I was just wondering how many of us play our solo games with the official rules, and how many of us play two-handed, or with some unofficial rules

Personally, i think they could have spent some more time on the solo players rules. The multi-player rules work great, but solo players seem to get the short end of the straw all the time. I'm talking about things like sentinal and ranged, which may as well not exist if you are a solo player. I know that range sometimes has its uses, when enemies can only be attacked by ranged characters, but the real point behind it (helping out the other group) is totally lost. It's as if part of the game has been locked out for solo players.

I know that we can just play two-handed if we want, but i dont think that is a very good solution because it doesnt feel like solo play anymore. it feels exactly like what it is -- a two player game, played by one person. why should we have to deal with two seperate groups when we are just one person? it doesnt feel right.

And the last thing that bugs me about the official solo rules is that you can only use 3 heroes. Which basically means its impossible to use the same deck from quest to quest, because you just dont have enough cards to cover all the possibilities. You have to rebuild the deck between games. I know that some people like that, and enjoy the deckbuilding aspect of it, and i dont mind sitting down and doing it every now and then, but i dont want to have to do it after every quest in the cycle.

And let's face it, its a bit boring playing with only 3 heroes. we want to see all the cards, and test them all out. we want to see what they are like in play.

i've tried playing with the official rules, and i dont like them. i've tried playing two-handed as well (ive done that a lot), and in the end i decided that it just doesnt feel right. so now im playing with a variant set of rules that allows you to play with 6 heroes all in one group.

Given that there are obvious problems with the official rules (with the sentinal and ranged keywords), do you think FFG will ever update the solo rules? and is it time they did it? there are already some good variant rules out there which seem to work quite well

ive always played official rules since day 1….not saying that im 100% happy with it, but its been great fun, and ive never been one for variants (seem to defy the point of buying a solo game) or 2 handed decks (played that with the LOTR board game….boring)

as for if they will update it, well i gained a little hope from Hands upon the Bow making ranged actually useful as well as the likes of brand etc playable

id like to see the same for sentinal…its easily doable

i would like more thought to be put into solo play thats for certain, especially on quest and card design…..i dont know if you were around for my infamous post of the early dwarrowdelf cycle, but i was extremely dissapointed in the non solo playable cards that we got and had a thread going about it…long story short i got tore to pieces by the forum…not much support for solo players on that side of it (which is ironic seeing that my poll shows most people play exclusively solo.. at least on this forum)

so yeah, id like to see some more thought for solo players, its not just me being picky and selfish (which is actually what the forum's answer was)- its good business sense for FFG to keep a vast proportion of their player base happy

rich

This seems to be a fairly common frustration, and I can understand it. In general, the game seems considerably more difficult for solo players, thanks in no small part to the fact that certain cards and abilities just don't work very well without another player.

That being said, I personally don't think it's that much of a problem. Not all cards are equal, and I think it's fine that some cards (e.g., Brand) are more effective in multiplayer games. By that same token, other cards (Denethor and Henamarth Riversong, to name a couple) are better for a solo deck. I play with the standard rules, and I find the game enjoyable enough. Certainly, though, there's no reason for you to do that if you aren't having fun; if your variant creates a better solo experience for you , then that's awesome.

Now, I do think there is an issue with the relative quantities of "multiplayer" cards and "solo" cards. There are quite a few more ranged/sentinel characters whose keywords simply turn off in a one-player game than there are cards that become markedly better in solo play. I would like FFG to release just a couple cards that acquire bonuses when no other player is present. While this LCG is a cooperative experience at heart, I don't think it would hurt to make solo games slightly less intimidating for new players.

Finally, FFG should be careful to limit the number of scenarios like Escape from Dol Guldur and Return to Mirkwood. I actually really enjoy those particular quests, but they can be extremely frustrating because they do not scale well with just one player.

I'm hopeful that they might change them one day, because they have already come out and changed the rules for nightmare mode.

Cunir said:

perhaps if not changing the rules, would changing the quests so they operate differently and independantly from multiplayer work?

mmm…perhaps not…it would probably be easier to change the rules for solo, though i cant see how this can be done without a complete re writing of solo rules, something i wouldnt be keen on as i like the game as it is

so i guess that leaves little tweaks to make solo gaming better…..but then we have to find out what exactly better is….problem is most solo players would probably say make it easier, but this would annoy long time gamers who find the solo quests easier than others. so what about scaling? well yes i guess as already stated in this thread everyone can agree some of the scaling is off. then again as already stated card mechanics could do with a tweak.

so id be happy with

1.do with sentinal what ffg did with ranged- find a use for it

2.work on the scaling, avoid guldur/RTM quests. make quest card and encounter mechanics target solo and multiplayer seperatly .

if ffg get this done this game will get better and more well rounded

rich

PS id like to point out im not demanding these….id be perfectly happy if the game stays the way it is….i just also agree with the fine points Cunir makes

I play with the 6 hero variant as well. The way I figure it is the game is designed for 1 - 4 players so 6 heroes is no different than a two player game.

My variant rules are simple. 6 heroes, one deck, one player, but use two player rules for card draw and encounter draw (aka X = 2 for all calculations).

This variant works great for me and makes solo more enjoyable. The only way I feel it cheapens the experience is that since it is one single resource pool, I can buy Radagast on turn 1. A solo player or even a dual player game could not do that. I sleep just fine at night knowing this…and I feel the quests are quite challenging even with this .

Rich and a few others have heard me before…I want an epic game. I want to control 12-16 heroes and duke it out on a grand scale. That to me would make a fantastic game. So this 6 hero variant is a small step towards that end. I've considered 9 or 12 hero variants (and would use 3 or 4 player rules effectively) however the snag is the different spheres. You can easily build a 6 hero deck using two spheres if you have the expansion packs. Once you go out into 9 or 12 heroes, then you will want/need the other spheres. What I haven't figured out yet is whether to stick to a single deck or come up with something else. If I go to multiple decks, then I might as well play by the book and do solo with multiple players. I'm trying to avoid that.

I have considered just making a mega deck and taking solace that I'm drawing 4 per turn so it balances out. But keeping a 100 card deck just for 6 heroes is thick enough…now we are talking about a 200 card deck…Anywho, I'm still playbalancing it.

Why spend all of my time on this? I'm an engineer by trade…I take other people's ideas and make them better. It's just what I do.

schmoo34 said:

thats interesting - studying physics and having OCD is a potent combination for me- i find it just about impossible to stray from the official rules….im extremely picky (as this forum's probably realised by now ) so id end up playing the new solo rules even if i hated them!

schmoo34 said:

You can fix this a little bit by drawing less cards at the start. instead of drawing a full hand, just draw 3 or 4. then your extra resources wont be able to buy so much until a few turns in, which equalizes it out

These are the 6 hero rules that i currently play with -- www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/79104/fellowship-rules-for-solo-players-using-6-heroe (im simbosmith on bgg, by the way)

Cunir said:

Or you could limit the resources to 3 per resource phase. You choose what 3 heroes get the resources each phase.

Short answer: I do. (Or try to.)

Medium sized answer: I tried different variants and playing two handed, but they made the game too easy. (The game doesn't scale well and with two complimentary decks…)

Long answer: Would take much too long, but I'm glad to see cards like Hands Upon. Now we need something for Sentinel.

EVENT CARD

Blast of the Horn

action: exhuast a character with sentinal . you may move any amount of damage off one character you control over to the exhausted character.

or maybe thats crap….just an idea

rich

richsabre said:

I want something that truly has an epic feel to it for the Sentinel keyword… something that makes me feel like I'm watching Aragorn face down multiple Nazgul on Weathertop. How about this:

Make for Weathertop (event card)

Cost = X

X is the total of enemies defended against with this event.

Exhaust a character with Sentinal . They receive +X (defense). Name that character as the defender against X enemies engaged with any number of players, and resolve as a single attack, totaling their collective ( attack ) against your character's ( defense ). Excess combat damage dealt by these enemies (damage that is dealt beyond the remaining hit points of the character damaged by their attack) must be assigned as an increase to your threat.

Or something to this effect. I'm no game developer, but this type of event would be EXACTLY what I would be looking for to build off the Sentinel keyword. Some might scream, "OVERPOWERED!!", but I think if you look at it, it is a fairly balanced card (but am open to suggestions on how it could be improved). You are getting that "heroic" feel in that you are pretty much sacrificing the selected character, so you are definitely paying a noticeable price. I included the bit about excess damage increasing your threat (yes, I ripped it from Hill Troll… no reason to reinvent the wheel here) to prevent it from being truly broken (ie, using a 1-health ally to take on X enemies without taking serious threat accumulation). But then also gave it a defense boost to help absorb a little of that threat. I think it would be justified, in that you are most likely going to using him/her to take on enemies with more than just 1 (attack), so it will easily add up to more than the (defense + health) value. The end result I think is justified: you lose a character and more than likely take a noticeable threat bump in return for a temporary (one round) chance to evade multiple other characters from getting killed or taking damage. And it's not a "get out of jail free card"… you still have to face the enemies next round… Perhaps this should only be a hero-allowed event, or a single-copy-per-deck type of card to make it tougher to use regularly… All in all, I think something like this would work.

Alternatively, a mechanic that included the ability for a Sentinel character to defend for another character, and by doing so create a wound automatically for each enemy he defends against (similar to Gondorian Spearman) would be applicable.

Basically, these are the functions I would like to see Sentinel abilities/events incorporate (not necessarily all in the same card… lol):

- defend against multiple enemies

- increased defense stats upon defense actions

- automatic wounding when defending

- resource generation for defending (to be placed on hero of choice… similar to Theodred's questing)

- willpower boost for other characters (this fits thematically, but not sure how it could be incorporated with questing coming before defending in the game)

As to the actual thread topic, I do try to play directly to the rules as given by FFG (errata and all). Not because I;m some stickler for them, but because I have a couple different sets of people I might play the game with, and trying to remember which set of "house rules" are being used where gets to be too much to remember… I do ocassionally try playing 2 decks myself, mostly for thematic/synergy purposes- a la two dwarven decks in Moria/KD- or because some of the quests are flat out **** hard to try solo… DG, RTM…

I allso use mainly official rules, but I allso mainly play 2-4 player games and solo not so often.

The only thing I don't like about the rules is the new scoring system…no need to add 10 points to your total when there's your threat counter constatly reminding you to be quick or be dead (or to play a card that reduces your threat)…and maybe they could have made things a bit easier for solo players in return to mirkwood…all the rest is great…at least for me…

There was though. While I don't keep score because the system is too Spirit biased, the old system was critically flawed towards Spirit. One could endlessly recycle Galadhrim's Greetings until the threat went to zero.

Which is why I suggested this scoring system last year, which FFG sadly did not adopt:

Final Threat Level + Number of Threat Lowered Using Card Effects + Number of Hero Defeats - Victory Points Earned

This formula makes things only slightly more complicated in that it requires you to keep track of 2 variables. However, it doesn't discourage any strategies in particular and doesn't encourage cycling of players' decks, while keeping in theme with the original game's formula of punishing players' scores for losing heroes.

It also makes any deck that doesn't rely on Spirit very much viable in terms of scoring.

Most of my play is solo and I use the official rules.

John

Until some months ago I play solo with official rules with one deck. Now I play with two decks at the same time because of the difficult to enjoy in this game in solo mode. I play Arkham Horror solo with three investigators and I don't have any difficult to do the same with LOTR LCG. Since I play in this way my feeling about this game increase and renovate the fun I had when I bought the game at the same day of its release.

Cunir,

Thanks for the rules variant. It's very interesting and I may give it a try. I like the idea about having more heroes and being able to utilize all the spheres at once. It does also make the game more "epic" if you will.

A few questions though, how do you build your decks? And what is the deck limit for you? Still 50? I'm concerned that any more than that would make getting certain cards when you need them difficult and I was wondering how you get around that. Do you still draw 1 card per turn?

Thanks again for posting your idea. I really like it.

i think 50 is too few when you've got 6 heroes and you're drawing a minimum of 2 every go.

i started out with 100, thinking that was the normal amount for 6 heroes. but now i think that is way too many, so i have settled on 60.

it's tough to decide though. because 60 cards is only 15 per sphere. and when your group contains two (or even three) heroes from one sphere, 15 cards doesn't go very far.

Cunir said:

I force myself to have 100 because if they were separate players, they would each have 50. (And there are so many good cards, I often have trouble limiting myself to just 100)

I find it to be easy to have Lore/Spirit heroes in a group of 6 and Leadership/Tactics in another group of 6. My quest to have a 12 hero deck has morphed into two 100 card decks with 6 heroes each. All other rules assume "X=4" for number of players and I don't use Cunir's threat tracker variant.

If you take the average of your 6 heroes (i.e. they add up to 60, divide it in half and use just one threat tracker and assign it to 30). This way, you only need one threat tracker instead of two. And you only add one per turn and you treat it like a single player from that point henceforth. By using this variant on the threat tracker, I feel it is easier first and foremost but it also allows you to go up to 12 heroes.

With the spirit/lore deck and tactics/leadership deck it basically has boiled down to tactics/leadership being very dwarf oriented and the spirit/lore being oriented towards healing and questing. It works out extremely well, the only snags are the spirit/lore heroes don't handle cave trolls very well. The tactics/leadership deck has ranged characters and they help (if the enemy card allows for it)

Curin,

I'm in the middle of a saved game where I'm using your rules and the game, so far, is much more satisfying. Thanks again for coming up with this.

I do have a question though. The rule where you can attack with your heroes if your threat/cost minus damage is greater than the engagement cost of the enemies in the staging area. So say, I was able to attack 1st and didn't kill the enemy. I assume the enemy then has the opprotunity to attack. That's the way I played it last night. So, the next turn does that engaged character attack 1st as normal or do I have another oppotunity to attack first based on the cost of enemies in the staging area? I hope that question makes sense.

For example, I have the Hill Troll down (playing Journey Down the Anduin) engaged with me. I was able to attack first but wasn't able to kill it. So, he attacked me, I defended it. I'm just not sure how engaged players work with the "heroes attack 1st" rule.

I've always played with the proper solo rules (with the exception of occasionally playing two decks, but thats more an imitation of multiplayer than not playing by solo rules). While I'd be open to trying some of the variants people have suggested on the forums, i'd always feel like i needed to use the official rules for "proper" games.