Jump to content

Regulator18

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Regulator18

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota, United States
  1. Wow, good eye. I never would have noticed that. But your question sparked my interest as I do love a good mystery. I looked through everything in the City Board game too, and you were right, I could not find this woman. Upon close inspection of the artwork, the way her fingers and face look, she looks like a vampire to me. So I looked through the last expansion, Blood Moon, and she was not there either. Maybe this was simply some left over artwork from the Blood Moon expansion that they put on the lid of the City box. The mystery remains unsolved for now.
  2. I have to say, I really am digging this game. It has been very balanced for us so far. We have played 3 games, and all 3 games have come down to the very last turn, and 1 of them came down to the very last die roll to determine which side won. The invaders have captured the required number of cities (or more) in all 3 games, but were simply not able to hold on to them and the U.S. came back to win in all 3 games on the final turn. For us the Invaders do not seem over powered. However, we have NOT been using the Invader cards with the advanced rules. We have only been playing with the Basic rules. Also we do try to have 1 of our more experienced players taking on the role of the U.S. If we had 3 experienced players taking on the role of the Invaders, and they coordinated their attacks better, we might experience a different outcome.
  3. Seriously Awesome!! I'm so glad this expansion is coming out. Thanks Omega for pointing out the "upcoming page" section. That seems to be the only place that shows a release date (Q1, 2013). Well worth the wait though.
  4. Velhart said: I wonder when the game will be released. If i am right, it should have been released on 15 November? Velhart, your right, it did originally say the 15th as the release date. I even marked it down on my calendar as the 15th. It later got changed to the 22nd.
  5. With his warpaint, top knot of red hair, strange armour and a flail, they could call him a Barbarian, or maybe a Berserker or Fanatic. And is it just me or on the box art, does it look like he has pointy ears? With the top knot of hair, his child like face, he almost looks like a Warrior Kender from the Dragonlance books.
  6. Thats never fun. You going to buy a new copy do you think or just make due? A long time ago, my friends girlfriend spilled her glass of wine right into the center of our Talisman Game (I think it was 2nd Edition). We cleaned it up as best we could, but there was nothing that was going to take the stain out of the board. Oh well, we told my friend that the stain looked like dried blood and added to the mystique of the game.
  7. xris said: Regulator18 said: Don't complicate the game?, LOL, its too late for that. I mean your commenting on a forum that in large part helps clarify already complicated and ambiguous rules for everyone. This post is no different. The original rulebook was simply not clear enough on a number of aspects of the game, this being one of them. The rules simply do not say that it takes two dice, we have been over this already in this post. I think the Game Designers will have to address this question eventually since we can go round and round forever on this one. While I agree that the rewards on the card are substantial and one could imply that because the rewards are so high it would thus take two dice, this would still only be a guess. Unfortunately we still have no rule for it (wauh wauh). Making a rule that says "each box requires at least one die" would certainly solve the problem for the card, but from a design stand point it would also limit the flexibility of the game for any future expansions. What if they wanted to include alot more cards like this, or what if they wanted to include special rare dice that might have a spot for say a Lore sign X2 (thus allowing you two complete 2 Lore signs within a task using this one die) Etc, Etc. And lets not forget the rulebook does not state I need a die for each box, only that I need enough signs to cover the task. Honestly I don't care what they decide, we can guess all we want, in the end it will be the game designers decision that decides the fate for all humanity (BUM BUM BUUUUM!!). Oh for Pete's sake, are you still whinging on about this pet peeve of yours Look, the rulebook does tell you how to deal with this situation, if you want to ignore that fact, fine just play it the way you want. I'm sure very few people here really care! You say that the rules do not state anywhere that you need at least one die per "box". For a start, why are you using the term "box", the term you are looking for is a "requirement". Look at the bottom of page 5 and the top of page 6 of the rules. Each Adventure card features one or more horizontal rows of symbols Each symbol represents a requirement necessary to complete the task This tells us that a "Task" is made up of a number of "requirements" (what you are calling a "box"). Now we look at page 6 again under Completing a Task. When an investigator completes a task, for each of its requirements that corresponds to a specific die result, the player places a die with that result on top of the corresponding requirement. This tells you that you require at least one die per requirement. How in the world does this rule work of you could place a single "2 Investigation" result on two separate "1 Investigation" requirements? How is it possible to put that one single "2 Investigation" die on both requirements? Oh for Pete's sake, are you still attacking me, can you not get over this personal kick of yours to attack me I have never been whining, I'm only responding to peoples post they have directed at me, mainly yours. You could have responded with your opinion instead of how you approached it. I don't appreciate either one of your posts. Why do you feel the need to attack me on the word "box" and point out the bottom of page 6 that its called a "requirement" and I should be calling it a "requirement"? I already called it a "requirement" in my very first post, but it still doesnt change the fact that its also a box so why do you care? Are you purposefully trying to be malicious? You still don't seem to be getting the rulebook, the problem is on page 6, it tells us two different ways on how to handle it. It says "the player places a die with that result on top of the corresponding requirement. " But you are taking this out of context, because later it states "In the case of investigation results, a player may need to place more than one die on the card to meet the task's requirements" and most importantly right before that it says "If the player is able and willing to meet all of the rquirements for a single task, he completes that task." So like i have stated before, what we have here, is the rulebook essentially telling us two conflicting ways to approach how to complete a task. In other words two ways of looking at it. I already presented both of these arguements in my very first post and carefully stated that either one of them could be true. You can certainly have your opinion on one and make a good case for it, thats great. But you don't have to bash other people on theirs, thats just not needed, C'mon lighten up. Can't everyone just get along.
  8. Paulo_JMS said: Don't complicate the game! It takes two dices, the adventure has to be hard, it's R'lyeh! Just look at the rewards, three signs and one ally! Don't complicate the game?, LOL, its too late for that. I mean your commenting on a forum that in large part helps clarify already complicated and ambiguous rules for everyone. This post is no different. The original rulebook was simply not clear enough on a number of aspects of the game, this being one of them. The rules simply do not say that it takes two dice, we have been over this already in this post. I think the Game Designers will have to address this question eventually since we can go round and round forever on this one. While I agree that the rewards on the card are substantial and one could imply that because the rewards are so high it would thus take two dice, this would still only be a guess. Unfortunately we still have no rule for it (wauh wauh). Making a rule that says "each box requires at least one die" would certainly solve the problem for the card, but from a design stand point it would also limit the flexibility of the game for any future expansions. What if they wanted to include alot more cards like this, or what if they wanted to include special rare dice that might have a spot for say a Lore sign X2 (thus allowing you two complete 2 Lore signs within a task using this one die) Etc, Etc. And lets not forget the rulebook does not state I need a die for each box, only that I need enough signs to cover the task. Honestly I don't care what they decide, we can guess all we want, in the end it will be the game designers decision that decides the fate for all humanity (BUM BUM BUUUUM!!).
  9. Ignatz_Von_Zwakh said: Velhart said: Ignatz_Von_Zwakh said: Considering one is receiving and completing Warlock Quests as part of the ending's goals, would the function of teleporting straight to the Warlock's Cave upon completion still be in effect? I mean, I can think of reasons why not, such as the Warlock not being the one who directly gives you the quest etc,etc. So, anyone have any clarification? Any light to shed? Hi Ignath, If you complete a warlock quest while playing with the sacred pool ending, you are still teleported to the warlock cave after you complete a quest. greetings, Velhart Thank you Velhart. I figured as much, but still wanted to hear if other people thought the same. Seeing as how I've yet to arouse public outcry at the concept, I'm assuming you're statement and my initial assumption are correct. Yuppers, your both right, I concur also, that you are still teleported to the Warlock cave.
  10. Julia said: Regulator18 said: Okay, I think I see where you are getting tripped up. On page 10 of the rule book it states "a player may choose to either focus or use another investigator on the same Adventure card to Assist him." So again, if we look at my previous example, when Person 2 is attempting the Adventure card they would use Person 1 to assist. So both players would not have to fail the adventure in order to use this ability, only Person 1 would have to fail. The difference here is that the active player (Person 2) is using Person 1 as an assistant. Does that help at all? Probably. Let's go with order, and let me see if I got your point. a) Player 1 attempts Adventure A and fails. He cannot Assist anyone, because there is no one else on the card. I think we all agree on this. b) Player 2 attempts Adventure A as well. He fails the first check and, according to the rules, he can Assist and / or Focus. He decides to Focus, and save an Investigation die on his marker. And decides to Assist too, and save a Peril die on the other Investigator's marker (and he can do this, because there is another Investigator on the card). Then he throws the remaining dice. At any moment during HIS turn on THIS card, he may take the "focused" die or the "assisted" die and use them to pass the Tasks on this very same card. c) When Player 2 attempt to pass Adventure A is done, Focused / Assisted unused dice are discarded, regardless of Player 2 passing Adventure A or not Is this correct? Especially c)? (man, it is me or rules could have been made clearer?) Yes, you pretty much have it. Just be careful that you do not Focus and Assist on the same roll. You can only do one or the other per roll. So going back to your example, if Player 2 attempts Adventure A and he fails the first check, he could then decide to focus and save a die, if he rolls again, and fails the second roll, then now he could decide to assist and save a second die. Alternatively he could decide to Assist on the first failed roll and Focus on the second failed roll instead. You are certainly right about one thing, the rules could have been made a lot clearer. I'm grateful they came out with a FAQ for this game, because it answered almost all of my questions on the ambiguous writing in the rulebook.
  11. Julia said: Regulator18 said: If I understand the assisting rules right, it works like this: If you choose to go to an Adventure Card that already has an Investigator on that Adventure Card, then they can assist you during your turn to try and complete this Adventure Card. So here's an example of how we play it: Person 1 attempts an Adventure Card and Fails, so their token remains on this Adventure Card, so then Person 2 decides to attempt the exact same Adventure Card, and moves their token to this Card also. Now Person 2 can decide to use the assist ability since Person 1 has their token on this Adventure Card already. Yeah, but Person 2 can only assist Person 1, implying that Person 2 fails the story and Person 1 will try this one again in the coming round. Rules state that the active Player may assist someone that is already on the very same Adventure. Very, very, very limited usage of this rule. If I had 2 Investigators losing the same Adventure in the same turn, I'd go probably somewhere else (after all, we have only at least 6 Adventure Cards in play, even more with OW Cards) in the next round! Unless very special circumstances (like: AO almost awaken and this is the only Adventure giving me the missing Elder Sign to win the game; or: keeping this Adventure in play will cause in some way my defeat) Okay, I think I see where you are getting tripped up. On page 10 of the rule book it states "a player may choose to either focus or use another investigator on the same Adventure card to Assist him." So again, if we look at my previous example, when Person 2 is attempting the Adventure card they would use Person 1 to assist. So both players would not have to fail the adventure in order to use this ability, only Person 1 would have to fail. The difference here is that the active player (Person 2) is using Person 1 as an assistant. Does that help at all?
  12. Julia said: Walk said: Remember, when it's your turn, assisting doesn't mean you assist another investigator, they assist you. Assisting and focusing are essentially the same thing, but you can normally only focus once per turn, so assisting allows you another instance of it. Yeah, but they cannot assist me if I'm not already there, right? So it's kinda difficult to achieve (2 investigators required, failing both the Adventure, just to give one extra die to the first investigator, attempting in the next turn again the same Adventure) If I understand the assisting rules right, it works like this: If you choose to go to an Adventure Card that already has an Investigator on that Adventure Card, then they can assist you during your turn to try and complete this Adventure Card. So here's an example of how we play it: Person 1 attempts an Adventure Card and Fails, so their token remains on this Adventure Card, so then Person 2 decides to attempt the exact same Adventure Card, and moves their token to this Card also. Now Person 2 can decide to use the assist ability since Person 1 has their token on this Adventure Card already. So bascially, its useful if someone just failed an Adventure Card because now you can attempt it with the benefit of their help (since they are present).
  13. I usually find its harder to play a character with lower strength when playing with only these two boxed sets. So there are a number of characters with a starting strength of 2 that you should try. The sorceress seems to be a least favorite character of many people that has a strength of 2. The Troll and the Sage because of their strengths and abilities are actually some of the Stronger characters. Of course all of this is debatable, and if you get some lucky adventure cards it can quickly even the game out. But I would start there. Also, here are some other ideas to try: Encourage him to try to go to the Adventure card spaces, rather then spaces like the Tavern or City for example (unless he really needs something on those spaces). The more adventure cards you can draw, the better chances of drawing something good (even a monster is good cause it can help you level up in strength or craft). Also, getting up to that second tier once you have a strength of 5 or 6 is usually a good idea because there are spaces with 2 and 3 Draw Adventure Cards. If your drawing 3 cards, thats like having 3 turns in 1, and should help advance your character sooner. An important one is if your character ever gets down to 2 lives or less, try to heal those lives at all costs. Its very easy to think your safe with 1 life, only to have your opponent draw a plague card and then everyone loses a life, and suddenly your dead. Lastly, persistence, sometimes it just takes a bunch of times of playing the game to get used to it. I beat a friend of mine 4 times in a row when we started playing, and then she preceded to win the next 3 games after that, so dont give up.
  14. Awesome, this answers all the major questions. They came out how most people figured too. I think most people were guessing that you put the monsters back in the monster cup for example. Plus we had made a house rule that said, you couldnt just stack all the monsters at the bottom of one Adventure card, you had to distribute them evenly. And I see the new rules basically make that house rule official now. Thanks for the FAQ FFG, and thanks for posting it Xris!
  15. Dam said: No way I'm I seeing the OP's interpretation. Why would they print R'lyeh "1 Investigation + 1 Investigation" for the first task in R'lyeh if they meant 2 Investigation? Each box is its own requirement and requires its own di©e. R'lyeh to me requires six dice to complete, simple as that (six separate boxes). What the last quoted bit means that if you can't complete the full row, you can't partially complete the row. So for the second row in R'lyeh (Lore, Lore, Peril, Terror), rolling 5 Lore and 1 Terror, you can't drop down three of those dice and reroll the other three, you didn't meet all the requirements. Jeez, why does everyone have to be so hostile. You can let everyone know what you think without attacking me. I feel compelled to defend myself now, like I'm under siege. To answer your question of "Why would they print R'lyeh with 1 Investigation +1 Investigation if they meant 2 Investigation", the answer is simple, Its setup that way, because the second square of 1 Investigation has a white border around it and the first one does not, so the second square could be replaced by a Monster Marker at some point. Again, I'm not saying my interpretation, is correct, its just simply my interpretation. But I think if I roll a 3 or a 4 Investigation on one die, this should be sufficient to complete the task of 2 Investigation. It doesnt matter if they seperated them out as 1 Investigation and 1 Investigation, Its the task as a whole we are looking at. Besides, I think the reason they seperated them here is so that one could be covered by a monster token and not so it would take another die to complete. I truly think that both ways of looking at this could be considered correct though. Trying to judge the intent of the game creators is simply a guessing game. I only wish the recent FAQ had addressed it, but I would have to imagine that this will come up again in the future if they ever decide to make expansions to this game.
×
×
  • Create New...