The main point of the Brig's "do not draw a crisis card" restriction is that it takes "current player chooses" choices away from the brigged player. Combined with the fact that a brigged Admiral loses his title, this takes a lot of control away from the brigged player to control the outcome of crises. Then of course there's the restriction of only allowing one skill card to be played per crisis...

No, they can't. Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala... (Stupid forum software).

Kama said: I'm more than a little disappointed she can't escort civilians anymore! If she ends up beginning her turn in an area of space occupied by civilians and raiders - either because someone executive ordered her in there, or due to additional setup - she is no longer able to fly bodyguard. The original wording would have allowed her to move out and back in again at the cost of her action. With new piloting cards diluting the number of Maximum Firepower cards available and the climactic space battle grouping the civilian ships over New Caprica, it seems to me that the errata has changed her downside into something that's rarely going to come up and only truely matter if the chips are really down while in all other situations won't pose any limitation to the character. You could say it's quite thematic. Instead of Kat sitting around guarding civilian ships, she wants to take the fight to the raiders.

I'm not really sure what you mean, but let me explain a little clearer: If Louis' plots says "you may sacrifice a favour to gain one good baggage" and Raymond's plot says "you gain one bad bagge each time another player sacrifices a favour", then Louis would have two options: 1) Sacrifice a favour to gain one good baggage himself, or 2) Sacrifice a favour to give Raymond one bad baggage. Both effects wouldn't trigger off of a single favour sacrifice.

spazard1 said: I had the amazing privilege of being able to help work on Sea of Blood. I can't say very much at all about it, but I will say this; if you liked Road to Legend, you will love Sea of Blood. It takes everything that was great about Road to Legend and keeps it, and improves the things that weren't so great. You have a lot to look forward to. Could you be a bit more specific in terms of the things from RtL that weren't so great?

Melonball said: What triggers first? Dee's power, or the person activating communication? It's been clarified that Dee's power only works when SHE activates Communications.

Sacrificing only goes towards one effect, full stop. If a player sacrifices a favour to give Louis good baggage, Raymond does not gain bad baggage (and vice versa).

The secrey rules only apply to cards themselves, not choices on a card. So for example, if you are Roslin and you use your ability to look at two cards from the top of the crisis deck you have to choose between them secretly and you cannot reveal what was on the card you didn't choose. However, if the card you DO choose has a choice on it ("President Chooses", or whatever) then you can (and should) reveal it to all players and discuss your options.

bitva said: BainIthron said: Well, FFG is right. Everything is better with pirates. What's next, an asian-themed RtL with Ninjas? That would be dreadful. Next will be a desert map from Sands of Alkalim, for sure. ...with ninjas.

OverMatt said: The "Ragnar Anchorage" destination card states the following: The Admiral may repair up to 3 vipers and 1 raptor. These ships may be damaged or even destroyed. The issue is with the second sentence - "These ships may be damaged or even destroyed." In the case of raptors, there is no distinction. In the case or vipers, however, there is an important difference between a damaged viper and a destroyed viper. If it should turn out, then, that there are at least three damaged vipers but also some destroyed vipers, is the Admiral permitted to repair the destroyed vipers first (bringing them back into play) while ignoring damaged vipers that he could have repaired? In a game last night, this destination card was played while there were three destroyed vipers, three damaged vipers, and only two working vipers. The Admiral wanted to repair the three destroyed vipers (bringing all eight back into play) while leaving the three damaged vipers alone (since they could still be repaired normally). However, while the wording on the card might be read to permit this (i.e. "The Admiral may choose any three vipers that are not currently operational, even destroyed ones, and make them operational."), it might also be reasonably interpreted to mean that he can simply repair up to three vipers (as normal), dipping into the destroyed vipers if necessary (i.e. "The Admiral may repair up to three damaged vipers. If there are less than three damaged vipers, he may repair as many destroyed vipers as are necessary to meet this number."). By the literal wording of the card, we ruled that the first interpretation was permissible - the Admiral could repair the three destroyed vipers first and ignore the damaged vipers if he wished. But while this sounded technically correct, we suspected that it might well be against the intended meaning of the card. We feel that the card was probably intended to mean the second thing, and the author didn't realise it could be interpreted the first way. What do you guys think? You can "repair" destroyed Vipers first, then damaged ones. Thematically, the card is supposed to represent the fact that the fleet has visited a location where they can pick up extra armaments (presumably including more Vipers), so the intention is certainly that destroyed Vipers *should* be "repaired" first.

It has a very similar feel to Arkham Horror. So if you count that as an adventure game, then this one is too. The two main differences are: 1) The "evil" side of the game is controlled by a living, breathing player, rather than being automated randomly by cards. 2) There isn't as much "levelling up" and there are only three different items to collect (horse, boat, elven cloak). Levelling up still occurs, but it's not the main focus of the game like in other adventure games. In this case, the main focus is the tasks you have to perform (the equivalent of sealing gates).

Sauron plays a strategy game. The heroes play an adventure game. If you take a look at the rulebook you'll see it states this explicitly and is even divided into two halves - the Sauron rules and the hero rules.

MasterDinadan said: Reminded me a bit of Arkham Horror. In AH, the players travel around Arkham, collecting clues so that they can seal gates and prevent the ancient one from awakening. Along the way, they battle monsters and have encounters that are random but depend on the locations they visit. In MEQ, the players travel around Middle earth, collecting favor so that they can foil plots and prevent Sauron from taking over Middle Earth. Along the way, they battle monsters and ahve encounters that are random but depend on the locations they visit. Of course... some big difference include that nobody plays the ancient one / mythos in AH, whereas one player takes an antagonist role in MEQ. Also, combat is a lot different. Much more tactical rather than random. Completely agree with this. Arkham Horror is definitely the game that came to mind while playing MEQ.

Katsue said: Bleached Lizard said: Yeah - I've been thinking the same (though it's a tactics card, not a leadership card). The whole thing about XO was that you had to trust someone else to do whatever it is you wanted them to do. Critical Situation does away with that completely. Maybe if CS was a high-valued card it might make up for it, but from what I can tell all the new cards are low-valued. It's slightly rarer than XO, but not by much. Can anyone see any downside? There are 5 Critical Situations in the Tactics deck compared to 12 Executive Orders in the Leadership deck. That's significantly rarer in my view. If you draw 2 Tactics cards per turn, then the naive probability of drawing a Critical Situation in any given turn is just under 35.4%. The chances of a character with 2 Leadership drawing an XO is 72%. I imagine that the reason Critical Situation was printed is because there were new cards being printed, and FFG didn't want to distort the action economy of the game by reducing the number of XOs available without providing some extra actions elsewhere. Fair enough. However, most of the "criticism predictions" regarding the expansion aren't really about game balance. I'm sure it'll be very well balanced. The criticisms are more about how fun and/or thematic the new mechanics would be. As someone said above, the "fun" of XO was that you had to beg for one/trust the person you were playing it on. Critical Situation seems to remove this somewhat.

If only they included the text "the next skill check this turn is considered Reckless". Then it would keep the fun.

Melonball said: Sinis said: I mean, it's not like my group never XOs people, but seriously, if you're in doubt or the situation is critical, you absolutely don't do it. no doubt. it's so ugly. Though this reminds me, i'm really not feeling the new leadership card that lets you essentially XO yourself. Part of the fun of XO is that you have to trust the other players and it might just burn you in the process. giving yourselves two free actions is just kinda silly. Yeah - I've been thinking the same (though it's a tactics card, not a leadership card). The whole thing about XO was that you had to trust someone else to do whatever it is you wanted them to do. Critical Situation does away with that completely. Maybe if CS was a high-valued card it might make up for it, but from what I can tell all the new cards are low-valued. It's slightly rarer than XO, but not by much. Can anyone see any downside? EDIT: Actually, I suppose one downside is that you have to stay in the same location to use it, whereas with XO you can play it on any of the other characters who may be in more useful locations... but seeing as you can usually use your second action to play a card from your hand anyway this still doesn't seem like an enormous drawback.

I'd also love to have a copy of these. Can you point me to the right place?

Why? The answers are all quite explicit in the rulebook.

10000 Comic Books said: Likewise, does that mean if the president is on new caprica and tries to brig somone on galactica, they get thrown to the detention center on new caprica?" Nope. "From the rulebook (page 14): Any effect that would send a character on a New Caprica location to the “Brig” sends them to “Detention” instead." A character on Galactica is not on New Caprica You need to keep reading that section of the rulebook further down.

Again, from the same section of the rulebook: "While the President is on a New Caprica location, any Quorum Card effects that apply to the “Brig” apply to “Detention” instead." So yes - if the president tries to brig someone on Galactica while she herself is on New Caprica, the brigged character is sent to detention instead.

Melonball said: I heard that he shot a man in reno just to watch him die. LOL!

Exactly! If people wanna play with the game (in a creative sense) let them play with it!

Melonball said: I think its wise not to muck with what corey's done. True. The universe might explode.

Melonball said: Makes sense. Though i'm curious why they bothered listing the president bullet point at all, seeing as the effect bullet point would cover that scenario. Likewise, does that mean if the president is on new caprica and tries to brig somone on galactica, they get thrown to the detention center on new caprica? Apparently so.

Melonball said: I think it will still be epic, but i'm pretty confident that anyone who plays balatar will get shot early, and someone is getting airlocked after we've jumped 4. How about something more along these lines: At the beginning of the game prepare a second loyalty deck. I'm thinking for 3 or 4-player games it will just be two cards - one each of "Cylon" and "Not A Cylon" cards, for 5/6-player games it'll be four cards (two of each). If a Cylon is executed, the rules stay as normal. If a human is executed, instead of the morale loss, the new character takes a new loyalty card from the secondary loyalty deck. If ever a character is executed and there are no more loyalty cards left to take, the humans lose the game. Adjust numbers as necessary.