Jump to content

Stenun

Members
  • Content Count

    271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Stenun

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/stenun/
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , England, United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Oh I know. Fancy wanting to experience everything a game might have to offer. Who would do such a thing? /sarcasm
  2. "How do you approach that problem"? What problem?? You're outline a situation and have suddenly declared it a problem. Why? Why are expansions a problem? Imagine applying this argument to any other medium ... "Well movie sequels are all very well but everyone knows what you're going to get. Avengers: Infinity War might have grossed over $2bn but imagine what it might have grossed if people didn't know what the film was going to be before they saw it? Right? Right?!" OR "If you read a book, someone else has read it before. Let's write 1,000,000 different sentences and then scramble them up and only include a few in each copy of the book. That way, everyone's copy is unique! Sure, some will read better than others but even the poor ones will be unique and a unique book is better than a good one. Right? Right?!" etc. Now sure, there are differences between different media, I get that. But there is nothing so different about tabletop gaming that makes your arguments suddenly work.
  3. Well here's a crazy alternative idea; don't go online and look at walkthroughs or spoilers. There. Now the discovery aspect is back.
  4. There will inevitably be comparison websites springing up and people voting on what combination they got and how it played compared to a friend's purchase, etc.
  5. I need many more questions answered before I decide on this but at the moment I'm leaning towards "no". The first and most important one is "how replayable is one set?" If a certain "combination of components" provides a linear experience and once you've played it once the next game will be exactly the same but another "combination of components" might prove more replayable ... I'm supposed to take a $60 chance? And what about the inevitable variation in quality between "combinations of components"? Even among 100% of all the combinations, there is going to 1% that are not as good as the rest. How annoyed would you be if you paid your $60 and got when everyone online says is the worst combination? This is looking heavily like a $60 lottery ticket.
  6. It's been five years since I have posted on FFG's site and what could possibly make me return after all this time? Only the Big Beast Of My Gaming Life - one of the two games I have given my highest rating to on Board Game Geek (the other game is a non-FFG one so I won't name it)! When I saw the words "Arkham Horror Third Edition" I was very happy. Then I read the article. Now, I'm not going to judge the game before I've played it but my excitement over the announcement waned as I read on. "Scenario based" ... characters removed from the game when reduced to 0 Stamina or Sanity ... no skill sliders (one of the biggest tactical decisions you had to make each turn in the previous game) ... pulling tokens out of a cup for the Mythos phase (thus reducing the extremely varied potential of what effects could apply via a bit of game text) ... None of this sounds like the Arkham Horror I love. Which is obviously the point seeing that this is a new edition ... but maybe they've taken out too much of what made the second edition so good? I hope not; but I am unconvinced at this stage. More info soon, please FFG!
  7. Dain Ironfoot said: No one here was arguing do something simply b/c it's source accurate … … and i'll remind you - this is key! - the point of saga expansions are to play the books! in other words, to create a gaming experience that mirrors the story line of the books to allow the players to experience the books for themselves. that is the sole reason for the existence of saga expansions. nothing more, nothing less. it's not to have "hobbit-flavored" quests (i wonder if those are tasty? haha) - it.is.to.play.the.book.! This genuinelly reads to me like you are saying: "No one is arguing for something purely because it's source accurate. The point of saga expansions is to be source accurate." Am I really the only one who sees his response as coming across that way … ?
  8. No. Sorry but I've played enough games based on various licences over the years to know that "accuracy to the source" is not a good reason for doing something in game design. A very obvious example (with spoiler warnings in case there is someone reading this who hasn't read The Hobbit) is that not all the Heroes survive the Battle Of The Five Armies in the book. Why isn't that reflected in the scenario's design? Why doesn't the final card say "If you are using this Hero, he dies as you win the game"? Why? Because that would be crap, that's why. But hey, source accuracy! Right? Right … ??? No. If the only justifiable reason for putting in a game text/effect is source accuracy then that is bad design. I point to Decipher's original Star Wars: CCG in which characters had deployment restrictions based on what part of the movies they appeared in. Commander Luke could only be deployed (deployed = put into play) on Hoth because that's the part of the movies the picture for Commander Luke was taken from. So if your opponent was fighting hard on Tatooine and your only characters you'd been lucky enough to pick up could only deploy on Hoth, you were S.O.L. Why? "Source accuracy" … U.D.E.'s Vs System was a game that managed to licence both Marvel and DC Comics. And in their quest for "source accuracy" they had cards that were so powerful that they would never be played. Because in order to balance their power they were so prohibitively expensive that the game would be over before you could afford them. But hey, "source accuracy" … Precedence Entertainment's Wheel Of Time CCG had a rule that characters with the Children Of The Light affiliation (think "Sphere") couldn't work with characters with the Dark One affiliation. This was source accurate. Great. Until you got the the character who, in the books, was revelead as being a spy for the Dark One faction who had infiltrated the Children Of The Light. So, in order to be "source accurate", the makers of the game gave him both affiliations. Meaning that we now had a rare card who wasn't allowed to do anything. They ruled that exact thing; given the way the rules of the game were worded, this rare character literally did nothing. But hey, "source accuracy" … ! I could go on but I trust you get my point. :-) Source Accuracy is a bad, I would say invalid, reason for doing anything in game design. By all means try to reflect the source but the game must take precedent and if that means sacrificing source accuracy in order to have better game play then that's what should be done.
  9. When Foundations Of Stone came out during the Dwarrowdelf cycle, we were introduced to an interesting mechanic of splitting the players up and putting them in seperate staging areas to fend for themselves. It was an innovate and different way of playing and it made for a fun distinction for that particular scenario. But now, thanks to The Hobbit: On The Doorstep, we have a second scenario which splits up the players. I would like to ask that we don't see this mechanic again. Once was interesting, twice looks like it might come again, thrice will start being wearisome. One of the whole points of this game is the co-operative nature of the mechanics. By splitting up the players, you kill that completely. It destroys the one of the biggest reasons most of us play the game; if we can't play cards on each other or attack the same Enemy, or cancel a Shadow card another player has been hit by, or take advantage of any other mechanic or game text that was designed for mutiple players. We end up with several players sitting round the table all playing a glorified version of solitaire. That's not what we want - we want to play a game together, splitting up the players stops that. So I would ask that we don't see this mechanic again, let us keep this game co-operative.
  10. The problem that I think many are missing, though, is that Into Ithilien is too reliant on luck. Not just hard cards like the Mumak (which I have no problems with but question its inclusion in an apparently "Difficulty 4" scenarion) but broken cards like Blocking Wards. If Blocking Wargs is the last card in the scenario deck, it's game over. Not "it suddenly gets a lot harder", the game enters an infinite loop. Even the idea of Blocking Wargs is ridiculous - wound every questing character and there are four copies of the card in the deck. How many characters can take all four without dying or healing? This is a different play experience from the difficulty of the Mumak - it's not difficult, it's just cheesey. There's no skill involved, no tactics, just luck. I would happily take out all four copies of Blocking Wargs out of the deck in exchange for 2 more Mumaks. I have no problem with genuine difficulty but Into Ithilien is not it.
  11. Glaurung said: muemakan said: So if someone really thinks we need an errata the only thing that needs to be done: Make Will of the West a "once per game" card or a "remove from game after use" card. That solves all our "game breaking" combos because so far all of them rely on WotW to keep them going. Agree with you. Will of the west is most broken card what i saw in any card game. Show this card to MTG player, he will be shock. Glaurung said: Agree with you. Will of the west is most broken card what i saw in any card game. Show this card to MTG player, he will be shock. Sorry but I really don't see that as a valid argument at all. I've played twenty CCGs/LCGs in my time and I don't think you can compare the cards from any of them to those of another - different games require different cards and different standards. Hell, one really obvious example - the Babylon 5 CCG allows players to choose their starting hand. No, really, it does. Too powerful for LotR, right? But it's perfect for Babylon 5 and the game would be terrible without it. Saying Will Of The West would shock an MTG player is completely irrelevant. :-) What matters is whether or not it works for this game. And I think it does. Other than the prospect of uber-card drawing, which I think it's fair to say was never FFG's intention with any combo, why exactly would Will Of The West be too powerful? It wouldn't …
  12. I've been thinking about this situation over night and, despite my two proposed solutions above (1. limit Born Aloft to once per phase or 2. institute a rule saying each card may only be played or enter play once per phase), I've reached the following conclusion … What does it matter? Computer games include cheat codes and nobody complains if you use those cheat codes in single player or even multiplayer co-op. So given this is a co-operative game, what does it matter if this combo exists? If people want to use it, let them. You don't have to if you don't want to. What's the problem? The only problem I see is any potential competitive tournaments with players competing to get the best score against a given scenario. And if/when that happens, just ban the combo. Have a rule saying that in competitive play, you can't play Born Aloft on Erebor Hammersmith more than once per turn. Simple. "God mode" exists in single player computer games, but not in online play. I don't see why we can't have the equivalent for this game, too.
  13. Simple solution … How about a rule that says: "Each card may only enter play, or be put into play, once per phase."? Thus, once a copy of Erebor Hammersmith has entered play and been returned to your hand, you can't play it again that phase. The only way you could play another Erebor Hammersmith would be to have another one in your hand - which in turn could not be played a second time once having been played out and returned to hand. This would prevent any future infinite loops and still leave card drawing available for those lucky enough to play be able to Sneak Attack two Gandalfs in one round, etc.
  14. Would any legitimate strategies be nerfed unduly if Born Aloft was limited to once per phase?
  15. Had a follow up response to my reply to the first one: "The situation you are describing is the unintentional byproduct of an ambitious design. I call it rare because in all of the extensive playtesting that was done by the design team in the office and by our external playtesters, this situation never happened. I can assure you that we playtested this scenario far more than six times and if this situation had occurred during one of those times we would have addressed it then. The best we can do now is suggest that players reset. When we release our next FAQ for the game, we can address the infinite loop with a possible errata at that time."
×
×
  • Create New...