Jump to content

LabanShrewsbury

Members
  • Content count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LabanShrewsbury

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Minneapolis, 0, United States
  1. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    You are not ignoring the card. You cannot ignore any card or rule in the game. The card gives you a choice between two options. Choosing one option over the other is not the same as ignoring the card. If that were the case, I could say I am ignoring the card if I choose to attempt to meet the new win conditions as given by the card, as apposed to losing. I am not ignoring the card because I did not choose the option to loose. The reason for the card is to punish you for going insane.
  2. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    No, I am pushing it on you because you make substantial edits to your posts almost immediately after posting them it would seam. I receive an email every time there is a new post in this thread, and the email shows me what you have written. From the time you post a response and I receive an email, and am actually able to read the email and then come to the forum, you have deleted part of, added to, or otherwise altered your post. It makes it very difficult to respond to you when you make such large changes to your posts.
  3. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    Circles and circles and circles. Then do not set a load of fires. I really think you may be too obsessed with winning. It really seems as if that is the issue here, you do not like to lose.
  4. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    I agree, but for the life of me I cannot imagine why anybody would want to remove them. When used correctly they add so much to the game. Having to make the choice between myself, or the people I care about (the one, or the many) brings another dimension to the game. I could not agree more with this comment! Time management is an extremely important part of this game. You usually do not have the ability to investigate everything on the board. There are many things that are meant to distract you, and make you waste time. You really need to be smart about what you do and do not investigate, and you need to know when to stop checking every single item that can be investigated. I think this is something that may be missed by casual players.
  5. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    *sigh* You consistently make large edits to your posts, and it seems as if you do it immediately. That is very confusing. You are incorrect. For this to be true, the card would have to tell you that you have lost the game and there is nothing you can do to prevent it. That is not what the “traitor” sanity condition cards do. I think you need to add “instant” to the list of words whose definition you should look up. So it seems that this whole thread is based on people having their feelings hurt. I am not sure which is more sad, the fact that people feel as if “the win” was “stripped” away from them, or that it apparently causes so much distress. If winning is so important I do not understand why you are altering this aspect of the game, why not ensure you never go insane instead of altering what happens if you do. An easy way to do that would be to double each investigator’s health and sanity. You are sure to win every game if you do that, which seems to be what you and your friends are most concerned with.
  6. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    I covered this in my last post, but I will add to it here. What makes this game interesting is that it basically asks you “how badly do you want to win?” In my opinion, that adds to the enjoyment of the game. This is such a bizarre statement. Anything the app, or a card instructs you to do is out of your control. There are times when you are able to attempt a skill check to avoid taking horror or damage, other times you are not. Would it be more satisfying or “fun” for you if you were allowed a skill test and then failed, and this is what caused your character to go insane? Either this is hyperbole, or there is a card missing from the games I have played. Statements like this are ridiculous. Here are a few things I do “get”. You posted on this forum a poorly thought out and worded rant, based on either not having read, or not understanding the rules. In my opinion this is not only lazy but insulting to the game designers. As I have stated before, if you have an issue with a game, if there is something you seriously believe needs to be addressed, take the time to write a post based on facts, using in-game examples, quoting cards and rules. Otherwise it sounds like you are saying “I don’t like when I lose”, which is a reflection of you, not the game. let us be clear on a few points. 1. You do not have to act on the “traitor” sanity conditions, as verified by Fantasy Flight. 2. The win condition for the “traitor” sanity conditions come into play at the beginning of the “inflicted” investigator’s turn. This is an important distinction. 3. The other investigators have actions they can preform to try to stop an “insane” investigator from “winning” the game. 4. There are no cards that “magically” or “instantly” end the game. 5. Taking “random” mental or physical trauma where you do not get the opportunity to avoid it by skill check is part of the game. 6. Keeping track of, and not losing sanity, is one of the most important aspects of the game. With this information, feel free to create an argument for why you think the “traitor” sanity condition cards should be removed from the game. Saying that they “make an otherwise enjoyable game, not fun” is an opinion and should be stated as such. And as an opinion there is no argument that can be given to counter it because it is simply an opinion. But when you start to talk about removing an aspect of the game, and imply it is “broken”, you should have something to back that up with besides your opinion.
  7. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    First, as I have mentioned before, it is basic etiquette to note the edits you have made to your post (aside from simple spelling errors), especially when making large edits such as you have done. No, my argument, if I had one, would not need a crutch, it would be able to walk on its own. I also do not have a CRUX to my argument, being that I do not actually have an argument. What I am trying to do is help clarify the rules regarding a specific game mechanic that seems to be confusing to many people. Let us go back to your first post. First let me say you clearly do not “get what they were trying to do here” especially when you think it was to add humor to the game. Let me reiterate a point that has been made by many people here already, the sanity condition cards are meant to punish you for losing your sanity. It is pretty easy to figure out the game designers have decided that one of the most important aspects of the game is sanity being that you pay such a heavy price for its loss. I do not think they were trying to be funny. Second, being upset “because the app just forces” something in the game to happen does not make sense. Everything the app tells a player, or the players, to do is it “forcing” them to do it. That is the whole idea of the app. If you are tired of being bullied by the app, do not play the game. If what you are trying to say is that usually at least once per game there comes a time when the app randomly makes one or all of the players lose a sanity without the ability to negate the affect, and that is unfortunate, I would agree with you. Do I think that makes the game broken? No. I would also point out that it is not a common occurance, and that it usually happens closer to the end of the game (or what should be the end), and I believe it is intended as a way to let the investigators know that the “clock is ticking”, and that they need to wrap things up. Third, the game does not “magically” end. It ends because there are rules in place that state if certain conditions are met, the game is over. That is not “magic”, it is the rules of the game. It also does not “instantly” end as others have stated. There are no cards that “instantly” end the game. And finally, the cards you are referring to come into play at the beginning of an investigator’s turn, not at the end. That is a very important distinction. What you seem to be missing here is that I am (and I can only assume our friend was) responding to a point. For someone to randomly say that anything not covered in the rulebook should and could be done, makes no sense. Based on a lack of understanding of the rules, people here are assuming that a player has no choice but to act out the conditions on sanity condition cards such as Pyromania. There is nothing specific on the card or in the rules that states this as a fact. The card says something along the lines of “you no longer win that game as normal, you now only win if you do ‘X’” The only way you would have to do “X” is if there was a rule stating that you must at all times try to win the game. Assuming that everybody wants, and or is trying to win the game is just that, an assumption. In this instance arguing that there is no rule stating that you have to act out the condition on the sanity condition Card was not only valid, it was correct. I think you are completely wrong here, though I absolutely have no proof other than anecdotal evidence to support my belief. In the games I have played, anytime a player’s character has been inflicted with one of these so called “traitor” conditions, they have chosen to lose individually and continue to try to help the investigation. Assuming that every person that plays this (or any other) game has the same desire to win as you and your group of friends does not make sense. I think you may need to either look up the definition of “literally”, or re-read the posts on this thread. My gaming group did not understand this game mechanic at the time. Now that the rules have been clarified, not only do they agree with me, but they think it is a great and important aspect of the game.
  8. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    Again, no cards in the game give you the “option to ignore them”. These cards punish you for failing, and then give you a choice. You can lose, or betray your friends. You have to do one of the two, you cannot just “ignore” the card.
  9. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    It has been a while since I have been able to post so there is a lot to comment on... I disagree. I feel that it is because this is a co-op game that one would want to try to “not win” so as not to betray their friends. It is interesting that you made this comment. I actually do not play “versus” games because I do not get pleasure out of losing or winning. I only play games with friends. I am only friends with people I care about. For me to “win” means somone I care about loses, which is not fun (this reminds me of a quote from Rassilon, anybody that gets this reference and knows what it is from without looking it up gets a permanent elder sign) That is why I only play co-op games. That is one of the things that makes this game special. It does not start as a “betrayal” game, and if you play well, or get lucky after not playing well (draw a sanity condition that does not cause you to “betray” your friends), it continues to not be a “betrayal” game. There are however circumstances in which a player may be tempted to “betray” their friends. That is because you are not “winning”. You went insane. The game is trying to tell you something bad has happened, that you have essentially lost. I think another big problem some of you are having is that you do not understand that losing all of your sanity is a very bad thing. There seems to be this belief that it is okay to lose all of your sanity because you actually do not die until you lose it twice. That is not the case. I think if you consider the loss of all sanity as losing (which is basically what it is) it may help with this aspect of the game. I would ask that you not call a game mechanic “broken” just because you do not like it. Not liking something does not make it bad (just as liking something does not make it good). There are games that have had issues that caused the designers to quickly amend the rules. In situations such as that, I think a majority of people would agree that there were broken game mechanics. If enough people wrote to Fantasy Flight, if there were a serious uproar among the gaming community about this mechanic being broken, they would “fix” it. But I am guessing (and this is completely not based on any data) that not many truly feel this aspect of the game is even bad, let alone “broken”. You have nothing to support this except the assumed opinions of people posting on the community board of a gaming company. As I previously stated, I think that the proof that a majority of players do not believe the game to be broken is that it has not been “fixed”. Fantasy Flight is a business. If people did not like this aspect of the game, they would change it. That is absolutely not my position. The biggest problem that I have, is that it is obvious that most if not all of the people that have an issue with these specific sanity condition cards, do not understand the rules of the game. The first three words of this sentence is the issue as far as I can tell. You are not happy with the game as designed, and therefore call it un-fun, and then try to use that as proof that it is broken. To me, what you are doing would be similar to saying “I succeed at every skill check because failing skill checks is not fun”. I am sure you think what I have said is ridiculous, but what you and others have suggested sounds just as ridiculous to me. Taking away an aspect of the game that punishes you for failing, is basically just trying to make the game easier to win. I do not see that as being more fun. I have a feeling this all probably sounds much more harsh than I intend it to. I apologize for that. I often feel as if English is not my first language, and it is my only language.
  10. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    I am really enjoying this conversation! 😀 I am not able to reply in a meaningful way at the moment but it has been fun reading the responses!
  11. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    Thank you twm47099, that is very helpful. We could have used that days ago. 😀 I would prefer we use a word other than "ignore" when we discuss this option, but I will tell you why I think they are in the game, and an important aspect of it. Once you have lost all of your sanity I believe (some of) the sanity condition cards are basically saying "okay, you are insane. You lose the game unless you are willing to do 'X'". Having to draw that card is a very bad thing, and the game is trying to tell you as much. When I draw a sanity condition like Pyromania I do my best to ensure that there are never six spaces containing fire, which basically means I try to lose. If the game ends with my partners successfully completing the investigation, it alway bothers me that I lost. I know it also bothers some of them as well. We feel as if we did not do our best, and that makes us want to play again. I am completely nitpicking here, and I am sure you know this and it is simply a semantics thing, but to my knowledge there is not a card that causes "immediate elimination". The group of investigators (minus the one that is "inflicted") should have at least one turn to attempt to put out enough fire to ensure the win condition of Pyromania is not met. I almost do not want to mention this here, but last year at Arkham Nights, two friends of mine asked one of the game developers about the sanity condition cards in an attempt to double check that the information we had received was accurate, and to also make sure there were not any special circumstances with which we should be aware. The game developer confirmed the rule clarification was accurate, but then added that when they draw a sanity condition, they always stop talking to make the other players think that they are "inflicted" with Forbidden Words. That would drive me crazy.
  12. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    Tempus_37, I wanted to reply to your post (this is in response to your post from yesterday, I believe you have posted today as well) because you clearly took time craft a well thought out response, and you also helped me by using actual card text. I really appreciate that. This is where the confusion lies. The card states that if at the begging of the turn of the player inflicted with the sanity condition certain requirements are met, the game ends. Since the players can choose the order in which they play their turn, I would suggest that you never let a player inflicted with a sanity condition go first. This can definitely be problematic. As I stated above you should have at least one turn for the investigators that are not “inflicted” to try to get to the area that is on fire and attempt to extinguish enough spaces so that the win requirements of Pyromania are not met. For people that enjoy bringing an RPG element to the game this can bring up the age old dilemma of “player knowledge” vs “character knowledge”. I think we can agree that understanding this aspect (the sanity conditions) of the game is not easy to say the least. Couple that with the fact that the first time you play the game, you will not be familiar with the sanity conditions, and therefore will not be "on the look out" for suspicious activity. But there is nothing keeping an "inflicted" player from electing to go last, and telling their teammates that it might be a good idea to start putting out fires. Or yelling a warning to "stay away from me!" For players that have played a few times, it could simply be that "you have been around the block" a few times, and know what to look for in your partners. I admire the positivity in the face of adversity! You must be from Minnesota! Hopefully see you at Arkham Nights!
  13. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    Why would you use an “abstract” example to make a point when all you need is a clear concise example. And none of your examples have been abstract. They have been illogical at best. Declaring that the sanity condition cards should be removed because they instantly end the game has had no basis in reality. If you are going to go on a forum to complain about an aspect of a game that someone put time and energy into to create the best experience they can, have the decency to craft a well thought out point with real examples. And if you do not understand the rules clearly, ask a question in the forum or contact Fantasy Flight. Am I the only person that sees the irony here? I think you may need to take the advice that you dole out so freely regarding abstract thought. I have at no time ever said that a card should be ignored. You are either not reading what I have read - which is lazy, not understanding it - which is not your fault, or ignoring it - which is a dangerous traight to have. I emphatically said you cannot ignore any card in the game. I will do it again here so that if anyone trying to learn the rules of the game stumbles across this discussion, they will not be confused. If you are playing the game as it is designed YOU CANNOT IGNORE ANY CARDS IN THE GAME. You do however have the option to NOT meet the win requirements of your sanity condition thereby losing the game. You cannot ignore the fact that you lose by not meeting the win requirement.
  14. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    You are calling it a metaphor, taear is calling it an analogy, which is it? The answer is neither. And neither are needed if you create clear arguments based on events that can actually happen in the game, using in-game examples that include text from cards. I am still waiting for either of you to show an instance where drawing a card instantly ends a game. And telling someone that something they are doing “reflects badly” on them based on your personal opinion seems very pointless. I do not think anyone is pretending it is complicated. It does seem to show a lack of understanding of the rules, and an inability to make a logical argument based on facts. Please restate this, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I am not trying to be difficult, and I will not use spelling or grammatical mistakes against you, but even correcting for those, this does not make sense. It appears you are saying “an investsgor that has a sanity condition (I assume you are referring to one in which the condition that needs to be met is to be in the same space as a second investigator, and also be in possession of a weapon) might end their turn in a space with exactly one other investigator, and a weapon (thereby meeting the requirements of their sanity condition)”, but this is where you lose me because next you say (and this is me paraphrasing in an attempt to make your statement easier to understand), “but what is the point of sanity conditions if it is up to the player to decide if they want to act on them?” I do not want to assume your meaning because that would not be fair. I am not sure what the first fragment has to do with the second, but I will answer the second question. One of the reasons sanity conditions are a part of the game is to let you know that something bad has happened. You have lost all of your sanity, and you have gone insane. You have basically lost the game once you lose all of your sanity, and that is what the card is telling you. You are not dead (you are half way there), but you have lost. You now have a choice, you can listen to the voices in your head and betray the team which salvages a win for you, or you can help your team complete the investigation, and lose on your own. I want to make this point very clearly in case someone looking for rules clarification stumbles across this forum. You CANNOT ignore any card in the game. You ABSOLUTELY CAN decide to not fulfill your individual win requirement on the “traitor” cards we have been discussing. Doing so will cause you to lose the game. And again, they are not pointless for the reasons stated above. Nobody is saying you can read any card as optional. As someone else has already stated (I am typing on my phone so it is very difficult to scroll up to see who to give credit to) these are two completely different conditions. The card that does not alllw you to talk very clearly stayes that you the player are not allowed to talk. There is no discussion of your ability to win changing unless you meet certain requirements. I really dislike using cliches, but being that it is very appropriate, I will. You cannot fix something that is not broken.
  15. LabanShrewsbury

    Traitor insanity cards have got to go.

    Discussing this with you is difficult because you do not respond to points, and you keep saying the same thing regardless of if the facts prove your comments to be incorrect. You do not have to do X". I suggest that you do not do "X". If you do not do "X" and your fellow players complete the investigation, the investigation will actually be completed. This is point A. Please reply to this point. It takes very little imagination to come up with ways that a player inflicted with this condition can be a productive and useful member of the investigation. Stating that they are left out of the game is just more hyperbole. I cannot comment on people you know not wanting to play after being inflicted with this condition. I have not played with anyone that feels that way. Really? Let us go back and look at the posts. On 7/15/2018 at 10:01 AM, totgeboren said: On 7/17/2018 at 7:49 PM, LabanShrewsbury said: I... you... I do not even know how to respond to this. On 7/19/2018 at 5:46 AM, Taear said: I don't know why you're confused by what they've said here. On 7/19/2018 at 9:07 AM, LabanShrewsbury said: I am confused because when trying to have a discussion about an actual game one should use an example of something that could happen while playing it instead of hyperbole. Give a real in-game example that shows exactly what this person said happening. Taear said: They're using an analogy to say "Why don't the damage cards do this and if they did do it'd be just as rubbish". I do not see totgeboran asking "why don't the damage cards do this". I do seem them trying to make a feeble point, which is very similar to a paper tiger argument. Saying "what if, by taking a certain amount of physical damage, you were forced to draw a card that caused the game to instantly end upon drawing it" (which is actually a much more clear way to say what totgeboran was trying to say) is ridiculous because what if there was? What if there was a card that did this based on sanity? Why argue this because there is not a card that does either of those things. Responding to your made up situations is pointless. Also, an analogy is not needed in this instance. A clear, valid point or argument would really do nicely. It is not. That is why I ask you to actually quote the card. It does not.
×