Jump to content

Nameless1

Members
  • Content Count

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nameless1

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  1. Did some work as described on this forum at BGG: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/629071/sleeves-for-monster-tokens-solution-found/page/1 Stretching is a must. I like the idea of the foam protectors but it looks like I lot of work. I filed down the teeth on my stands using a mini file myself. Edit: minor spelling
  2. I think it's all coming back to me now. Monster appears - follow the instructions on the card. I.e fight (and get the trophy) or evade (and it disappears). Gate opens, monster appears - gate opens first, investigator gets sucked through to Other World and is delayed, THEN 2 monsters appear as per the ruling for 5+ investigator games.
  3. Wow seriously? For some reason I thought that the encounter was a personal experience of the investigator which he had to deal with himself. Hence the description literally meant what was written on the card: i.e. 1 monster or 1 gate & monster appears. Does this apply to "monster appear" encounters as well?
  4. Tibs said: Really, if we don't answer rules questions, what else is there to talk about? I was curious to see what this all meant and logged in to be confronted with a wall of legalese! Seriously? Don't discuss rules or use the forum for contacting FFG? Seems a bit …excessive don't you think? Not to be contrary here but re the second condition has there ever been an instance of a mod posting here? And re the first condition: there's several years of forum questions discussing rules here…perhaps one might release a FAQ first before implementing this concept? Anecdotally this is one of the livelier sub-forums on FFG (see CitOW in comparison) and to suggest that rules not be discussed as Tibs indicated "what else is there?"
  5. Tibs said: For me, it's a lot easier to just remove one ally from the "out" deck for each ally-expansion in play. I thought about trying to make a rule that changes their frequency based on how many allies are in a given expansion, but... sometimes less is more, you know? Thanks guys!
  6. Hey jgt7771: While I see your point about wishing the decks to drain simultaneously I'm not sure it's an issue. The secondary deck is ONLY accessible in encounters which as I recall tend to specify the ally by name. Barring certain investigators who can farm the encounter deck I think it would probably be difficult to "game the system" as it were to access this secondary deck. I admit your solution would be balanced but a bit concerned about the math. I was told there would be none!
  7. The Professor said: Nameless1, Elegant and practical! That's exactly how I like it. The Professor Thank you!
  8. Based on the commentary here I've written up an addendum to my player setup. Would others say this captures the salient points?: Preparation (Game Setup): Shuffle the ally deck and deal 11 cards face-up so that all investigators know that these are recruitable at Ma's Boarding House during the game - this is the PRIMARY (main/boarding house/in town) ally deck. The remaining cards are comprise the SECONDARY (encounter/out-of-town) ally deck. Shuffle the PRIMARY ally deck. Ally Recruitment: If an ally is recruited from Ma's Boarding House, the investigator must choose from those present in the PRIMARY deck ONLY. If a described ally is to be recruited from an encounter (after meeting the encounter card requirements), the investigator must first search the PRIMARY deck (taking it if so). If the described ally is NOT to be found in the PRIMARY deck, the SECONDARY deck must be searched (taking it if so). If an ally is drawn from the SECONDARY deck by this means, an ally card must then be transferred FROM the PRIMARY deck to the SECONDARY deck to replace it. Terror Level For every terror level increase remove 1 ally card from the Primary deck, and X ally cards from the SECONDARY ally deck where X equals the number of these expansions in play: Curse of the Dark Pharaoh Dunwich Horror Kingsport Horror
  9. Tibs said: Not much of a formula. One ally leaves the "main" deck of 11 at each terror level increase, and X leave the "out" deck, where X is equal to the number of these expansions you're using: Curse of the Dark Pharaoh Dunwich Horror Kingsport Horror If you were using all of them, then by the time your terror level reached 8, you would have removed the last of the "out" allies. There would still be allies remaining in the main deck, just like the normal game. If you're using just Dunwich, then you'd remove one ally from the "main" deck and one from the "out" deck every terror-up (or any other effect that returns an ally to the box). Clealrly, at TL5 you'll run out of "out" allies, but that's how it is. It's still more available to you than with the official "use just 11" rule. Many thanks! This is very interesting - I must remember this next time I play. And just to confirm these are the only expansions that include additional allies? I suppose the inclusion of additional allies from Miskatonic and the novel promotion(s) would not have a significant effect on this implementation - or would be too complicated to correct. It's a pity there isn't an elegant official solution to allies.
  10. Tibs said: Yes: as the terror level increases, your chances of finding an ally in town are appropriately lowered. If you never dropped any from the "out" deck, then the total number of allies available to find would go from 34 at TL-0 to 24 at TL-10. That's still way too many (as opposed to 1 ally in the original). Dropping 3 at each terror-level up will ensure that the available ally pool would gradually dry up. Tibs, is there a formula for implementing this? Is it a hard coded 3 from secondary or is it (as jack21222 described), 1 card per expansion board? Also by means of further clarification would expansions or expansion boards having any effect on this formula? Right now I only have one box box expansion (Dunwich) so my ally count is relatively small.
  11. jack21222 said: I shuffle them all up and randomly draw 11 to be "in town" for the game. When drawing a random ally or selecting an ally of my choice, I pick only from that stack. If an encounter specifies drawing a particular ally, I look at both that stack and the "out of town" stack.However, when the terror level increases or when the southside strangler strikes, I remove one ally from the "in town" stack and 3 allies (one for each big board used) from the "out of town" stack from the game. Also, when I draw one from the "out of town" stack to resolve an encounter, I move one of the "in town" ones to the "out of town" stack, to keep it at 11 possible allies in the game. I use this arrangement myself regarding allies. Everything but the terror level - I don't remove 3 from the "out of town" deck (what I refer to as the "ally encounter deck" or secondary deck) , I just remove 1 from the "in town" deck or "Ma's Boarding house deck" Basically, the only way you can use the secondary deck is when an encounter card directs you to do so if the ally is NOT present in the primary. If you plan on recruiting at Ma's only the primary ally deck is used. Any draws from the secondary must be replenished by a draw from the primary. Is there a explanation for the draw 3 from secondary mechanic? I must have missed this mechanic. It appears a bit unwieldy and unnecessary to me. Then again I've only played with one board thus far.
  12. jgt7771 said: I've heard horror stories from a few unfortunate Litko customers who accidentally snapped a monster in half bowing them to fit into their stands. And I can see some extremely minor wear-and-tear (slight layer separation) on some of my oldest monster chits (Cultists, Zombies). All this just serves to remind me how fragile cardboard chits really are, especially when you use them week after week. It fills me with dread to think of the stress that might be added from constantly pushing into and pulling out of a plastic base (even as cool and innovative I think those bases are). I believe I used stands but from Rolco: http://www.rolcogames.com/product.php?id=42&catid=9 I ended up having to file down the teeth using a miniature file. Even so the edges STILL grasped the tokens tighter than I'd like so I ended up sleeving all the tokens anyway. If I had to do it all over again I'd probably just file the teeth down of the original figure 8's, polish the sanding with some fine grain water-compatible sandpaper and use the sleeves to prevent wear & tear of the tiles when mixed in the bag as well as when mounting them on the stands. Have a look at this old thread as a reference: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/629071/sleeves-for-monster-tokens-solution-found/page/1
  13. Grudunza said: There is a hole on the back that reveals all of the text and stats. As someone pointed out on a different thread, another problem with using these in the game is that the way the base is built, you can't see the colored border of the chit for movement. All of the text? I knew the modifiers were on display but not the flavour/special ability text. The color border is definitely a problem if you would have to pick up every relevant figure when their symbol comes up - as opposed to having the tokens on stands and reading off the back.
  14. My first thought on hearing this announcement was "Horse Armour" Background: When after PC game "Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" was released, downloadable content was offered. If memory serves it was the very first instance of DLC costing $1.99 which provided a COSMETIC change to the character's horse. I.e. Horse Armour. To PC gamers accustomed to modding these games and to the wider gaming community in general this was a highly controversial decision. Fast forward a few years and one would be hard pressed to purchase ANY game now for which there are not additional expansions or DLC (again some of it cosmetic). Looking now at FFG, a lot of their game releases are inevitably followed up with expansions. And while I seem to recall others have in the past requested miniatures for the AH series, I can't honestly see how this is practical for reasons others have provided. One that occurred to me that it's difficult to determine is how exactly the special text of the monster tokens be read if they are slid into the bases of these minis. It's a moot decision for me anyway as I've sleeved all my monster tokens so they likely won't fit into these bases. I don't begrudge FFG for making these and I fully admit I'm under no obligation whatsoever to buy these. I'm just not seeing the point of it that's all. But hey, if others think these are worth a buy and snap these up, more power to them!
  15. Tibs said: I said they'd never do it... but in the back of my mind, I knew it was an inevitability. www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp I won't be getting any because it's not all the monsters and there's no room and I don't have the money, but that Dunwich Horror figure looks tempting... Agree with you Tibs. While nice I could never entertain getting the investigators due to costs involved and I suppose the same applies for these figures. I'm not exactly clear how these can be incorporated into the game either unless you slot them into the base when the tile is drawn from the bag? But then from what I recall of MoM the tiles are supposed to be in there permanently? The only practical use I can see for these is are spawn monsters which aren't drawn from the bag. And like you I'm tempted by the Dunwich Horror fig but $10? Pass.
×
×
  • Create New...