Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dperello

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/04/1968

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Richard Garfield said he made the deck 36 cards because a Magic deck is 60 cards, usually 24 of those being lands. Remove the need for lands and tada! 36 cards left.
  2. Completely agree. Having online play should do nothing but increase the games popularity. I also wouldn't support online only decks, but if FFG feels that's for the best more power to them.
  3. I mentioned on BGG but I'll repeat it here. There is a thematic and cognitive disconnect for me with the current ruling because it makes it easier to use a stunned creature than an unstunned creature. Why would a creature in a stunned state be usable in a wider range of situations than an unstunned one? Not only does the ruling create a special case that is counterintuitive, it damages the narrative the gameplay is attempting to create, at least for me, and everyone I've had to explain this edge case to, which so far has been everyone who has had questions about how Anger works...
  4. I think the rules as they are imagined in Brad's head work very well, but the rules as written are a mess, though much better now than when the game first released. Using creatures is sloppily written, Evasion Sigil is sloppily written, Poltergeist is embarrassingly badly written, etc. The game is not playable in a consistent manner, but if you just want to play for ***** and giggles its... fine.
  5. To be fair, a few years ago it was. Times have changed though, and while euro games are definitely popular on the site, the KeyForge forum there is far more active than this one. BGG has millions of users spaning the entire scope of gaming. True, certain subsections may be slightly over represented skewing the overall picture, but KeyForge is very well represented over there.
  6. Everyone requires a different level of clarity in rules. However, in every rule set there is a certain amount of presupposition the reader must make. To some, when told to discard a card, the mechanisms are by and large understood. Fortunately, there are very few people who pass out because the rules didn't instruct them to breath, with their lungs, at regular intervals. We all feel our level of comprehension is probably the norm, but there is actually a broad range of understanding in how games work and what is meant by seemingly clear instruction.
  7. I submitted this very question months ago. Rules Question: How exactly does Evasion Sigil work? If a card with a Before Fight ability tries to fight do we check first with Evasion Sigil if anything happens or does the active player decide which order Evasion Sigil and Before Fight abilities trigger? Answer: Both of these effects have the same timing point (before a fight), so the active player chooses the order of resolution. This is another example of sloppy writing as the wording is different on both cards but they resolve the same way. A little consistency would be nice, but here we are. On a side note, I asked this question on November 22nd and received an answer on January 22nd. I don't know if two months is the regular turn around on making official rules inquiries, but if your questions are yet unanswered, well, one may still be coming...
  8. We've known this for a month now...
  9. Please show me where these "alternative, less common win conditions" are listed in the rules. I only see first to forge three keys.
  10. No, it really isn't. There is a distinct and important difference between winning a game by completing a win condition and having one player unable to play while any win condition is nowhere near being met. The vast majority of game designers and players feel that "lose a turn" is an outdated and poor design choice. Of course there are some that disagree, to the point where "lose all your turns" is actually defended. I've been involved in this hobby, on and off professionally (peripherally) and as an enthusiast, for 40+ years. I've seen game design grow and evolve in incredible ways over the years. "Lose a turn" is not a well respected mechanism anymore. "Oops, I guess I win then" is much, much worse. Welcome to Restringuntus. Again, some people like the card. That's great. Enjoy. Just understand that game design has moved well beyond this type of situation. Give the player a sense of agency, even if it's illusory. If Restringuntus was a common card this game would likely be dead in the water. Making it rare doesn't make it good, it just makes the bad experience less likely to occur, but it's still bad. (For some, the majority, but not all.)
  11. I wish this was accurate, but comments by Richard Garfield contradict these ideas. On Biomatrix Backup he has said it was simply a typo and the word "may" was not supposed to appear in any Destroyed effects. With Restringuntus, he has said he likes lockouts. This is something I have trouble understanding as it seems, to me, that any game state that prevents someone from actually playing the game is working counter to the whole point of any game's existence, to be played. There are obviously others that disagree with me, even beyond the example just given of Richard Garfield, and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with conflicting opinions. No one has yet been able to explain to me why not being able to play a game is a good design choice beyond that they like it, but maybe that's enough.
  12. And I never said it was. All I've been saying is that Restringuntus can be a single card fluke win, not that it will be all the time, or even often. In fact I even say it will only happen in very specific situations, in other words, very rarely. That still doesn't make it a good experience for everyone when it does happen. Some people like it, more do not. (And I say, "more," here because while it used to be fairly common in games, single card, "you lose!" plays are very, very uncommon in modern game design. If it was a popular mechanism it would be appearing more, not less often.)
  13. Ah, I apologize too. I just seems that every time I bring up that Restringuntus can cause a one card, pure fluke, instant win and that just maybe that isn't the best in game design someone comes along and says there are all sorts of powerful combos in the game, etc, etc. I just wish people would actually read what I said and respond to my overall points and not look for statements that can be taken out of context and accuse me of things I both never said nor implied. The Garfield bit came from BBG, but I've read so many threads over the past six months that unfortunately I can't remember the exact thread it was in. In your sentence asking about it though you directly stated my problem with Restringuntus. You said, "and other lockout combinations," but Restringuntus isn't a combo. I have no issue with combos that win you the game that take several turns to set up. Your opponent can see them coming and try to prepare for them. Restringuntus can hit the table entirely by himself and instantly end the game, no combos, no set up, no clever play, just, "Oops, I guess you lose." Fun. These are the types of argumentum ad hominem statements you may want to avoid in the future if you genuinely want to discuss the points of the argument.
  14. Richard Garfield himself admitted Restringuntus may have been a poor design choice, so there's that. And I did say there was more than one side to this argument. I personally don't like Restringuntus in very specific situations, others think it's hilarious. Everyone is entitled their own perspective. I have no issue with strong combos or inventive play. I enjoy losing a well played game as much as I enjoy winning a well played game. It's the play that is important to me. Restringuntus can, by accident, end a game. If you find that type of situation fun, great! Enjoy. Try not to misquote and belittle others that may disagree though. Or do. Whatever. You be you.
  15. Some people find this fun. Some people are strange. If the goal is to actually play the game, interact with the other player, react to their choices and make choices of your own, Restringuntus is a terrible, terrible card and was a terrible, terrible design choice that causes the game to come to crashing halt and was a huge mistake. But as I said, only if the goal of the design of the game was to have people actually play. If the goal was to allow someone to win out of pure luck, play a single card and simply win regardless of how the game had progressed up to that point, in other words design a game where, "Ha ha, I win, you lose!" was to be considered a feature, then Restringuntus is a perfectly brilliant card. So ask yourself, is playing for the sake of enjoying the act of playing important to you, or is winning at the cost of creating a negative player experience more important to you? If the latter, KeyForge is the game for you. If the former, well, KeyForge will, from time to time, be very disappointing.
  • Create New...