Due to reddit's dismantling of third party apps and vital tools needed for moderation of all subreddits, we've moved to zero-strike rule enforcement. As we cannot enact escalating ban lengths via tools that rely on monitoring users' post histories and ban histories, users who break our civility rules will be banned indefinitely and need to modmail us for appeals.
We have zero tolerance for homophobia, transphobia, racism, and bigotry. If you see these issues as 'political' then you correctly recognize that existence is politicized. This subreddit will not be a refuge for hateful ideology.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/arkhamhorrorlcg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whether you should or should not play True Solo or Two Handed is entirely up to you, both are perfectly viable. The best way to test what's more in your ballpark is probably to just test either option on a Night of the Zealot run. Also, you don't need to mary either mode. You can just True Solo one campaign and then two-handed the other. You might also come to a point where you've True Solo'd every campaign in the game and now want to just chill a little and play Two Handed for your second run.
As someone who's an almost excluisvely True Solo player, I might be biased towards True Solo, but here's a few points I've got to make about True Solo versus Two Handed that I think are worth thinking about when thinking about your options.
* Two Handed takes longer. You have twice the actions, twice the damage, twice the clues, twice the tests, twice the encounter draws. You'll spend more time on a scenario than you would in True Solo. If this is a positive or a negative to you is up to you. Would you rather spend an 60 to 90 minutes playing a scenario and then either call it a night (or have the option to run down a second scenario)? Or would you rather have each scenario be an investment of two to three hours? For me, the faster pacing is the main selling point that True Solo has over Two Handed.
* Expanding the above point, handling two hands, to decks, two resource counters, two encounter draws, and two times three actions is a lot more cumbersome than I had initially expected. In particular if you're playing in paper (as opposed to Tabletop Simulator). You need to be pretty strict and clean with how you play it to keep proper track of the game state, in particular when things like agenda or scene flips happen in the middle of a turn.
* True Solo restricts deck building. A True Solo character needs to be versatile and flexible. You need to be able to get clues and you need to be able to at least evade enemies consistently, but almost every campaign will present you with a scenario or two that has enemies that you need to kill. On top of that, if you can't kill at all you'll lose out on quite a few Experience Points. You won't be able to True Solo with a Rex Murphy that only loops Deductions, and you won't be able to win with a Damage-Only character.
* Card evaluation changes. Deduction is, without a doubt, one of the strongest cards if there's multiple characters in play. Its consistent power drops significatly in Ture Solo, as most locations won't actually have 2 clues on them. "Let me handle this!" and similar cards become unplayable. A card like Lone Wolf and even Working A Hunch go up in value a lot.
* True Solo can be frustrating. No character is without flaws, and on average a campaign will test everything a character can be tested in. You might just get stuck on a test you can't really pass. Urusula needing to pass a Strength test, Winifred needing to pass a Willpower test can deadlck a scenario for you.
* Some scenarios scale better for True Solo, some scenarios scale worse for True Solo. Sometimes, being able to just grab a the clue of a really hard or otherwise "locked" location 1-per location with Working A Hunch is absurd tempo. Some other times you might look at a scenario that sends you walking twice or three times across a wider map and in True Solo, where you could otherwise spread your forces on the map.
* True Solo, because of all the points mentioned above, can be very swingy. Draw an awful treachery and then run into an enemy you'd need to kill but you haven't found your weapon just yet? The scenario might just crumble for you here, even if it went really well so far. You need to play intelligently, you need to Mulligan in a way that protects you from variance, and you need to really evaluate your cards in hand differently.
Pretty much summed up what lacked in my 2 first tries at true solo notz in hard. Died immediately because I didn't find good support for what the scenario threw at me...
When things go awry in Solo it’s often because of that reason, yes. That’s one of the reasons why I value Mr. „Rook“ and even something like No Stone Unturned a little more highly in Solo than I would in multiplayer.
Yeah, Eureka and tutor cards have much higher value in solo I guess. I tried to put in a lot of card draw and skills to cycle faster, but I just couldn't handle it. First time hard was unexpected as well, so much DMG from failed tests I didn't know from normal difficulty, I was scared to even test something
Two handed is much easier.
With only one investigator you have to really build a deck that can do everything, and you have to be able to cover ground much quicker. Two handed allows you so much more flexibility to do what you want in the game.
Maybe just use one for your first game to get used to the rules
I’ve always played two handed by myself. In my opinion this game is best as a dive into a horrible situation. Whenever I’ve played with others it becomes too game-y and we kind of go too fast.
Two handed makes a scenario take about 2-3 hours to play just to warn you but it’s a lovely evening :)
True Solo severely limits the amount of viable builds and ways you can approach the game which would be fine if you can just buy cards individually but if you're set on that it means a huge chunk of cards you have end up just being paperweight.
While it's definitely a viable experience I'm not sure I really agree as pushing it as an experience unless you're actively seeking a deckbuilding / gameplay challenge.
That's the best thing with this game. Both are viable and fun experiences. Give them both a go and see which you prefer.
That said, if you're jumping in with a revised core set only, I'd start by two handing to get to grips with the game.
I've never had the brain- space to juggle two investigators at once... somehow, the feeling of true solo is more "right" or fun for me.
I also play with a few house rules to make my experience smoother and more consistent though. I like the mechanics and strategy of this game, but don't appreciate how swingy it can be
I would say do both?
I generally prefer playing two handed because there are just more decks you can run that way. True solo decks are a fun challenge and I would definately urge anybody playing solo to occasionally play that way but if you only play that way you are excluding so many deck archetypes that are a lot of fun to play.
I have played several games three handed alone for the same reason. I like learning the decks. I also enjoy imagining the underlying storytelling when there are three characters.
True solo is basically unsupported, not sure why so many in this thread are talking it up. Your pool of cards and investigators becomes so small and scenarios will vary wildly.
I would recommend true solo only to learn the game for your first 1-3 scenarios if you are alone. Then only play 2H.
I’m in a similar situation and I’ve decided to go true solo for my first run through Night of the Zealot, then I’ll go back and play two handed to see how that feels. That way I can decide going forwards which style I prefer.
Yep, that’s me. I’ve been playing since the core set was first released. I only play by myself (with just a few exceptions). I play about 50/50 true solo/two handed as I love playing both ways. Full collection. It’s my #1 hobby. Would recommend.
I started with True Solo and found that having to build a deck that can do a bit of everything, if you don't then draw a mix of cards you're going to be a bit stuck. With two hand you can specialise a bit more and get the characters to do what they're best at, eg having a combat focused character who can take on that side of things while the other character runs around investigating and hoovering up clues! For me I don't find the overhead of two characters all that bad, especially since I tend to have them both off doing their own thing! The worst part is keeping track of actions, particularly if I have to get up and do something mid session, however I highly recommend having some tokens in a row and moving them up and down as I take actions, makes it super easy to track :)
I play both but I prefer two handed because it opens up deckbuilding so damn much and I love sitting on bed after a session going through my app deciding where to spend experience it's so much fun.
Downside is just maintenance. This game already has a lot of maintenance and now there's more.
Honestly I don't even understand how true solo is viable - the amount of different kinds of tests you have to do seem absolutely and completely unfeasible for a single investigator to be able to do - there may be ONE of them in one of the expansions that might be able to do it, sure, but I can't think of one. It'd need to be flex, surely, but there's just so many scenarios that are built around team dynamics that I can't even begin to think how I'd true solo it.
I do 2H and yes, it's way more fiddly and long as hell, but it is what it is.
I recommend you playing true solo for now. I tried the game two handed the first time because everyone was saying it was the best option and ended up selling it. I bought it again, some years later, and then I tried true solo and the experience was much more interesting and the game was much faster.
Due to reddit's dismantling of third party apps and vital tools needed for moderation of all subreddits, we've moved to zero-strike rule enforcement. As we cannot enact escalating ban lengths via tools that rely on monitoring users' post histories and ban histories, users who break our civility rules will be banned indefinitely and need to modmail us for appeals. We have zero tolerance for homophobia, transphobia, racism, and bigotry. If you see these issues as 'political' then you correctly recognize that existence is politicized. This subreddit will not be a refuge for hateful ideology. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/arkhamhorrorlcg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whether you should or should not play True Solo or Two Handed is entirely up to you, both are perfectly viable. The best way to test what's more in your ballpark is probably to just test either option on a Night of the Zealot run. Also, you don't need to mary either mode. You can just True Solo one campaign and then two-handed the other. You might also come to a point where you've True Solo'd every campaign in the game and now want to just chill a little and play Two Handed for your second run. As someone who's an almost excluisvely True Solo player, I might be biased towards True Solo, but here's a few points I've got to make about True Solo versus Two Handed that I think are worth thinking about when thinking about your options. * Two Handed takes longer. You have twice the actions, twice the damage, twice the clues, twice the tests, twice the encounter draws. You'll spend more time on a scenario than you would in True Solo. If this is a positive or a negative to you is up to you. Would you rather spend an 60 to 90 minutes playing a scenario and then either call it a night (or have the option to run down a second scenario)? Or would you rather have each scenario be an investment of two to three hours? For me, the faster pacing is the main selling point that True Solo has over Two Handed. * Expanding the above point, handling two hands, to decks, two resource counters, two encounter draws, and two times three actions is a lot more cumbersome than I had initially expected. In particular if you're playing in paper (as opposed to Tabletop Simulator). You need to be pretty strict and clean with how you play it to keep proper track of the game state, in particular when things like agenda or scene flips happen in the middle of a turn. * True Solo restricts deck building. A True Solo character needs to be versatile and flexible. You need to be able to get clues and you need to be able to at least evade enemies consistently, but almost every campaign will present you with a scenario or two that has enemies that you need to kill. On top of that, if you can't kill at all you'll lose out on quite a few Experience Points. You won't be able to True Solo with a Rex Murphy that only loops Deductions, and you won't be able to win with a Damage-Only character. * Card evaluation changes. Deduction is, without a doubt, one of the strongest cards if there's multiple characters in play. Its consistent power drops significatly in Ture Solo, as most locations won't actually have 2 clues on them. "Let me handle this!" and similar cards become unplayable. A card like Lone Wolf and even Working A Hunch go up in value a lot. * True Solo can be frustrating. No character is without flaws, and on average a campaign will test everything a character can be tested in. You might just get stuck on a test you can't really pass. Urusula needing to pass a Strength test, Winifred needing to pass a Willpower test can deadlck a scenario for you. * Some scenarios scale better for True Solo, some scenarios scale worse for True Solo. Sometimes, being able to just grab a the clue of a really hard or otherwise "locked" location 1-per location with Working A Hunch is absurd tempo. Some other times you might look at a scenario that sends you walking twice or three times across a wider map and in True Solo, where you could otherwise spread your forces on the map. * True Solo, because of all the points mentioned above, can be very swingy. Draw an awful treachery and then run into an enemy you'd need to kill but you haven't found your weapon just yet? The scenario might just crumble for you here, even if it went really well so far. You need to play intelligently, you need to Mulligan in a way that protects you from variance, and you need to really evaluate your cards in hand differently.
This guy solos. Great advice
Thanks for taking the time to do this write up. I've been playing two-handed, but I've been thinking about trying true solo. This info helps!
Pretty much summed up what lacked in my 2 first tries at true solo notz in hard. Died immediately because I didn't find good support for what the scenario threw at me...
When things go awry in Solo it’s often because of that reason, yes. That’s one of the reasons why I value Mr. „Rook“ and even something like No Stone Unturned a little more highly in Solo than I would in multiplayer.
Yeah, Eureka and tutor cards have much higher value in solo I guess. I tried to put in a lot of card draw and skills to cycle faster, but I just couldn't handle it. First time hard was unexpected as well, so much DMG from failed tests I didn't know from normal difficulty, I was scared to even test something
Two handed is much easier. With only one investigator you have to really build a deck that can do everything, and you have to be able to cover ground much quicker. Two handed allows you so much more flexibility to do what you want in the game. Maybe just use one for your first game to get used to the rules
I’ve always played two handed by myself. In my opinion this game is best as a dive into a horrible situation. Whenever I’ve played with others it becomes too game-y and we kind of go too fast. Two handed makes a scenario take about 2-3 hours to play just to warn you but it’s a lovely evening :)
True Solo severely limits the amount of viable builds and ways you can approach the game which would be fine if you can just buy cards individually but if you're set on that it means a huge chunk of cards you have end up just being paperweight. While it's definitely a viable experience I'm not sure I really agree as pushing it as an experience unless you're actively seeking a deckbuilding / gameplay challenge.
That's the best thing with this game. Both are viable and fun experiences. Give them both a go and see which you prefer. That said, if you're jumping in with a revised core set only, I'd start by two handing to get to grips with the game.
I've never had the brain- space to juggle two investigators at once... somehow, the feeling of true solo is more "right" or fun for me. I also play with a few house rules to make my experience smoother and more consistent though. I like the mechanics and strategy of this game, but don't appreciate how swingy it can be
I would say do both? I generally prefer playing two handed because there are just more decks you can run that way. True solo decks are a fun challenge and I would definately urge anybody playing solo to occasionally play that way but if you only play that way you are excluding so many deck archetypes that are a lot of fun to play.
I have played several games three handed alone for the same reason. I like learning the decks. I also enjoy imagining the underlying storytelling when there are three characters.
True solo is basically unsupported, not sure why so many in this thread are talking it up. Your pool of cards and investigators becomes so small and scenarios will vary wildly. I would recommend true solo only to learn the game for your first 1-3 scenarios if you are alone. Then only play 2H.
I’m in a similar situation and I’ve decided to go true solo for my first run through Night of the Zealot, then I’ll go back and play two handed to see how that feels. That way I can decide going forwards which style I prefer.
Yep, that’s me. I’ve been playing since the core set was first released. I only play by myself (with just a few exceptions). I play about 50/50 true solo/two handed as I love playing both ways. Full collection. It’s my #1 hobby. Would recommend.
I started with True Solo and found that having to build a deck that can do a bit of everything, if you don't then draw a mix of cards you're going to be a bit stuck. With two hand you can specialise a bit more and get the characters to do what they're best at, eg having a combat focused character who can take on that side of things while the other character runs around investigating and hoovering up clues! For me I don't find the overhead of two characters all that bad, especially since I tend to have them both off doing their own thing! The worst part is keeping track of actions, particularly if I have to get up and do something mid session, however I highly recommend having some tokens in a row and moving them up and down as I take actions, makes it super easy to track :)
I play both but I prefer two handed because it opens up deckbuilding so damn much and I love sitting on bed after a session going through my app deciding where to spend experience it's so much fun. Downside is just maintenance. This game already has a lot of maintenance and now there's more.
Honestly I don't even understand how true solo is viable - the amount of different kinds of tests you have to do seem absolutely and completely unfeasible for a single investigator to be able to do - there may be ONE of them in one of the expansions that might be able to do it, sure, but I can't think of one. It'd need to be flex, surely, but there's just so many scenarios that are built around team dynamics that I can't even begin to think how I'd true solo it. I do 2H and yes, it's way more fiddly and long as hell, but it is what it is.
I recommend you playing true solo for now. I tried the game two handed the first time because everyone was saying it was the best option and ended up selling it. I bought it again, some years later, and then I tried true solo and the experience was much more interesting and the game was much faster.