Jump to content

Kushiel2

Members
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kushiel2

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Portsmouth, New Hampshire, United States
  1. Nameless1 said: Also quick question - I note from the HR rules mention is made of replacing a card.Is it that the card in the base game has an error and its supposed to be replaced (as in Arkham Horror) or rather the card must be replaced if running the HR expansion? I think it's the latter. The card (Horned Rat's Due, I think?) has something to do with placement of Skaven tokens, IIRC, which has a much different impact on the game when someone is playing the Horned Rat.
  2. tommh said: By itself its not overpowered the problem with Horned Rat Khorne (and why he's winning around 80% of recorded games on BGG) Where are you getting this number from? The current tally in the Horned Rat stats thread, across all the configurations played, is this: Overall: Winning Side Khorne: 13 Nurgle: 9 Tzeentch: 8 Slaanesh: 9 The Horned Rat: 6 The Old World: 1 Granted, that hasn't been updated in a week or so, but it's an awfully far cry from Khorne winning 80% of the time. It's actually less than 30% of the time that he's won. Or did I miss something crucial in that thread?
  3. hancelanson said: If,on my turn, I drop and XO to any given player what is really the advantage? If there are cylon ships on the board then XO'ing a player to move to the batteries on either Pegasus or Galactica then take one shot has no net advantage over the current player doing the same thing. If this is the way you're playing the card, yes, XO is worse than simply taking the action yourself. XO is powerful if it's used on players who are already in a location where it would be useful to take two actions without moving. Spread players around in various locations where that might be the case (which also lessens the impact of any one location being damaged) and then XO the one most appropriate to the situation at hand. Really, the only reason you should be moving during an XO is in an extreme emergency.
  4. Holy Outlaw said: 1) When a cylon reveals, he/she keeps 3 cards, discards the rest, and draws a Super Crisis. On subsequent turns, the cylon draws two skill cards of any color instead of the full (previously color-restricted) complement of five they drew as a human. ...though I seem to recall that the Res Ship space itself places a restriction on how many cards players who start their turn there draw, in much the same way that Sickbay does. Like HO, it's been quite a while since I played with the base set, though, so I could be wrong.
  5. hancelanson said: I actually just thought of another question we had; if I scout the crisis/destination deck am I allowed to say what I see? Not directly revealing the card but can I say that "this crisis isn't a jump-prep" there's no way to know until the card is revealed so it's possible that I could lie about it. I only ask because it seems hypocritical if this isn't allowed considering Baltar is practically encouraged to reveal the results of his once per game ability. The secrecy rules are deliberately loose and open to interpretation, but I've never played in a group (and wouldn't want to) that allowed this. You can say that it was a bad card if you put it on the bottom, but that's it. There's no inconsistency with looking at loyalty cards; you're not allowed to reveal anything on a loyalty card beyond whether or not it indicates cylon-ness. You can't discuss the details of a cylon reveal power, personal goal, etc.
  6. If you do end up with an older copy, you can always request a copy of the correct card here. FFG has really spectacular customer service, particularly when it comes to game components.
  7. Nameless1 said: Thanks for the input everyone! A few final queries: is the game significantly altered with 3 players instead of 4? What gods would be best to introduce players to the game? 1) From all reports, yes. The game is so well balanced with four players that I've never bothered trying it with three. 2) All four of them. To really understand the game well, you need to understand how all four gods play. Obviously, new players won't. So it doesn't really matter which gods new players start with, dive right in
  8. So... what I'm not quite getting here... are you saying metagaming is bad? Because with a game like this one, I don't believe anyone will completely avoid metagame unless they're playing their first round with total strangers. Knowing a person's tells is metagame. Knowing how much they usually value certain things like jump markers, ressource losses, quorum cards or a cylon-free galactica is metagame. Even knowing how many of their bad decisions can be blamed on ignorance due to being new instead of malice is metagame. BSG is largely about psychology, about assessing other people's talk and decisions and deducing something from those. I don't think many people can shut out what they know about others well enough to not let that influence their conclusions. To me, there's a significant difference between basing your decisions on someone else's personality and on how they've played the game in the past. The former makes sense, the latter doesn't. If you want to conflate the two, I don't see any need to argue with you. Neither point of view is right or wrong; I just don't see any advantage in making decisions based on data that might not be applicable to the current situation. This. I made a comparison to chess because I consider BSG a strategy game, I think this explains rather a lot of our differences of opinion. and chess is sort of the hallmark strategy game. But maybe a better comparison would be to poker, where I have to use my opponents' behavior to guess their hole card while they do the same back and whoever does it better sooner wins. I'd argue it's a universal phenomenon and critical game component to remember player tendencies in such games. The common definition of metagaming is bringing considerations outside of the game into the game. I'm not sure analyzing player tendencies is outside of the game; I'd argue it's baked into the cake. See above. I don't disagree with your last sentence here, I just think that it's orthogonal to the question of whether or not it's useful to make your decisions based on previous plays. EDIT: Oh, FFG forums. One missed endtag, and what's done can never be undone. I'll never stop coming back to you, no matter how badly you treat me, but a little consideration now and then would go a long way.
  9. Palior said: Ok thanks, I thought I've read somewhere that when a card from the original game talks about an effect on the Galactica it also applies to the Pegasus. Must have imagined it ^^ My guess is that your confusion stems from the rule about damaging Galctica: when Galactica is damaged, current player can choose to damage Pegasus instead. So far as I can recall, that's the only instance of Galactica/Pegasus substitution that there's a rule for.
  10. Senik said: That's the 1st game I have with a board made of human flesh. Ah, dammit! Did I miss the release of the Collector's Edition? All I've got is this cardstock board. Senik said: Don't you think it's female appealing??... maybe not! Or maybe it is. Chaos is my wife's favorite game, and is the only game she likes enough that I can use it to convince her to come out to a gaming night when she's not sure if she wants to play something or not. I know another female gamer who quite likes the game. And a non-gamer girlfriend of a guy I regularly play with said that she thought the board was super-cool.
  11. Holy Outlaw said: Well, Kushiel, I could probably go back and forth with you a bit longer on a few of these points, particularly the definition of metagame. (Is it really metagame in chess for me to remember that my opponent's sneaky good with knights and to keep an eye out for it? Do I really have to fall for the same trick once each game before I begin to adjust for it?) Metagaming in chess would be very different than metagaming in Galactica, if the former is even possible. Hence why I began my definition with "In a game like Galactica..." Chess is about as unlike Galactica as I can imagine. But, yes, we can let this go. Holy Outlaw said: P.S. Would you, or anyone else, care to try your hand at a Tier ranking list, similar to the OP? Or do you have a sort of fundamental objection to ranking the characters in that manner? Curious to hear another perspective on this ... It's entirely intentional that I've kept my comments to be about the ways in which characters are ranked rather than the specific rankings. I'd be happy to share my thoughts on character rankings, though I doubt I'd use a strict tiered system the way that you've done, but I've only played two games using any of the Exodus components. As you've no doubt realized by now, I'm not so much interested in abstract and theory as I am in concrete and practice, so I didn't want to proffer opinions which weren't backed by experience.
  12. It occurs to me that I didn't really answer HO's indirect question of what I mean by metagaming and groupthink. For a game like Galactica, metagaming is basing your decisions on factors which lie outside the current game. So if you pass me extra loyalty cards because you've seen me win in the past, regardless of what's going on in the current game, that's metagaming. Or if Jane has often/always attempted to gain titles in prior games you've played with her, and you play assuming that she's going to do so again during the current game, that's metagaming. Groupthink is the set of assumptions that a given group has decided to agreee on, often without realizing that they've done so. "It's always better to discard skillcards rather than lose resources" is a common groupthink that I've seen, for example. Violating groupthink tends to make those who subscribe to it suspicious of those who don't, and in a team-with-traitors game like Galactica, that can often lead to accusations and paranoia
  13. Holy Outlaw said: I agree that Jagonaut’s not talking about carrying grudges over from game to game, and I’ve never talked about that either. But I have advocated for remembering player tendencies (e.g., my opponent is a strategic player, or is risk averse, or routinely half-asses until sleeper) and using those to inform my current interactions with those players. If that works for you, great. It seems oddly metagamey to me to base your decisions on what's happened in past games, rather than what's going on in the current game, is all. I don't really see the point in caring whether Player X played very cautiously last game, if he's not doing so now, etc. Holy Outlaw said: If I am a worse player, or a worse-equipped character, than the sitting president who is on the same team, then Saul Tigh's "benefit me" OPG just hurt my team Then why would you use it? It seems to me that you're failing to make a distinction between "good character abilities" and "good play" here. In order to for ratings of the former to have any merit, you have to assume that they'll be used well. Yes, if I use Character X's abilities in a way that hurts my team, then those abilities hurt my team. But that's just as true if I'd used Character Y's abilities to hurt my team, or Character Z's, etc. That doesn't mean anything at all when it comes to judging how good those characters' abilities are when used well. Holy Outlaw said: I'm afraid we're at an impasse then, because I like to avoid categorical rules that dismiss evidence types I don't like. You: "In order to prove to you what a badass martial artist I am, allow me to relate the following story. One day, while walking home alone from school, I was ambushed by an entire clan of ninja. Because I'm so amazingly skilled in asskickery, I defeated them all with my open hands." Me: "Wow! That's incredible. Did it really happen?" You: "No." Me: "Um...not really seeing how that proves that you're an amazing martial artist, then." You: "Well, it could have happened." Holy Outlaw said: I'm seriously mystified that you can categorically say “good human players never rely on one player to do something” as if you’re always able to control it. Well, no, obviously there are elements of the game that are out of your control. But since they're out of your control, worrying about them is pointless and doesn't have any bearing on good or bad play.
  14. Palior said: Recently I've been in a game where the cylon player has used is revealing action to send someone to the sickbay. Little problem, that player was on the Galactica and everyone else was either on the Colonial One or the Pegasus (I only own the first extension) and since his card stipulates that he could send "a player on the Galactica to sickbay" we didn't know what to do since the Pegasus extension came out after this card was made.We played it on a dice roll but I would like to know what should have been done to get it right? You do what the card says. If there's nobody on Galactica, there's no valid target to send to sickbay.
  15. Holy Outlaw said: 1) Jagonaut argues that individual antagonism is part of the "fundamental philosophy" of the game. He values characters' ability to unilaterally settle scores against other individual players. On the other hand, Kushiel suggests it's "metagaming" and even "groupthink" to consider a player's past behavior and revealed tendencies when deciding how to respond to them in-game. I'm leaning toward Jagonaut here but could be swayed. I'll tell you this, though: it's either a fundamental game element and part of designer intent, or it's an optional outgrowth of playstyle that's outside of the game proper, but it can't be both. I don't see how what Jagonaut wrote and what I did conflict. I don't think he's talking about maintaining grudges from game to game, but rather responding to being executed by respawning as Cally and returning the favor, for example. Creating interpersonal conflict within one game session doesn' t have anything to do with basing your behavior on what's happened in previous sessions. Holy Outlaw said: 3) Kushiel suggests that it's possible to keep choosing bad crisis cards and burying good with Roslin and Boomer, and for Ellen to spread treachery cards around like a cylon Johnny Appleseed without detection. The more I hear, the more I think our groups are really, really different. My group strictly adheres to secrecy rules and I don't believe we're excessively "meta," but I have a very hard time picturing a character pulling off cylon antics like these for any period of time without detection. Not sure what the secrecy rules have to do with either of those examples. It's perfectly legit to say something like, "This crisis card is better than the one I put on the bottom of the deck," as long as you don't go into any details of what was on the card. Holy Outlaw said: It’s a distinction without a difference. Since no player can win the game in isolation—you win if your team wins and lose if your team loses—it’s wrong to assign additional value to “benefit me” abilities versus “benefit my team” abilities. I don't think anyone's arguing against this. At least, I know I'm not. What your point here fails to take into consideration, though, is that until the sleeper phase is over, you don't know which team you're on. "Benefit me" abilities are a guaranteed way to also benefit my team, since they'll help my team no matter which one it is. "Benefit team X" are only good for me if I end up on team X. Holy Outlaw said: Don’t get me wrong, if there was an ability that only benefited the humans, that would be a liability as I might wind up a cylon. But I’m trying to imagine one of those and drawing a blank. Bill Adama's all-the-time ability. With the exception of the rare crisis cards that can actually hurt the human team if the skillcheck is passed, that ability will always help the humans. And he can't even turn it off if he wants to. Holy Outlaw said: HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO: (Just as an aside, I like to avoid highly specific hypothetical situations like this one, because anyone can make one up that "proves" their point, but they're worth even less than anecdotal evidence. But I digress.) Holy Outlaw said: [snip example] At which point good human players shrug and say, "Well, I guess it's a good thing we didn't forget that there was still a cylon loose, and so we weren't relying on that Blind Jump." Good human players will pressure other players to use their OPGs to benefit the humans, but they don't plan on other people using them, unless all the hidden cylons have already been revealed.The result of that is that stuff like Blind Jump can only be used to hurt the humans by not being used, which again, would be true of every character other than Cain as well.
×
×
  • Create New...