Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Buhallin

  1. This. Sure, maybe you've got a hand full of junk that you can dump and the cycle ends up being good. But that's an awfully combo-tastic setup. There are certainly times when he'll work well with the rest of your (useless) hand, but that doesn't seem like something you want to plan for. Sure, Fury can let you get to your very good cards - but he's just as likely to show up in a hand full of already-very-good cards, and what do you do with him then? Another difference here is that if I have a Gandalf but no resources to play him yet, there's no real cost to just holding him in my hand. In Champions holding onto a card has a very real cost to it as you reduce your draw every turn until you use him.
  2. I'll throw in with the "Fury isn't all that" side. Four resources is a LOT, and if you use his draw to replace the cost you're turning one resource into a single attack or damage sink before he goes away. I was sitting with him several times in demo games and there were much stronger options in my hand. The opportunity cost for playing cards in Champions is much higher than it was in LOTR. It's not just the resources, you have to give up playing everything else in your hand for the turn. Maybe that works out, maybe it doesn't. Honestly, he feels like he'll be a trap card more often than not, as you hold on to him waiting for that otherwise-bad hand to throw him out. During that time he'll just be reducing your draw. High cost cards are generally considerably more punishing in Champions than most other games. You can't save up for them, you're basically going to be digging for combos with the double resource cards, and from what I saw the temporary nature of allies makes it tougher to build a large board state. It's one thing with Gandalf to decide that you're in a good spot so you can only play him this turn - everything you got out previous turns is still there. Is Fury going to be good enough to be the only thing you do in a turn, and is it worth not advancing your limited board state for him? I'm not sold yet, at all.
  3. This really isn't true. Heroes are critical in LOTR, even in the same class Arkham investigators will require completely different deck philosophies, etc. If you randomly swap 3 cards in your LOTR deck it's pretty minor. Change your three heroes - even in the same spheres - and the entire structure of the deck will be out of sync. Same thing in Arkham - you can't take a deck built for Zoey and drop it into Roland and expect it to work nearly as well. Smaller deck sizes do force hard choices, but if Destiny can't get any variation in a 30-card deck that's because Destiny's balance and card design sucks. The high reliability in Destiny also comes from other places than the deck size - the generous mulligan rule, the full redraw, etc. But heck, even in Destiny the character choices matter a lot. If you take a Trooper deck and change the characters to Ewoks, what happens?
  4. The large card was given out after the scenario, and didn't come in the pack. Matt was signing both cards and playmats on the last day and had a fondness for drawing silly faces on the blob. Wonder what one of those would go for on eBay? More or less valuable? :)
  5. Uncage the Soul is another good example for the lack of an extra action cost. Have people actually been playing that it requires a second action, or has this one just come out of the woodwork for You Owe Me One?
  6. They've dabbled with this in some other games - the Destiny tournament a few years back gave a copy of the Vader promo at the start, and a second at the end of the event. I do wish they'd do more, but there's a red tape weight to giving things out at the end. They have around 400+ people active in events across all their games at any given moment, with a shared group of about 8 people running them all. GenCon still uses physical tickets, which they have to take when people arrive. Holding things to the end, especially for something like Arkham which doesn't really require result reporting, would be a real pain and slow down everything. Making the scenario available in the booth this year is a pretty elegant solution, although they dropped the ball on that by not announcing it more broadly or doing so before people had bought those very-hot event tickets. But still, it's improvement, and shouldn't be disappointing to anyone.
  7. I got that part. Where I took exception was the phrasing. Outside of extreme selfishness there shouldn't be anything about increasing availability at GenCon which is disappointing to anyone. It's just flat-out better. And the way the "disappointment" was phrased was "FFG told us we couldn't get one but then had more for people at GenCon and that's disappointing". Given the number of people who show up to GenCon I take some exception at the far-too-typical self-centered attitude of "content creators". This has been a problem at GenCon for a long time. Nobody should be disappointed that they're working to fix it. If nothing else, more availability at GenCon will mean more on the second-hand market afterwards for more reasonable prices there. They can get one that way just like everyone else who can't make the con.
  8. So a bigger supply for the people attending the convention but still bounded to the convention is a disappointment? What else counts as disappointing? That they have more slots for the scenario? It's worth reading the comment above pretty directly because it lays out exactly why they're doing this. Every year, any number of people will pay for the event, walk up, grab the pack they paid for, and leave without actually playing. Whether they do it for the scenario, or to sell the promos, whatever, it happens, and it means that the very limited number of slots (even the 400 this year sold out quickly) becomes even more limited. Selling the pack in the booth should let those people get the pack without taking slots from those who are actually there to play. This is a smart move, and there's absolutely nothing disappointing about it - unless you want your freebies so bad you think it's worth screwing over the con attendees?
  9. I looked but couldn't find the article again. Sorry, blame Facebook's awful group implementation.
  10. It was mentioned in the FB group that they'll also have a limited amount of the scenario available in the FFG booth at GenCon, which is new.
  11. I'd disagree pretty strongly that Norman belongs on the bottom, although Milan finally being nerfed hit him pretty hard. Seekers have a lot of good economy, and Mystics have a lot of pricey cards - it makes for a very nice combo. He's definitely in the "trickier to play" bucket though, as you have to think about how to build him completely differently. Most investigators start by doing X, and then upgrade to get better at X. Norman's entire deck function shifts every time you upgrade him.
  12. Certainly it can be dealt with, but the cost in doing so can be dramatic. It's really nice at 1 resource, but 4 resources, two actions, and two cards play if you Waylay it? What other places could you use your Sneak Attack? And sure, it comes into play exhausted, but the vast majority of the time that's going to be during the Upkeep phase, which means you're going to start with it engaged with you and active. That can hose entire turns. It's a gambling card, which is very appropriately Rogue-ish, but it's a fairly large gamble...
  13. I can't decide if I think the Crystallizer is worth it or not.
  14. Fair enough - but this makes the combo EVEN LESS broken than I thought it was. And if the Stone is broken, it has nothing to do with Drawing Thin.
  15. Very much so. I tend to stick to 19 except for certain investigators like Jenny whose signature weakness is basically a no-op in standalone play. You can replace that one without much impact. Plus the Gold Pocket Watch basically saved us in Labyrinths a few years ago, so...
  16. No, it should follow the standalone deck building rules. Basically, as much experience as you want but an additional basic weakness for every 10 full XP.
  17. True enough, but we did just get a support Guardian in Carolyn. I doubt we'll see another quite so soon.
  18. This is pretty easy to work around anyway, if you sleeve your cards. Put a small sticker over the spot where the bad circles are, on all cards, to hide it.
  19. Hard to say on this. Those of us who did it a while ago had to wait for them to print the replacements. If you do it now, assuming they still have a supply, it should be a week or so.
  20. I wasn't really suggesting it was - I'm all in favor of reining in too-good cards whether they break anything or not. But that's the claim that a lot of people are making. I think it's important to look at what the card actually enables. Is it efficient? Certainly. What does it enable? I've been playing it with Rita and honestly find that I don't have anything to use the pile of resources on. That's just not Survivor's schtick. There are likely some who would see a lot more benefit from it (Yorick comes to mind, and maybe Agnes) but even then I'm not sure that it rises to the level of needing to be fixed. Honestly, I think there's a high probability that it turns out to be a trap card, and it convinces you to fail tests you could otherwise pass in order to get resources you might not need anyway. The outcome from that is often going to be obscured because the full impact may not be apparent until much later, and you won't blame Drawing Thin when you go down. How is this broken? It's a multi-card combo with limited charges that relies on a 4 XP card that you can't even get until the third scenario of a campaign. Honestly, it's a pretty inefficient use of the Stones, as if you pull the multi-trigger you're going to be burning secrets for one damage rather than getting bigger hits out of larger card draw. And honestly, looking at the description of the deck list it seems anything but broken. The instructions for solving the Stone alone makes my head hurt.
  21. So far I've found it to be a very solid card, but not necessarily game-breaking. Maybe it's just our group composition lately, but I've found there are few tests that I can voluntarily fail for the sake of resources, or that I'm confident enough on passing to take the +2 without risk.
  22. This is going to be insane, and the 96-player one just became a lot more of a priority!
  • Create New...