ShuffleTheDeck

Members
  • Content count

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ShuffleTheDeck

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -
  1. You've done a marvelous job dear 'Spleen, do accept my apologies for raising your dander!?! Enjoy the game ... Unhindered by any cristicism going forth!!!
  2. Typical fan boy response... Eat what they dish you. This forum is the lamest for a game I have ever see as it has not helped make the game better. Criticism is a way to add insight that was not apparent. It's not to be taken as ad hominem... But we're enjoying it!?! Typical reason Netrunner has blown this game away in sales.
  3. Once again LotR LCG fails to adhere to anything based on the forgone established rules/cards. (Hey, Forest Snare is too good, let's write on every card it is not effected by player's cards going forward?) Nowhere in the rules does it say a hero in play does not generate resources. Based on the fact that the Ring Bearer/Aragorn gain resources when not controlled, it would be the only premise to date that others not controlled also gain resources. Design stated In the core game's Dol Guldur "Prisoners" do not gain resources. Yet, nowhere does it say "Captives" intuitively do not gain resources. FYI Caleb... Not enjoying your LAME after thoughts. I am still going to enjoy running roughshod on this with Parting Gifts like Saruman, as a designer you clearly need to learn how to better test and write copy rules. Just something else to put into the ever expanding FAQ of this spiraling out of control game. (Yet again reminders of Decipher's Star Wars & Star Trek long gone CCGs.) Disappointed with their reply... More with us enjoying it!!! Last product I support for them...
  4. They established a similar facet in the core game's third scenario with the prisoner. Then here they create a new term "captive." I am a former CCG game designer and something like this drives me nuts. It's such poor oversight on their part if they say it's exactly the same, especially when the prisoner says they don't collect influence on the Quest card. What's the difference then??? Hence my comment about the game's robust FAQ archive... And for some reason on this expansion they decided to reset the cards with Victory Points type in a box with a nearly hidden format. Completely changing the design mid-stream for some reason as if it was a problem on all the numerous previous releases??? Uhm why?
  5. It's poorly described for a primary facet of the expansion; hence, my dissatisfaction with their work. It would seem the captives' pools would be like not having the Ring Bearer, so you cannot use their influence. It doesn't say you can't manipulate it. Which I was doing via the Leadership sphere somewhat...
  6. The rule is unclear in this scenario if the "captive" heroes generate influence to an influence pool for use by their owner. It is not worded like the "prisoner" is in the core box set scenario Escape from Dol Guldur, which fully described the restrictions. The captives are still considered in play and nothing says that their influence would not be generated or unusable by the owner. Nor have I found anything in the FAQ or in this forum that I could uncover. So, in playing the scenario... I used the captives influence pool to play cards which felt like the hobbits were still working against the Urik-Hai as in the book. They were unable to do anything else... But could be a target of the Burden - Overcome by Grief... Nothing says it would not be feasible. Does anyone have another interpretation on how this should be played? I cannot believe the designers left this so open ended. Their running list of FAQ's grows ever longer as they obviously overlook describing fundamental aspects all the time. I wish they would bring in playtesters who are not such fanboys of the product to accurately polish up the text before printing.
  7. OK, it appears that FFG does not link their digital book downloads any longer to iTunes. Found Dweller in the Deep sitting over in iTunes for purchase. Strange...
  8. Anybody have any input on how long FFG takes to port their printed books to the digital downloads? It's been 6 months since they released the last batch of books around the end of last year (2013) and I was holding out to get them as iBook downloads. I came into the Dark Waters Trilogy after they had been out for a while and was able to download the first two. Not that I wouldn't just buy the paperback but it's not even available in any bookstores! So, who holds out posting a product for over 6 months when you have an online market like this... ??? FFG apparently!!!
  9. It's only been over a year since the previouos book in this trilogy was published. And posting that it would be available soon back on September 6th was a real tease. I am hoping that it will be available now before the Xmas/Holiday rush. It's looking like FFG should just release these novels as digital downloads if they're going to labor over the print runs and the distribution. It's obvious that gamers will at least come here and get materials… if they made it a priority. Ho, ho, hocus!
  10. Hey Grand Spleen of 545 posts... This game has so many changed cards in the FAQ over time that when I ask a simple question to determine how a card is ruled I merely want clarification. Basically for two reasons, the search engine in this forum is nonexistent and I apologized if this was posted previously and secondly cards get altered in combination over time. For example: Nori (Hero) is changed from its printed version to limit the threat reduction from hand only. And another... Ravens of the Mountain is printed with the word Reveal... Not look at... How many sets does it take the developers to proof read their cards before going to press??? (I created a CCG and ran one for 8 years I know how to limit the errors!) Your editorial comments on my enjoyment of the LCG hobby is not entirely of value for the community in this forum. Where do you get off posting that here??? And the fact I have made fewer comments is not to say I am not any better or worse than you in determining card value and use.
  11. This may have already been answered, but I have no idea how to keyword search this forum for posted comments. If you have exhausted the Keen-Eyed Took (ldr ally) as a defender of an attack against you is it legal to trigger his Action and bring him back to the player's hand during combat resolution? As such, avoiding being destroyed and averting undefended damage carry-over to your hero? The rulebook clearly states undefended is treated differently than defended damage. And the dodgy Took is also forcing card overturning from all player decks which is disruptive. It would seem this is plausible or have they once again over ruled and made a decent feature worthless? Thanks for your input.
  12. Ah, that is how it works then, figured there must be something I was missing. In reality, its very limited in use and practically useless to exhaust that many characters to reduce damage. Unless that enemy had some additional effect that was creating an effect if chump blockers were destroyed. Which even Smaug doesn't do... Hence it's not in any deck lists. Thanks!
  13. It might just be me, but I have tried to find a ruling on the Base Set Tactics card: Stand Together and see nothing online. Why is that? The wording on the card makes no sense to be playing the card whatsoever. Action: Choose a player. That player may declare any number of his eligible characters as defenders against each enemy attacking HIM this phase. Is it worded incorrectly? When would not you be able to declare defenders for yourself? Are there enemies/treacheries that disallow dedenders I am not thinking of somewhere? It would seem it is meant to temporarily give the Sentinel trait to another player's characters and allow him to declare defenders for another one, But it says for HIM??? Since they only supplied 1 copy in the base set it would seem it should be a quality card, but I never see it in any deck lists. Why has there been no FAQ on this card which could be amazing... Or with many cards in this game so poorly worded it is worthless? Thoughts? Rulings... Thanks
  14. I was looking around, it appears that McNeil has probably got a lot going and agreed to pen these over the course of three years. The first two books were each released after Gen Con in the September kick in to the 4th quarter. So, I am anticipating that we will see something here in August unless it gets neglected with all the other convention stuff. All-in-all, its lame for them to do a trilogy and leave such a lack of any follow up for the customers. The books definitely got me back into their Arkham Horror game which for all intent purposes is a dead game now. FFG does a solid job with their game marketing but they are not as dedicated with the books from what I am experiencing. Soon hopefully... ???
  15. The forum posts load so much better that I am more apt to use this area over Board Game Geek now for your FFG product. I have to say, I did like the feature where you could list the games you own in your profile. It sort of helped others see what you play. However, if that had to go to expedite the loads, good ridden!!! What are these warning points show on your profile? If we say something critical against an FFG product will Big Brother FFG mod back hand us with a warning? Or is that mostly for abusive jerks not being good gamers? Will be interesting to follow...