Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ppsantos

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Agree with the OP. I have never bought any big box expansion (only small ones) as the bigs are not good value for money (and table space). I was considering this big box, especially because of the personal story and campaign. I was hoping the campaign would add some narrative. But alas, it's just play 6 AOs, with 2 preludes (which I don't use) and certain conditions carrying over. With nothing new, the game is already long enough. Play 6- AOs- campaign ? No, thanks. I'll be passing up on this one. Terrible value for money.
  2. 6 AOs? Isn't the game long enough already? I could hardly play as often as I want due to length of the normal game. I'm happy that some newer AOs require only 2 mysteries to solve, make it a shorter game.
  3. Ugly art and ugly theme. Anything vampire related, I don't bother.
  4. I only have one LOTR Core Set and I bought it long before all of these 'gotta have 2 or 3 Cores" posts came out. Once I read them, they left an ugly taste in my mouth and wondered why I lose quests: was it due to bad play and suboptimal deck build of the cards that I own or was it because I didn't splurge on 2 or 3 Cores? And I couldn't bring myself to proxy cards. Anyway, I just didn't want to re-experience that again, if I were to dive into AH LCG game.
  5. It is this 'notion' that having 2 Core Sets is better that makes me stay away from this game. I already have LOTR lcg, which is a money sink, for me. I'll just enjoy that one.
  6. "Wilds of Rhovanion" but the cover art shows a sprawling walled city/fortress. Title and cover art doesn't seem to mesh.
  7. This one is easy. I sold my Arkham Horror game after a few games. Too fiddly, especially when playing solo -- you have to move the monsters on the board, yikes! I bought Eldritch Horror and have bought 3 small box expansions and play it quite regularly. The streamlining of the rules in Eldritch is the big difference. Even if you have not played eldritch horror in a little while, it's not hard to remember the rules. For Arkham, with all those fiddly mechanics and exceptions, good luck.
  8. Nerfing the "We Are Not Idle" ('Heroes, instead of characters) the way FFG did it is too harsh. If the concern was too much resources generated when you exhaust dwarf characters, then perhaps a hard limit on the number of resources to be gained (say equal to number of your Dwarf heroes) could have been imposed. So, instead of gaining resources equal to dwarf heroes you exhaust, you still gain resources equal to the number of dwarf characters exhausted, up to number of dwarf heroes you control (which is max 3).
  9. On the other hand, there might also be self-selection bias in the reporting, ie. only the 'afficionados' of the game would go bother post their game results. I doubt 'beginners' would go to this extent for their first few games. So, is a 'new player' defined by the number of games he has played (or reported here) or the number of expansions (or lack thereof, ie base game only) he owns? Is it possible to run an analysis only for, say, the top 100 submitters of the game (20+ or so reports) and see if this produces different results? On a different note, I would like to request that for the "Most Effective Investigators win%" have also effectiveness rating based on team size, ie, for 1-investigator, 2, 3, 4, and 5+. I'm really curious who would be the 2-team most effective investigators, as this would be a guide for me in choosing who for my 2-inv games. Thanks a lot of considering this.
  10. Against Shubnigurath, during reckoning, you have to spawn a monster in an random space. What happens if the monster has a 'when spawned, move to area so and so"? Where does the monster appear?
  11. My concern is, with my 2-investigator team solo setup, I repeatedly lose. Is it still possible to enjoy the campaign mode, if you lose and again and again against the first AO?
  12. I think you were shortchanging yourself in prematurely quitting if you don't have Celebrian Stone, Unexpected Courage and Steward of Gondor in your opening hand. Even if you have those three, you cannot play all of them in round one anyway. With 2 spirit heroes and 1 leadership, you could only play UC, but not Celebrian Stone or SoG. You'd have to wait for the 2nd round. So, in effect, you'd just need UC in your opening hand and could hope to draw SoG or CS next round before quitting. If Eleanor (or Eowyn) is the prisoner, you'd have to wait for 2nd round before even having enough spirit resource to play UC.
  13. I'm against fiddly randomness like this, as it might complicate the game and would undoubtedly prolong the game (even for just a few seconds, due to 'mechanical' operation). It's at least a 2-step process, possibly 4. You choose, and you randomly discard. Then possibly, spawn and discard weapon. Of course, there is this incentive not to 'randomly discard' the chosen card (But that's up to the player's honesty). There might be unintended consequences/interaction (in future encounter/quest cards, maybe?) when an enemy engages you, or when an attachment is discarded, etc. The other problem I see is the usefulness of the card. If I only have one card in hand, then it's guaranteed the enemy will be spawned. If I have 2, then 50%, and 3, 33%, etc. Usually, in my games, I only have very few cards in hand, so there's a high chance I might trigger the spawning, What happens if I dont' have any cards in hand when I attack? Spawning an enemy token is off the spirit of the game. Usually, bad things are conveyed via threat increase, signifying 'corruption'. Would it be more in keeping with the spirit of the game if the negative effect is via threat increase?
  14. When you solo, you are effectively exploiting the glitch in the system because that lone investigator gets to act FOUR times in one day (before midnight happens). As compared to the case where you have 4 investigators, each of them acts once and then midnight happens. Investigators should only have one turn each in a day, no matter how many they are in the team, then midnight happens.
  15. 1. The number of turns (or midnights) needed to win the game should be negative. You should score lower the longer it took you to save the world. The faster, more efficient way you play, the less the penalty (or higher the score). 2. Midnight (or day clock) should move to the next when the all investigator(s) in the team has taken a turn. If you are soloing a game, midnight should happen after that investigator's turn (there is nobody else in the team). As the game is, after that solo investigator's turn, the clock only moves 1 spot. In other words, that solo investigator gets to act FOUR times in one day! As compared to when you have 4 investigators and after they've all taken their turns (4), the clock advances to midnight. With this glitch, the game is easier to win via solo than to have 4 investigators, which is thematically, absurd.
  • Create New...