Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tarota

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Longmont, Colorado, United States
  1. AFAIK, Chessex still has the rights to Wizwar. And still laughs at anyone who asks them about it...
  2. EchoingZen said: Each player controls two of those drunken gnomes, good fun I say. Actually, this is now my preferred way to play. It lets you play with full lethality, without worrying (as much) about player elimination.
  3. Paragrin said: For those of you that keep targeting figure size as a source of failure, please stop. It may have been a small contributor for some, but didn't really create a barrier of interest. As a reader of this and other boards, it appears that a majority of people with this complaint are former Warzone players. From this, it’s safe to assume at least one of the following: 1) You want pre-painted minis to use for other Mutant Chronicles games 2) You want to use your old figures as proxies for this version of Mutant Chronicles I guess I'm confused by this. You claim the starter box needs either more figures, or proxies. But using a 28mm scale would allow them to package more figures for the same cost, and use old figures for proxies (if available). It addresses both of your complaints about the starters, but you dismiss the argument completely. You then claim that the boosters cost too much, but again: smaller figures are cheaper. Not merely in materials cost, but in painting quality, shipping costs, display space: all up and down the manufacturing chain. I've never played Warzone. (I own a few of the books, but that's because I'm a packrat. ) But then, I've only played Pirates of the Spanish Main twice, I think. Didn't stop me from buying tons of product, because 1) it was cheap, and 2) I could use the pieces as ship tokens for any other games. I had one indie game designer actually tell me to use them for his game: he only included cheap paper stands, because he knew the market was full of decent-looking pirate ship models that were cheaper than anything he could do himself. By going 54mm, FFG cut off the secondary market, and the "cheap toys" market. I just don't see the upside here.
  4. m4jumbo said: For whatever reason, delays, scale, price, random vs not random packs, it just didn't seem to catch on. Which is too bad because I think most of those who dismissed the game probably never even tried it out, and if they had, would have found it to be a fun and tactically challenging game. I tried it. It was a fun, tactically challenging game. I have plenty of those, though. I didn't see any need to pay for jumbo-sized figures in order to add another to my collection. If you want to call that a price objection, fine. If you want to call it a "too many other games" objection, fine. But price drove me away from buying; I've added other games to my collection since MC came out. And scale drove price, IMHO. Which is why I say scale killed this game for me. The only other person I spent any time discussing it with also objected to the scale, but for a more specific reason: he had figures from the old game(s?) around, and wanted something that would be compatible. YMMV. I am glad to see FFG doing the best they can with wrapping things up. While the cynical might say that they had the pieces anyway, game companies have destroyed product for the tax savings before, rather than ship them out to players for near the cost of production. So even if I won't benefit, it's good to see FFG continuing their good customer service in tough times.
  5. OverMatt said: - And probably the biggest disadvantage (but still a small and situation-relative one), is that the earlier a player has to act during the final day or two, the less certain he can be when acting about the final scores of the other players. The later a player acts, however, the more scores he can see nearly-finalised before taking his own turn - making him better able to decide how he might squeeze out the last few points necessary for a win. However, even though this might be a disadvantage for the players acting earlier, I expect it is at least partly offset by the earlier players' ability to snag the remaining leads before they disappear during the climax. And regardless, this disadvantage, such as it is, is relevant only during the very last days of the game - it doesn't exist at all for the great bulk of the game. I think this is the one. But you're neglecting an important element of scoring: plots. If you are the last player, you know exactly what you have to do in order to make sure you end up with exactly enough good/bad stuff to get the outcome you want. If you're the first player, you have to build in a pad in order to keep your opponents from messing you up. And plot resolution happens on days 3, 6, 9 and 12: plenty of opportunities for the first player to waste resources.
  6. nullstate said: The scale issue seems insane, to be brutally honest. I can understand having a scale preference, but to completely write off a game with solid mechanics and fun gameplay is ridiculous. This can't be cited as a major reason for the game's decline and eventual cancelation, no matter how strongly you personally feel about scale. The successes of other games simply discredits the notion: MonPoc, Flames of War, that new Uncharted Seas game, etc etc. Don't get me wrong here. You're allowed to have a preference for scale, and maybe they would've had a few extra sales if MC was 28mm, but statistically that couldn't have been the major breaking point -- too many people like and support non-28mm games. If the first words typed by everyone who didn't buy in are "Why 54mm?", then it's a fair bet that scale played a role. Might not make sense to you, but either everyone is lying (for no good reason other than to mess with your head), or an awful lot of people did feel strongly about scale.
  7. tiborvadovan said: The typo is more or less obvious. But this still doesn't answer what to do about F155. According to the rules, no player would ever get to play it, because it is outside of both "fixed" commom sets. Maybe it was supposed to exist an additional conspiracy card, so they could be split between the players, that somehow went the way of the dodo? It's an extra card; I can't get too worked up over an extra card. According to the rules, no player would ever get to play it in their first game, because it is outside of both fixed common sets. But that's just a suggestion to get you started: if the game is going to be about deck building as well as game play, then throwing in a card for that purpose makes sense to me. I'm more disturbed by the fact that the intro decks are only 47 cards, to be honest. The Clarney thing, OTOH, is just poor execution.
  8. Bleached Lizard said: With the current rule system, all of these rules are unneccessary, as having your twilight marker at any one point on the twilight track is equally beneficial as having it at any other point (the only differentiating factor is the number and type of cards you have in your hand). With the old/variant system, these rules would become much more important, as they are in place to prevent any player from "locking in" as completely light-shifted in order to prevent any dark cards being played on them. Have we been playing wrong? I've only played once, but there were several points where I got stuck at one end of the twilight track or the other, and couldn't play appropriate cards without emptying my hand. I found the ability to change card costs to be vital...
  9. I was in fact an absentee Admiral and President as Helo. Later I was awarded the Vice-Presidency, during a short period that the Presidency was voted away from me. Of course, I was also a Cylon that game... (Wouldn't a Cylon smilie be cool?)
  10. kalandine said: ...I don't think COC ever had as many power level issues as COC. Is this that New Non-Euclidean Math all the Puppies of Tindalos are learning in school these days?
  11. F50 said: I think counting crisis cards is a step in the right direction. Things like cylon reveals are NOT a part of the randomness of the game, and dice rolls can always be mitigated by taking other actions and/or strategic planning. The scoring system should be able to be done by *only* looking at the crisis cards. I agree that a simpler scoring system that looks at the crisis card deck post-game is preferable to a more complex one that requires record-keeping during the game. People forget to do things like draw skill cards in their haste to accomplish some vital action: expecting them to remember tournament record-keeping seems likely to fail. I do think that a record of how many Cylons were "created" in the Sleeper phase (as opposed to when the game began) is also important. But most people remember whether they started the game as a Cylon at the end of the game. They often don't remember whether there were ten or fourteen turns in a row with no Cylon ships on the board; at least, not with any accuracy.
  12. timonkey said: Instead maybe score multiple categories very simply. Keep track of everyone's win/loss ratio, and whether they were human or cylon. You can have a 'best player' who has the best win/loss record overall, the best human (best win/loss when human) and best cylon (best win/loss when cylon. Additionally you could add a couple ones that really tie into gameplay, but less directly. For instance, you could award a 'best cylon detector' to the person responsible for brigging the most players who turn out to be cylons (but only if they are actually cylons at the time!). You can also award the best hiding cylon, by tracking how many times you get brigged as a cylon, and how many turns it takes for it to happen. This might work if you can run a 6 round tournament, but that's an all day affair. The real reason you need a scoring system is that you aren't likely to have enough rounds to just differentiate on win/loss records: you'll need some sort of tie-breaker. Some gauge of how difficult each game was for each side makes sense in that capacity. Now, you can quibble about the details of the proposal, but I think some system is necessary if you are going to run a tournament. Of course, I'm not sure this makes a great tournament game, largely because of game time and number of players. But that's a different argument...
  13. Trump said: Tarota said: But the key is, most of the players will win, most of the time. BSG is not like that: I've only played three times, and the Cylons walked away with it every time. Now, as far as I could tell everyone had fun, which takes some of the sting out of losing. But if your playing group is all about winning, SoC might see more play: the majority are much more likely to win than with BSG. As I mentioned in another thread, the fact that your early games are all Cylon victories is meaningless. I would EXPECT that. It is a lot easier to learn to play a Cylon than it is to play a human. If you keep playing with experienced players, you'll see the win/loss ratio even out a bit. I mentioned it as a concern, not a deal-breaker. BSG has a higher learning curve than SoC. Some groups, that'll be irrelevant; some groups, they'll never bother playing after the first game. I figured I'd mention it, and let the reader decide which category their group falls in.
  14. Tarota


    lordofmasks said: What I still dont get is why they call it now "living"...if my cards would move by themselves it would be cool but they dont. And I find it a little bit contradictory, because I still collect the cards...for me it is just a new marketing strategy. Well, yeah, it's a new marketing strategy. But given that CCG is also a marketing strategy (and one that, for better or worse, has its own sizable group of detractors), I don't think a new name for a new marketing strategy is out of order. "Living" makes sense, too: they are trying to preserve the expandability of CCGs, without the random packaging. Sure, you can still collect them, if you want. But you can collect anything, from bottlecaps to small elephant figurines: collectible, in the gaming industry, has come to have a more specific meaning which includes random packaging.
  15. First off, I would ask on BoardGameGeek: there's less "home field advantage" there. There are also a few threads on this exact subject, though, which it might make sense to check for those too. My apologies if you posted one of the BGG threads to begin with... I prefer BSG, for many of the reasons others have mentioned. My main concern would be balance. I've found Shadows Over Camelot to be better balanced than some: I'm not sure if we don't play it enough, or we're just naturally suspicious, but we don't find a traitor-less game to be a slam-dunk. But the key is, most of the players will win, most of the time. BSG is not like that: I've only played three times, and the Cylons walked away with it every time. Now, as far as I could tell everyone had fun, which takes some of the sting out of losing. But if your playing group is all about winning, SoC might see more play: the majority are much more likely to win than with BSG. Competitiveness might also be a problem, for either game. The single traitor of SoC ends up being a scapegoat reasonably often: people seem to take the betrayal more personally in that game. Whether it's the diffusion of betrayal into two players (making it a team competition, rather than the group vs. one person), or the different theme, or just the people I've played each game with, BSG Cylons don't engender the same feelings. On the other hand, there is no requirement that there be a traitor in SoC. So if you don't want to deal with betrayal at all, SoC might be more popular. (Of course, there are other cooperative games out there that never have a traitor, which might be more appropriate for this case.) But in general, I'm a fan of BSG. I prefer the theme, which the game evokes quite well. The mechanics are more polished, as you might expect from a second-generation design. Perhaps because it is standing on the shoulders of giants, BSG comes out on top.
  • Create New...