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!