Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About WhirlwindMonk

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype
  1. Dunno if you've found it yet, but this page www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/User_talk:Benjamin seems to be the place to get in touch with the admin.
  2. Sdrolion said: Do you guys think I should also make cultists endless so they can't be taken as monster trophies and held to stop them from coming back? Probably unnecessary, but I don't think it'd be an overwhelming power boost. Might be worth a try, at least.
  3. Admiral142 said: Hm... I like the idea! As with most custom content, there are some things that should probably be tweaked. IMHO, this guy is extremely powerful. Also, the ability is very wordy. There are some ways to trim it down. As with Supercz, I think that perhaps the favored weapon ability would be better as a personal story. You could even make it so that he could choose any weapon he has to become favored. Just a thought. Ok, so enough "constructive criticism," here are my suggestions on how to balance it a little better: Cleave: Any phase: Choose a weapon <name> is carrying and make a Will (+1) check. This weapon becomes a magical weapon and gains +1 for each success rolled until the next upkeep phase (mark this weapon with a doom token). Upkeep: Discard any weapon with a doom token on it. Or Cleave: Any phase: Make a Will(+1) check and choose a weapon <name> is carrying. This weapon gains a +1 combat modifier for each success you rolled on your will check until the next upkeep phase. Discard this weapon on the next upkeep phase. That last one seems a little more concise, I just don't know if it would be better to mark the weapon in question. You probably notice that I take away the ignoring of magical resistance. This is because since the weapon is becoming magical anyway AND gaining bonuses, it is likely that you'll be doing the equivalent of the original weapon damage without worrying about overcoming resistance. For example, let's say Arthur had his will at 2, fight 5. You roll 3 dice and get two successes (perhaps optimistic). So you add +2 to the cane sword making it +4 and magical. Since resistance only cuts in half the bonus, you still get +2, which you would have gotten anyway. Another thing just occurred to me; you're only going to want to use this ability really on something that has physical immunity or resistance. Usually (not alway), if a monster has physical resistance/immunity, they won't have magic resistance. In this case, you'd get the whole +4 combat bonus. This makes the ability still very powerful without being quite as overpowering as before. Just FYI, and I'm sure you know, there is an item called Enchanted Cane that comes with the "cannot be lost or stolen" ability, though it is not specifically a cane sword, so this may not be what you want. Here is a link to an image of a cane sword that I thought looked pretty cool: javascript:void(0);/*1302375945021*/ Thanks! I do like the idea of make the favored weapon a personal story, I might go with that, especially since I was having a hard time coming up with one to begin with. Of your two suggestions, I like the first better, especially since I feel like it's worth it to mark the cards, since he theoretically could dual wield and boost one, both, or neither. And going through weapons that fast means you'd probably try to stock him up with cheap weapons. I still feel like that might be a little bit underpowered compared to some of the other investigator's abilities, but looking at it again, that's definitely a lot more balanced than the first attempt. And yeah, I did base the cane sword off the Enchanted Cane, I was just trying to make this as similar to my hunter character as possible, and he used a cane sword (more specifically, a max-power perma-cleave cane sword per the Avenger special ability/ritual thingy). I do like the image, so I'll post the Cane Sword card with the next revision.
  4. Awesome, thanks! Also, since just saying "Awesome, thanks!" isn't a sufficiently long post, I have added this pointless sentence speaking to how "Awesome, thanks!" is not a sufficiently long post.
  5. So, this came up in a game I was playing this evening. The card Warding of the Yellow Sign allows you to place it on a location to prevent monsters from spawning there due to gates (www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Warding_of_the_Yellow_Sign). Now, what happens if you place it on a gate and a monster surge occurs that normally forces you to place a monster on that gate? (For example, if the location the Ward is on surges or you get four monsters from the surge with only three open) Do the monsters just get shunted to other gates? Do the ones that would have spawned on that gate just not spawn? I'm leaning toward the latter, but I'm really not sure. Thanks!
  6. Hugues said: Maybe you could say that Cultist never goes to suburbs and instead, is killing one of the monster in the city and replace it. Closest from the point where he should appear. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's generally necessary. The game I played last night definitely felt like a fluke compared to the dozen or so other times I've played. Especially so compared to larger games where it's easier to dedicate someone to sweeping the streets and reduce the number of monsters that go to the Outskirts.
  7. I just ran a playtest against him, two investigators, base board only. Defeated him soundly, though his mechanics didn't come up as I only drew cultists a couple times, once for The Great Experiment Rumor and the other time or two they ended up in the Outskirts, so it wasn't all that illuminating of a playtest, unfortunately. My girlfriend wants to try it out, though, so I'll probably be able to run it again soon. Hopefully that one will show off some of the mechanics.
  8. Avi_dreader said: WhirlwindMonk said: I'd think base board locations only would be the way to go. An associated herald that forces you to close an expansion neighborhood would be interesting, though it would obviously need to do something else so that it's actually harder. I do kind of like the idea of being forced to choose between a world-destroying rift and the hospital/asylum, though. I could always have it add a doom token (or maybe close another neighborhood instead) when one of them kills an investigator if you're worried about it being used for that tactic. Or perhaps draw a random monster trophy and put it on The Blessed One. Actually... Closing the Asylum might be an issue, unless you don't mind people who don't have Dunwich (many) not being able to regain their sanity. If you're far enough that you're forced to close the hospital/asylum, chances are you're at the point where if you haven't won in one or two turns, you're going to lose. And personally, so long as the wording prevents the "close five neighborhoods in one turn" situation I described above, I personally don't really mind the possibility of not being able to regain sanity or stamina in the very late game.
  9. I was actually about to ask if you had meant it to be "every three toughness" or "at least three toughness". At least three definitely sounds better. Imagine if you're playing a six player game, with two gates, or even just one gate open. Draw a mythos, and BOOM, monster surge! You then draw a cultist plus five multi-toughness monsters, and only one of them moves. You could end up closing nearly the whole dang board in a single turn, if you cycle through groups of three toughness rather than just grabbing them all at once.
  10. Veet said: If the penalty for not killing them is steep enough to force investigators to need to face them then it's an OK combo, the trick is to make the penalty worth it. Even closing an entire neighborhood I can think of 3 you could close with few problems (French Hill, Merchant District and East Town) and I still think this power will be rare enough that it will almost never close more than that. Also nothing should ever close the Asylum or the Hospital as they have basic game functions that can break the game if lost. French Hill, yeah. Merchant, not as much. Considering how this could make monster management easier, the Terror Track would be slower to rise. And if they're gobbling up a lot of monsters, this would likely cause you to close the General Store before the Terror Track. Personally, East Town could be a problem, since I like to go for Deputy whenever possible. Between the money and the car, that's a potent bonus. I do agree to some extent, though. That said, it is three toughness worth, not three monsters. There are plenty of three toughness monsters in the game, and since they could show up and move in the Mythos phase, and then get eaten the next upkeep, there's nothing the players can do about it sometimes.
  11. I'd think base board locations only would be the way to go. An associated herald that forces you to close an expansion neighborhood would be interesting, though it would obviously need to do something else so that it's actually harder. I do kind of like the idea of being forced to choose between a world-destroying rift and the hospital/asylum, though. I could always have it add a doom token (or maybe close another neighborhood instead) when one of them kills an investigator if you're worried about it being used for that tactic. Or perhaps draw a random monster trophy and put it on The Blessed One.
  12. I considered the doom token thing, but wanted to try the more unusual effect first. I think you're suggesting having the stable location close and adding a doom token each time? Seems like it would be good (and as shown below, fits the storyline explanation), but do you think I should raise the doom track in that case? Do you think it will be too small to be winnable? Yeah, I was thinking both, since that would keep some uniqueness while making Cultist cleanup a more worrying thing. As is, I think I'd see little reason to risk being Devoured. And yeah, you probably would need to increase the terror track a couple spots for that change, though I'd imagine it's still winnable keeping it at 11, it would just mean that killing Cultists is priority 1. Probably worth a playtest to see. Also note that monster trophies taken this way are returned to the box, which means there is a (admittedly small, but notable) risk of running out of monsters if you're letting the cultists control things. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't that awaken the AO. Yeah, it does, though I have a feeling that every location on the board would be closed before that happens. Speaking of which, what happens if you're out of locations to close? I assume that the AO would awaken, but that should probably be explicit. Alternate idea: what if instead of closing 1 stable location, you close all locations (stable or no) in a neighborhood? (Except, hopefully obviously, for entering to close gates.) Now that is brutal. I like it. Basically guarantees that something useful will be closed every time you allow this to happen, which was my concern with the first revision. Being forced to close the Library, the Diner, and the Bank would not have been at all inconvenient in any game I've played. And as a point, a location being closed doesn't stop you from entering a gate by base rules (or at least, the errata), so there's no need to clarify that on the card. I'm beginning to dislike this forum system... How the crap do you multi-quote? FINAL EDIT: I freaking give up
  13. Or maybe they could do something with the doom track? Add a doom token or three when they're removed. Would make killing cultists a lot more important, since closing stable locations doesn't seem all that brutal to me. It's certainly not good, but if you do a halfway decent job of monster control (or are playing with only a couple people, so the monsters are generally spread out anyway), that would probably only mean closing a couple locations, and that's pretty easy to deal with. Also, what happens if two cultists are in the same space?
  14. Dunno if this is still being kept up to date, but I'm in Plymouth, Michigan.
  15. Here's an Investigator based off of a Hunter: The Reckoning character I played a few years back. Definitely would like some feedback on his abilities, both from a balance perspective and from a wording perspective. I haven't found a good cane sword picture yet, which is why I didn't include that card. But it's just a +2, one handed, physical weapon that can't be lost or stolen and costs $4. And no, he is in no way related to or based on the author of Sherlock Holmes, I just thought it was a cool name and would provide for some amusing jokes from fellow players. Also, I just realized I randomly used the British spelling of "favored" for no good reason. I'll have to fix that next revision.
  • Create New...