Jump to content

Hahma

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Hahma

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , 0, United States
  1. I haven't done anything different for him when playing solo. He will quest or take a bullet so to speak if need be, depending on the situation. Even co-op I imagine he can be situational in lowering your threat but increasing another player's threat.
  2. The scary thing about going undefended is that some Shadow cards hit you extra hard if the enemy's attack goes undefended.
  3. Bohemond said: Hahma said: So then basically what you are saying, is that you empty the heroes' resource pool at the beginning of the 2nd and 3rd scenario on Nightmare Mode and also discard any attachments and allies from play before starting a new scenario on Nightmare Mode? And people beat Nightmare Mode in this fashion whether it's solo or co-op? I have beat Nightmare mode solo with those rules. Not only that, but using those rules actually makes it easier, in some cases, than just playing the scenario straight through. I can't beast 'Escape from Dol Goldur' solo in normal mode, but I can beat it in 'Nightmare', which seems hideously backwards to me. I don't understand how that would make it easier to win that way than playing normal mode. You'd start out with wounds and a higher threat, but less cards in your deck to draw from. Unless of course you have a deck that lowers your threat by so much that it's lower when getting to Dol Goldur than if you started from scratch in normal mode. If that's the case though, wouldn't that be limiting the deck you can build as you would have to include threat reducing sphere/cards in your deck? Why bother having other spheres if you would just can plug in Spirit and win all the time? I'm not saying that's the case, but am just wondering if that's the trick for most people to beat the scenarios in Nightmare mode. "shrug"
  4. Bohemond said: Read this thread, or many of the other threads on nightmare. The problem isn't confusion, the problem is that people want the rules to work differently. These is absolutely zero ambiguity abou whether resources should carry over. Yet, people still suggest that they do. There is zero ambiguity about wehter or not allies an attachment's carry over. "For an expert level challenge, players can attempt to defeat all 3 scenarios using the same combination of players, decks, and heroes. The score from each scenario can then be added together to get a single score measuring overall success on the entire campaign. For a “nightmare” level challenge, do not reset threat, hit points, or player decks at the beginning of each scenario. When playing such a campaign, the players should start with the “Passage through Mirkwood” scenario, follow with the “Journey Down the Anduin” scenario, and finish with the “Escape from Dol Guldur” scenario." There are the nightmare rules in their enterity. Show me where in the text these ideas are supported. They just aren't there. The rules are very specific about the limited things which carry over. However, people don't like the rules so they pretend they are vague and make up their own rules. All of which is fine, since the nightmare rules don't work praticularly well and can end up making the game easier. But let's just admit that we are coming up with our own variations because we enjoy them more, not because of a lack of specificity in the rules. So then basically what you are saying, is that you empty the heroes' resource pool at the beginning of the 2nd and 3rd scenario on Nightmare Mode and also discard any attachments and allies from play before starting a new scenario on Nightmare Mode? And people beat Nightmare Mode in this fashion whether it's solo or co-op?
  5. Bohemond said: Or that Christian is just a very clever CEO and knows the best way to appeal to his customers. Either way, win. Well hopefully Christian is paying attention here and at Board Games Geek, as there is still a need for a quality FAQ. There are rules interpretation questions that don't have any official stance. If they are going to have this be a tourney game, then the event organizers would probably appreciate knowing the answers to questions players come up with.
  6. pumpkin said: Hahma said: pumpkin said: But when new encounter cards come out in the Quest phase, they get attached to the unclaimed Objective, right? Or did I misinterpret that. Nope, don't think so. The objective card stays in the staging area but unclaimed, until you claim it but it doesn't get covered with another encounter card in the next questing phase - the risk eith leaving it there is that the dungeon jailer comes along and nicks it though. Thanks Pumpkin.
  7. pumpkin said: Mestrahd said: Titan said: I believe an objective should be considered free once there is no card attached to it, i. e. the enemy is dead/the location is explored. Well, once the card leaves the staging area, it's no longer "attached" to the objective. I think what you're implying is no longer "associated" with the objective. That's where my confusion came from. Are they referring to physical attachment, or mental association? Here's the section on guarded from the rule book... "Guarded The guarded keyword is a reminder on some objective cards to reveal and attach the next card of the encounter deck to the objective when it enters the staging area from the encounter deck, and place them both in the staging area. The objective cannot be claimed as long as any encounter card is attached.Once that encounter is dealt with, the objective remains in the staging area until it is claimed. ........ An encounter card attached to a guarded objective is dealt with in the following method, depending on its card type: Enemy: The enemy leaves play, either by being defeated or as the result of a card effect. Location: The location leaves play, either by being fully explored or as the result of a card effect. Treachery: The treachery’s effects resolve, or are canceled. (Treachery cards are immediately triggered when they are revealed.) Once all encounter cards attached to a guarded objective are dealt with, the players can claim the objective in the manner specified by its card text." The emphasis is mine, but nowhere does it say the objective stays in the staging area all the time. You could move the objective card with the encounter card to which it is attached (to the active location area or a players engagement zone as appropriate) and once that encounter is dealt with, place the objective in the staging area where it remains until claimed. Thats how I do it to avoid losing the association between objective and encounter card guarding it. But when new encounter cards come out in the Quest phase, they get attached to the unclaimed Objective, right? Or did I misinterpret that.
  8. My nephew and I just got done with our second ever co-op game, the first one we played wrong but I've learned a lot here and playing a lot of solo games. Anyway, we just used 1 core set and he used Leadership and I had Spirit. We weren't intending on playing Nightmare Mode but after getting through Mirkwood pretty well, he suggested we try Nightmare Mode to see how far we could get. We got through Anduin pretty well too. But the third scenario was a pain and we made it to about 10 progress tokens on the second quest card and just killing the Nazgul before losing. We had tons of resources, but only being able to play 1 Ally card all together per round really hampered us. I had lots of money and lots of Allies in my hand but couldn't use them. It was fun and we got further than expected. Do the people that have found Nightmare Mode easy play with multiple core sets to have 3 of everything? I would think that would make it easier than just playing with 1 core set and the stock 1 sphere decks.
  9. Arma virumque said: Hahma said: Below is a post from Board Games Geek by a guy from Fantasy Flight. For the record, the "guy from Fantasy Flight" is the CEO. I love the fact that he participates in the online community. And I love the fact that he gives reasonable answers that reflect a businessman's sense of the need to strike a balance between extremes. Well then that's even more impressive that he's the CEO. And I agree that it's nice to get his side of decisions that are made. We may want things about a game that benefit us (the individual), but he's got to think about trying to find a balance to please as many customers as possible that have various personal demands or concerns for a game. This part of Christian's post (below) interested me as he says that while this is a different game system than anything on the market, it's going to get lot's of support from FFG. It sounds like they have products ready for the rest of the year and are working on next years additions to the game. Being that it's a very different type game than others on the market, it's hard to compare it to others. "With four different spheres, there are many different combinations and abilities to customize decks in the core set alone. Of course it won't yet compare to other LCG's which have years of support. Also, the LOTR LCG gameplay is a very different game style from anything on the market at this point. Yet, it will be supported vigorously and the diversity will quickly increase. We are working on great content for 2012 already, and I think you'll love what we are releasing in 4Q."
  10. Below is a post from Board Games Geek by a guy from Fantasy Flight. A thread there was made to complain about the delay in The Hunt For Gollum Adventure Pack. He's basically pointing out why they chose to release the core set the way they did regarding the number of cards etc., and also commented on how wihle this game is different than others, it will get a lot of support from FFG. Sounds like they have some good stuff on the horizon for the game, so we'll have to wait and see. (Flightmaster) flag msg tools designer publisher badge Avatar mbmbmbmbmb "jerseydvd wrote: I guess to make it easier it seems. I bought the core set and won't be buying another. I'll enjoy it like this and with the expansions. As of right now I only play solo." In our opinion, the core set provides a *great* experience (YMMV) for under $39.95, allowing players like the one above to enjoy the experience without further cost, and allows dedicated players to expand should they choose to do so. I realize there are some differing opinions on this. Know this: FFG had a choice of providing a more narrow replay experience (with fewer card types but more of each card) or a broader experience (with more card diversity and re-playability). For our LCG core sets, we choose the latter. There is no conspiracy, it is a choice between a retail price point, diversity, and card counts. Players who want to maximize every option can, at a very competitive cost, by getting additional core sets to increase the player count and number of cards. Casual players, or people who just want to sample the experience, can do so at a very reasonable cost. Since dedicated players are the ones likely to purchase expansions, we make 3 of every player card available in these monthly release. With four different spheres, there are many different combinations and abilities to customize decks in the core set alone. Of course it won't yet compare to other LCG's which have years of support. Also, the LOTR LCG gameplay is a very different game style from anything on the market at this point. Yet, it will be supported vigorously and the diversity will quickly increase. We are working on great content for 2012 already, and I think you'll love what we are releasing in 4Q. In terms of timing. The LOTR core set hit retail shops towards the end of April, and we expect to ship the first expansion within roughly 60-70 days of that date (barring unforeseen events) and monthly thereafter (with some small gaps between 6-pack cycles). While I understand, and appreciate there are many folks eager for this to happen sooner, I don't think this window is egregiously long or somehow indicative of FFG dropping the ball. In fact, we get severe complaints when we solicit these decks early (i.e. before the core set ships) which is necessary to do in order to properly inform the global wholesale marketplace of the upcoming product as soon as possible. Damned if we do... The game is a huge success for FFG (and for our international partners, especially in Germany, Spain, and France) and we're having a ton of fun playing it in the office. We're flying a few hundred "Hunt for Gollum" decks into the country early for this event, so that players can see the new cards and quest even earlier than we had planned and meet other enthusiasts in a FLGS. Being angry at this event is quite silly, as it will be great fun, and has no bearing on the main delivery of the expansions. Take this information as you will. They are the facts as I know them, and decisions made as we see best for everyone. Thanks, Christian FFG
  11. Toqtamish said: Any game should be able to be played as often as people want and not as some have said in smaller doses than other games. Perhaps the smaller doses suggested is based on that a game like this is a little more limited than others because it's scenario and deck building driven and at the moment anyway, there is a limit to both the scenarios and deck building options. Games where you play against others can have many more options for variety as you can play against different people and they can have different enough play styles to make games different enough to play a lot and still feel fresh. Add to that, if those games are deck/army building, then that adds even more variety in play. So while I agree that a game should be able to be played as often as people want to, it doesn't mean that every game is going to feel as fresh after X amount of game played. Perhaps in a year or so, there will be enough releases of Adventure Packs and whatnot to make this game to be played 50-100 times a month and feel fresh every time. At the moment however, for a game system that relies on future releases to keep the game fresh, it's still in its infancy and somewhat limited. I've played a ton of Heroscape over the past 5 1/2 years and when the first master set was released, there was a limited amount of figures you had available to build armies with. So if you played 50 times in a month, it wouldn't feel as fresh because you've used every option and army combination, as well as map build. As time went on and more expansions were released with both figures and terrain expansions, the game's variety and players options continued to grow and so did the fresh fun feeling. I've also played Summoner Wars that was released a couple years ago. When it was released, there were two base sets and each had 2 factions each. So if you only bought 1 base set, you could only one faction against the other and that was kind of limiting. So even if you bought both base sets (around $25 each) you only had 4 factions to play against each other. Over time, there have been 4 more factions released and some reinforcements for the previously released factions were released. In July, there is a master set with 6 more factions being released. So here is an example of a game which had started out with limited variety, but has grown into having a great amount of variety. I felt that it was a great game from the beginning, but I also knew that I couldn't play it 50 times in a month with the base set without it feeling stale. So I'd play it and then put it down for awhile for other things and as the other factions were released I'd pick up Summoner Wars again and enjoy it again and continue to do so. I don't know what is typical for a lot of other gamers so I can only speak for myself. I personally don't expect to be able to play any game 20 times a week or whatever without it getting stale. Some might work that way but to me, those would be the exception and not the rule. My own play habits are based on my time restraints due to work and family and I also like to play a variety of games and not just keep playing one game continuously. That said, other people certainly have different play habits and expectations and that's great too.
  12. Is this the type of game that is meant to be played as much as other games? Do people play co-op games like Pandemic or Castle Ravenloft (which can be played solo) as much as other games?
  13. servant of the secret fire said: jhaelen said: Hahma said: if you buy a video game and spend 30 hours over a weekend playing it through it's completion, you might feel cheated. But if you play it for 2 hours a week, you might get more satisfaction from it with 15 weeks of play as opposed to 2 days. Huh?! For me it's the opposite. Playing a game that takes about 30 hours to play through spread over 15 weeks would be like watching a 90min movie in 5 minute spurts. Who'd want that?! The fewer breaks, the better. I think this example is not right.We must see card games like online mmorpgs where you can spend a lot of hours but you want to play more.Look at WOW.It is out there for 5-6 years and people still spends more than 4 hours every day and it has 11 milion subs?This is happening cause it has many options.You can do pvp,pve,level up, take new gear etc. Now imagine a card game with coop,pvp and new adventure packs every month(like those we will have every month) and you have a sure succes and with so many option the game will never be boring. Well being that I'll be 44 next month, I'm probably not one of the ones playing an online video game for 4 hours a day. With work, family and a lot to do around the house, that kind of time is a luxury that I personally can't enjoy (but it would be cool!). I guess the video games I was more referring to were the ones that you don't play online. But anyway, sure it would be great to have a card game the way you mentioned. I don't know if this game can get the pvp aspect into it, but perhaps they can work in more options for the spheres to allow more deck building variety and also more options in scenarios that continue to be creative and replayable. Are there other games that have the versatility of being capable of both co-op and pvp play? That would be interesting.
  14. Yeah, it's certainly a different animal for sure. Like you said, with the opponent being static, it is a different kind of game than the others you mentioned and other non co-op games. This is my first solo/co-op game, and I see what people are concerned with. But truthfully, I think that's why I'm treating it differently than other games because of the static opponent. I know I can play a game like Heroscape or Summoner Wars many times a week and the games will be different as there are different maps/armies for Heroscape and different faction deck builds for Summoner Wars. Also, different opponents have different play styles whereas some are more aggressive, some more conservative, some are more strategic while some are more random. So there is a lot more potential variety in games like that. When I saw that this core set came with 3 scenarios, I kind of figured right away that I wanted to take my time with the game and not beat it too soon because then I might feel like some other people here in that there's not much else to accomplish. With the Adventure Packs coming out later than expected, I really am going to try to make this experience last. I'm playing solo and had one co-op game when I really didn't have all the rules down. So I'm hoping to savor the experience by getting as much solo play as possible out of it, get a lot of two-player co-op play with my nephew and then to be able to teach my 8 year-old twin daughters the game and have fun with their experience. Then as the Adventure Packs churn out, I can do the same again with solo, co-op and with the kids. I've also been playing other games in-between sessions with this game, so that helps. Hopefully this plan will help me at least get the most out of the game.
  15. jhaelen said: Hahma said: if you buy a video game and spend 30 hours over a weekend playing it through it's completion, you might feel cheated. But if you play it for 2 hours a week, you might get more satisfaction from it with 15 weeks of play as opposed to 2 days. Huh?! For me it's the opposite. Playing a game that takes about 30 hours to play through spread over 15 weeks would be like watching a 90min movie in 5 minute spurts. Who'd want that?! The fewer breaks, the better. Okay, well perhaps my example was perhaps a slight exaggeration with the 15 weeks. But if you spend $50 on a video game and spend 50 hours to play through it completely twice in one week's time after you buy it, are you going to blame the game company because you are bored with it? All I'm saying is that if some people choose to play a game of any kind more obsessively than casually, then I don't feel it's the game designer's fault if those people get tired of it quicker than the people that choose to play the game more casually.
×
×
  • Create New...