Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Buhallin

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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..."
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. The discussions for Carolyn's card on ArkhamDB - which were 7 months ago - point to this not being the case. At least not generally.
  8. 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.
  9. That's fair - never had/played her, so hadn't internalized where the split happened.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. People are working very, very hard to be confused.
  20. What's so complex about it? "If you are limited to a certain number of cards, dual-class count as one card for each matching class." I don't necessarily love it, because it leads to some weird situations. If Finn takes a Seeker/Guardian card it counts as one. If he takes a Mystic/Survivor card, it counts as one. If he takes a Seeker/Survivor card, it counts as two. That seems odd, that it would be more expensive for playing into his strengths. But it's not really complex.
  21. Matt's response is pretty explicit. Assuming they don't change their minds, it counts as two. It's looking like cards have "slots" rather than counting the cards themselves. It will probably deter the Dunwich investigators from using the dual-class cards, but I don't think that's an awful thing. They're still the most flexible characters in the game, if 8 or 10 cards end up being extra expensive for them it's not like it'll cripple them. On the broader issue, it's definitely not intuitive, but I don't think it's exactly hard once you see a few examples. It feels like people are working hard to make it more complex than it is because they don't like the rule, more than there being an actual problem with the rule.
  22. Your math on the tabletop side is off. There are 150 possible ways to allocate 6 characters to 3 different tasks. That also ignores that there's a lot more to allocating those resources than just what they do - the order you defend or attack in matters in the tabletop. Even just 2 or 3 enemies engaged and the combinations balloon quickly, and that's before you consider shadow effects which can throw it all off, encounter effects which will change engagement, etc. LOTR isn't just about resource management, it's about risk management. I believe that you will always have something to do with your characters in the digital game, because questing can effectively be done at any time; how many times have you held someone back from questing in case an enemy showed up, but none did? The digital game also gives you many more resources to work with. No resource matching and twice the card draw make it easier to both get and draw cards, and the smaller deck size is going to make everything you do more consistent. Hence, easier to manage. Even if your math was right, you can't just count the number of decision points and call it a day. The impact of those decisions and the thought that has to go into them is, if anything, even more important.
  23. I don't believe I actually said it's bad. What I have said is that it lacks the depth that the physical game has. This is pretty much indisputable - it's a far, far simpler game, with far fewer decisions and far more forgiving allocation of resources (generically, not just resources resources). That doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad game, per se - simple has its own elegance, if it's good. But saying the digital game is an improved 2.0 of the physical is like saying Elder Sign is an improved edition of Arkham Horror. Sure, the basic outlines are the same, and they reuse the art, but the games pretty much have nothing at all to do with each other otherwise. I'm reserving judgement on whether or not the game actually turns out to be good. I'm skeptical. Everyone's been focusing on the business model change, but the original business model has heavily informed the design of the game. It's not easy to shift gears from "Give them minimal content that we expect to replay dozens of times to grind for Valor" to "Give them enough content in a box to justify the price tag". Maybe it all works out and turns out to be a good game, but so far it doesn't look promising.
  24. I won't necessarily speak for anyone else, but my comments on depth have to do with the rules, not the content - and I think that's what most people are referring to. LOTR requires you to allocate resources across at least 3 different tasks; the digital game simply lacks this, in the name of simplifying the experience. There are any number of other places where the game has been simplified. Whether you call it "streamlining" or "dumbing-down", the result is the same. This isn't necessarily surprising, but it's also worth considering what it will be two (or, again, seven) years down the road. Software engines tend to have very smooth difficulty curves right up until they hit a cliff. Over time you're likely to see a lot of very same-y scenarios, because expanding the engine for new ideas is going to be rather hard. Maybe they'll surprise me, but I doubt it - when a game is behind schedule like this it usually indicates a lot of technical debt which will make that sort of thing even harder than it would be otherwise.
  • Create New...