Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by subochre

  1. Plus, I don't know how much they rebalanced the scenarios for the revised edition of Betrayal, but in most of the games I've played of the original, the outcome was not particularly close, and was easily influenced by unforeseeable details involving items or location setup or what have you. I mean, I'm still very fond of it; it's an immersive and entertaining experience of exactly the sort that (pre-Call-of-the-Wild?) MoM aspires to be, but deep down it seems to have the same problem: it's a worst-of-both-worlds approach that combines a boardgame's cookie-cutter scenario-building with an RPG's lack of competitive rigor.
  2. Totally valid, well done. (For the record, a jump to Ragnar Anchorage (edit: or a Legendary Discovery?) wouldn't have cost any fuel, but with no raptors for scouting, that's a hell of a longshot)
  3. Ha! It looks like the new forums have a particularly aggressive profanity filter...if I'm not mistaken, it censored the word "snatch." Anyways, good report, and congratulations; any win against Quachil is something to be happy about.
  4. No, the skill check is only location action you can perform (obviously), and you don't get crisis cards, but you can still take a character, title, or skill card action; in fact, XO and Launch Scout are the two main ways that a falsely imprisoned player can help.
  5. Yeah; I won't be using the new cylon attacks, but I'm willing to sacrifice a few crisis cards if that's what it takes to preserve a mechanic that some people apparently still like. Speaking of the ever-growing crisis deck, New Zarek (and New Baltar) seems to be a way to ensure that their exciting new mechanic doesn't get drowned out by all the other expansions in non-5-player games. I know of a few other games where they've had this problem, most notably AH's Black Goat expansion, with its fancy cult encounters and corruption cards that one basically never drew. (But if so, that might be bad news for New Lee, who could vary quite a bit in power depending on the number of players.)
  6. Man, that guy's cameos are just making less and less sense
  7. So I guess there's actually three interpretations, all differing in how widely to interpret the scope of "may". Mephisto's widest reading: The Admiral may(discard his hand of skill cards and choose a character to send to the Brig or -1 Morale and Damage Galactica) Skowza's reading: The Admiral may(discard his hand of skill cards and choose a character to send to the Brig) or -1 Morale and Damage Galactica The narrowest reading (I'm not sure whether this is what the group thought or whether they're with Mephisto): The Admiral may(discard his hand of skill cards) and choose a character to send to the Brig or -1 Morale and Damage Galactica Just going by pure grammatical pedantry, I think Skowza's right. I don't think the Mephisto reading provides a coherent way of fitting "or -1 Morale" into the scope of "the Admiral may" (not to mention that this'd be the only X Chooses card that uses "may" like that…). Conversely, my problem with the narrowest intepretation (apart from the useless "you may discard your hand for no reason") is that if the brigging is not governed by "may," it should say "and chooses a character." Personally though, I think the first interpretation is the only one that really makes mechanical sense and that "may" was just a mistake, haha Happily, the other question is easier: it looks like you do indeed choose both and then resolve.
  8. Those are all kinds of conditional baggage. From the rules, p. 31-32: Conditional Baggage from Twilight Cards Often, twilight cards give a player baggage. Sometimes the card simply says that the player gains a good or bad bag- gage, but in other cases the card might say something like “Louis gains one duty.” Duty is an example of conditional baggage. Conditional baggage is always italicized and is normally named after a positive or negative personality characteristic of some sort, such as greed, guilt, love, or courage. If a player gains conditional baggage, he must look at his current plot card (his current start or crossroads card, not any previous ending card). If the conditional baggage is listed in the good baggage section of the card, he gains good baggage equal to the amount of conditional baggage he gained. If the conditional baggage is listed in the bad baggage section of the card, he gains bad baggage equal to the amount of conditional baggage he gained. If the conditional baggage is listed in neither the good bag- gage nor the bad baggage section, he gains neither good nor bad baggage. Example: Louis gains one duty and one loyalty while his “Krausey Case” plot card is in play. Looking at it, he sees that duty is listed in its good baggage section, but loyalty is not listed on the card at all. Therefore, he gains one good baggage.
  9. There are so many rules that it's hard to be sure whether you did everything right or not, but everything you mentioned is fine (and offhand I can't think of any common rules mistakes that would heavily favor the colonials, unless people were drawing too many skill cards or revealing too much about what they were putting into the checks or something). I will say, however, that some games are just like that. The attack cards are especially unpredictable (some would say "unbalancing"); in some games you hardly see any attacks (or only right before you jump), and in others you'll get hit with several in a row. It's also possible to draw really good destinations so that you're at Kobol in like four jump cycles. Having Cylons that don't appear until sleeper definitely makes a difference too. So they may have just gotten lucky. I recommend playing again; if you have another blowout, then yeah, that's a sign that something might be amiss.
  10. Although I'd endorse the possibility of an "all resources are the highest (and lowest)" outcome rather than the alternative, it is, if nothing else, an odd way of describing such a situation. I don't know whether it's any more counterintuitive than "there is no highest," but, as a veteran of the recent "Does 'all' imply 'some' in Netrunner" war, I'm conscious of the fact that the interpretation of such phrases can be a very subjective matter (even though "all" clearly does not imply "some" ). But yeah, in the end, all that matters is that everyone's on the same page, so, problem solved.
  11. It's been suggested that Colonial One might be the thing behind the Demetrius here, unexploded side up. (The only other thing I can think it would be is the flip side of the Cylon location overlay, though it doesn't quite look like either of them to me.)
  12. I'd say yes, tied for highest is still highest. If you wanted it to be the other way, it could say "higher than any other resource."
  13. So, I just thought of a way to classify the small boxes that sort of summarizes some of the differences that I've been trying to put my finger on for a while. The first distinction (mechanics/content) is whether an expansion is mostly interesting because it alters the rules or mode of gameplay in some significant way, or whether it's because of the new items, monsters, encounters and so on (think of this as the Innsmouth/Dunwich distinction, if you like ). The second distinction is whether the expansion moves the theme in a conspicuously different direction from the base set, or whether it's basically more generic lovecraft fare. Importantly, I don't mean "generic" in a bad way; if you feel like you've seen all the encounters and want some new ones in the mix, but don't necessarily want them all to be about Egypt or the theater, then generic might be just what you're looking for., Dark Pharaoh: Content-Thematic King in Yellow: Mechanics-Thematic Black Goat: Content-Generic Lurker: Mechanics-Generic Naturally, this approach leaves a lot out--for example, it doesn't say a thing about the heralds (or gate bursts, etc), which make a big difference; also, I definitely hesitated before labeling KiY a "mechanics" expension because it kicks butt at both (in contrast to say, BGitW). For that reason, I agree with the endorsements of KiY (also, it really is just the best), even though in general I think that mechanics expansions (like Lurker) are probably best bought after you've gotten a lot out of the existing mechanics and content.
  14. One important question is "what kind of Lazax alliance is it?" (and correspondingly, who's on your side?). As Pizzakrydda says, it's easier to clog up their hands if there's only two of them, but even a three-player alliance usually can't shut you out of the bidding for more than a turn. Getting the Jol-Nar on your side makes a huge difference too (though less so if the Lazax have Letnev). If, on the other hand, you're looking at, say, a Lazax, Letnev, Jol-Nar alliance, then they'll probably be able to control the bidding pretty well, but Sol/Hacan can deploy at will, and Xxcha's ability provides excellent support for a guerilla campaign against a better-equipped force. Your objection to the "destroy their units" strategy was that you can't win battles against them, but you don't have to win; in Rex, one of the most important things to keep in mind is "even the winner suffers." Get everyone to deploy/move one unit per turn into a vulnerable player's stronghold, have Xxcha ban their favorite weapon, and they'll have to burn units each time just to hold their position. And so on.
  15. The Professor said: (I currently have incorporated both the original and the new version, so play includes both "Barred from Neighborhood" cards and Patrol Markers. Man! When you say "all-in," you're really not kidding
  16. Yeah, it's option 2. From the faq: Q: Could you explain sacrificing more thoroughly? A: Sacrifices only happen due to a card effect or ability. A sacrifice must be performed during your turn, but they cost 0 time unless the card or ability states otherwise. A player may sacrifice as many times per turn as he desires, as long as he can play the cost. Finally, sacrificed items (such as favors or evidence) are returned to the pool that they came from. So, for instance, if your plot says that you may sacrifice 2 favors to gain 1 good baggage, then you may discard 2 favors during your turn to gain 1 good baggage without spending any time. Note that in the example above, you could not gain any other benefit from sacrificing those 2 favors, even if you had another game effect that you could trigger by sacrificing favors.
  17. dakuth said: But for our group, the attack cards provide the "oh **** it's an ambush!", which is great… and the Cylon fleet WOULD provide that "tick tick tick" feeling…except it doesn't. More jumps isn't the answer. If the humans jump, the cylon fleet is just as close. In fact, jumping is often a BAD idea. I once, as a cylon, planned on pulling the FTL lever early, because the CFB was on the last point. By doing that, we'd jump, the CFB would very likely jump in in the next crisis, and I might even be able to explain away my behaviour. It was nice to be able to pull a fancy trick like that, but it seems pretty weird to me that by jumping away, I made the cylon fleet closer… Yeah, I dunno…I agree that it's a weird result. However, having never been all that clear on how FTL worked in the show, I'm not too worried. It did seem to be the case that when they were running from a cylon fleet, the timing and execution of the jumps mattered a lot more than their frequency or how much distance they covered. Like in "33," jumping twice in 33 minutes presumably wouldn't have gotten them any farther away, so instead they spun up their FTL, waited, and jumped as soon as the cylons arrived. Odds are, if a canny cylon had tricked Colonial One into jumping early, they'd still be rebooting their FTL computer when the fleet arrived. I wish I knew why you're getting so much fewer civvies than us. Even three per pursuit cycle is far more than we would normally get from the couple of attack cards we'd see in a typical game. I suppose if you really are gaming the pursuit track to a screeching halt, that'd do it, but even then, like I say, a revealed Cylon on the BSB should be both increasing pursuit and either populating the CFB or adding a civvie every turn. It's true that an XOed CAG can keep that under control, but again, I see this as a virtue, since it makes individual players more powerful, gives them more opportunities for betrayal, and seriously, aren't there other things you'd rather do with that XO? As for the CAG getting to choose placement, I don't see that as too much of an issue, given the placement restrictions. I mean sure, if you're proactive enough, it's less of a deal; get them all in one place so that when you add two more you can just communicate them over and escort them off, but if you can spare the actions to do all this, then your game is already going far better than most of mine do . As for anti-clumping strategies, I remember early on people suggested "Pandemic-style" distributions of attack cards, but this seems a little extreme. I figure that if you are going to use the attack cards, then all there is to do is randomize them the best you can (whatever that entails) and embrace the possibility of getting two (or more) in a row, or none at all, and hope the numbers even out in the long run. (Which they should, but the cards hate me )
  18. HiroMasaki said: My argument was that the person setting up the attack was a Cylon Leader, and thus the proper setup of the fleet is that person's responsibility, and to that person's benefit. Had it been a Human or obvious Unrevealed player performing the setup, I would have pointed out the error as it's a mandatory action. Suppose the Cylon Leader had made a mistake that worked to his advantage, for example, by putting the heavy raider a space or two closer to the launch bay? Would another cylon player (revealed or otherwise) be obligated to point that out if nobody else noticed? Personally, I also think that everything should be enforced, and that the "skill cards are your own responsibility" thing is a bad house rule, partly due to the possibility of abuse. (I'm not even sure that one can resolve the enforcement disparity with the idea that, unlike attacks and such, for which there is a collective responsibility, skill draws affect the individual--an even trickier case than Apollo is Ellen, who might not want to draw her Treachery cards if she knows someone's holding a Sabotage.) But if you guys trust that everyone will play fair (or, alternatively, are open to a game in which even cheating is allowed), then feel free. The thing about it being a house rule is that its principle can be held to either be generalizable to the official rules or not, as you see fit. That said, I'm also moved by the idea that some mechanics are more important than others--as Mephisto says, you don't want every player to feel like they have to constantly watch the jump track and the resource dials and the crisis cards just because they can't trust anyone else to enforce the game states. Or heck, maybe you do, if that fits in with your idea of "intrigue." Again, the real answer to the question is "whatever your group prefers is correct." But whatever y'all decide to do, I think that the general presumption is that players will enforce even those mechanics that don't benefit them, and that every exception to this presumption should be made explicit.
  19. Your first point is definitely the one I'd be most concerned about, both in terms of difficulty and gaminess. To me, the others feel less like "gaming the board" than "performing reasonable combat maneuvers," and even if the humans do end up with an overall advantage as a result, putting more of the combat situation under player control makes things more interesting for both humans and unrevealed cylons, IMO. I know when Exodus first came out, everyone was panicking about the "crippled basestar" strategy, which seems to have been a false alarm--although it's certainly pretty dumb when it does happen. A single fully functional basestar, on the other hand, is still pretty scary, even if it means the pursuit track will inch along until galactica's next jump. (It's even vaguely thematic; consider the episode (Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down?) where there was a seemingly harmless raider limping around, and Galactica just sat there and collected telemetry.) Spamming pursuit does seem to be the most effective counter for revealed cylons, although I dsagree that it's a waste, since it means not only a faster pursuit, but also more crises from a longer jump cycle, and you get another action with which to counter-game their attempts to corral the civvies or manage the number and location of basestars or raiders. (Though FWIW, my only real complaint about the CFB is that "Move pursuit/jump and do another thing" is too often the obvious choice.) As for the difference in mood, I find that the CFB and Attack cards accomplish different things; the attack cards are better for the "HOLY CRAP, LOOK OUT" response that you get from a really good ambush (which the CFB usually only provides in the late game, if at all), whereas the CFB is better for the "33"-style "uh-oh, they're coming, hurry" feeling of dread. Ultimately it comes down to personal preference, but I'm definitely a fan of the latter (and find that, for all its bugs, the CFB has definitely screwed up fewer games than the Attack cards have). One part of your post did surprise me: dakuth said: the far slower rate at which civvie ships are placed it's trivial Obviously, a lot depends on the frequency of attack cards, but I've seen waaay more civvies get placed with the CFB than without.
  20. Now I'm trying to imagine which combination of investigators would lead to the most out-of-character optimal rearrangement of roles and equipment. I'm thinking Mark the Gate-Diver, Flamethrower-wielding Dexter (although I guess he did fight in WWI), and Trish the Sorceress.
  21. Yeah, the art was a bit of a letdown. I was hoping that we might see interesting variants of each of the logos, like how Pepsi keeps reinventing its circle thing, but instead they just threw a couple of lens flares on them? Weak. I do agree that that the most thematic approach is one in which the corporation is maximally monolithic and faceless, and also it would be pretty weird if the only way to be in charge of the entire Weyland consortium is to use the core identity, and if you play with one of the other sets you only represent the VP of Personnel or some aerospace contractor or whatever (who for some reason is just as powerful and has access to all the same resources).
  22. Bob has cemented his place as my favorite Good character. He's rich, his PS is ludicrous, and a trip to the general store is all it takes to turn him into a 5-Speed, 6-Will walking arsenal, but he's also really versatile. My favorite Unique character is probably still Jim. Granted, his Lore isn't high enough to make him a particularly good caster, or even necessarily one of your main closers, but he'll eventually have his moment of glory when there's a Wraith terrorizing the streets, or worse, a ghost blocking a gate, and then you're just a quick Stomp away from a delightful high-luck romp through a green Other encounter. My least favorite is probably Michael or Mark. I can deal with 3-Sanity characters, but not when they have hardly any will (and 1 focus to boot!). I mean, Vincent, terrible as he is, at least has a purpose, but what are these guys even for? Rolling nine successes against a cultist?
  23. The turns themselves are surprisingly simple: First, everyone (simultaneously and secretly) decides what they'll do that turn (either using one of the four action cards or an item in their hand). Then you resolve them one at a time in player order. Then there's some bookkeeping (if there are any NPCs out they perform their actions, the proximity dial increases, and the first player changes), and you start over. There are some decent overviews on BGG: http://boardgamegeek.com/videos/thing/118063/infiltration
  24. 1) Nope, not really 2) You only use the sympathizer if you're playing with 4 or 6 players, so for a 5-player game you leave it in the box. By the end of the sleeper phase all ten cards will have been dealt out--8 human and 2 cylon. 3) Just choose one. And it's important that they not reveal the second card, because one of the actions a revealed cylon can do (at the resurrection ship) is give their unrevealed card to another player. Note that even revealed cylons get a loyalty card in the sleeper agent phase, so they should all have the opportunity to do this by the end of the game (but if the other card is "you are not a cylon," it's not usually a good use of an action--one improvement that was made in the Pegasus expansion is that the cylons automatically give their unrevealed loyalty cards to another player when they reeal) 4) The current player chooses the order, but it probably doesn't make a difference in most cases. 5) Choose one or the other. That's the interesting thing about that card; it's 3-5 strength, so you can play it in the check for its printed strength, or, if you wait until afterwards, you know exactly how close you are to passing the check, but then it's only worth 2. 6) Yes 7) People disagree about these. A lot of them are pretty mediocre, but there are some (like Arrest Order, Presidential Pardon, and Authorization of Brutal Force) that can make a really big difference at the right time.
  25. It's really useful if you need both MU and link, but if you don't, why spend two extra credits for an effect you don't actually want? The fact that Globalsec is a resource is annoying enough that you might not want it to be your first line of defense aganst traces, but if you're a cash-starved Anarch, are you really going to spend three times as much per point of link just to make it harder for the corp to Posted Bounty/Freelancer you? And as Shaper, even if I did want to increase both my MU and my link, I'd probably go with Akamatsu and Rabbit Hole before Dyson.
  • Create New...