Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Buhallin

  1. It will let you bury an investigator's weakness. Especially in tandem with the upgraded Scrying, that's a fairly unique ability. Not sure it's 3 XP good, but it's not nuthin'.
  2. The problem with this is that there are plenty of cards where the L0 is great as well as the upgraded version. You end up discounting those as well - think Peter, Beat Cop, Shriveling, heck, Strange Solution or Archaic Glyphs. You won't encourage the use of underwhelming L0 cards - you'll make good upgradeable L0 cards even better.
  3. This would be a valid consideration if it had always been like this, but it's a new thing. LOTR managed monthly cycles for a good long time. It's certainly possible that something happened to dramatically increase approval time, but there are far more likely explanations.
  4. I disagree with this. A good example for me was the difference when Privateer Press first introduced Hordes. Warmachine is a resource management game. Hordes was described as "risk management", which is what Arkham is. You have to balance the resources you're willing to commit vs. the odds of success, which can rarely (though no longer never) be guaranteed. Is it worth burning another card or resource to cover one more token? Is it worth committing your entire hand to a test, knowing that you could still fail on that one red tentacle? Or is it better to conserve your resources knowing that you can try again with your next action, or next turn? When you have guaranteed success, all those decisions go away. You may not like those decisions, but that doesn't make them a bad game. I disagree with this pretty emphatically, at least for this specific example. Spoiler tagging just in case. (Note: Doesn't seem to like multiple spoiler tags, open to read more )
  5. In any given fight between a pampered rich dude and a streat-smart orphan girl, I'd take the orphan any day. Wendy would totally stab him in the kidney and spit on his bleeding corpse
  6. This seems backwards to me. Making them more capable in combat than their character suggests they should be, just because they need to function in the game, feels more game-y to me. Within the typical bounds of what does and doesn't make sense in Arkham and what you use resources for, Preston being someone who relies on his money rather than his own skills makes perfect sense.
  7. Or it's possible that since it was a new product direction for them and an experiment, they waited to see how they did before commissioning another wave of books. A year to contract, write, edit, print, and ship is not the least bit unrealistic. Remember also that these books didn't generally have the long lead time of most FFG products. Hour of the Huntress shipped a week after they announced it. And just for completeness, we really can't assume them. The novellas are not an ongoing product line, I think it's fairly long odds that we'd get a "We're not making any more of these" announcement. They really are Schrodinger's Novellas at this point. Maybe we're getting more, maybe we're not, but there is literally zero evidence either way other than that the first run did pretty well.
  8. Tokens are removed when a card leaves play. Moving him instead of discarding means he never leaves play, so everything stays on him. Seems like a timing loophole, but it wouldn't just be the two - all the damage tokens would stay on him, so he'd immediately be re-defeated. Not terribly hard to figure out what you're supposed to do with this one though.
  9. And I'll always caution anyone who offers "Don't trust the numbers because..." reasons without actually trying to analyze those reasons Yes, the nature of the game is one that will lend itself to a lower concurrent player count. But that doesn't mean that it's meaningless. Trends can be especially important, because it's only comparing the game to itself. What's the trend for LOTR? A pretty big spike when it initially went early access, and then it fell off a cliff. It's not really hard to interpret that - the initial hype and advertising got the attention of a number of players who were excited to try it, but it didn't stick with many of them. Why didn't it stick? Lack of content is definitely an issue, but the question then is can they produce content fast enough to keep people playing? It went to EA on Aug 28. The 29th shows 290 players. Two weeks later it's at about 70. Losing 75% of the players in two weeks is pretty awful. If 75% of your players get bored with the content in less than two weeks and leave, how much content do you have to produce to keep them playing? Is there any realistic possibility of doing so? Now it's peaking in the 20s, though it did get a nice spike from the new announcement - almost back to the "Only lost 75%" mark, but not quite. The other component to the drop (or not) is new players. Even if your players only stay active for 2 weeks, if you're bringing in new people at an equal rate to replace them your numbers don't drop. It looks like the initial hype, likely driven largely by existent physical players, got the bulk of the people it was going to get. So yes, there are caveats in the numbers. It's certainly more complicated than simply citing a number and saying you're right. But none of the numbers we have are consistent with the game being well-received, either by new players or by the people who should have been the most excited about it.
  10. This is a little rambly, but... While I can certainly appreciate the desire to defend the online version, trying to justify why it's not competing with everything else out there is obviously misplaced. Trying to argue that there will be more content, or that you can't judge the game now, is obviously misplaced. Why? Because the numbers don't lie. You can type until your fingers fall off about why there's no comparison, but actual players obviously ARE comparing, and are finding it lacking. IMHO the problem is that in the computer space, when you're talking about solo play experiences card games are very, very limited compared to what else is out there. The value proposition for the previous model put the price point about the same as a major AAA game title like Assassin's Creed. You've got to have something REALLY strong to compete with that. So who are you going to attract? People who really like card games. And of those, people who really like solo games. And of those, people who aren't already happy in one of the many other options out there. And of those, people who will look at the content and think it's not a massive ripoff. You can't compare the price point of the physical and digital versions because that's not how people think. When you put something physical in their hands, it inherently increases their estimation of the value compared to software, even if the software costs dramatically more to produce. That's just the way it is. But really, all the justifying in the world about how awesome it is and you can't compare this or expect that is just tilting at windmills. At this point it seems pretty obvious that the game's a big miss with players, and tweaking the sales model isn't going to change that.
  11. This is correct. A decent precedent for this is the ruling with Carolyn and Liquid Courage - her ability only triggers once, because the extra horror heal modifies the original, despite the test in between. Edit: An effect that wouldn't get it would be worded something like Rex, where it's "After the enemy..."
  12. As awp says, you would fail the test. But I think the rest of his Elder Sign ability would still trigger. There's no "then" or anything conditional in the test. So you'd fail, but then get to choose the draw/resource or extra action.
  13. Bouschh allows inclusion of villain cards. And really, for a deck whose entire win condition is a massive Buy Out... Hound's Tooth is what triggered you?
  14. The discussions for Carolyn's card on ArkhamDB - which were 7 months ago - point to this not being the case. At least not generally.
  15. No, it really doesn't. We know this because they clarified that Carolyn needed the "other". If you want to pretend that clarification doesn't exist because they haven't added it to the FAQ then that's on you, but there's no question at all that it is a meaningful term that affects what you pick.
  16. That's fair - never had/played her, so hadn't internalized where the split happened.
  17. Because Marie doesn't also have unlimited access to Rogue and Guardian cards as well? The card pool for the Dunwich investigators makes them incredibly flexible, you can't just handwave it away because they can both take a few Seeker cards. Marie gets hosed just as bad by any Seeker/Survivor cards, or any Mystic/Survivor or Mystic/Seekers that aren't spells. You're trying to take a single card across two specific investigators and declare a problem because of that. That's special pleading at best.
  18. I love the way everyone's pulling Jim out, "Oooh! Won't someone think of the nerf to poor Jim!" like he's the only one affected by this. Rex, Zoey, and Pete do exist too. Is Jim the bottom of the Dunwich barrel and taking a hit that is (probably) meant for them? Sure. But "Save Jim!" is not a meaningful argument here against either the functional or balance side. I actually feel bad for FFG on this. For years, they've had a tendency to just rule that things worked the way they wanted them to, regardless of actual rules. It was an endless source of misery, as you couldn't actually get from card+rules=result without explicitly reading the FAQ to know that 2+2=7.183. In this case they're actually following the rules. Dual-class cards have to be both classes for them to work. That has side effects with the way certain investigators work. It would have been very easy for them to just say "It counts once even though it's both" regardless of what the rules say. But for once, they stuck to the rules even though it had some side effect. And they get roasted for that, too.
  19. No, you don't have to errata cards. "When a Deckbuilding Option limits something by count, cards which meet that condition multiple times count once for each condition they meet." That probably covers it pretty well right off the cuff. And it's basically exactly what they've said, and it's perfectly consistent with every other ruling we've got for current investigators. I'm not sure what makes you think this. We had a response from Matt about this the same day. That's not a "Oh, man, nobody thought of that!" There's really nothing to suggest this wasn't intentional.
  20. What is legal to include, and how you count what you've included, can easily be separate things. I'm not sure why you think this is so impossible to create a rule for.
  21. Reiterating this again since it got pinged - the bolded part is incorrect. Nothing prohibits Agnes from taking Seeker cards. She is allowed to take any card which matches anything in her Deckbuilding Options. Scroll of Secrets is a Mystic card of an appropriate level, so she can take it regardless of any other characteristic of the card.
  22. I'd be completely shocked by this. It would restrict dual-class cards to only a few investigators each, which is pretty obviously not what they intended them to be. Even if I thought there was some unfixable problem with the rules here, FFG has rarely been one to live within the limits of their own wording. They'll put an entry in the FAQ about how it works, and that's how it'll work. There really is zero issue here on what can be included, despite some very intense efforts to create one. The only open issue is with how you count them in cases where you have numeric restrictions on certain cards. Despite ongoing assertions to the contrary, I don't think it's all that hard to write a rule that handles that. I really don't get the freakout here. Are they more expensive for more flexible investigators? Sure, but those investigators already have access to a card pool which is MASSIVELY larger than anyone else in the game. Does anyone actually think Zoey's stock is going to drop because Enchanted Blade costs her a flex slot, or that Rex will be any less game-breaking because taking the Mash (not that you would) takes two slots instead of one? This seems intentional to me - the dual-class cards are intended to be more flexible in use by more limited investigators. Nothing wrong with that.
  23. Sure you could. Deckbuilding restrictions don't say "Zoey cannot have Seeker, Rogue, Mystic, or Survivor cards L1-5". They just tell you what you can put in. So long as something meets the condition to be added, it doesn't matter if some other part of the card doesn't meet the condition. This is no different than any of the other trait-based inclusions. If Marc includes a Survivor Tactic, that's still legal even though it doesn't match his allowable class cards.
  24. Even leaving aside whether they change the intent, it seems like the entire argument is based on current rules and some hypothetical impossibility that they can phrase the Dual Class cards in a way that works with the current rules. We probably could have had this same argument about Permanent cards when they were first revealed - "Deck building restrictions all say 30 cards, there's no way Permanents work! But what if they make a Level 0 Permanent - does that count as one of Zoey's 5 because blah blah blah." If we want to rules lawyer the dual class rules when we have them, then sure, whatever - it's really clear how it's supposed to work, if you want to take a bash at FFG's templating and rules writing over it, power to ya, done it more than a few times myself. But playing rules lawyer to disprove the developer on rules we haven't seen yet - no matter how much you dislike those rules - is the height of pointless.
  25. So I suppose Carolyn has to take half her deck as neutral too, since there are no Guardian cards with the Seeker icon? No wonder everyone thinks she's so bad.
  • Create New...