Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Penfold3

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Minnesota, United States
  1. I have no idea how a card that forces participation can be said to be non-interactive with a straight face.
  2. Thanks for that. I didn't look BD up before commenting and I should have.
  3. Send it to Damon. I don't have the insert in fornt of me, but if it does not say something about it, I could argue both sides of it, but to be honest I'd be somewhat surprised if PoMV allowed the triggering of the prophecy. It is placed on top of your deck, and is treated as an active card by doing so. Without that I'm not sure there is any facility to allow it to be triggered… but this is mostly by inference. It isn't that hard to imagine the ruling going the other way.
  4. No. It is the act of committing exactly one character that serves as the play requirement for Black Dogs…that said, each use of a Black Dog opens up an opportunity for the other player to trigger his or her own Black Dog.
  5. I just don't understand some people. Martell has the BEST defense against Naval in the game, the ability to remove the icon it is on and there by not just nullify its Naval, but the ability to participate in that challenge at all, and you are complaining because they don't also have a strong enough offense in NAval? No sympathy for you at all dude. None. As to MArtell not getting good cards..is this a fact, or is it because you keep trying to find a single card to slot into a preexisting deck rather than evaluate the cards as a whole in regards to the entire card pool only to discover that perhaps they have recently gotten some cards that are good in a build different than the one you are using? The whole point of the most recent FAQ was to shake up the metagame and force people to question their assumptions and give new cards and builds a try. If you simply refuse to do so it is no surprise you are flagging behind your meta mates. In the Game of Cards, you adapt or you die.
  6. N0te taking ia a player aid. Where do you draw the line for what player aids are and are not allowed? How do you make the distinction between slow play using your note taking as an excuse to note taking that simply requires a minute or so to write something down in detail? Show up with your decks and your counters. Play the game. Win or lose. Pretty much anything else should be called into question in my book. If the card pool is too deep or your recall too poor then perhaps this is just not a game you are meant to be a high level competitor in. There is no shame in that.
  7. "You mention Euro board games, but AGOT already has the random ccg element of your random draw vs 1 opponent. Add 2 more guys to that seems to add more luck to me. Maybe I'm wrong." That depends. Do you view plays that you did not anticipate flummoxing your plans as luck or skill? If it is skill then having two more players doing the same is also skill, the fact that the more people there are in a game the harder it is to rely purely on your cards to get you out of bad positions and instead the more you have to rely on strategy to do it is not about luck. It is about skill, but one which does not come to the forefront as strongly in head to head play. 50 different cards in play with three other opponents and there varying intellects and personalities creates a lot for a single player to track. The best players in melee are those who can do just that. They track the board and the players various strengths and weaknesses and use their cards when possible to push or pull the game to suit them. They are also abundantly aware that each other person at the table may have a card that could defeat their goals and wreck their plans, so they use their ability to form alliances or at least sow dissension between players to encourage or discourage use of certain effects or plays that would negatively impact them. The biggest difference between an excellent melee player and an excellent joust player is that the joust player will usually try to win as fast as possible before the opponent can interfere, or remove every possible choice from their opponent to actively affect the game board, while the excellent melee player is trying to manipulate the other players or the board itself to do his work for him, allowing him to save his cards for those pushes when diplomacy fails.
  8. This announcement sounds AWESOME! Dripping with theme. I've always wanted to go to Venice. I actually think this may be a very good sign that it will get reprinted. Those cards will suddenly have more relavency and therefor more likely to have them reprinted.
  9. Well Scrappy-Doo is obviously a Mask of Nyarlathotep.
  10. I'm not sure I understand the issue. The Ancient Ones, Great Old Ones, and Elder Gods are not harmonious. That they work against each other at times and etradimensional science/powers can effect each other sounds perfectly "normal" to me. This game is based not strictly on the material of Lovecraft but on Chaosiums RPG. That menas we're going to find characters either directly from their written marterials or FFG's own Arkham lines as well as those from Lovecraft and his circle of mythos writers. I also play AGoT (though far less these days) and they have five or six different versions of a number of their unique characters. Every other cycle we get a new copy of one of the dozen or so main characters. These game could easily become that following the desire for only Mythos characters. That said, they stick a couple in here or there. They could certainly plop an extra one or two in per release.
  11. Here, here. I feel for you and am sorry for your loss.
  12. Kennon said: I think that the issue is really just one of terminology. I would argue that creativity is increased by an expanded card pool due to the additional possible permutations of card combinations. There's not really any way to argue against the math of the greater numbers. It is one of terminology but not the way you think. Greater number of permutations is not the same thing as creativity. Any half decent composer can tell you that learning how to create and be creative within a restrictive form like blues form or waltz form forces you to find new ways of doing things, of challenging assumptions to get what you want out of it while having no restrictions can frequently lead people to just putting down notes on the page. Listen to some of the avant-garde or free jazz and you'll get what I'm talking about. More options != Creativity. I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive, just they are not equal. The question is one of degrees also. How many restrictions are there? In Star Wars your restrictions in the Core Set are huge. The resourcing mechanic as well as the pack style of deck building and the limited number of packs all create an enviornment that is almost hostile to building unique decks. This will change greatly in a couple years. I expect to see Star Wars deck building to show some very interesting elements. I also expect it to reveal that the game is much more about play ability than deck building ability (assuming the packs continue to show a reasonable balance). Another nail in the coffin of this debate is the difference between restricted and banned. People seem to be focusing on the idea of "soft-banned" rather than at it as the use of this card gives me these options rather than removing the others. This is of course perfectly understandable, we've been taught to build from a very large pool of powerful and efficient cards. We are now being challenged to build with a pool every bit as large, but with more delineated choices. To show what I mean about this, how many people complain about not being able to have three of a specific plot in their deck? What about two? One is the norm and that means when we get an opportunity to run two we view it as a positive. Every time we select a plot we chop down the number of other pltos that can go into our deck and there is rarely complaint about this. That said. Why isn't KotHH on the restricted list? And I'm thinking all agendas on the restricted list might be a **** good idea.
  13. Dear FFG. Do not ever bring back any card that uses dice. Thank You.
  14. It is. There is just zero logic behind the statement that BI is weaker than Scourge in reference to effect. Kill is very nearly always the better option rather than control for a turn. Now the deck building and targeting restrictions are definitly very different. The question is how much of an issue are they in practice versus theory?
  15. randomblink said: Still no blink… damnit I'm pissed. I did tell you that was a card unlikely to ever come back in any major way. If it involves flipping a coin or rolling a die I wouldn't expect it to make its way into an FFG game without the coins or dice being provided. Just not their style.
  • Create New...