Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About paulvonscott

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Durham, Durham, United Kingdom
  1. I appreciate it went well for some people and they had a good time, but we had a very different experience and it made for a poor gaming evening. There isn't really much to do beyond investigate at the start. We were pretty thrifty with our actions and did well with the clues, but the treachery deck with its extra doom and hindrances didn't give us much of a chance. Personally, I felt it needed to give you a break at the start, because it could finish the story, or knock players out, very early on in a game. Fine for a replayable scenario, very poor if playing as part of a campaign. Plus it might be better if the story built up pace as it went along. Win or lose, the scenario should be entertaining. It shouldn't just be a good time if you win, and an early night if you lose. If it doesn't give you the story, where is the entertainment? Hopefully that's the only scenario that'll do this, and my only complaint so far. Paul
  2. Great idea for a scenario, the one I wanted to enjoy the most, but I feel you are at the whim of fate with this one. There are too many cards adding doom on, plus lots of cards to hobble you and I think we got unlucky on the order of carriages (excuses excuses). It possibly needed a buffer of an extra Agenda card (EDIT: or the first agenda requires more doom to trigger) at the start to give you a hint of what is to come. Appreciate some teams might be better suited to others than this, but I think the four of us did as well as we could under the circumstances. It's the first one we have lost, and while we were on the edge of losing on some of the others, at least they would have been tense and exciting either way, having had a full night's entertainment out of the pack. But when you've spent fifteen quid for a chapter in an ongoing £120 campaign (the cost of Dunwich and all 6 packs in the UK) and the adventure can finish you in the first turn if you are very unlucky, and in the first few turns if you don't excel, frankly it results in a very dissapointing evening. Worse still, you could have a character leave very early and a player being out for almost all of the game, while the rest carried on. This was exactly the situation facing us when the Treachery deck finished us off. Perhaps it was a mercy killing. Fortunately someone had brought Watson and Holmes, so the evening wasn't ruined. We're moving onto Blood on the Altar next. I think if the next scenarios is as capricious, I can see the mood of dissapointment turning to discontent. I would like to go back to this adventure once the campaign is over (although one of our group doesn't want to revist the experience) and I'm sure it makes a great one-off challenge, or if you have the right team is fairly straightforward, but for now, we will be walking to the next chapter wondering what horrors lies ahead.
  3. Took my first look at the new version and it looks great. I haven't played this game since the GW version and am really looking forward to this. My only issue... Manchester is shown as being on the wrong side of England. Manchester is West Coast, not East Coast. A bit like having California on the East coast of an American map. Frankly, instead of Manchester, I'd have nudge the 'Manchester' location a tiny bit North and had 'Whitby' instead, which isn't a city, but a coastal town on the East Coast, and was where Dracula landed in England. A possible thought for the next reprint...
  4. Yes, I think it must be missing. Although I admit to not actually playing with the bridge in the two games I've played, it does seem awfully unfair
  5. Doing a new reprint in new colours might not be so difficult, but as always I guess there has to be a demand and justification. Maybe next time they reprint the dice
  6. While I think 4 dice is a bit meagre (6 would have been good), really, for two people, you still need that extra pack, and I don't begrudge a few extra quid for a game I get so much out of. And on that heretical note, can I just say that I REALLY like the purple Battlelore dice alongside the new Undead faction. So much that I think they should release additional dice packs with blue dice (with white icons) for the humans and red dice (with white icons) for chaos. Sorry
  7. "What is dead may never die, but rises again, harder and stronger..." I certainly hope the game isn't dead as I've just gotten into it via my love of Battlelore (and GoT), and found Battles of Westeros to be a really good strategic game. I would certainly like more factions such as the Greyjoys. Perhaps even a book of scenarios in the same format as Descent's 'Heirs of Blood'. Or a pack containing Wildlings, Black Watch and the White Walkers maybe, with dual winter/wall board. I wonder if a new (completely compatible, and with working flags) starter set might not be a good idea to bring new people in, themed around the later books and battles? Regardless, it's a good game, and I'm just opening up my first expansion with the Baratheon box, which has loads of goodies!
  8. Ah well, even earlier than Ken! And I thought I was being clever Paul Scott *EDIT* Apologies for the above idiocy. I had thought the King of the Toads idea was new when I posted it in 2002 and as nobody corrected me at the time I carried merrily on in my delusions. In my version, which was just an adventure card, and not a character card, he just popped up and having just been stepped on, turned everyone in the region into toads. I shall download the new card and tread more warily in future.
  9. There is some reference to a Toad King from Ken in 1999, though I can't find it, so that would pip me Paul Scott
  10. I thought I'd created and introduced the Toad King character in 2002 for the home made adventurer card 'Reign of Toads' and placed it on the Talisman 2nd Ed. Yahoo Group in 2002 (where he still resides) for people to use in their own games. I could, of course, be wrong and perhaps someone else used the concept earlier than that... Paul Scott *Edit* As you are about to see, I was wrong
  • Create New...