Why I play True Solo in Marvel Champions 

Do you play multi handed or true solo?

Oh yeah the time it takes to play two handed is something I hadn't thought about! I play two handed always because I love how much of the game I get to experience. But you're right sometimes it takes way too long.

Multi handed here... although I agree about the time, I like the challenge of juggling two different heroes and how their synergy affects the game, for good or worse.

I play champions true solo for the same reason. I can fit in a half hour game every now and again instead of setting up a 2 handed game, then having to walk away for some reason only to return and forget what I was doing.

I normally play true solo, but I’ve started playing more two hand, because I feel it lets me specialise heroes a lot more into their roles. Agree on time though.

I have conflicted feelings. : For starters, I fully believe that the best number of players (not heroes) is 2. Each player should contribute to the game not by lending only their resouces, but their perspectives and plans to defeat the villain. Balance-wise, I also think that 2 heroes with different aspects makes the coop dynamic even better, rewarding teamwork with power and enjoyment. On the other hand, Marvel Champions is my comfort game: sometimes, I simply can't wait for more players and I just play a prebuilt hero vs a fun encounte. Having my eyes focused on 2 decks goes against that comfort. Or if I really don't feel like stressing at all, I just start building decks with a cup of tea on the side and soothing music on the background.

I started out solo and two handed solo. Played two handed solo for the longest time. When I found your channel and heard about solo champions league I went true solo. I've never played 3 or 4 players. I'm sticking to true solo now and 2 players for my son and I.

I like playing 2-handed not just for the team-up cards, but because you’re more likely to actually get to build your hero up to where they can use all, or at least most, of their kit the way it was designed to work as a whole.

Thank you for your insights. I really have been enjoying the channel! I really like two handed solo, but you are exactly right… the games take 1-1.5 hours. I like the fact that 2 encounter cards come up during the turn and you see the flavor of the villain a bit more. But I totally respect the true solo play. Again, thanks for the insight and keep up the great content!

I'd love to see a video on the different hero kits and new mechanics that are introduced and things like that, the difference between wow and not wow.

Kinda late finding this video. However, I play this game two ways, either multi-player with my son or true solo. My favorite is multi-player with my son. We love this game, and it's a great way that we bond, and our games are always so epic. True solo is fun for me because of the minimal time it takes, I get to try multiple heroes and/or builds. Great video, I just recently found your channel and am loving the content.

True Solo as well. Mmm, I dunno. I mostly have been liking the hero releases. I have skipped a few, but I think its more just we're seen more and our expectations have changed. And I deck build to the hero, unless if I am on Heroic.

I just started custom deck building. I used to just use MarvelCDB all the time to save time. But like you said, and it's a great point. Like, if time is my issue, just making a random deck based around the hero is the way to go. However you bring up an interesting point, and that's picking what you're going against first, and then building a deck around it. I feel like that's the best way to start leveling up as a player, especially for expert play. Honestly, reminds me a bit of playing competitive Magic the Gathering. There would be meta decks, and your sideboard was for other decks. Picking your villain first feels like a better way to build for that. Thanks for the video!

Totally agree I gravitate toward two handed solo Arkham (or just two player Arkham) but marvel is preferred at one. Sp//Dr definitely has the wow factor.

I play a lot of 2 hero solo but I'll go single hero as well. Really like playing Dr. Strange. I bought SPDR for the module and discovered I really enjoyed the mechanics of that hero after playing her, so that was kind of a wow moment.

To me the deckbuilding is more about building to the hero's strength and lean into their mechanics, it doesnt matter they cannot solo every villain.

True solo now. Did two handed for the longest time but realized that was wearing me out. As for wow factor I was into Colossus’s spending tough mechanic. I guess it delivered but I definitely see where you’re coming from.

I tend to play true Solo with Heroes i like a lot. Big Vision fan for instance so i prefer having him being the only star of the show + the length aspect of True Solo letting me figuring out new Vilains with more games. But on another hand, i mostly play 2 handed with Shadow Cat and Cyclop's since X are out. I like the multiplayer option they give. I like allies play in MC and a card like danger Zone brings sweet's options in multi. So it really depend... both options are good.

I pick a Hero, and then I think about the Hero cards. What's the cost curve, and within that: what is the damage output from Hero cards, what is the threat output, how much resource generation is there? Multiplayer: How can I reinforce the role that the particular hero is playing in the group. Solo: I shore up weaknesses. Sometimes I build into the mechanics of the Hero cards, sometimes I build into the aspect. It depends on the situation and the hero.

True solo gets to my table almost daily. Hence, why it is superior. I enjoy deck building to utilize allies, but that's my personal preference. If you haven't played the stupid broken Spider-Ham leadership deck from Marvel cdb...get on it ASAP! (Let me know and I will link it!) You mentioned a hero that could take on any villain. That build is the best I have found. I can actually win expert games with regularity and new players lose their mind with some of the combos!

I don't know what the issue is but I regularly spend an hour or a bit more even true solo, but two handed is of course even slower. I feel that as compared to LotR, there's less explicit structural benefit to two handed (LotR's sentinel/guard/ranged etc), plus I just forget interactions like calling for actions, because it's hard to keep everything in mind. I mostly would prefer to net deck, but I feel like that basically doesn't work unless you own a high proportion of the cards, since so many decks just try to pull from everything. I don't base it on the villain, I want to think of my own engine etc, and not have to change the deck with each villain.

I’m currently working on hero decks and then I randomly pull villains out to go against. I’d like to get some constructed aspect decks and then just grab a hero, grab an aspect deck and go.

I play true solo for the same sort of reasons you do. I sometimes play 2 handed if I have a fun deck idea that won't work solo. Usually it's pushing Aggression, sometimes it's a hero's abilities. Also if I play Kang or Zola. I think Shadowcat and Ghost Spider are amazing design while Colossus and Valkyrie are near misses. Nebula and Rocket are close while Warmachine was miles away so it was very disappointing. SW and Starlord both have a high risk reward element I was expecting to dislike and Starlord did not let me down. Wanda was really fun though - the acceleration only comes into play in the late game and you usually win or lose in the early game. I like to play decks 10+ times so I never build for a villain just for my half dozen or so favourite scenarios.

I play solo solo mostly because my brain can't process playing two heroes.. ive tried a few times and it didn't go weill. I was pretty intrigued by SP/Dr when I saw the preview, and wasn't disappointed. She's probably my favorite hero in a long time(could ne a bit of recency bias too tho) And I definitely try to build to take on the villain now. I used to just pick cards that I liked and tried to win with them, but that also didn't go well

I've always preferred true solo. Except for certain hero-couples. How I build: 1. The deck must make easily sense to the theme and story of the character. Hulk doesn't run Leadership. Black Panther is a Protector. Thor has the full arsenal of Asguardian allies and items at his disposal (which pushes him to Aggression). Venom MUST have the symbiote suit. My decks try to feel like an extension of the character's lore. 2. I decide how I want that hero to play, again related to theme, and try to use Aspect cards that allow it. Iron Man, for example, should spend more time being Tony Stark and lawyering deals / sales. So mine has to be Justice and have lots of support that allows Alter Ego for a few more turns to suit build. Done right (Beat Cops, Meditation, Foiled, extra Tech to bolster hand size), you can still make an Expert-winner. Black Widow must be Shield Justice with all the trimmings, against Hawkeye Leadership Shield with his thematic support. And none of those heroes will EVER run Lockjaw. Lockjaw belongs with Ms Marvel. 3. I run 42 cards. If you don't know why, ask Douglas Adams.

A chump ally swinging in for 1 point of damage feels much better in true solo. I also game on a small space and 2 hero solo is a bit much to manage. I've owned the game since day one and have not really jumped into deckbuilding but I just bought a storage box and have decided to take apart all the precons and go for it.

I enjoy playing true solo, but the problem is it doesn't often work. When the game first came out, it was very frustrating because we didn't have all the cards we do now. Mine is definitely the time factor. I find myself pulling out Marvel United, my favorite, get a superhero game in under 30 minutes.

I’ve only played true solo and multiplayer. Multiplayer is the best experience, while solo is nice as a solitaire challenge. I think deckbuilding is best true solo as well. I’m curious to try 2 handed when I want a longer, epic battle. Agree that length of game is a key consideration because true solo let’s you play multiple times to tweak your deck, while multiplayer is likely just play once (maybe twice) together.

I like solo because it is all on you. When you bring more people in problems can happen. You might want wait to take down the villain on your next turn and try to have board control.

I find that playing with more than one hero unlocks a big feature of the game. Hero and hero interactions such as calling on actions in the middle of a turn from another hero. I recently built a Rogue deck to play with Agent Venom. She can put touch on him during his turn and after he has exhausted his cards, she can use her 0 cost event to pull Run and Gun from his deck, play it and bam he is going again. You just don't get that in solo!

Whilst I have enjoyed your slew of recent play through videos with current releases (definitely filling the gap left from usually watching Dale’s play throughs) I am so glad to see a video like this. You should totally make more in this vain style as it’s a bit of a niche market. For me personally, I go to Tony Tales for reviewing releases and tier lists, Dylan for pack reviews, and used to be Dale for play throughs. Though I do watch most of all your videos anyways haha! You’ve done some videos like this before and I find it much more interesting that just watching yet another review that is basically reading through the text on the cards - keep picking quirky topics to weigh in on, I like hearing your thought process! Some topics if I might suggest them: - your dream campaign/team/cycle with balancing of aspects (E.g. FF - Mr F Leadership, Invisible Woman Justice, Human Torch Aggression, The Thing Protection) - similarly, your choice for thematic 4-player campaigns E.g. Asgard/Guardians for MTS, SHIELD agents for ROTRS etc. - quirky deck builds, especially for unique characters like Spider-Woman, Gamora etc. - pros and cons lists for team builds in each aspect - Guardians, Avengers, Champions, Web-Warriors, X-Men, SHIELD etc. Keep up the good work 🙌

I agree that if I'm going to play Champions by myself, I only want to play it "true solo" and there are a couple reasons for that: 1) Time - As you said, playing multiple heroes just takes longer because of the way the game scales and all the additional cards and effects that you need to manage and track. 2) Mental Demand - Part of the reason it takes more time is because you as a player have a lot more things to juggle in your head. Not just the individual cards and their effects but also from a strategy point of view. You have more to consider about when cards should be played and on which hero. Also, going back and forth between two separate hands of cards and two board states takes mental energy. 3) Table Space - Yep, having two or more player boards to manage takes up more physical space than one. Big surprise. And it also usually means you need to do a lot more reaching, stretching and shuffling of bits around the table. 4) Investment - Part of what appeals to me about Champions over, say, the vaguely similar game Legendary, is that each player can inhabit the role of a single hero and let themselves be swept up in that role. There's a bit of role play involved, even just on a conceptual level, which makes the player feel connected to their hero. If I have to play multiple heroes, some of that sense of character-investment is lost. I like playing Champions at 2 or 3 heroes...but only if I have a player for each hero. I don't want a player to manage multiple decks.

I prefer true solo like you, but do find the Rhino threat wipe situations or scenarios where 2-handed is obviously better (Sinister 6 ) irksome. I wish each scenario was pretty constant regardless of 1-4 players. PS. on your other point, Shadowcat is a great hero for me, although I can't help but think Nightcrawler would have worked too.

Solo and multiplayer mostly. Two handed is too much to track. I take the villain into account when deck building but use the aspect to tune the difficulty.

I think people need to relax on the Wild Tutor deck. It's a great deck, but with how subdivided the game has gotten, I think people have put on blinders for the many many archetypes Adam can pull off nowadays. As for what I play, multiplayer about 90% of the time, if I go in solo, it's 2h solo because I like having my thwarter and if I have to make every character a thwarter, i'll get really bored. But it also just feels like arkham where you have your fighter and your cluever, having both just makes the game smoother imo

I enjoy true solo and primarily play it. It's been a bit difficult to justify with the X Men who seem primarily designed to play as a team. But I've been making it work anyway. My preference though is 2 player multiplayer. 2 players never feels like a grind to me and you get the benefit of playing the full scope of the game.

My favorite is solo but I do play a lot of multiplayer. 2 player hits the table the most but I would much rather play 3 players.

I very much do not like true solo. Too many times can the villain just win out of no where. While it can still happen in multiplayer, it's much more rare for that. Can't really learn my deck when Venom schemes 3 times and wins. What people prefer to play is all good though. I do have one thought. Many Marvel Champions content creators play more True Solo than multiplayer, but then they still make tier lists. So admitting that True Solo makes some villains unbalanced and making some cards not really playable, to me means the tier lists are much more inaccurate than they should or could be.

I thought you were going to say that you play true solo because you have no one to play with you lol.