Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dncan

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Paris, 0, France
  1. These are exactly the two points I came here to mention. On smartphones at least, token placement is regularly covered by the text, and when you click too quickly on a text box, you can't go back to read what you missed... and it's not always reported in the diary. For the text covering, tokens could be shown separately from the text, or better yet, if it was possible to scroll the map under the textbox..? Great game nevertheless !
  2. I don't think there's an overlap of the themes. Yes they are both cooperative LCG, but Cthulhu versus Lord of the Rings ? Lovecraft versus Tolkien ? Gothic horror versus epic fantasy ? I know friends of mine who like one and not the other. As for me, I love both and I am quite happy to have two games to have fun with both universes instead of just one. But yes, the question remains to see if the two games will continue being profitable enough for their publisher to continue developping new contents for both of them. I haven't read the full 17 pages of this thread. Did anyone from FFG came to post some official comment about this ?
  3. Hello, Just a little rule question : When playing with the "Extract" action, how are the DF tokens distributed ? One at a time, or all at once for a player before going to the next one ? The card says that it's in turn order. So if there are 2 tokens and 2 players doing Extract, implying each one of them should take 2 tokens, does the first player take both token and the second gets nothing, or does he take 1 token, the second player gets 1, and then it's over ? Of course if there were 3 players, they would have to take 1 token each , and the third player won't get anything… And the variant idea… I'm wondering how good could be the idea of considering extraction as simultaneous ? It works well with the theme as given for this card : if there are too many people trying to download, it won't work as well… maybe even it won't work at all. So we could consider this : at the end of the round, we check to see how many tokens should be gained by each player, and we distribute evenly the available tokens among them without exceeding the amount alloted (4/2/1). If it leads to no token gained, hey, the data flow wasn't high enough and a timeout occurred… Example for 2 players playing Extract : If there was 4 tokens or more each one of the players gets two. If there was 2 or 3 tokens each one of the players gets one (it may lead to one token being left there). If there was only 1 token, nobody gets it. This would also lessen the advantage of being the first player in the round, and could set some interesting choices for double guessing the play of the extract card… What do you think ?
  4. Dncan


    Hello, The problem in playing solo just for scoring is that it would depend mainly on luck. If you set a DF target score low, it will be too easy, and if you set it high, you will be dependent on the rooms in the facility : you'll need for them not to raise the alarm counter or the game won't be "winnable" in the amount of time. Someone posted on BGG an idea where the goal is to build an AI which will play two opponents, and you have to best it. Both you and the AI will be subject to the effects of the alarm raising or not. Another advantage is that all items will be usable (playing only one thief in the lab requires to discard some items which are usable only with several thieves in play). The thread is titled : Infiltration for one. I just found it and haven't given it a try yet, but I definitely intend to…
  5. Yes, definitely. New investigators, new puzzle pieces, new rooms, whatever you will think of to fill it. I was never disappointed in an Arkham Horror expansion so why would I be there ? Also small expansions with new scenarios to fill the gaps. Because as was previously said by someone else, if we play another language edition (understand here the french one) PoD are not usable with our gamers (we who are here are english speaking, but not all of our friends are...), and they're not translated so far (but something may be done later on, let's wait and see).
  6. Acererak said: The sentece you quote is in a paragraph that starts by talking about attachements played by other players into a different player´s heroes, and I am not so certain as if that also applies to cards played by the encounter deck on a player´s heores. Official FAQ will hopefully enlighten us. The sentence I quote starts by talking bout attachments played by players, but it's the only place where they talk about ownership and control of cards. To me, the paragraph is about attachments in general. But... I must confess that I am not so certain either that it is the intended meaning. If the rules are complete as they are, then it could only mean that it does apply like I described, but it could also be that some specific instructions have been forgotten. As you say, let's hope the official FAQ will cover this.
  7. Paul Grogan said: I think it is in the rules somewhere, and I dont have the book with me Something about a player always controls attachments on his characters. But yes, seems very odd that a bad shadow effect can actually help a player. It's page 25, and if you don't have the manual with you, you can look at the pdf of the rules here on the FFG site (go to the game section in the catalog, and see the "Support" area). It says exactly that, that "Players always assume control of attachments that have been played on their characters." See the "always", and no exception has been specified for encounter cards. You can see it like the attacking ennemy slashing the web while hitting the party. It is not so irrelevant. And that's not very easily done either since this effect pertains to the defending character, or all attachments if there is no defense to this attack. So you have to either defend with the webbed character (which most often than not won't be able to defend because he remained engaged due to the web), or not defending at all (and lose all attachments and not only the web, in addition to raising threat level).
  8. qwertyuiop said: Because the French have never been wrong. Not once. Not ever. Nope. Because that's two official forums where I get according answers. Chances that both are wrong in the exact same way at the same time are weak, aren't they ?
  9. Hello, I asked these questions here and also on the french edition forum, and you are giving me the exact same answers. So you must be correct. Thank you
  10. The explanations in the rulebook seem to me to be quite vague... While entering the game... If you draw a protected objective, then you reveal and attach the next card of the encounter deck to the objective. If another objective card comes up while attaching a card for the guarded keyword, place the second objective in the staging area, and use the next card of the encounter deck to fulfill the original keyword effect. First of all, I suppose that the objective and its protection count as one card in the staging area ("place them both"), therefore in a 3-player game, if I draw an objective, I draw the next encounter card and attach it to the objective, and then I still have to draw two more cards. Right ? Next what about the "double objective" case, when I get another objective while drawing for a first one ? It is said to place it in the staging area, I suppose it is placed apart from the first one ? After all, we could decide that there could be two objectives protected by the same card... And if the objectives are separated, once I've drawn another card to fulfill the first keyword, I suppose (again) that I have to draw still another card as the protection for the second one ? And what about the number of encounter cards still to be drawn ? 3-player game, first card = objective. I draw the next one : another objective. i place it in the staging area, I draw the next one and attach it to the first objective, then I draw a fourth one that goes to the second objective. And now, do I have to add one or two more encounter cards to the staging area ? And what if these weren't the first encounters of the turn, but occurred after two "normal" ones ? Do I still place a fourth obstacle in the staging area with this second pair objective+protection, or do I discard them or shuffle them back in the encounter deck ? About the resolution, it's a lot more easier to understand, but there is still a little interrogation... If the objective is protected by a Treachery card, the effect of this card applies immediately or it is cancelled, and the card is discarded. The objective becomes automatically accessible, in the staging area. This is OK. If the objective is protected by a Location card, either it is explored without having been moved, or it has been travelled to and brought near the Quest card, which still is part of the staging area. When the Location will be discarded, the objective will become accessible, and wether it is with the other encounter cards of the staging area or in the "active location" area doesn't really matter since objectives don't have a threat cost (at least for the ones in the core set). Now... If the objective is protected by an Enemy card. It is said that the encounter card is discarded as usual when the enemy leaves the game, either by being defeated or as the result of a card effect. But this will occur mostly in the play area of a player, after an engagement, and not in the staging area anymore. The question is, is any player able to get this objective (by complying to the condition given on the card), or only the one the enemy was engaged with ?
  11. Yes, absolutely. You have to be delayed when sucked in an OW during Mythos phase in order to have your two encounters there. But why being delayed when you're sucked in during Arkham encounter phase, thus having three encounters in the OW ? Why not playing it as if the portal was already there, and then having only two encounters, as usual ?
  12. ColtsFan76 said: Looking for something else in the unpublished FAQ, I stumbled across this. Q: A Graveyard encounter summons “all Undead monsters in Arkham, the Outskirts, and the Sky” to the Graveyard. If these monsters are evaded, what happens? Do they return to their old locations or stay in the Graveyard? A: Stay in the Graveyard Q: Same encounter: If the Arkham Monster Limit is not at its maximum, do the Undead formerly in the Outskirts remain in Arkham? A: Remain in Arkham Q: Same encounter: What happens if Kate Winthrop (Investigator) [AH] gets this encounter? A: Kate prevents “appearing,” not “moving.” Not sure it answers it exactly, but it sheds a little light on it. It does shed some light. Too bad it only asks "if monster limit is not at its maximum". My question then remains... The precision for Kate Winthrop is useful though, I haven't thought about it.
  13. Option C seems to gather the most votes, but it still doesn't satisfy me. It appears to me to be the easy way out of this question, since it obeys both the card and the rule. But I'm not happy with it for two reasons : 1. Both are obeyed, but not at the same time. It feels like we agree temporarily to overrule the monster limit, and then we remember it exists and we send back the exceding monsters in the Outskirts. I would be more comfortable with a definite choice instead of what appears to me as a trick... 2. Theme. I can understand why when the town is already crowding with monsters and more are coming they choose to go to the Outskirts to find their preys, and don't care to come back afterwards, even after room has been made in town by killing some of the monsters there. I can understand an event which attracts monsters for a specific reason, such as what's happening in the Cemetary. But I dont feel right with them choosing to go back in the Outskirts afterwards if the limit is still exceeded, and choosing to stay there if it isn't. Furthermore how to choose which ones are going back and which ones are staying if only some of them are to go back ? I would have accepted an idea that monsters not defeated go back to where they came from, without considering the limit, but not this dancing idea "forget the rule for a while, and then bring it back in line"... And I definitely can accept the idea that the card takes precedence over the rule, but then I simply ignore it with this card, and I do not bring it back at the end of the combat. So for me, either the bringing back monsters in town overrules the monsters limit, or it doesn't, and that's it. The midterm option would have been "for monsters from the Outskirts, just bring them to evade them or to fight them, and afterwards they go back to the Outskirts". I'm not comfortable with options with "ifs", which feels like scotch tape on a broken vase, if you know what I mean... Would it be possible to have an official answer ? I'm afraid I don't know the people in this forum, and maybe one has already been given ?
  14. That's the one, thanks. Here is the text : An old-fashioned horse-drawn hearse creaks past on the road, and you just know that something wicked is coming. All Undead monsters in Arkham, the Outskirts, and the Sky move to this location. You must immediately evade or fight them. Yes, these are not monsters which will only appear for the event and be discarded afterwards...
  15. Hello, There is a Location card which concerns the Graveyard in the King in Yellow expansion. It says that all undead monsters are gathering into the Graveyard and have to be dealt with, either by fighting or evading. The card says that they are comming from everywhere on the board : other locations, the sky, and even the Outskirts. What's happening when the monster limit has been reached ? I know cards always have precedence over standard rules, but this one doesn't explicitly say that this rule must not be taken into account... Solution A : The limit is still there, and therefore the undead in the Outskirts remain there. (The card may say that the undead from the Outskirts come back in case there is now enough place in town, monsters having been killed since the ones in the Outskirts came into play...) Solution B : Don't care the monster limit. The card says they come back here, they do come back. Deal with them ! Solution C (a mix) : They're all coming back to the Cemetery to be dealt with, and only after the resolution of all these fights and evasions, if the monster limit is still exceeded, monsters go back to the Outskirts. Although this one would seem odd to me : some monsters going back while the others remain here instead of returning on the Arkham location they were before being summoned... What is the right way to do it ? Thanx,
  • Create New...