Matrim

Members
  • Content count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Matrim

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Newtown Linford, Leicestershire, United Kingdom
  1. worked very well in a game with a newbie, though this newbie went mad right at the end leaving me to be visously killed we had no real problems playing over skype. We did not bother keeping either of the investigators deck in sync and just trusted each other with that and results. Looks like I will get a repeat experience with my elder brother and his son on friday also over skype.
  2. I liked all 3, as have a lot of others. As far as I can tell there is no class action starting amongst fans concerning the lion story. claiming only lion clan fans truly count is a ridiculous point of view. Very lion though.
  3. that is true, the other players would need the cards organised. I have then numerically in card binders so as long as all could access in a similar fashion then all would be well.
  4. I have persuaded my brother to take a punt with the game (he is a keen gamer generally) and suddenly realised that this, more than any other LCG/CCG, is perfect for skype play without a computer program. As far as I can tell you can have any number of players with their decks at different locations. The locations/agenda/act out as the scenario prescribes and each with their own setup Chaos bag. Then one player controls the encounter deck (and the others have their encounter cards in order) and when encounter cards are drawn it is 'Roland has 'flesh eater' card 45' and so on. Over the skype connection then actions are described and the board state is verbally kept in sync. No real need to keep player state in sync. I think this could even help with roleplaying as yopu cannot look over and 'see' what a player has available so as to give handy hints. Have I missed anything or is this as viable as I think it is for long distance play..
  5. interesting and though they cover feist and Hearn they don't mention shogun which is amazing. I wonder if its because it was written in the 70s or because it has no fantasy. mushashi is hard to get through and I disliked memories of a geisha.
  6. for those who want to immerse themselves in similarish cultures and either cant get (or don't want to read) the old aeg books I felt a thread covering such would be useful. fiction. for light reads you could try lian hearns otori series starting with 'accross the nightingale floor'. This follows a 2 pov strucuture with a heavy magic ninja basis. Beyond the magic ninja this is broadly similar to actual samurai culture. next you could try Raymond e.feists 'daughter of empire' this is full fantasy (magic users included) and follow the daughter of a famous clan suddenly flung into the head of the clan position by the death of her father. This is a great series which has it all. my 'best' recommendation is a giant in the field though and is 'shogun' by James clavell. The author was captured by the Japanese in ww2 so would have been forgiven for a negative interpretation but instead has written a magnificent book which I cannot praise enough. Some of the plot elements for feists book are lifted straight from this one as well. Read it, you won't be disappointed. for films any samurai film by kurosawa is great though my favourites are 'seven samurai', 'ran' and 'rashomon'. Rashomon is the cleverest, ran has great battle scenes and seven samurai was copied almost scene by scene for 'the magnificent seven'. If you like the links to western films 'yojimbo' was remade as 'a fistfull of dollars' and 'the hidden fortress' had a strong impact on the star wars storyline. if old films are not your thing then try 'samurai champloo' which is an excellent genre bending anime. For a more historical take 'peacemaker' is good but has a really irritating character some will find difficult not to hate. so hopefully this will help give some ideas. Enjoy!!
  7. Next stupid question. Dunwich horror investigators say cards from A plus up to 5 level 0 cards from any other class. Does this mean 5 seperate card types with 2 permitted of each or 5 total cards?? I think it means the second but want to rule out the first. Cheers all!
  8. The question is what people who hate the changes so much 'that they either dont want to play the game or would not play it (say RPG players only)' makes it think spouting about is worthwhile? There will always be a hard core that would hate the game whatever FFG did basically having closed minds to the possiblity that things might , dare I say it, be better than the original. Perhaps it will fail ( I hope it wont but I am not psychic). I dont think if it does it will be because they changed the sex of a main character or adjusted the story. The game will succeed/fail on whether it is a good game to play, whether they can make a gripping storyline and whether they can get enough new players to play it.
  9. From a purely numeric point of interest I find it fascinating how we have some well known, shall we say, professional trouble stirers on the site but that several of the most recent 'hate' posts have all come from very new posters with very low post counts. So practically there seem to be several die-cast 'love the old, hate the new' crawling out of the woodwork to spit anger about the game usually counteracted by a lot of more active posters. This naturally does not mean much but I do wonder if its second accounts or literally someone being so angry that they only post to attack. Objectively I am obviously a fan-boy and want the game to succeed because L5R was always my favourite card game so like a lot of others I am happy to take up the cudgels and defend the game especially as it looks like it is going to be excellent (even biased as I am, I also loved Conquest and Arkham Horror LCG so I like FF's game design). I suspect (imho only) that in a lot of cases the poison posts are a bit similar to the posts people used to provide on the ccg after they had dropped the game. There seemed to be a common reaction that if person A was no longer playing then that person would do their damndest to ensure everyone else stopped playing (even though the reality was that it would be a drop in an ocean). It appeared as though the mere fact that other people did not want to drop it and 'punish' the company at the same time made them even more furious. Just some random thoughts on the trolling. I do think it is trolling as if you hate the new setting, the new fiction, the new cards etc etc of a game you will not be playing then there are better and more healthy things to do with your life than to create an account on a forum and waste time slagging it off.
  10. why? They own the license. They can do as they will and so far i am happy with what they have done. I appreciate some people might be too institutionalised with the ccg to do the same which is a pity but ni reason for ffg to change anything.
  11. its not a retcon. Its a new world. The sooner you stop comparing apples and oranges and enjoy it the happier you will (hopefully) be.
  12. If they are going to have a big choice then gencom is the location to have it. I expct to see rather less storyline choices elsewhere (i.e lots and lots of Koteis each with big storyline choices) Worlds/big-conventions are the only locations that should have defining story choices imo
  13. woops, I acually thought he was called that...
  14. I dont have a problem with Pete and my son likes his dog. I have settled for the reporter in the end and hav built up using a lot of evade actions as we are somewhat limited in offensive capability...
  15. Another couple of questions. I presume we can use core set investrigators in the Dunwich campaign? My son has picked Trashcan and I am trying to find another who complements him and may use a core set peep (except Roland and Agnes who died hideously....and insistutionalised Wendy). Another question is that at one point the scenario had us search the collection for a madness weakness and include in the deck. We could not find a weakness that said madness so guessed they just meant basic weakness and we had missed a line in the rule book saying the basic weaknesses are madness weaknesses. Is this correct?? Thanks for the help all...