Maybe it is because I play solo so much more, but every time I play 2-player I always feel like the game is much more challenging. I alter my deck to play well with my wife's dwarf deck, but still… In solo games I feel much more in control.

Can anyone talk about some favorite 2-player strategies and synergies that you like to use?

In what twisted universe 2-player is harder than solo?

I think you're spot on in saying that solo is easier because that is what you're used too. In solo, if you've cleared the area, you generally know the next quest phase will reveal one treachery OR one enemy OR one location (barring Surge, of course). In 2-player games, the combination of cards that could be revealed increases, so it's harder to be prepared for what's coming. That's my take on the situation.

MyNeighbourTrololo said:

In quite a few quests. Have you got the expansions yet?

Budgernaut said:

Yes, once you sort things out solo, and especially if you have access to scouting via Denethor or Henamarth Rivesong, it becomes walk in the park mostly. However, the one deck has to be more flexible whereas in 2 player game, each deck can have a more specific function.

Oveall, I'd say as I've said before, it really depends on a scenario.

depends on how good the quest scales- take return to mirkwood- crazy hard solo, but ive just got the long dark and won it 3 times on the go solo…really easy quest solo…so it all depends on the quest i guess

Budgernaut said:

I agree. Usually Hunt for Gollum isn't that bad solo, but when my friend and I played it last night it was much harder than I thought going in. I think we pulled three Signs of Gollum in a row at one point which dramatically changed our game, and the sheer number of locations we had to deal with pulling two off the top was an eye-opener. Fortunately Protector of Lorien saved our hides.

Ranger of the Force said:

as solo play goes i think hunt for gollum is the closest quest to 'average' that we have so far, and the one closest to its level

I'm glad that some people agree!

We played Redhorn Gate last night. She played Dain, Thalin, and Gimli, I had Glorfindel(Spirit), Beravor and Eowyn. I mainly just quested and aided with Legacy of Durin, PoL, Record Keeper, etc while she killed most everything. I added Bofur into my deck for the game too. He is pretty nice when Dain is in play!

I still felt much more suspense when pulling the cards from the encounter deck. I think it is because as a solo player, you only have one possible enemy, location, or treachery to counter. In two-player, you could have two awful treacheries and they happen to both players.

I don't know. I find it more of a challenge.

MyNeighbourTrololo said:

If I remember correctly you had a question/problem with this game not so long ago and received a lot of nice and polite answers?! So how about you show the same spect and courtesy to your follow players, hm??

MyNeighbourTrololo said:

That's actually why I brought it up. I usually only hear the opposite and was hoping to get some feedback.

Ranger of the Force said:

Hunt is a good example of the quest that is usually much easier solo. In general quests that require that a player does or has something in order to do something else, are the harder nuts to crack for more players.

mr.thomasschmidt said:

You find it disrespectful - it's your deal, I never meant it. And it's also widely used expression that I used.

lleimmoen said:

They're still shipping.

For standard scenarios, quest just can't bear the amount of solutions a large amount of players can bring up to the encounters it has to offer. When you build a solo deck - you need to be flexible. When you build a duo or etc. multiplayer deck - you can focus on something, being sure that other playr(s) got covered up the other aspects.

Yes, but not only do the expansions change thing up a bit - with a significantly different scaling (mostly) but also the limited card pool of the core set is the problem. There are many great cards in the core set and thus more players can use them well when working together but it is hard to make a really good solo deck since many latter strategies are still non-existent.

lleimmoen said:

this is a good point - only since the start of dwarrowdelf have i felt that as a solo player i can really go into a quest confident of winning, wheras during mirkwood i used to go into a quest expecting to loose

It requires different mindsets to play solo and multiplayer. In solo game, it is difficult to cover all aspects equally well; instead, as the encounter deck is more manageble, you can try to channel the threats to the area your deck can handle best. In multiplayer game, more cards are revealed from the encounter deck each turn, so it is more difficult to manage it; instead, with multiple players, you can handle all aspects with more ease.

Therefore, if you use solo game mindset (and/or deck) to play a multi-player game, you may find it harder, and vice-versa.

Going back to the original point: personally I have played all the available quests both 1P and 2P (except FOS which I have not yet tried solo), and there are no quests where I have a better win-loss record 1P. In general we've found almost all of the quests pretty straightforward with 2P.

3P and 4P is another question though - I've barely played either format.

jjeagle said:

I wouldn't expect that after I saw you winning all but one or two quests in that one-deck solo tournament.

Anyways, I just have to say my experience is very different. And it may be because I play more coop than solo, just maybe. There are not many of these but I would say at least Hunt and Massing I have done way better against solo. But as you said, these, especially Massing, get really crazy with four players. The difference between one and two is still not just marginal, in my opinion.