris_the_Dwarf said:

basically the fastest deck you can build- i did this right after it came out…..used a pure rohan deck, and you hope to hell that you dont get any bad cards….terrible strategy but for solo its the only way to do it

Boris_the_Dwarf said:

the game is designed for 2 players, ./end

richsabre said:

The new Aragorn helps a lot against Return to Mirkwood as he can deal with one of the main difficulties (massive threat gain). Currently I am winning 1 in 3 with him, which isn't great but is much better than before. IMO you can still just get stuffed by the encounter deck without being able to do much about it.

booored said:

no…..this implies the designers dont take into account any solo play….and as you are always quick to point out everytime i complain about these 'multiplayer only' cards…this game does indeed have solo orientated cards

if you have said this game sways more to two players id agree…otherwise no

i would say that the designers learnt their lesson from the poor scaling of return to mirkwood as there hasnt been anything near so bad since

yeah with Aragorn and that Dwalin guy and some of the newer threat management events.. it might be time to revisit that quest.

booored said:

That's why the core set box states "For 2-4 players." Oh, wait…

Boris_the_Dwarf said:

I know you tried to be snarky and stuff, but to be honest, I didn't get it.
It says 1-2 (and I understand you know that).

He said the game is designed for two players. The second number there is '2', so the argument still stands.
There is so many cards and nuances of this game that holds the argument (Ranged and Sentinel being the most obvious) of this being mainly a multiplayer game, having the solo as an added feature.

I believe you have your reasons, but it's far better to explain them, than just hoping others to guess.

Btw, I mean no harm, just want to understand your points better.

booored said:

I can only advise you to do this. It is fun to play with Loragorn and the scenario can play out its full potential in solo mode. Now you can defeat multiple Attercop's on your way to the Elven king, and you still won't run out of threat.

cordeirooo said:

even though ive argued this one to death (and i of course respect those opinions who argue otherwise) i still to this day strongly believe that solo play is more than just an added feature…..if i had to put a number on it i would say 60/40 multi/solo…and i have a few things to back this up

being here for over a year now i have seen many new comers and many rules queries etc. and a vast amount of them are in regards to solo…does this mean the game is designed for solo? well that previous sentence will not obviously suffice as evidence but it certainly helps

what also helps is the fact i wrote to FFG asking about their priorieties in solo cards and got a reply:

"Thank you for contacting us regarding Lord of the Rings Living Card Game. It is our desire to support all formats of play over the course of the product. Please be aware that might mean at some time(s) the spotlight will be more on one aspect or mechanic while other may seem like they're not getting any love, but don't worry. The ebb and flow of the game will move that spotlight always around."

that stated both would get equal love

all this strongly points towards a game that both has a strong solo player base, and has a deep solo design aspect, so i would hesitate to say that solo is a feature

i still think that the game sways more to mulitplayer….however i think this is a natural outcome, not a descicion made by the devs who say 'lets keep the solo to a minimum'

rich

dude what are you smoking, you argue like 3 different and diametrically opposing points, though I guess I might just not understand what your saying… Lets try and consolidate…

Of course there is official support for single player. It says so right on the box. They design the game to be able to be played in all modes.. This isn't even something to discuss.. it is like making a massive post to explain to us that water is wet.

The question is …

Can the game design truly support solo, 2player, 3 player and 4player all at the same time.. and support all modes equally.? The answer is no.. no it can't.

Any board game player will be very aware of the problem called scaling. This means that the game goes out of balance the more or less players (in this case) you add or subtract. Scaling gets its naming from the idea of going out of balance and inherently implies that there IS a balance to go out of balance in the first place… An optimal setup for the game. In Arkham Horror you can play solo, this is a supported game mode.. there is even rule variants in the official rules to handle it.. BUT can anyone really sit here and say a single investigator is the optimal setup for Arkham Horror?… no.. absolutely not. …. in for this particular game, LoTRlcg , it is 2 players.

No one is saying solo is not fun, or there will nvr be a solo orientated quests or w/e…. … what I am saying, though, is that 2 player is the most balanced of all the modes, and this can not be some random accident… when they design cards they design for 2 player.. sure, they take into consideration solo and 3/4 player.. but it is for 2 player games that the cards get designed for at 1st consideration.

Supporting other format is not the same as designing for it. Regardless of the double talk sales speech that FFG sends out.

leptokurt said:

Awesome… lore-a-gorn … Forever how he shall be named!

firstly im not smoking anything and i struggle to see how that was a relevant point to add to this discusion

i believe i am arguing two points and they are that the game is not just 'designed for two players end/' and that solo is more than a 'feature'

i am having a hard time figurin how i am making several opposing statements

however you are also contradicting yourself- you make such a linear statement as that above, and yet go on to make an actually well thought out description of scaling and design aspects, which most certainly isnt what is implied in the first case…..that statement implies that no thought is put into solo, which is wrong- obviously, as it wouldnt have had such great success with pure solo players such as myself- again most certainly not happy accident but design..again i point out that there are many cards- which you yourself have said- that favour solo players much more than any other

i am arguing that the game favours two player, but ffg take into account solo more than you give credit for…..yes there are bollocks up such as return to mirkwood, but has there been anything since? no….they obviously looked at player feedback, took the hint that it was terrible scaling and did what any decently function company would do and adjusted accordingly

so to sum up (incase there is some confusion here)

yes i agree that the game favours two player

yes it scales better two player

but this still doesnt mean that solo play is as invalid in design as you make out

richsabre said:

yeah that is exactly what it means….. this is EXACTLY why people can not sit there and complain about solo being unbalanced and ubr hard and not getting cards designed for that game mode….

how you be so dismissive of it without having a proof to support it apart from your own interpretation of the game….just look at the reply i got when i contacted them-

"Thank you for contacting us regarding Lord of the Rings Living Card Game. It is our desire to support all formats of play over the course of the product. Please be aware that might mean at some time(s) the spotlight will be more on one aspect or mechanic while other may seem like they're not getting any love, but don't worry. The ebb and flow of the game will move that spotlight always around."

fair enough call them liars and me naive if you like, but ill take it as confirmation of solos level of priority with the designers is higher than what you state

Hey Rich,

That is naturally the only answer you could have from FFG.
They would never say something to sway solo-players away; the game has the possibility to play solo, but you can see that even on that answer, they do not give you a hard evidence of solo play being a big part of the game, they say it's they 'desire', which means it's is not reality. See, you cannot desire what you already have, it makes no sense.

The game is designed for 2 players, that doesn't mean you cannot play solo or 3-4. I even believe it would be cool to have a solo-only quest, or something like that.
It's just the way it is.