by Thanee
Rookiebatman wrote:
I'm very new to the game, so maybe I'm just not seeing the intricacies yet, but this is one thing that really confuses me. It's clearly the resounding consensus that the game is easier with two decks, but just analyzing in terms of the game mechanics, I can't figure out why this should be the case. If there are two decks, won't there just be twice as many enemies?
1) There are scenarios with a fixed starting setup (Anduin, Dol Guldur), so having 1 troll for 1 player is significantly harder than having 1 troll for 2 or even 3, 4 players. Likewise, having 3 cards in the staging area (Dol Guldur) is much worse for a single player.
Then, looking at Anduin again, when you are in the second stage of the adventure, you get one extra card from the encounter deck. One card, regarless of the number of players. For a single player that doubles the encounter cards per Quest Phase. For two players, it is only +50%, and so on.
2) For the scaling scenarios, or parts thereof, where you get one card from the Encounter Deck per player, you also have a benefit with more players, because you are more flexible. As a solo player, you have to deal with whatever comes out. As a team, you can decide who deals with what (especially with Enemies, of course).
On the contrary, many Treachery cards affect all players, so that makes it a bit harder for more than one player, but it does not negate the choice effect above. It also takes only one person able to cancel it.
Locations are similar. You can only travel to one Location, regardless of the number of players, but you can get as many as you draw cards from the encounter deck (worst case). But since there are plenty ways to deal with Locations in the Staging Area, it is not such a big problem either.
All these points combined make some scenarios easier for solo play and other scenarios harder for solo play.
I don't think you can say, that the game automatically becomes easier with more players. It depends on the scenario.
Bye
Thanee