After looking through all the cards, there is one item card ("Startling Evidence") that requires the Keeper reveal which room the next clue is in. So I suppose the clues must follow some kind of linear order.

Additionally, as far as I'm aware, all the rooms that contain clues are locked, and the "key" (whatever form it might take) can only be found at the location of the previous clue.

spirit said: Sweeeeet. Wonder when the UK will get it. It's available in the UK this Wednesday (2nd March).

My votes are for a Dark Young and Colour Out of Space.

Check out the link in my signature for Pegasus: Razor Cut. It contains a whole new way of playing New Caprica.

He even asked the same question in the Mansions of Madness forums, and that game isn't out for another month or so.

rbelikov said: Bleached Lizard said: The title is simply an homage to Blade Runner - nothing more, nothing less. That may be what your intent was, but "Director's cut" is not a term unique to Blade Runner, so it seems to me that most people would not interpet your title as a homage, but rather as "this is the definitive version of the rules as Kevin Wilson should have designed them". Imagine if prior to Blade runner's director's cut somebody made a video and called it "Blade runner: director's cut" and maintained that the title is a homage to, say, the Alien director's cut... Ridley Scott and fans of the movie would have been deeply insulted. He might even have sued. I know the analogy is not perfect, but it does point at least to some of what I mean. Anyway, it is your responsibility to be cognizant of such possible interpretations and hurt feelings. Also, regardless of what you think of the original game, there are a lot of people who prefer the original rules (wasn't there a poll showing that more than 50% do?). I personally never played by your rules and once I get tired of the original rules, I would love to give yours a spin. I may even like them better than the original. And my hat goes off to you for all the work and care you put into it. But regardless of your intent and merit of your variant, I think that you title conveys a degree of condescension to most people and that is a big turn-off. Fair enough.

Mr. K said: Confusingly, though, and contrary to all other indications, in the Upcoming section it says Expected by: Wnter '11 A joke surely? Or a typo? Or perhaps just playing it really, really safe? Can't wait though. Those combat cards look fab! xx It's Winter '11 *now*.

rbelikov said: Bleached Lizard said: The combined Director's Cut files have accumulated over a hundred thumbs up on BGG, with the latest version accounting for almost half of those. Version 3.0 has been downloaded almost one and a half thousand times and the file has appeared in the most popular files of BGG for the past two years. I even get the occasional thank you message from BGG users for creating the variants (I received one just yesterday, in fact). So I'm guessing I must have done something right. I think the question the OP raised is not about the quality of your variant, but in calling your variant a "Director's cut" and the implication that this is the definitive way to play the game. I applaud all your effort and care that went to it, but the presentation seems a little condescending, that's all. Well, I've said it before, but I'll say it again because I haven't said it in a while and so maybe the OP missed it: my opinion of the original game and the choice of title are two completely separate and unrelated things. I think the original game implementation is pretty terrible (hence the extensive variants). The title is simply an homage to Blade Runner - nothing more, nothing less.

Pulsar said: I have to admit the only two things that draw me to this game is that its theme and the simple fact it is a cooperative. The components are unenchanting and parts of the rulebook could read better (I gave up on it when I realized I probably couldn't other people to read through it and play with me). So: How much does is the gameplay reminiscent of Bladerunner (how much does it pull you into the story and theme?) And how does this fundamentally differ from Arkham in its cooperative mechanics? It's not cooperative at all - it's completely competitive.

drbashir117 said: Hi, we have a question about vipers (original game, no extensions). What's the advantage of using manned vipers instead of going to the "command" location and launching unmanned vipers? The only reason so far we could find to launch yourself in a viper are Kara Thrace (one more action, that's really nice) and the pilot skill cards, but is that all? What's your assesment of the tactical use of the option to launch yourself in a viper? Cheers Have you *read* the piloting cards? This this little one called Maximum Firepower...

You still need to jump one more time.

The combined Director's Cut files have accumulated over a hundred thumbs up on BGG, with the latest version accounting for almost half of those. Version 3.0 has been downloaded almost one and a half thousand times and the file has appeared in the most popular files of BGG for the past two years. I even get the occasional thank you message from BGG users for creating the variants (I received one just yesterday, in fact). So I'm guessing I must have done something right.

The plots each contain keywords that correspond to either good baggage or bad baggage. So if a card instructs you to gain X, check your plot card and if that keyword appears, gain that amount of the appropriate type of baggage.

By damaging locations containing allies.

ninjamatic3000 said: Bleached Lizard said: Revealed Cylons cannot benefit from the effect of Executive Order. I would imagine the same ruling applies here. My first instinct was to agree with this... except that the Exodus rulebook is so careful to differentiate between "players," "Human players," and "Cylon players." The base game rulebook does not make that distinction, hence the need for the errata to clarify how the XO should work. Given that the term "players" is clearly defined in the rules to mean "everyone playing the game," I would assume the effect of the card would be applicable to both humans and cylons, unless a future errata indicates otherwise. Other crisis cards, etc, do make the distinction "Human players" vs. "Cylon players" so I would assume the SOE effect applies to all players unless it's an oversight or typo. Of course a revealed cylon can't play the card as his action... Or they wanted to keep the wording consistent with that of Executive Order and presumed that players would realise it was the same deal. I'm going to go ahead with presuming that it doesn't affect revealed Cylons, as that is what is consistent with past card effects and the alternative just seems a bit silly.

Revealed Cylons cannot benefit from the effect of Executive Order. I would imagine the same ruling applies here.

There are a couple of general events that allow players to obtain the red sports car.

Cardinalsin said: Holy Outlaw said: Execution's been fixed and I like that a lot Is it fixed? I assume you're referring to the fact that, previously, if you executed a character they were guaranteed to be replaced by a non-cylon. The change being, you now add extra loyalty cards into the deck and draw them. This is definitely an improvement, as it means no incentive to randomly execute people before turn 4. After turn 4 it still means your new character is guaranteed not to be a cylon. Maybe that's enough... I know it might unbalance the game but I can't help feeling it would make more sense to create a secondary loyalty deck using (say) two "YANAC" cards and one "YAAC" card, which you draw from when executed, adding a new "YANAC" card after each draw so there's always three in the deck. That would mean there was always uncertainty about replacement characters' loyalty, even in the second half of the game. And it would make execution of humans even less desirable - you might end up increasing the number of cylons! Read the Exodus rules again - this is exactly what they *did* change it to (except that it's a deck of two cards rather than three cards).

Yes, it is legal. It is the counter-balance to Executive Order's power. You can't just go throwing them around like crazy.

Praise abounded? Where? Go re-read those reviews on BGG again - I think you'll find opinions were pretty split. And for an FFG game, that's not great.

dune said: If I may pose the question in a different way: Why are we all limited to one global wonder of a specific kind? I noticed that you didn't question the validity or effectiveness of this rule at all when essentially it is the exact same thing. Because wonders are supposed to represent a specific one-of-a-kind construction. Buildings are generic.

I think what the OP may not be getting is that you obsolete *other player's* wonders, not your own.

Periculum said: I can see the Americans going for culture. Not my top choice, but I would use the American ability to pump out buildings and wonders ahead of your opponents. All things balanced in a game, the Americans can build wonders a turn or two before their opponents by using their trade conversion. If the Americans ever won with a cultural victory I would say this game was unthematic in the extreme.

Maleficus_Sadi said: JerusalemJones said: In regards to us using a d12, we would roll randomly to determine where damage was applied, so that the player didn't get to choose ( we tended to damage Pegasus, using it as a damage sink). A few months back we just put all the damage tokens in a cloth bag and draw them randomly. It works for us, but sometimes you just want to damage a particualr ship (like the last token for Pegasus, or need to hit FTL and want to try for Galactica). So given your way and the way Bleached Lizard does it (rolling for each battlestar), which would you say is better? To be honest, having a basestar roll for each ship sounds deadly, but also really cool! I haven't been able to try it out yet, but other people who have tried it says it sounds about right and makes it so you actually have to use repair cards/vipers/nukes (honestly, there has only been ONE game out of probably 20 where we used a nuke token because it was required. One nuke, out of two...) so it seems like it would force the admiral to use the nuke tokens more often too. So how effective would you say rolling a d12 is? Not to mention, some tokens are food loss/fuel loss/etc., how do you account for those? (: How does rolling once for each battlestar sound deadly? It returns the distribution of hits to exactly the same as it was in the base game. Though you are right in that you have to use repairs/nukes if you want to keep hold of Pegasus.