Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Radish

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , 0, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We had a similar situation to the OP. We spent several hours trying to solve a mystery and fight a giant monster and then a player just screwed everything by jumbling up puzzles and the game ended with no real fanfair. It was totally anti-climactic since it's not like the game knew why we failed and could incorporate that into the narrative. The player that lost us the game and "won" was disappointed as well since he knew he couldn't have been stopped and he wanted to see the real resolution anyway. It wasn't like he outsmarted us, we were just powerless to affect him or his efforts. The problem with these cards is that the game clearly wasn't designed for them. For instance when you KNOW a character is trying to screw with the party you have no way of stopping them. There's no mechanic to attack fellow players or even really interact with them much at all. It isn't like Betrayal at the House on the Hill where when you figure out who the haunt is the game turns from coop to adversarial, everyone is still technically on the same team and the goal and plot hasn't changed. So you have a player you know is trying to screw things up and the most you can do is try and work around it while they are grabbing story specific items or making puzzles unsolvable. Additionally most of the other insanities are just kind of lame, it's a mismatched mix of stuff that is just role playing like the "don't talk for the rest of the game" (which is incredibly unfun for the person who gets that one by the way) and totally game changing ones like the traitor. I get that the idea is the traitor is supposed to pretend to have one of the more benign insanities while subtly influencing the game in their favor, however there is just no need when there isn't some way for the other players to really do anything about it if they figure it out. If the game had some sort of way for the other players to identify a traitor or some sort of branching path with the app where that mattered it would be much better. It's just totally half baked. It also punishes people that don't have time to play often and aren't familiar with all the insanities. For instance the one where the player is trying to be along with one other person holding a bladed weapon. If you haven't played the game many times so you aren't familiar with that possibility, there is literally no way to know to avoid that and the game just ends. You could read all the cards beforehand and explain the possibility to every player but that is not really encouraged by the game rules and also is at odds with the pick up and play low setup nature of the game. The game is also totally about action efficiency. Having one player doing nothing means you are probably going to lose, let alone with one wasting time setting fires or trying to stab people. This isn't a RPG, it's a board game with very specific rules run by a computer program. A better way to do an insanity mechanic is to have scenarios that assume that there is a possibility for that to occur, have a flag you can set in the app for when someone goes insane, and then have it react to that and tailor the experience to that player. Potentially you would need the app to have something like "The insane player hits this button to see what his or her insanity effect is in secret." The method with the cards that is absolutely not designed to work with the game at a fundamental level just doesn't cut it. We basically house ruled it that when you hit your cap on insanity cards you flip them over and keep all the ones that were permanent and discard the rest. This gives you a handicap like when you hit your wound threshold but doesn't ruin the game.
  2. Thank you guys for your input on this. I'll have to think it over. The game isn't a huge investment for one box so maybe I will give it a shot and keep in mind it might not be optimal. I really appreciate all the incite from more experience people!
  3. Hey just had some questions for the community on this game that's kind of hard to research. I'm looking into getting into a new card game to play with my friend. However she isn't a huge game person (she likes playing them but isn't going to go out of her way to do it) however is usually willing to give stuff a shot and likes things like Hearthstone and is ok with the Arkham Horror LCG. The stuff I'm interested in knowing is: 1. How "crunchy" is this game? I like Netrunner but it's got a lot of systems and card interactions that are required to know very well to be effective which my friend does not like. Does it require a ton of knowledge on every card that exists or you get blown out? 2. Is one Core set enough to actually play the game and have fun? I'm worried that it would be a very mediocre experience and give a bad first impression. I don't want to really invest in this and end up with literally no one to play with if my friends end up disliking it like I did with Netrunner. 3. Is this something we can learn as we play together out of the box or am I going to have to read a ton of stuff on how to play it properly then teach her? Any honest answers would be helpful. If this game isn't for us that's fine but I'd like to know before I waste her time.
  4. Radish

    Ethical Discussion

    Don't view this as an "ethical" issue since it's the players versus the board and it's something that's being agreed to as a group. You aren't cheating anyone by not following the rules to the letter. The rules of the game are just there to create a system in which it all works so if you guys cheat like crazy, it's not immoral since nothing was done to anyone. You can have ideological differences on how to play a co-op game but it's only an ethical issue if you are cheating against another player or doing stuff without other player's knowledge (like counting up the XP and giving your team more or less without them realizing). House rules aren't an ethically issue if everyone is on the same page. Fudging stuff like this is a hard tightrope to walk. If you do it once, you open the door to doing it any time which trivializes the game, especially one designed around punishing mistakes or less than optimal use of actions. On the other hand, it's a game and if everyone is going to have more fun playing it with that extra XP and feel like they were screwed out of it it's not worth being a stickler. The point is for everyone to have fun. Conversely if most people really want a strict playthrough campaign they would have less fun if mistakes are being forgiven. You have to understand the players. In this case I think what I would do if most players want that XP (but you obviously aren't really for it) would be to give it to the group and then make some ground rules for the future that mistakes can't be undone so that the game isn't trivialized and make sure everyone is cool with that.
  5. 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.
  6. That's a really good idea.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. Radish

    Melange Mining question

    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.
  13. Radish

    Melange Mining question

    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!
  14. Great thanks. I'll make a note to write it down next time to report.
  15. 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.