• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ppsantos

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. FFG also dropped the ball on its choice for expansion symbol for Cities of Ruin. Eiffel tower with tentacles? Really? Paris is not even one of the cities in the game board. FFG should have picked a iconic landmark that's also depicted in the game board -- London's BigBen! With tentacles of course.
  10. Couldn't find any instruction about this. Do I include Frodo as Ringbearer a hero with One Ring attached if I'm playing the POD 'The Old Forest' in campaign mode (after Shadow of the Past)?
  11. I wish it's possible and FFG would design an expansion which includes a booklet of adventure/scenario with story. Something like the adventure booklet of Mice and Mystics game. A scenario adventure booklet that's like a programmed adventure where investigators have to gather stuff or find certain persons in certain locations, or gather specific artifact to combat the AO, instead of the usual solve 3 mysteries and win. The scenario could also flesh out the personas of the investigators (as mentioned in that Arkham book of Investigators). Just another way to play the game, I suppose.
  12. Yep, Passage through Mirkwood. If the deck even stumbles with this one or losses against it, you gotta look real hard at the deck and see what's wrong with the deck. Then for serious testing, Journey Down the Anduin. These two decks are in the Core Set, unlike the other quests which you might not have.
  13. Since your stat is excellent for tracking, I'd like to request that you add optional questions, only for games that resulted in a victory, what was the Doom on the track and how many cards were remaining in the mythos deck after solving the 1st mystery, and after solving the 2nd mystery. We could use the stats for these answers to develop a one-mystery and two-mystery variant of the game. For example, if the players want only 1 mystery to solve, we could use the stats to figure out how much doom and how many mythos cards the players could draw before the game automatically results in a defeat, based on similar play experiences as accumulated in your database. Similar benchmark could be developed and used for a 2-mystery variant (how much doom advancement and drawn mythos cards before game is considered a loss), all based on the averages of actual plays recorded in your database. Hope you could accomodate my request. Thanks in advance.
  14. Please let me know for games that you won, what was the Doom and how many mythos cards were remaining in the deck when you solved the first mystery, and when you solved the second mystery. This will hopefully give us an idea for making a quicker/shorter variant based on real play stats. For future plays, pls note the Doom and number of Mythos cards remaining in the deck after solving the 1st and 2nd mysteries and report it here or in the poll I made at boardgamegeek below. Since you could only vote once in the poll, feel free to just post succeeding plays (AO, doom and cards remaining, after solving 1st and 2nd mysteries. Thank you. https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1594872/pls-help-your-play-stats-needed-1-mystery-or-2-mys