Radish

Members
  • Content count

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Radish

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , 0, United States
  1. I would be ok with that more if the game was designed around it. Like the traitor outs him or herself and then you basically have an additional bad you have to fight at the end. As is the game just doesn't so you get into the situation where a traitor dying ends the scenario, you have to get yourself killed at the very end, or adding "if you get 6 fires on the table the game ends for no real reason." Of all the parts of this game that are really good, the insanity stuff feels half baked and thrown in without really considering them.
  2. That's a really good idea.
  3. Yeah I agree with this entirely. Nothing is worse that having to sit around while you have been dumped from a game, even if it is just effectively since you can't really do anything. The insane player didn't want to spoil the game and actually would have rather seen the resolution. In a story based game like this, making everyone else unhappy and "winning" just doesn't really work and is negative for everyone, including the winner. Has anyone else proposed a way of just taking out the insanity cards altogether and just crippling insane players with a similar effect to wounded where it's just the same disability for everyone and not random? I agree in theory it's a neat idea to have insane players act differently but in execution it's either a minor annoyance or ruins the experience.
  4. The issue is that they really can't do much to mess with stuff outside of a few actions that pretty much immediately out them as the traitor. At that point you can't do much other than shove them or steal items from them. Even then it's dumb when the person that is obviously no longer on the team causes a scenario loss when they are eliminated. If that player doesn't care about "winning" and just making sure since he or she has already lost that everyone else fails that errata doesn't stop him or her committing suicide and ending it with literally no way to stop it. The knife insanity has some player agency where you just make sure you aren't in a room alone with a knife holding insane person and even if it goes off the game is over instead of watching as the traitor kills himself and then you lose for no good reason. It's just a negative experience all around and was wondering if the fix I proposed has been tried by anyone or sounds like it would make that card better. Basically there's no real game mechanics for having a traitor and how that player is supposed to act as one and how the rest of the group is allowed to react. It's like they crammed the haunt from Betrayal at The House on the Hill in but didn't commit.
  5. Yeah he wasn't happy about doing it either; just without the errata it was his best course of action since there wasn't really much else he could do to stop us from winning other than running to the other side of the map and hoping having one less person would tilt the game in the board's favor. It left a bad taste in everyone's mouths and no one was left happy, even the winner. It's why I'd like to potentially "fix" it because otherwise everyone has a blast with this game and that was a really bad way for a scenario to work out. Even with the errata it basically encourages a player that can't win to suicide bomb the game so that if he or she can't, no one does. It kinda gets back into my problem with the insanity cards in general. Once you've seen one a single time, you know what that person is doing and can either help them or ignore them accordingly (gathering evidence, can't talk, etc) in future plays of the game and it really doesn't actually do much more than just annoy people. I kinda wish that they were all basically "traitor/not-traitor" with the stipulation that traitors could be killed without losing. That would result in a trust dynamic where you don't know if that person is trying to sabotage the group and if you make the wrong choice either way you lose as a group.
  6. Yeah my issue is basically that there is no real mechanic to deal with a player that you know is trying to scuttle the mission as in other games where someone might be a traitor. It's a fringe scenario since most of the other inanities require the insane person to still win with the other players, just with specific requirements.
  7. So we recently had a player get this insanity where he wins if the other investigators lose. It resulted in him purposely killing himself forcing the scenario to end. I looked up the errata and it seems they have added to the base rules where if an effect doesn't specifically say you will lose you don't win so in our case, everyone lost including the insane player. The issue I have is that the other players have no real agency to stop an insane player from causing issues. So even if he can't "win" by suicide, he can force a scenario to fail without any way of stopping it if he has been outed as a traitor so that no one wins. I like the idea of having this card because it means any insane player could potentially be working against the team. However the fact that you really can't do much outside of not letting them do puzzles or important NPC conversations means they have a lot more power to screw with stuff and can't be really stopped if they don't want to be sneaky. I think a good house rule to this card is that once you get it, if you are ever defeated you reveal your condition and you do not count as a defeated investigator. This works thematically since once someone is a traitor why does the group care about them? Game play wise it means the other players can leave him or her to die or whatever if they KNOW that player has gone bad but it also means that with that option they can potentially let a good person killed (who they thought was fishy and couldn't trust) which would mean they would lose leading to more trust/distrust dynamics. Has anyone else had issues with this sort of thing?
  8. Interesting. Thanks for that write up! Is there a specific strategy for the other corporations? It would be helpful when we play again for everyone to have an idea of what they should be leaning towards.
  9. Just a quick question after playing this game one time. The ability for Melange Mining is a little awkwardly worded. I just want to confirm that the effect is basically "After an event if the threat meter only increases 1 or nothing at all that player receives 3 capital." The player that was using that corp felt that it was pretty weak since they was only six opportunities for it to possibly be applicable (and there's not always a lot you as one player can do to stop threat gains from effects) and the reward wasn't as great as say, Jinteki wiping out a ton of illnesses for instance. I'm assuming that the Melenge has all general actions is the offset; does that even out the balance? Also it could just be that it's a slow gain instead of bursty like other players that get stuff when things are actively removed. Just wanted some input from more experienced players, thanks!
  10. Great thanks. I'll make a note to write it down next time to report.
  11. We ran into an issue playing a mission and didn't know the immediate answer. If you start to talk with a character and then are prompted with a selection which requires you to spend an action and then continuing that conversation takes another action but you don't have any left, are you forced to cancel out? Additionally what do you do in such a situation where you don't have an action to spend but there is no option to cancel out and you are forced to spend an action you do not have? We might have been missing something here.
  12. I did but got an SQL error so figured it didn't post. My bad, I apologize for spamming.
  13. Every shop in my area sold out the first day (or everything was on preorder) and no one has any idea when restocks are coming in. Was there just a limited release? I haven't seen something like this since Marvel Dice's release where you couldn't find anything for a month. Is there any word on when more are coming?
  14. The stores in my area apparently got few copies and have no idea when they will be getting more leading to wait lists for whatever restocks come in. Some say even their distributors are clueless on this. Every webstore is sold out with nebulous December restocks. What's up with this, did Fantasy Flight just totally not forsee demand? I haven't seen anything like this since Marvel Dice totally screwed up their initial release where you can't find a copy and there's no real information anywhere on when new stuff will come in.
  15. Ok thanks! I'm not sure what bonuses I am giving I shouldn't though. If a psyker has a PR of 3 and uses a PR of 1 for a spell that's +20 and then another +10 for the psy focus. The Psy level of the spell doesn't really matter a huge amount unless they really need the range. So with a willpower of 50 that's 80 or under for a test. So versus a villain with a willpower or toughness of 45, which is fairly high for humans, that's three to four degrees of success that the player has on average over him which is incredibly difficult to roll (typically it means they have to roll 10 or under on dice to resist). When spells like hallucinate and terrify can effectively one shot villains based on one opposed test, that's the issue I am having is that player goes straight for the leader and incapacitates him which makes fights boring and I have to meta where the mooks focus on the psyker to stop this which isn't fun either. Snipers and really good shots can do a lot of damage but they still need to roll really well and targets can have damage reduction and wounds to soak. I'm not having trouble with damaging spells, it's the binary ones that remove characters from fights based on opposed test. It sounds like I'm doing this correctly though but I would like to know what bonuses I'm giving that could be throwing this off.