Fingolfin80

Members
  • Content count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fingolfin80

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bologna, Bologna, Italy
  1. Well, I'm a sort of maniac when it comes to organize my game storage, mainly because I don't like to waste to much time in setting things up. That's an "Arkham Horror With All Expansions" scar in my gamegeek soul. So, I have a small plastic suitcase for each faction, like the ones used for small tools. Inside I keep all the units in plastic bags (the original ones included with the game) and the cards of the faction (lore, army, scenario, etc). For the common part such as terrain tiles, board, command cards and tokens I use the original box. To keep my tokens well organized and ready to use I keep them in a small screw box, easily found in any hardware store.
  2. Yes, but still an official word on that would be welcome. The lack of communication about the future of the game is not something I appreciate. I know it's more or less a standard for FFG, but I think that people who invested in the game should be notified when is industrial lifecycle is over. I will keep playing, of course, but at least I would stop waiting for Godot.
  3. Yes, I agree with your assumptions, it's only that I don't find this course of events particullary satisfing. That said, there are other systems for games with minis in FFG catalogue they could prefer to Battlelore for a Rokugan game, like RuneWars TMG or one of the Star Wars games, so a reskin is an option but not necessarily the most likely one. I fully agree that a L5Rings game with minis will eventually come out, though. Well, I'm not sure when this was printed, but it'is not that old I would say.
  4. Thats's indeed a possibility, and probably the end result would be more interesting than battle of westeros because Battlelore Second Edition has better rules (imho) and the fictional world seems wide enough to allow very different factions. Nonetheless, Battlelore players who decided to jump to the reskinned version would put aside their Terrinoth armies, and I don't see it as a desirable ending.
  5. Uhm, I don't know... the game itself is good, i don't feel a new edition is needed, there's really nothing to fix here. What the game needs imho is more variance, so another faction (or three... ok, that's too much to ask, but a guy can dream ) and a multiplayer variant for three or four players. Maybe heroes or some neutrals. But a 3rd edition would imply a revised version of the rules, and frankly for me that would be too much. Not to mention that I'd have to put aside what I bought so far, 'cause it's usually not compatible.
  6. I think that's a common feeling here around. I wish I could have a huge 4 players / 4 faction battle, but I'm afraid it will stay just a wish. That said, the game is awesome and I'll keep playing it even if FFG decided to drop it officially.
  7. I saw that thread, there are good ideas in it but I prefer to stick to the official rules for now. They are strong, that's for sure, but maybe since there's just enough material for one unit in the box (as far as I understood it) they don't embalance the game, but I leave that consideration to players that actually tried them on the field. At worst, I could put a limitation like "if you pack them you have to take one grotesque too". No idea about where you could find them at lower price though.
  8. Hello! I was lurking this forum for a while, waiting to read some good news about the future of battlelore. Needless to say those news didn't come, but I love the game and I'm in a similar situation as you are Phalgast. I've got all armies but no neutral unit, and I start to think it could be interesting to take them to have some more variety in army building. Probably Waiqar and Daquan don't need more options, but I think Uthuk could use them since I've the impression that they have less good units. I mean, they can make a good army as much as the others, but if you like to change it from one game to another their options are less flexible, imho. So I'm really interested in understanding how these neutral units perform. Not only if they are god, but also if they are too good (I have a fear that razorwings could be slightly OP) : I would't like to solve one problem by making a bigger one.
  9. Well, I guess everyone has his own reasons for that. For some people is the money, for me it's more like the idea of buying the same product twice that i find particulary difficult to manage. I will probably buy every expansion that will come, but never ever a single one twice. I would have gladly paid more for a 4 player core, but I won't buy two of them, 'cause it feels wrong to me, too much unwanted duplicate stuff. I get it's only my psychosis, probably, but it's Arkham Horror so I'm entitled to some psychosis by default, I would say. However, my position is peculiar: I use LCGs as boardgames, for example we play WH:I with only my decks and works like a charm, having enough expansions to keep a deck of every faction (including neutrals) built and ready to go. I coluldn't care less for organized play, so as long as my decks are balanced between them "viability" and "strenght" are concepts that do not apply to my games. That said, with only 1 base and 1 Dunwitch (no pack yet, i've ordered them but they're still not in my hands) I was able to build 3 decks without headaches, though I don't know If competitive players would be satisfied by them, but they worked for us and we were able to get through the first scenario without problems. One last note: as I said I wouldn't ever buy a second core, but I could consider a small pack with ONLY investigator cards, if it ever came out.
  10. Tibs said: Not specifically, but I'm saying that if your incantation causes a gate to close across town, why are you collecting it as a trophy? In any case, to make it simple for us to employ, it has to say "you" close the gate. I can see your point, I suppose it's a matter of taste after all. I could argue that the card text says "[...] If you pass, close 1 open gate (it cannot be sealed) anywhere in Arkham (whether or not you've explored it), lose 1 Sanity, and discard De Vermiis Mysteriis". That "you" seems implied to me but it's really open to any interpretation, and see how olther players see the rules is always interesting. However, that's how I play this kind of situation: an event generated by the direct use of an item, spell or ability by one of the investigators is treated as directly made by the investigator himself, unless differently specificated. Events generated by encounters ar not, of course unless differently specificated. In this particular case, that "it cannot be sealed" seems quite reduntant if the gate is not closed by the investigator.
  11. Tibs said: Here's the way I do it: A closing gate is a closing gate: all corresponding monsters are returned to the cup. If it says you close the gate, then you get the trophy. Otherwise you do not. Closing the gate may not have been deliberate: you could have accidentally caused the gate to close. You're allowed to seal it if you had to do a Fight or Lore gate-closing check. (The Elder Sign is a substitute for actually doing the check, not a free pass to seal any closing gate.) The rationale is that you have to take time to gouge the elder sign. If you closed the gate by accident (see 2) then you don't get the chance to lay a seal. So, in the cited example, you get the trophy but wouldn't be allowed to seal. With De Vermis Mysteriis, you do not get the trophy (you did not close the gate: the incantation did), and you can't seal it (the check was for reading the tome; it was not a typical gate closing check. You may use use an elder sign during a normal gate closing: you would have made a check, but the Elder Sign prevented you from having to do so. That's how I play it, too. But I beg to differ about the De Vermis Mysteriis, I don't see any reason to consider the gate closed by the incantation end not by the player. You cast the spell, so you close the gate, as with an elder sign. Why do you think it's different?
  12. I don't have the card to check right now, but I'd say from the reserve. Some investigators would die automatically otherwise, since their max stamina value is 3.
  13. I considered that, and maybe that's the path I'll take eventually. But to be honest it's a very permanent solution, and I was searching for something less... final.
  14. Speaking of sleeves... Any idea for Investigators/AOO Sheets? FFG doesn't provide anything for their protection, and looking around on the internet I found nothing. I don't like the idea of using them "naked". Expecialy if the players have bad habits , like keeping a mug of beer soooo close to the sheets...
  15. Dam said: Start her at an unstable location and see a Mythos card open a Devouring Gate at that location ! No risk, no glory