Jump to content

Buhallin

Members
  • Content count

    5,105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Buhallin

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Antonio, Texas, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yeah, they really should have said something like "While you are in the Chamber of Rot, it gains..." in the card text. In all seriousness, though, it's not the first card that adds an ability to a location. You misread how it works, and that's all.
  2. Most of the encounter sets have very few cards, which means the dividers end up practically on top of each other. You can't see any of the titles. They REALLY should have been tabbed.
  3. Rex will only get 3 with Double or Nothing - his ability is a reaction trigger, not a result of the successful test. Not sure about the "set to", but I believe it would override any modifiers.
  4. This. Card storage is pretty well established. The dimensions which are common are common for a reason - they allow minimal slop on the cards, and no risk of cards getting turned and bent. There's no extra space at the sides because you don't pick them up from the sides, and even if you were going to try, one finger doesn't work - you end up having to wedge the cards against the opposite side and turn them up. That's why you leave enough gap to pick them up from the top. Which, incidentally, you can easily do without risking damaging shifts. Extra space on the side adds to that, meaning if you leave enough to pick up from the top you increase the chance of damaging cards. The gap between "standard" and "awful" is admittedly small, but focusing on the small gap misses the point. There is no advantage to the extra space, or the slide-top design. If I were looking at two equal-cost card boxes side by side and had to choose one, I'd take a standard BCW over this every single time. It is strictly worse than a standard box in every way. It doesn't really matter at that point whether the gap is large or small - it's a bad box. The ironic thing is that FFG knows how to design boxes. They've been providing deck boxes as prize support for most of their games forever, even ones that don't really need them (like X-wing). Those boxes are appropriately sized, extract from the top with minimal slop, and have tuck flaps on the top. I'm baffled as to why they felt the need to diverge so badly. And the dividers... Bleagh. I can only assume they were conceived of by someone who'd never actually tried to sort out the sets for this game.
  5. I wouldn't say I'm outraged, it just seems like some really obvious design misses on a product that was truly trivial to get right. And it's not even like it's a new product area - they've been handing out card boxes as prize support forever, which manage to be the right size for the cards.
  6. Well, yes. Which is why they should have been tabbed dividers. Placing the set symbol on the tab would have been both attractive and functional - I'm not sure many people know the set names anyway. I understand why rectangular dividers are standard for things like fan-done ones. They're a pain to print. But you'd think that professionally printed and cut ones could have managed tabs.
  7. Buhallin

    RttNotZ Campagin Quesion

    Yes. There are scenario cards that apply some changes, but it's mostly using the different encounter sets. The setup, story, chaos bag, etc, are all the same.
  8. I'd rather have the new ones be usefully sized. As it is, these very pretty boxes are likely going in the trash.
  9. I haven't measured, but it feel like it's got nearly an inch too much space to both side and top.
  10. Box is far too wide, and tall, even for sleeved cards and dividers. The dividers themselves are pretty, but full width to separate what will often be 3 or 4 cards seems like they’ll basically block each other. Am I missing something here?
  11. I ran it locally a while back, and while the 1h may not be a hard rule, it's more important than it seems. Most of the challenge (and fun) of Labyrinths comes less from the game mechanic than the players actually puzzling through things and putting the pieces together with the limited interaction allowed. Removing the time limit dramatically reduces the challenge of the scenario.
  12. Yeah, it's not the end of the world - I do independent pools and I'm not likely to change Just sort of an on-principle annoyance. Edit: To me, the rule is like a card that says "Fight: You get +1 Fight for this test. If you borrowed this card from a friend, +2 instead." That would undoubtedly strike everyone as very silly, this is pretty much the same.
  13. My main issue with it is the "If I own many copies I should still build one pool for everyone." The baseline rule shouldn't depend on who owns what. You should try to work every investigator from an independent pool, or every investigator from a shared pool from the campaign. And if you have enough cards to build an independent pool for each investigator, and that's the expectation, then it shouldn't matter if four players own one set each or one player owns four. If accommodations have to be made for ownership that's fine, but they should be secondary to that.
×