Jump to content

player691902

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About player691902

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Madison Heights, Michigan, United States
  1. The original game was very good, so as long as FFG didn't fiddle with the rules too much, this should be quite good. However … Based on the images of the components so far available, it looks pretty disappointing. The plastic components for the extraction tanks, was, with FFG, to be expected, and while a bit more distinction between dark grey and silvery grey (for I'm guessing energy and ore tanks) would have been nice, they look decent enough. From what I can tell of the card art, it's not near as good as the original, but it's not too much of a downgrade. However, underwhelming is an understatement for the chits that replace the bits for the resources. Worst of all is the new board design and the chits to denote tank ownership - I really hope there is time for FFG to change and improve on these. The detractions are right now turning what would be an almost guaranteed must buy (Planet Steam with a smaller box) into possibly, maybe even probably passing on it.
  2. Coldmoonrising said: gforce200 said: Wouldn't it actually be two corners since both back corners of the zombie are directly opposite in relation to the character in question? It seems to make sense that one would only use the two closest corners of the attacker and target. It would be silly to attack from a rear corner if it made the uninterrupted LoS besides your own character model being in the way. If there is no resolution for this new rule, I'll probably make a house rule for two-three closest corners to the target closest two-three corners as well. Except that this ignores the mathematical utility of a system where you can target "any corner of the target space": the angle of attack for the corner(s) that are not "facing" the attacker can be no greater and no less than the maximum and minimum angles of the corner spaces that are "facing" the attacker. Put more simply - it helps simulate attacking the center of the target. Targeting the closest two-three corners simulates a system, where you can target the tip of a creatures nose, or the furthest protrusion of it's rear end, but not it's center mass - it's dumb. At a bare minimum, the discussions here and here prove that the example given is terrible, and, at a minimum, the blue line in the link from your earlier post should be explicitly addressed.
  3. Cannot seem to get editing posts to work properly That's better Or not.
  4. Having had a chance to look at (and then subsequently play a couple of games with) the Revised Dark Pharaoh, quite a few questions arise from just a quick glimpse: First and foremost (and this is going to bug me way too much for way too long): So there's this question that people frequently ask about, and there is this official errata from Kevin Wilson (question 10. in Reply #6), and FFG is changing a bunch of the other encounters (Arkham and Other World), including making the font smaller on at least some of the cards, is there any good reason this encounter was not changed to at least include the official errata? (note this is not word for word it is a rough paraphrase from memory - unfortunately the exact wording is likely very, very important) The Mask of Vice: exhaust when you have the opportunity to purchase an item to instead gain that item without having to pay for it Right. So how does that work when shopping at the Curiositie Shoppe or General Store, given the ruling/clarification about having to buy an item? Do you still have to pay for 1 of the 2 Unique or Common Items you don't use the Mask of Vice to obtain? What about Ye Olde Magick Shoppe? This came up in one of the two games we played (along with three other masks, the Chime of Ra and the Scales of Thoth - what else are you going to do in a Sandstorm?) (Again rough paraphrase from memory) The Messenger: -1 to All Skill Checks; if you are devoured remove two doom tokens So, does this still work in the end fight? Ancient One devours the investigator with The Messenger and loses two doom tokens? If the last investigator left during the End Fight has The Messenger, and there is one or two doom tokens left when said investigator is devoured, who wins? Look, I think this version of CotDP is a vast improvement over the previous incarnation, but there seems like there are some pretty significant things that could have, and should have been further clarified. And since these are just from memory, and only at a quick glance there could well be a bunch more (e.g. Scales of Thoth could probably use a clarification: can you use it if your Stamina and Sanity are already equal, would you get the +1 bonus to skill checks from it if you did?). Plus not fixing that encounter is just plain dumbfounding. Couldn't they have vetted this with Arkham vets like ColtsFan, Dam or Tibs, or heck let diablo666 and myself do it (we've played Arkham Horror literally hundreds of times)? Additional notes: so making the readily available method of acquiring Exhibit Items fairly rough (especially when compounded with the randomness of the card draw) while subsequently improving and making more interesting most of the Exhibit Items makes sense. Nerfing and not improving some of the others (i.e. one-shot [discard for effect] items [other than the differentiated elder parchment pieces, which are pretty cool and interesting] for stuff that is generally speaking much harder to come by than the Unique Items is pretty rough) does not really make that much sense. Also, fixing the Exhibit Items to work better with the Cursed Relics Rumor, and also changing the Cursed Relics Rumor was perhaps more than necessary, but making said Rumor rougher is just mean.
  5. Grudunza said: I hate to bag on your efforts here, dude, but wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier to just... ya know... draw one from a bag or cup? Doing so induces wear on the monster tokens (significantly more so than the method he's posted). Before he implemented this method, he literally wore out a significant amount of the monster chits such that images and important information were no longer visible. The second set of monster tokens has lasted over 200 plays so far and shows very little signs of wear on most of the tokens.
  6. I have not been able to find this so far, but are there official rules for fully cooperative rules for using the Pegasus expansion (changes necessary to the cooperative version posted for the base game)? Having not played Pegasus yet, could you play with treachery (likely only in destiny deck - should more be added?) New Caprica or the Pegasus board? Is there anything else you would have to take out from the Pegasus expansion (crisis cards, locations)? Obviously some locations wouldn't be used, and certain characters would be much less useful when playing co-operatively (but not all, I'm hoping)? Would any other modifications need to be made (starting resources, skill drawing) to the coop variant already posted?
  7. Update: Starcon will apparently be this weekend March 6-7 (I don't think they are having anything on the 8th, but I could be wrong)
  8. mageith said: Do you only ever play with the base game? Only play with 4 heroes?Usually four investigators but I have all the expansions, but usually play with just one plus a herald. I think that's the hardest mode. I will definitely have to disagree, every expansion but 1 adds gate bursts, adding all the expansions in significantly increases chances of a gate burst, and increases ways in which the terror level can rise (e.g., Dunwich Horror tokens), furthermore investigators have to spread out much more, so it's tougher to keep the monsters in arkham in check. Plus with just one and a herald (mind you we haven't tried all combinations of one and a herald) our win percentage is significantly higher than with all the expansions in. There was one game where the terror level rose to 9, and only once did the outskirts pop. There have also been many games where we have been close to winning (usual by sealing, though at least once by closing) when a gate burst would come along and foil our plans. We've even lost a four player game in four turns, so adding in all the encounters from all the expansions does significantly (enough) lessen the chance of getting "a gate and a monster appear" encounters. Also, playing with 4 investigators is, in no way, "the hardest mode", it's optimal (unless of course you are playing with both DH and KH, then 5 is). Just as a point of reference, we play anywhere from 3 to 7 investigators. mageith said: Playing with all expansions (CotDP, DH, KiY, KH, BGotW), it's rare for a game to end (either with a win or GOO awaking) with the terror level below 6. Perhaps our game group is doing something wrong, let us in on some of your monster smiting secrets.We rarely see the terror level rise due to monsters. It will raise due to Mythos cards but usually not very high. Generally I don't pay a lot of attention to monsters. We seal the four main gates as soon as possible and then go for a close. Closing gates removes monsters. As I said before, we've had the terror level rise to 9 with it only increasing one time due to monsters in the outskirts. Four investigators would mean only 1 monster per gate, which makes it much easier to keep monsters in check (3 investigators still means only 1 monster per gate, but playing with DH and KH means 1 investigator will at some point need to head up to Kinsport, which leaves only 2 investigators to contain monsters in Dunwich and Arkham and close/seal gates), while 6-7 investigators with all the expansions, means two monsters per gate, someone eventually needing to head up Kingsport, and needing to do a lot more monster killing (with no guarantee that any investigator will be adequately equipped to kill the tougher monsters). In one game (which was actually one of the rare times we did end up winning), my investigator - who was one of the better monster fighters - had accumulated 6 injury cards, and two other investigators had been devoured due to duplicate injury or madness cards. Generally whenever we close/seal, we're lucky if we can remove 3 monsters (including Dunwich and Outskirts), most of the time it's 1, or 0 (stupid cross symbol - though occasionally the only gates investigators can get into are ones with duplicate symbols).
  9. mageith said: I'd say Bugg-Shash is pretty easy to beat. It's easy to keep the terror level down even if cultists cause it to go up. Do you only ever play with the base game? Only play with 4 heroes? Playing with all expansions (CotDP, DH, KiY, KH, BGotW), it's rare for a game to end (either with a win or GOO awaking) with the terror level below 6. Perhaps our game group is doing something wrong, let us in on some of your monster smiting secrets.
  10. The one and only said: we finished the quest now and the Heros were allowed to stack the surges and double the base wound each time. This worked out fine, after all it is a relic. If that is the quest from the base game, the surge-spending ability isn't even available until all the seals have been activated, and Soulbiter inflicts wounds equal to 1/4 the max (not current) health of whoever is carrying Soulbiter every turn that said character does not kill an enemy with Soulbiter. Doubling the damage for every two surges seems perfectly legitimate for a relic with such drawbacks. Furthermore since the card says that you may spend two surges to "duble[sic] the damage dealt by this attack", I don't see how it can be legitimately viewed in any other way: Damage / Surges Spent 5 / 0 Spend two surges to "duble[sic] the damage dealt by this attack" 10 / 2 Spend two surges to "duble[sic] the damage dealt by this attack" 20 / 4 Spend two surges to "duble[sic] the damage dealt by this attack" 40 / 6 etc.
  11. Omnisiah said: I definately don't think that revealing the special ability of cards in your hand seriously disrupts the game (whereas revealing STRENGTH obviously would), but overall it prob. makes a better game to remove all explicit comments of any kind. So it's okay to say "I've got 3-5s of this color, but no 1-2s. I've got no 3-5s of this other color, but I have 1-2s.", but it's not okay to talk about the STRENGTH of the cards you have? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only two different types of abilities per color, and one of the abilities appears exclusively on cards of values 3-5, the other exclusively on 1s and 2s. It seems to me that any players would realize this after just a few plays (assuming they didn't go ahead and look over the game components before or in between games). Therefore revealing the special ability of cards in hand is equivalent to revealing the STRENGTH (or a very good idea of it) of the cards, and one cannot be acceptable if the other one isn't. So no, I don't think it's a good idea at all (or really even permissable based on the rules as written) to reveal the special ability of cards in your hand. Hmm, so-and-so was the only one who said they had any executive orders, and we agreed we needed every little bit to make this skill check, and that we need to make the skill check, yet no green 1s or 2s are here; hmm I wonder if they are a cylon?
×
×
  • Create New...