Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Cardinalsin2

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ashford, Surrey, United Kingdom
  1. Darksbane said: Assuming you didn't put out any characters in setup. I thought you were only allowed to play characters with "setup" as a keyword - which I haven't seen any of in the starter decks. Have I misunderstood the rules on this?
  2. Well, having played a few games I'm feeling more sanguine about House Baratheon's chances. Though Targ seemed a bit weak to me! Condemned by the realm isn't so bad though. Play on turn 1, you have 13 turns before it actually impacts on you.
  3. Followup question: if a character "cannot be killed" does that mean they cannot be selected to be killed? or that they can be selected but won't die?
  4. Ratatoskr said: Now that I think of it - you *are* sure you know how Deadly works, yes? I mean no offense, but the mechanic is often misunderstood by newer players. What it comes down to, basically, is this: Deadly resolves after claim, and targets only participating characters. So if you defend with one char and kill that one for claim, then deadly has no legal target and fizzles. If you win the challenge, or if you defend with more than one char, or if you choose a non-participating character fo claim, then Deadly kicks in. If you leave the challenge unopposed, then you still have to fulfill claim, and your opponent claims one power. So, the defend-with-one-weenie thing is often your best option against a deadly opponent in a military challenge. Actually, no - I hadn't realised you could take out a single defender as the claim and then leave deadly with nowhere to go. That's a helpful tip, thanks. (Of course, you need a low-strength character to make this work, but that's not usually that difficult to find.) However, I'm not sure it solves the problem; deadly works in other conflicts than military, right? So this trick won't help for power conflicts. Also, Stark has more than just Eddard and Hodor as deadly. You've got grey wind and shaggydog, too. And I consider ice to be a deadly equivalent (it's actually way better in many respects). But I must admit, there seem to be a lot less than I thought. Perhaps the draw has been having a bigger effect than I gave credit for.
  5. ktom said: Just to be sure about tying this answer into the "immune to character abilities" title; remember that if you choose an "immune to character abilities" character to die, you cannot use a character ability to save it. Immunity means the card ignores everything, good and bad. OOoo. Hadn't spotted that... interesting. Thanks both for the responses. I had guessed correctly in both cases, but wanted to check.
  6. Thanks all. I think we probably are falling into the trap of overvaluing military challenges, though deadly still seems a potentially problematic ability when characters like Eddard Stark have it with not just a military icon but also a power icon. Still, will suspend judgement for now.
  7. If a character is "immune to character abilities", does that include keywords like deadly? If so, can you pick said character to take the hit from deadly, even though they are immune to it? Similarly, can you choose a character to die, either as a result of deadly or a lost military conflict, then use a "kneel to save" effect to save them? Or is it only usable when you have no choice?
  8. So, I just got the basic game box, and played it for the first time using Stark vs. Baratheon. After a couple of games, Stark seems ludicrously overpowered; they have loads of deadly characters, strength boosters (winterfell castle et al) and, in general, very difficult to stop. Baratheon seemed very underpowered by comparison. Are we missing something? If not, does the balance get corrected in later expansions?
  9. Thanks Skowza - much appreciated. I think they could have done with a different phrase than "treated as a human player", but I think you're right about the interpretation.
  10. Daver said: kargie said: The primary way for pop to go down is ships, and there are 12 pop icons on the ships (and you start with 12). So without adding ships, perhaps pop should stay where it is no matter the game length (few crises hit pop anyway, and aside from NC, losing on pop in my experience is rare in any eventand if you only expose a max of 6 ships to NC in a game where it continues after you may have a good balance. In an average game we lose no more than 1-2 population excluding losing ships and new caprica. But there is a bigger chance of those few population losses to add up, so I'd say adding 2 total (not per jumps) to population should be ok, since story wise if you lose everyone on NC, you still have the population of Galactica and a few remaining ships. But adding population on kobol is ok storywise too, since between S1 finale and the settlement on NC, the caprican survivors get back, and pegasus show up. And if you add the pegasus board at kobol it makes even more sense. So, combine these to: start with the original 12 population, and at Kobol add the pegasus board, and 2 to everything (since pegasus brings fuel too). I think I buy Kargie's line of thought. If you mainly lose population from ships, and there's no more ships to lose, then you shouldn't increase population. The Caprican survivors plotline is represented by a crisis card anyway IIRC; I guess you could argue for 1 population from Pegasus, though the Pegasus rules don't include an increase in population, and game balance-wise it seems better to leave it at 12. As for the extra fuel - I think Pegasus is using that!
  11. I think the increase in resource will need to vary depending on the resource type. Without doing the maths, fuel is related to the number of jumps, 1 per additional jump step required; population starts highest and I suspect that's because it has more potential to go down through attacks on colonial ships (especially if you use Pegasus); morale is in the middle; food is lowest. If you took the starting levels as indicative, you'd need to add something like 2 fuel, 2 food, 2.5 morale (round up) and 3 population per 2 additional jump steps. Maybe you could get away with a bit less because things like cylons revealing themselves won't happen any more frequently in an extended game. On a point of detail - AFAIR there's no actual increase in population at Kobol, New Caprica, or the Ionian Nebula in the series storyline, so I'd say start with full population, with the other resources increasing at set points.
  12. These are very cool. I definitely think, having gone to all that trouble, you should associate specific effects with each ship. Will need some balancing given that some of the uncertainty associated with civilian ships will be eliminated, but worth doing for flavour, I'd have thought.
  13. If I was going to do an extended-length game incorporating all the objective cards (and I am), I would incorporate multiple sleeper phases. You'd need a bunch of extra "you are not a cylon" cards (though Exodus might help with this - I'm not sure how many it includes). You'd have extra loyalty cards for each sleeper phase equal to the number of players (Boomer would only get the one extra loyalty card, I guess). You might need to have 1 "you are a cylon" card per two players, to account for the likely late emergence of the cylons, too. I am totally going to do this, once we have an "Earth" objective.
  14. johnnybleu said: Mellon said: It would for example be extremely boring if the adventure ran to a stop because the acolytes failed to charm the only source of information. That is some VERY useful information. I've actually had that happen to me yesterday when the game just stopped moving forward because the Acolytes failed to get the info they needed with their Inquiry Tests... Now I know not to put too much importance on tests and checks, especially if the whole game hinges on one or two rolls. >_> FWIW I make a point of ensuring this never happens... by making sure there are either making sure there is more than one way to discover the information, or making sure that the source of the information has their own reasons to want to reveal it. Ignoring the rolls is one thing, but if your players actually roleplay being (say, to pick an example at random) obnoxious and unpleasant, then personally I would never "fudge" that to allow an NPC to give them the information anyway. Indeed, I wouldn't even let them have it if they passed the roll, if their roleplaying indicated they failed badly.
  15. Vonpenguin said: The thing is, those rules are meant to be used with the conflicting loyalties rules which add human agendas and final five loyalty cards. The fact that humans have to hurt themselves and act suspisiously will increase tension, hopefully more than a missing cylon will detract from it. That's only one option out of three for the expansion, and I guess you'd want to use the updated rules even if you weren't using the expansion (e.g. if you were playing new caprica, or some such). Besides which, if the game is balanced with two cylons plus all that stuff, it's unlikely to be well balanced with only one cylon plus all that stuff. I do see what you're saying, though personally I would assume that having one extra cylon player would create a *lot* more pain than a little bit of confusion over conflicted loyalties etc. After all, a cylon player is (once revealed, and sometimes even before that) contributing negatively to skill checks, making bad stuff happen more frequently, and so on.
  • Create New...