Jump to content

Bloody Sun Boy

Members
  • Content Count

    159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bloody Sun Boy

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Dallas, Texas, United States
  1. Cosmic Encounter is *absolutely* worth its value, if you (and the people you play with) like games with a huge amount of variety, lots of social interaction and a heavy emphasis on alliance and betrayal. From a component standpoint, there are more than just cards in the box. You've also got a good bit of cardboard (the Hyperspace Gate, the Warp, the Planets and the various tokens), the 50 Alien Sheets and also 100 plastic ships. But CE isn't a game to have its value judged by its bits. The value of the game is in the incredibly diverse gameplay. For those that enjoy its style, the variety is endless and you could play 100 games of CE and never have the same experience. Add to this the fact that CE is, by nature, a game that gets better and more interesting the more times you play it and it really has great bang for your buck. That said, if you don't have a group of friends that would enjoy the kind of high-energy, duplicitous, laugh-out-loud style of game, you may not be able to get the full appreciation out of it.
  2. Thanks for the clarification, Bill. After your comments, I realized that my response above was predicated upon an overly-analytical and ultimately flawed reading of the intention of Horde's text revision. The core of my misinterpretation came from the notion that "player color" referred to "current player color". As such, I didn't interpret Horde preventing a color swap but rather, preventing another player color from acquiring Horde tokens through such means (i.e. "…cannot be separated from your player color…" not "…your starting player color…". Your clarification makes Horde's interaction much simpler and more logical. Not sure if using the term "starting" would be of any value toward such interactions. Thanks again!
  3. Does anyone know if the Alien Sheet sleeves are still being sold? I've been checking tbg_shop on eBay off and on for a couple months and have never seen them listed. Are there any other channels for purchase of these?
  4. You have stumbled onto one of those scenarios in which the intentions of the rules and the actual wording on the cards aren't entirely clear. In this particular instance, the issue is about the aliens with powers that say, "Your power cannot be stolen or copied through any means". The Cosmodex 2.0 offers some crucial insight, I think, to this situation. It discusses that the intention of "cannot be stolen/copied" alien powers includes altering possession of them by any means, including "changing player color". As such, the Cosmodex suggests that such alien powers be amended to read as follows: "Your power cannot be stolen, copied, or separated from your player color through any means." What this would mean for Horde with a Wild Schizoid is that when Horde switches player colors with an opponent, the Horde tokens currently in play stay with his original color and no longer count as ships under Horde's control. However, since the new player now in possession of Horde's color doesn't have the Horde alien power, he can't count them as his ships either, so they effectively become useless (for this reason and reasons of minimizing headaches, it would be best to remove all existing Horde tokens from play). From then on, new Horde tokens that enter play will be attached to Horde's new player color and will function normally. Of course, if you and your friends prefer to play by following the cards simply as written, then your stunt would work but it's fairly clear that "cannot be stolen/copied" powers aren't intended to function that way.
  5. Unskium said: On our first game we had an Amoeba which managed to gain its own Super Flare (we are thinking of playing without Flares now) and this enabled him, if I recall correctly, to move as many ships as he wanted to. Even when he was Allying, which then allowed him to send in, say, 10 or 20 ships and receive that many cards if the Defense won compensation. That made most other players feel that there was just no way to fight against the Amoeba anymore. Technically, this seems to have been played correctly. As others have mentioned, significant combos/advantages like these are the instances in which the *players* need to react appropriately in their own best interest. Super Amoeba isn't nearly as powerful as it might seem, especially since the Super Flare really only gives the advantage while allying. So, eventually players should just stop inviting him to ally. There are other limitations to consider as well. One is that if the Amoeba gets too excited and removes his last ship from a colony, he immediately loses that colony and has to wait to have an appropriate encounter to reclaim it. So really, Amoeba only has a number of ships his disposal equal to "living ships" (not in the Warp) minus the number of colonies he has. And if he pulls away from his home system, remember that less than 3 home colonies immediately nulls your alien power. Also, his mobility makes Amoeba good on attack but can leave him sapped on defense if not careful. His power lets him move ships either *into* our *out of* the current encounter but he can't otherwise redistribute his ships beyond the normal means. And like all Flares, if the Super Amoeba is Card Zapped or if Amoeba runs out of Encounter cards, the Flare will leave play, making it a significant-but-short-lived advantage. Also, after the first time it's played, everyone will know he has it…so react accordingly. Unskium said: Our latest game had a similar situation as we had a Remora that had picked up the Clones Flare and now could recycle Artifacts back to his hand. This enabled him to play a card which let him sacrifice a single ship and then send all Attackers to Warp, win or lose. And since he was the Remora, at the beginning of the next players turn he even got that single ship back from the Warp. We thought that we could have tried to Card Zap that Artifact out of his hand until we realized that one of them was in the hands of the Remora and the other one had just been discarded, which meant that we'd have to play at least an hour until we could get it. This seems legitimately played as well, though I'm not recalling the exact Artifact that you are referring to at the moment. Again, what keeps this from being too unstoppable is a) when Remora runs out of Encounter cards, he discards his hand (including Wild Clone and the Artifact) and b) after the first time, players and allies should hesitate to throw many defenders against Remora to mitigate potential losses. Even better, play Negotiate against Remora and hopefully steal some of those cards from his hand…then use them against him as payback! Unskium said: My friends are now calling the game broken as it allows bizarre and uneven combos that totally out-plays all other players. I am not personally totally against this but most of my players seem to be. Are we doing something wrong, are we just lucky/unlucky to have situations like that or is this exactly as it's supposed to be? The first reaction of one of my friends to Cosmic was a blunt, bold-faced "This game is broken!". He may be right in a certain respect but the game is really more clever than that. Cosmic Encounter is a game where the *unwritten* rules are the most important ones. It's about the player more than the game. By that I mean, it's not the cards and powers themselves that really light up the experience, it's knowing how, when, where and why to use them or not use them that drives the true strategy of play. And that strategy is deep, tense and wonderfully engaging. Knowing when to invite allies and exactly who to invite is a huge part. Keeping careful track of the behaviors of your opponents and what cards have already hit the table. It's true that new players have an overwhelming tendancy to invite too many and too often. After you and your friends pick up on some of these subtler nuances, you'll see the real strategy that evolves from good game of Cosmic. I'll say that the game does have a "learning curve". Not regarding the rules but rather all the strategy that exists inbetween them. If you can get your players to see this aspect of the game, you'll probably find much greater enjoyment. Best of luck!
  6. I'll do a slight thread-necro and jump in on the FFG "planet-disks" topic. I love 'em. Honestly, they allow for much greater flexibility of set-up, storage, game design and simple player aesthetics (like playing the Warpish and placing your planets in a circle around the Warp!) than locking the planets together as "systems". Someone previously mentioned the added fun of alien powers like Locust, The Claw, Leviathan, Wild Guerrilla, etc. Actually seeing the dread in your opponents eyes as you place an *entire planet* on the Hyperspace Gate during the Launch phase is just wonderful! Could the individual planet art be diversified and enhanced? Sure, I won't argue that. But I did appreciate that at least FFG gave each planet two distinct sides (one of which looking somewhat more like "planetary debris" than an actually habitable planet), which can be surprisingly useful under many circumstances. Component-wise, I can't think of anything about FFG's edition that I find inferior to previous releases.
  7. Agreed. In the meantime, all Cosmic fans should be checking out the *amazing* work that Bill Martinson has done on the "Cosmodex" over at Boardgamegeek.com: boardgamegeek.com/thread/536444/the-cosmodex-2-0-an-encyclopedia-for-cosmic-encoun The Cosmodex is a veritable encyclopedia for Cosmic Encounter and Bill has painstakingly compiled errata, FAQ, developer commentary and other notes to create a centralized hub of knowledge for anyone who plays the game. Highly recommended.
  8. D&D5e to ditch a combat grid? I'll believe that when I see it (not saying it won't happen, simply that I'll put no stock in it until it does). I played for years without grids or minis, using the old-school, poor-man's route of simple hand-drawn maps when description and imagination seemed insufficient (which was a fairly rare event). I gave D&D3e three years to sell me on the value of the 5-foot grid map and it didn't turn out well. I witnessed the influence on gameplay that happened around me and realized that I was not where I wanted to be. To be bluntly honest, though I had high hopes for WFRP3e's abstract system, it was by only the third session that I realized *as written* it was also not working for me. Ultimately, it was my experience with TSR's "Marvel Super Heroes" RPG, reawakened by my reading of the design at work in "Spirit of the Century" and "The Dresden Files RPG" that finally brought me some form resolution to the "mapping debacle" that has been draped about the hobby...the idea of "Areas" or "Zones". It is that concept that found its way into my WFRP3e games (and, indeed, many other RPGs besides). If I had may way, I'd like to see D&D5e go the way of "Areas/Zones". I'm sure it won't happen but it would be a delightful surprise. The beauty of combat-mapping for me lies somewhere between the oppression of a world divided into 5-foot cubes and the utter whimsy of a world with no metics at all. Pedro Lunaris said: To me, grids strain my imagination...*snip*...After some time, it was I again who suggested we stoped using it. I noticed our games were too much about what was going on at the grid, that is, it was like the grid had become the reality of the game, and we weren't imagining so much any more... This was close to my experience as well. I call this the "slamming your fingers in the door"-effect...the notion that there are two detached realities at work in the game, 1) the one that is happening on the grid and 2) the one that is happening off the grid. When the transition or translation between those two experiences is jarring or unituitive, it becomes a noticable artifact of gameplay and feels like you're "slamming your fingers" every time that transition occurs...metaphorically speaking, of course.
  9. doc_cthulhu said: If somebody is searching for a "better percentile warhammer" they should wait for Corehammer to be released. As I understand it the publishing date is not too far of. If you'r unfamiliar with Corehammer go HERE. Interesting. This is my first time hearing about Corehammer. I'll admit that I was slightly disheartened to learn that his objective is to divorce the system from the Warhammer setting (the real reason I play WFRP) but I'll have to keep my eye on this just to see how it comes along. Thanks!
  10. RARodger said: I think there's only one minor terminology use that I would correct in Bloody Sun Boy's answer. It's not a big deal but I find it helps keep some issues clear. Engaged isn't really a range, it's a state or a condition. When you're engaged with an enemy you are also at close range. Thus when you disengage you don't move to close range, you're still at close range, you're just no longer engaged with an enemy. Like I said, it's really minor, but when you get into some of the rules and wordings. And you're probably technically correct in your application of the term as an artifact in the RAW (I don't have my books available to reference). Conceptually, I find it more clear and helpful to think of Engaged as being a separate "range increment" of sorts since it requires a Maneuver to enter or leave the Engaged state, the most logical explanation of which being "closing the gap" between you and a foe (also implied by the rules concerning viability of Melee and Ranged Attack actions). It implies the need to move toward or away from your target, which makes it helpful to think of Engaging as "movement". As such, a "map", if you will, of Range Increments in the game would look like: Extreme -> Long -> Medium -> Close -> Engaged Honestly, I think this is best represented by an idea I proposed of turning these abstract ranges in a system of "Zones". Characters within the same "Zone" are all at Close range to one another. Characters at Close range may then spend 1 Maneuver to Engage any target in that Zone. This helps demonstrate your clarification while illustrating that being Engaged is "closer than Close".
  11. Let me try to assist by breaking the example down into steps and then examining the mechanics. Bledthiig said: Setting, a elf scout is bieing mauled by a hungry squig. the scout wants to disengage and use a move maneouver to shoot the squig (his bow was already in hand) Characters may perform 1 free Maneuver per turn and use 1 Action Card. Additional Maneuvers performed in the same turn cost 1 Fatigue each. 0) At the start of the round, the Scout and the squig are currently Engaged with each other. The Scout hs his bow drawn and ready. 1) The Scout performs 1 Maneuver (his free Maneuver) to move away from the squig. This moves the Scout from Engaged range to Close range to the squig (a character who is no longer Engaged with a target is considered to be at Close range). 2) As he is no longer Engaged with the squig, the Scout may use his 1 Action Card to perform an available Ranged Attack action that uses his bow. The Scout need take no other Maneuvers if his objective is only to Disengage and attack the squig. 1 movement Maneuver will take him out of range for Melee Attack actions and will allow him to perform Ranged Attack actions. If the Scout chose to perform further Maneuvers that turn, each Maneuver imposes 1 Fatigue upon him. The "they may be attacked" verbiage of the Disengaging rules is misleading. A character *must* spend 1 Maneuver to move away from an Engagement, which then places them at Close range. There is no risk (unless you wanted to create your own house-rule) of being attacked when Disengaging and there is no Skill roll or Action Card involved in doing so. Hope that helps!
  12. Dosadi said: Wow, what a great thread! I’m an old school RPG-er who is getting back into it with WHFRP 3e. I ran the demo scenario a few years back, but have not really looked at the game since. Now some friends and I are gearing up for a campaign and this sort of info is exactly what I’m looking for. I will consider this info heavily when planning out how to run my first adventure. We chose WHFRP 3e over another FRPG mainly because we are all WHFB players and love the setting. I’ve always been fast and loose with rules in RPGs, never letting rules and mechanics get in the way of a good narrative. This thread has given me some insight into what sort of changes I may need to look at to streamline the mechanics so things don't get bogged down. I already know that things like progress trackers will see minimal use in my games as I prefer role playing and for resolution of such things. Are there any other pitfalls I should look out for when running my campaign? Dosadi Glad I could help! That was exactly my goal when I started this thread. I, too, find that I rarely use Progress Trackers. I've used them once or twice but I find that I'm generally too distracted with other things (NPCs, background events, player questions) and I end up forgetting to advance them. So, yes, they have proven to be less helpful for my style of GMing than I hoped they would. Use the stuff that *improves* your game and toss the stuff that *diminishes* it. In my opinion, house-ruling is a sign of love. If you spend the time and energy to twist and tweak a game to maximize the experience, obviously care about it on some level. If you didn't care about the game, you would have probably just pitched it out the window by now! As always, there are some exceptions.
  13. willmanx said: CONSERVATIVE HOURGLASS : if you find the 2 token not enough efficient... I think you don't put these on the player's Active Defenses... Try it That was actually my default and by-far most often used result when Delays came up (as it was generally the most directly impactful option). One of the problems is that players often have 2-3 Active Defenses and losing just one of them for a round or two wasn't proving very inconvenient. The other issue became coming up with an explaination of *why* a particular Active Defense was lost each time, which was okay the first time or two it happened but started to get exhausting and stretch suspension of disbelief when it happened over and over again. I suppose one should also consider the existence of my house rule that only 1 Active Defense can be applied per attack (you cannot both Dodge and Parry the same attack, for example) which removes "Defense Stacking". Of course, my decision to ditch Recharge tokens entirely also meant that having Delays add them to Active Defenses became contradictory, so I had to pursue other ideas. Still with the idea of Delays affecting Active Defenses in my head, I initially toyed with something along the lines of "If you roll a Delay, you may not perform Active Defenses until the start of your next turn" but my players (and myself, in hindsight) thought that too harsh. So, I stepped away from the "Defense" idea and it evolved into the "Maneuver" idea that exists today.
  14. Emirikol said: 1) Party Sheets - * I like the idea of just keeping a stack of fortune for recharge behind the screen, but I think I'd rather just reward individual players for good, heroic roleplaying. It's one of two disincentives to roleplaying in this game: Fortune point recharge and 1 xp/game session. The "player-based vs. group-based rewards" is a topic I've weighed in on before. Personally I've come to prefer the scenario where the efforts of one benefit the whole but that's far too involved and off-topic for this thread. I do agree with you on the "1 XP/session" though. I don't hand out XP at the end of each session but at the end of each "adventure" or major development in the campaign and base it on various considerations. Emirikol said: 3) Recharge Tokens - *We did the 4+ was "per encounter" for a while, but my players found once they were proficient that they could multitask and still roleplay. It's just accounting to some degree though. One thing we don't bother accounting: TALENT RECHARGE. This is just silly to tack that onto even more accounting. THose we still do "per encounter." One of the things I have noticed (perhaps just an artifact of my style of GMing and the sort of foes my PCs have been facing) is that most combats are over after a handful of rounds. As such, it seems fairly rare that Actions with more than 4 Recharge or so ever become important again once they've been "tripped". Still, it's in an early stage of playtest, so we'll see how it all shakes down. Emirikol said: 6) Delay Results - ** I had an idea not to give them stress (man, that's harsh!), but to either give them a facedown insanity card (something like shame), or just have them lose their next free stance shift and/or maneuver. I've leaned towards the latter b/c then I don't need to create a whole new mechanic. My initial house rule for Delays started off as "No further Maneuvers this round" but it quickly became apparent that Conservative PCs would then attempt to perform all their Maneuvers *first* and then roll their action. So, it evolved into "No further Maneuvers and Stress = Maneuvers performed - 1" But then my players responded that they thought PCs should still be able to perform further Maneuvers if they need to but simply impose Stress when they do so. So, that's how it evolved to its current state. Doc, the Weasel said: Exertion results are only Fatigue when it's a physical roll. Do you have Delays and Exertion both give stress on mental rolls? Thanks for the reminder. Yes, I still use Exertion rules as normal, imposing Fatige on physical and Stress on mental. Delays however, are indiscriminant of the type of action taken and don't *inherently* impose Stress...only adding an additional cost to performing Maneuvers that round. There's no real danger of "doubling-up" though since no one (except Tzeentch daemons) can roll both Delays and Exertions in the same roll.
×
×
  • Create New...