they are valid points cordeiroo and im going to stop arguing as i certainly dont want to end up falling out with you over something that hardly matters..

however id just like to end with a point that i forgot to mention previously-

as a pure solo player i have no experience of any other method of play…how does this relate to my argument? well i can say with absolute certainty that i have got a years worth of gaming (and collecting) fun out of it playing it this way- as much fun (or perhaps more) as any multiplayer would have

now while this doesnt affect the design of the game, what it does affect is the experience- from my perspective this game has a great solo aspect which makes it one of my favourite past times- now i highly doubt this would be the case if solo play in the game was just a happy accident- at best it would give a medicore amount of fun (the other lord of the rings board game for example can be played solo, and i would rate the solo play mediocre), and im sure other pure or mainly solo players would agree- they get at least, if not more fun out of the game as mulitplayers do

so yes the game favours two player, and i may be wrong in that the design team doesnt really take into account solo, but if this is the case, then i hope they continue doing what they do, as they are doing a **** fine job of making a two player game soloable

rich

ps as much as id love to see solo only quests- i see only anger from non solo players to come from this….though it would be interesting to see the reaction of the forum given a turn of tides…….i think they should probably stick to what theyre doing and keep working towards good scaling

You know, we're all just shooting in the dark here. Not one of us knows exactly how they choose to implement game ideas. We don't know how much they test each card in 1, 2, 3, or 4 player modes. The fact that we don't know means we really can't say what it was "designed" for. We can have opinions on whether it "scales" best with a given number of players, but that's as far as we can take it.

If somebody does have inside information on design and play testing, this is your cue to post it. (Unless, of course, you've been sworn to secrecy on the matter.)

First off, I'm fine with them designing the game for 2 players. Where I take issue is that they promote the product as being for 1 player as well. It's really not.

When I play with another person, I use the deck that I also run in solo games. The deck has an 80-90% win ratio against any particular scenario. When I play with another person, that player has to bring combat to handle the additional onslaught of enemies that I cannot. In fact, the assistant deck - as I have come to call it - is basically tactics with a lot of ranged so that I can pull an enemy and then my partner can help me kill it. That is his/her role.

So what this means is that when I am in solo mode, I'd better not run the assistant deck as the solo deck because I will lose. And do lose - I have tried to win solo with Tactics + another sphere multiple times and have come to the inevitable conclusion that it simply can't be done. Maybe down the road that will change - Hama was a great addition for Tactics in solo play - but they have a long way to go.

I disagree with the assessment that a game can't be scaled properly for multiple players, starting with one player and going from there. I have about 50 suggestions. I think what has happened is that FFG severely underestimated how popular solo play would be in a board/card game and didn't develop this game correctly. As a result, half or more of all the player cards that come out with each pack are essentially wasted cardboard for people like me, who don't have a lot of free time with friends to spend sitting around the kitchen table hacking through a fantasy-based cooperative card game. The time I spend playing is usually after a long day at work when I am just getting home and needing to unwind. Would I like to be able to use ALL of the cards I PAID for when I play this game? Sure would! Is it realistic to do so? Heck no, not at all!

We've really sidetracked from the topic of this thread, so I'll leave it at that… for now.

having played this since the beginning i can offer some insight on the problems you state above- the thing is you have to take a very different approach when playing solo….as i ve said ive never played any other way- however i still know mulitplayer strategies and support tactics- all this falls apart in solo

i have had a lot of success solo- ive won against all scenarios (except guldur) - however you just have to accept a lower win ration than multiplayer

now onto the case of being able to use all cards- i reccomend you search for a topic i posted a while back in which i raised concern over some cards….im not going to repeat it as i was about torn apart by multiplayers and was even insulted on my income (dont ask)- however i shall give you a link when i find it

try here

i have to say that despite my post i linked there- i dont feel quite the same way now- id certainly say more than half are useful in each pack, in not often all of them

as for sidetracking the thread- i think this one had ran its course anyways given we know there is indeed a hero

booored said:

booored said:

Want to hit this point real quick. I am not "complaining" that solo is unbalanced or that the quests are "uber hard" for solo players. As far as I'm concerned, this is only true of Escape from Dol Guldur. The 1B side of the first quest card might as well read: "When Revealed: If you are the only player, you lose the game." But other than that I have beat every scenario at least once, and most of them multiple times. I can even kill both Hill Trolls in Journey to Anduin before they ever engage me almost every time.

That said, solo players do have a right to complain. We want the entire product that we are buying from them to be useable. I'm to the point that I am about to stop buying if the packs are as junky as the last 3 have been. From them, I have taken Arwyn Undomiel, Elrond's Counsel, and the Gondorian Warden and added them directly to my deck. I would love to use Word of Command but I'm not making room for Rhadagast just to do that, and Gandalf is too unpredictable to bother with it. Maybe if/when they make more, it will be playable.

I'd even go so far as to say that the Leadership and Tactics cards in the last 2 packs aren't any better than anything I already have in the assistant deck that I hand to my partner when I'm doing a 2-player game. The way I look at it, I paid $5 for the encounter pack and $1 a card for everything else I use. That is just too much IMO. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say the people in charge aren't doing as much playtesting as they should be. They probably don't have the time to do so adequately with a new pack coming out every single month.

richsabre said:

I will definitely read that. I don't think a solo player has to accept a lower win rate. I think a solo player has to accept that the game becomes dull very quickly because you can only play the same basic deck over and over again if you want to do well. A lot of people don't get it from what I've seen on these boards, but questing is how you win, in general. Sure there are specific conditions along the way of each quest card - including sometimes killing an enemy - but if you can't overcome the staging area threat each round, you will lose no matter how many enemies you kill or how many allies you have. The first thing I would have done if I were a designer is I would have started the threat level of heroes lower, put willpower at a minimum of 3 instead of 0, and then required the first player to always be the first and last player to flip a card. What this means is that if another player flips an encounter card during the quest phase, then the first player must flip an additional card. I'm sure someone will disagree but IMHO that solves your scaling problems right there. Regardless, what's done is done.

well your opinion is certainly valid….… i just guess its a case of personal opinion

now myself personally….since early may last year ie 12 months ago- i have played many hundreds of games- an embarrising amount some might think- and i havnt got bored once- however this may be down to my strong love for tolkien and the theme- i get alot out of just looking at the artwork- this doesnt work for everyone- especially 'boromir' (likes to win if you werent around for the article) type players

i also havnt got bored of different combos yet- now maybe this is down to me sticking with one type of deck for many games, maybe my 'pippin' side works a bit slower than everyone else- but either way, again its opinion based

rich

I always play solo too and, although I greatly appreciate richsabre, who is a real gentleman, in this case I have to agree with the majority or, at least, the majority in the last pages of the current topic: when I play solo, I really have no choice; it's either Spirit + whatever or defeat.

Serazu said:

why thank you sir

not that i want to change the topic of this thread into an advice thread…and im sure you'll have tried it anyways…but have you you given lore a shot instead of spirit? infact id go as far as saying i find it much easier to win with lore (using card draw and protector of lorien/ or big resource draw and map maker) than spirit

rich

Oh, yes, yes. The deck I use in fact is consisted of 24 Spirit cards, 14 Lore cards, 6 Leadership cards and 6 neutral cards with Eowyn, Frodo and Beravor as heroes. Lore is my favorite sphere, but without Spirit I cannot proceed.

I think lore is the most powerful solo sphere. The Minstrels allow you to splash into any other sphere with ease and Bilbo give you constant card draw to lubricate our deck so it has a nice flow, even with crazy mana requirements.

This seams to me to be the best setup for solo…

2xLore + 1xSpirit (my fav)
2xLore + 1xTactics (Also strong)

Do yourself a favour and experiment with swapping Eowyn out for another spirit, say Frodo is a fav of mine.. I will try to not get in this discussion again.. but seriously .. give it a try.

Serazu said:

I also play solo, but I'm with richsabre here. You have much more time to achieve victory if you lower your threat, and it's clear that if you want to lower your threat, the cards are from Spirit. But it is not so key if you rush through the quest, and look for a quick victory. Anyway, I played juicebox's tournaments successfully using decks without Spirit heros, and sometimes without any threat reduction card. And also lately I used Tactics in some of my decks, having proved useful both Boromir, Elladan or Háma recently for solo play, although obviously using them in bi or tri-sphere decks.

So, it is possible to win without Spirit, and it is possible to win using Tactics, at least in my experience.

Greetings.

booored said:

agreed on this

also find 2x Lore + 1x Leadership strong as well- both card draw and resource draw mechanisms powering away at once

I prefer to mostly use Spirit instead of Lore, since the event which brings allies out of the discard pile is a Spirit one. This way, I may use expensive Lore allies, such as the Minstrels and the Daughters without much fuss.

My best deck does run 2X lore and 1X spirit, so I can understand where everyone is coming from there. I can also agree that combat is of secondary importance to questing. After all, you must quest every round, but not neccessarily fight every round. Having said that, it sounds like some people think that you cannot win in solo if your deck includes leadership or tactics. I don't get that because this isn't the case, in my experience. While tactics is still a more difficult addition, I have used leadership liberally in many decks throughout both cycles with very good results.

I also don't understand the attitude that some multiplayers have. They act like they know so much more about the game and are so much better than anyone else at it. Yet, it is solo players who tackle quests with nothing more than one deck and their wits, with a more limited card base, since some great multi cards are all but useless in solo, and no partners to rely on.

I believe Tactics can be very powerful addition even in solo play - especially in some quests - but not a leading force; I have built quite a few strong solo decks with one Tactics hero but none with two or three.

But it is hard to play solo without Spirit.

lleimmoen said:

what i usually do to counter a spiritless deck is splash in the key cards such as test of will hasty stroke and UC, couple this with lores rivendell minstrell and you can usually get song cards out quite quick- or alternatively use narvis belt in a dwarf deck

ive had a fair bit of succes this way- for instance i have just had an easy win against watcher in the water using lore strider, bilbo and gloin, with a bit of spirit sprinkled in

richsabre said:

I meant that. Not without a Spirit hero but without Spirit cards. A Test of Will is just so very needed in some quests that it is hard to do without. I really hope we get a new mean of cancelling "when revealed" or even "forced" effects in a different sphere (Lore, perhaps), well, you can avoid those with Denethor but still…

ah my bad -so you did

lleimmoen said:

I agree. I want to see something like "Dunedain Sentinal" - Discard to cancel the "When revealed" of an encounter card. (Or even better, exhaust to! But that's probably too much.)

richsabre said:

Haha, I was just saying we agree.

Yeah, I think we may see another card that cancels "when revealed." It is an interesting development between "when revealed" and shadow effects. In the core set we only had one card, Hasty Stroke, for the latter and two, A Test of Will and Eleanor, for the former. Since, we have got A Burning Brand, Dunedain Watcher, Dawn Take You All, Rider of the Mark, all dealing with shadow effects; but nothing new that deals with "when revealed."

booored said:

I have, and it has always ended in disaster. I've even compared round to round what would have happened if I had run Eowyn instead of Frodo. Without exception, I have noted that I finish the quest faster with Eowyn, and more often than not, my threat skyrockets with Frodo on the team - this is not because of his ability, either; it's because I fall behind in questing very quickly. When you go from putting a token or 2 on the location card every round to having to raise your threat by 1-2 points every round, what happens is that you are not clearing the staging area. What it boils down to is that you need 1 quester, 1 blocker, and 1 attacker when choosing heroes. Obviously, it's nice if the heroes can do other things to, but those are the primary requirements. What role does Frodo play, exactly? Is he the blocker? Then who is the quester? Frankly, there's no one else that can quest as great as Eowyn, and certainly not at her threat cost. I'd rather tap down one character and hold the line on the quest stage than tap down 2-3 characters leaving me less to block and attack with, and then still not at least hold the line on the quest stage.

1 game - the most memorable example - I compared round to round what would happen if I had kept Eowyn instead of Frodo. With Eowyn, I won the game in 5 rounds. My final threat was 20. (My starting threat was 24.) With Frodo, I lost the game in 12 rounds with a final threat of 39 (My starting threat, by the way, was 22). What was the difference? I couldn't keep pace on questing because I was having to fight too much stuff. Eowyn could hold the line, freeing up 2 other characters to block and attack. But with Frodo on the team it took everything to do what Eowyn was doing on her own, and I couldn't spare it for the 2 rounds I needed to clean-up the enemies that were engaging me. What was the quest, you ask? Passage to Mirkwood. The entry level adventure. I'll go get a sandwich while I let that sink in.

@lleimmoen - thats an intersting point you make - i was about to say at first 'cancellation is a spirit thing, it wouldnt go with any other sphere' but then i realised you're right- there are a good few shadow cancellation cards across the spheres! i think its because treachery cancellation is much more powerful in general

@boris - thats also an interesting post- however i have noted the opposite! as soon as i ditched the rather lovely eowyn i started winning more….and i mean a whole lot more…..there are players who swear by her, and some hate her….i am about in the middle- i see her use, especially for solo as she opens up a slot for a fighter/defender, but i also see other just as good (or in my opinion better) strategies

…for instance that 'slot' could be freed up by a unexpected courage hero, or a fast hitched (and buffed up with protector of lorien) hobbit, or again map maker with a ton of resources spent to buff him up to double eowyns base willpower…another favourite willpower killer of mine is dain, bifur and gloin, with a few dwarf allies….each one of them gettting dains +1 willpower really adds up

the draw back to my own plans are of course you have to buy them cards…thus alot of my games are slow to start then really take off

richsabre said:

What you say makes sense, but it's also different than boored's "challenge." You can't just drop Eowyn for Frodo. You have to rework your entire starting lineup. And you sacrifice willpower, which is the only viable way to quest (Legolas notwithstanding). I guess I'd have to watch someone else play these alternate cards/decks to understand it, but in my experience, slow starts in solo games = auto-loss.

yes you do really have to switch alot around, i dont think its as simple as a pure swap of heros

but with a good start hand (or taking a mulligan which is a great ability) it can really work out- and of course with a big card draw technique you soon draw your wanted cards anyways- so often it isnt so slow, especially with bilbo (who for that matter is my favourite hero)