Jump to content

KhalBrogo

Members
  • Content Count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KhalBrogo

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Anaheim, California, United States
  1. "it wasn't for me, good luck in the future" Does not at all convey what I said. I think the guy has potential to create much better content in the future. I hope he takes some of my feedback to heart in the future because it should help him to avoid some of the pitfalls that were perceived by not only myself but my entire group. "What I thought was unfair was a lengthy, detailed, public and brutal dissection of a free amateur scenario uploaded to the internet by a fan." Look at that in the reverse. particularly the part you emphasized yourself. You can't upload something like this to the internet and not expect critical feedback. A large part of what drives content like this to be better in the future are based on exactly the type of feedback I provided. "As it is it seemed like you were applying the expectations of a professionally finished product to a fan-made scenario." Maybe I'm being unfair but I don't feel my criticisms were based on expectations of a professionally finished product to a fan-made scenario. The scenario was incoherent - coherence should be a minimum standard period, regardless of whether it is professional or homemade. My entire group commented after the scenario that it would have been at least partially enjoyable even with all of the perceived imbalances and seemingly poorly thought out mechanics if only the scenario made sense or had some coherence. Lastly, I hope my feedback serves another purpose of helping gaming groups who have limited time with each other have a better grasp of the scenario. If I had read one honest review with some fair negative criticisms, my group may very well have avoided the terrible experience we had. I hope the creator cares about improving and honing his craft because if he doesn't, then he should be up front with that and I wouldn't feel compelled or obligated to provide such feedback, and I wouldn't have tried the scenario in the first place, because then, if he himself doesn't care about the quality of his content then why should I?
  2. That's a fair assessment of my fairly scathing review. Though my review was heavy with criticisms and a large portion of it was negative feedback, all of it was complete honesty about our opinions and I don't believe any of it was unfair. If I were the content creator I wouldn't want my reviews to be sugar coated. Additionally, I hope my assessment doesn't discourage him to quit at this altogether - that is definitely not my intention. That said, this scenario very nearly killed the game for my group. In fact we haven't played a single game of Arkham Horror since that scenario and I'm fairly certain at least one of my good friends in the playgroup is no longer willing to test run homemade scenarios at all in the future. We gave the scenario a genuine fair shot and at least two of us were very hopeful going in to trying the scenario and were progressively more and more disappointed. Was my assessment unfair? If so which part?
  3. First, I want to say thank you for creating this scenario. However, brace yourself for some negative criticisms. Just be aware I am not trying to insult you or your work, I am providing this feedback to hopefully inspire you and to help you create better scenarios in the future. Your "The Collector" Scenario garnered an incredibly negative reception with my play group. They were very hesitant to even try out a homemade scenario and were very disappointed with the scenario. Specifically, they felt the scenario mechanics and design of the locations were lazy. Every time we revealed a location we were disappointed that none of the locations did anything. We also read all the flavor text and they seemed kind of bland and some were fairly poorly written (IIRC one card seemed to have used the word Journey like 4 times in the same sentence). The locations were just clue deposits with varying shroud numbers and it felt like there were way too many clues throughout the map - we actually ran out of clue tokens a couple times. My friend remarked that this scenario might be okay for teaching a brand new player how the very basic game mechanics work but beyond that the locations and mechanisms in the scenario were disappointing and uninteresting. The Agenda cards also seem imbalanced. The first agenda advances almost immediately at only a threshold of 3. The second agenda punishes groups playing characters that specialize in certain roles. I understand that The second agenda is meant to be paired with the second act that allows players to discard for clues once per turn but 10 clues per investigator is still insane given how fast the agendas advance as there is an acceleration mechanic built in to the agenda cards and the encounter sets include additional doom cards. Further 10 clues per investigator meant that one of my friends playing Zoey had basically nothing to do while Daisy frantically tried to gather clues. I was playing Skids and I also felt like this scenario seemed too one dimensional. I think this is the first scenario my play group played that we felt there was no reasonable sense of tension or urgency. The clock just seemed arbitrarily fast and we didn't understand the story at all. My friend read all of the flavor text and was confused why we were killing the person who hired us. Another issue was the amnesia mechanic. This was just frustrating and annoying more than anything else. My playgroup has played all of the available scenarios multiple times and everything we've encountered so far seemed balanced even if something was frustrating it was reasonable and felt like part of the story. Nothing that happened in this scenario felt coherent or meaningful. It just felt like playing D&D with a DM who believes it's his job to be a 100% antagonist and defeat the players. Also the punishment for having the lead investigator sit out for the next 3 scenarios seems not well thought out. Does this mean that the lead investigator has to potentially take apart his deck and play something else? No one wants to do that. No one wants to have to potentially wait for a player to build an entirely new deck in the middle of a campaign. All that said, the templates and art on the cards looked pretty good. I can see some potential in future scenarios you create. I also downloaded and printed out your "The Curse Of Amulotep" scenario. I don't know if my play group would be willing to try another one of your scenarios after that first one. However, I flipped through it and at least the locations seemed somewhat interesting this time around. It bothers me though that it's "Amulotep" instead of "Amulhotep." Come on man, have you never seen Bubba Ho-Tep?
  4. The times I've played skids I do use both the Rogue and Guardian weapons. For one I don't mind the 45 or derringer, they're pretty similar so having access to both is really just like having 4 guns in the deck (as opposed to Rolands 3). Additionally I REALLY like keeping the switchblade in the deck because it's a fast action to equip it and you don't take damage if you're already engaged. I agree that Machete is the weapon if choice for him but you only have two of them. Sometimes you're already engaged with an enemy before drawing one. At that point I'd prefer to throw something in his open hand to help him fight even if I'm going to ditch it later (either by replacing it or just getting the extra fight off it). I think Roland does have one thing over Skids though. Unless I'm mistaken Skids can't take the Shotgun. You're right Skids can't use the Shotgun. I've considered using switchblade but typically my Skids decks have Machete x2, Vicious Blow x2, Backstab x2, and often but not always Sneak Attack x2. I find that I can usually deal with enemies with Backstab, Vicious Blow, or Sneak Attack if I don't have Machete yet. If I have none of those he can at least evade pretty reliably until he draws one. It just bothers me that switchblade doesn't help you succeed and when you do it's a gamble whether the damage bonus helps or not. Maybe it's due to my personality but I much prefer the reliable +1 combat, +1 damage effects over the conditional damage bonus effects. Honestly I consider adding knife in before switchblade.
  5. I actually really appreciate you bringing this up. I never claimed that lawful = blind obedience to the law. I understand what lawful means. Let's explore your example. Do you expect a good Paladin to follow his/her own laws? Do you expect a lawful good police officer to follow his/her own laws? Given that Roland is an officer of the law as an FBI investigator isn't it safe to assume that his code of conduct, rules, and laws include those he's sworn to uphold? Including the rules/laws set in place regarding the intentional covering up of evidence and obstruction of justice? Life is not that black and white. I am sure Roland respects the law but he also has common sense and knows that parading a ghoul corpse downtown is going to cause more trouble for him and his investigation than it's worth. Especially in 1920s when people were much more superstitious and God fearing and the police often very corrupt. The Arkham investigators represent people who operate outside of conventional organizations because of the forbidden knowledge they have and the knowledge that it would drive mot people insane. I agree with SuperMarino re getting off topic, so I'm only going to address this one last time. I never said life is black and white. What you said is fine and I largely agree with you but when you get into the area of "more trouble than it's worth" you're wading out of Lawful Good territory and into Non-Lawful Good territory. I'm not arguing that Roland is not good, just that if he's covering up evidence he's probably not Lawful Good. Lawful Good people act as good people are expected or required to act. My understanding is that Lawful Good is a very restrictive alignment. If you are a fan of the Dresden Files, one character that comes to mind when I think of Lawful Good is Michael Carpenter. Harry Dresden on the other hand is very much Non-Lawful Good (definitely not Lawful Good but probably Chaotic Good). I can very easily see Harry doing good but questionable things in the realm of "more trouble than it's worth." I can't say the same for Michael. Michael has a very strict set of rules as a knight of the cross and although they can be incredibly inconvenient or frustrating he adheres to them because he's Lawful Good. At this point, we're just arguing our various nuanced definitions of alignments. semantics essentially. Let's just agree that our definitions are different and we're both right. I think we can both agree though that Xenu's Paradox is wrong haha - in particular because he brought up the argument that a Paladin can be essentially any alignment (if so then why the correction?). Anyway on that note, let's get back on topic.
  6. I actually really appreciate you bringing this up. I never claimed that lawful = blind obedience to the law. I understand what lawful means. Let's explore your example. Do you expect a good Paladin to follow his/her own laws? Do you expect a lawful good police officer to follow his/her own laws? Given that Roland is an officer of the law as an FBI investigator isn't it safe to assume that his code of conduct, rules, and laws include those he's sworn to uphold? Including the rules/laws set in place regarding the intentional covering up of evidence and obstruction of justice?
  7. While I agree with you on basically everything, I'd hesitate to mention access to Rogue weapons. Backstab and Sneak Attack are great. The Rogue weapons in my opinion are simply outclassed by the Guardian ones. Specifically machete for Skids. Maybe I'm wrong but does anyone use the Rogue weapons for Skids? Have they been effective? Why use them over a machete? Lastly, I just want to mention that I don't think it's that people like evading so much with Skids. I agree that he's better off usually just killing things in the first place, but he's still pretty great at it and offers him options in dealing with enemies in a way that Roland does not have access to. Skids' great evade ability is what makes machete shine so much on him in my opinion. Also any enemies that take more than one round to defeat is better handled by Skids in general due to his aptitude for evasion.
  8. Does he? I always thought that his weakness having to investigate extra hard because of cover ups by the government agency he is working for - Fox Mulder style. Nope, he covers up evidence of spoopy stuff because People Aren't Ready To Know. Which could easily qualify as Lawful Good since he's rigidly adhering to an ethos (Lawful) designed to benefit others (Good). Also, the law is silent on the subject of ghouls, night-gaunts, and Ancient Ones, so whether they are capable of committing crimes in the first place (from a legal POV) is extremely dubious; thus, covering up evidence of their activities is arguably not unlawful from a jurisprudence standpoint. Further, Paladins are not required to be Lawful Good in many editions of D&D; Unearthed Arcana, for example, presents variants for every alignment in 3.5 while 4th Edition merely requires that your alignment match that of your deity. There's even a subclass specifically for antiheroic characters (the Blackguard.) Rules lawyer'd Covering up evidence is an obstruction of justice i.e. illegal and unlawful. The law being silent on the subject of ghouls, night-gaunts, and Ancient Ones is irrelevant. Your ignorance of the law is made obvious from your statement that you impose relevance on the ability of these actors to commit crimes. The very discussion regarding their ability to commit crimes is absolutely unnecessary. The crime is that he's actively and intentionally hindering an investigation. That evidence is intentionally being covered up is what is relevant. Roland could be covering up evidence of a dog's actions and it could still be illegal. For example, let's say he's covering up evidence that a dog somehow turned on a stove and started a fire which burned a house down (which I've seen in an insurance case as an attorney). His covering this up could be insurance fraud as well. Thus, the fact that evidence is intentionally being covered up in an investigation is the key factor - it doesn't matter whether the actors directly involved in the actions pertaining to the evidence are capable of committing a crime, the actors do not necessarily have to be the ones being prosecuted. If you want to go down this road that Paladins can include non lawful good characters and potentially even include Blackguards then why did you correct me in the first place? If you're not talking about a lawful good character what are you talking about? If you're saying Paladins include everything under the sun then your statement/correction was completely unnecessary and unhelpful. Lawyered. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/42/77/0a/42770ae137786bca0b819f2dc45fe039.jpg
  9. Just wanted to know why you think that? To my mind Roland is the strongest combat character so far, with the highest raw combat stat and a signature asset which is currently, arguably, the best weapon in the game. Granted, Skids has access to Backstab, can evade pretty well, Hard Knocks to beef himself up and Sneak Attack to deal damage to those already evaded, but Roland is more reliable in my experience, where Skids is more swingy. Skids is better in that he handles both combat and tanking (evasion) well. I regularly play Skids and one of my friends regularly plays Roland. Skids is better at being able to help the investigators deal with enemies in general. Sure, Roland is better at pure combat in that his combat value is 4 compared to Skids' 3. However, Skids usually has an abundance of supplies and actions due to his innate ability, his elder sign ability and his access to Rogue cards (Burglary, Leo De Luca, etc). Thus, Skids has more reliable skill boosts to both combat and evasion (usually has more supplies available to use for Physical Training or Hard Knocks). Roland also is less consistent in that he typically has less actions to work with and has to rely more on guns, whereas Skids is a Machete monster with his fairly reliable evades and extra actions. Also you already mentioned some of the reasons yourself. Skids has access to to Sneak Attack and Backstab. Also Sneak Attack gives him a combat redundancy to better deal with high fight value low evade value enemies. Skids is a ninja. Roland is a brute. Correction: Skids is a Rogue. Roland is a Paladin. No. Paladins don't cover up evidence.
  10. Just wanted to know why you think that? To my mind Roland is the strongest combat character so far, with the highest raw combat stat and a signature asset which is currently, arguably, the best weapon in the game. Granted, Skids has access to Backstab, can evade pretty well, Hard Knocks to beef himself up and Sneak Attack to deal damage to those already evaded, but Roland is more reliable in my experience, where Skids is more swingy. Skids is better in that he handles both combat and tanking (evasion) well. I regularly play Skids and one of my friends regularly plays Roland. Skids is better at being able to help the investigators deal with enemies in general. Sure, Roland is better at pure combat in that his combat value is 4 compared to Skids' 3. However, Skids usually has an abundance of supplies and actions due to his innate ability, his elder sign ability and his access to Rogue cards (Burglary, Leo De Luca, etc). Thus, Skids has more reliable skill boosts to both combat and evasion (usually has more supplies available to use for Physical Training or Hard Knocks). Roland also is less consistent in that he typically has less actions to work with and has to rely more on guns, whereas Skids is a Machete monster with his fairly reliable evades and extra actions. Also you already mentioned some of the reasons yourself. Skids has access to to Sneak Attack and Backstab. Also Sneak Attack gives him a combat redundancy to better deal with high fight value low evade value enemies. Skids is a ninja. Roland is a brute. Edit: Forgot to mention that Skids has the On the Lam/Elusive/Dynamite Blast combo. Dynamite Blast is much better on Skids than Roland.
  11. This cripples LittleChiba.com which I use regularly to build decks for the Netrunner of which I own 6 core sets and 2 copies of every data pack and deluxe expansion. If I can't deckbuild with images on LittleChiba.com I would lose all interest in this game. Signed. Also signed here: https://www.change.org/p/fantasy-flight-games-please-allow-netrunnerdb-com-to-continue
  12. I was at the Kublacon Regional. Here's a c/p from another thread on Reddit: 39 people attended and I came in 11th. After the 5th round, I was 4-1 (all 4 wins were full wins), then I got completely destroyed by Dallas Parker in the 6th round before the cut (ended 4-2) as I flew my ships very poorly against his swarm and in all honesty he completely outplayed me. I did, however, face another swarm in an earlier round and won, flying nearly perfectly and not making poor decisions regarding initiative and flank speeds. Anyway the list I played was: Soontir Fel (27) + RGT(0) + PTL (3) + SD (3) + TC (2) = 35 Carnor Jax (26) + RGT(0) + PTL (3) + SU (4) + HU (3) = 36 Dark Curse (16) Academy Pilot (12) Total: 99 points They offered me to play in the top 8 but as I don't plan on going to nationals, I declined.
  13. Got mine yesterday and am wearing it right now! Thank you so much for putting this altogether. I am very pleased
  14. Yeah, but if you end up making use of the points than it's moot. People say the same about stacking up on Soontir. It's only a waste of points if you lose. Also, though his per-shot damage potential is that of a TIE like you claim, his staying power is much much higher, so his damage potential over the course of an entire game is over all much higher. And even though the missiles are expensive and single use, if you manage even a fair hit very early on against a priority target then you've already earned it back and then some. I can say that on more than one occasion, I've fired at range 3 on Wedge this way, using marksmanship and concussion missiles, only to have him either blank his evade roll or roll 1 out of the 2 (which is about average) and connect with 3-4 of them. That gets the critical hit through the shields. When you are trying to build a squad to get the most out of your points a Tie Advanced is more of a handicap than a boon. The tie advanced is simply too expensive for what it does. Vader's is the only quasi-viable tie advanced because of his PS9 and that's only because he has perhaps the single best pilot ability in the game. I've run Vader in probably over 90% of my games. I've one-shotted plenty of x-wings with concussion missiles at range 3. I've also had concussion missiles roll 4 blanks before. It happens. Also with missiles there is a lot of value in having a quality alpha strike at range 3, trust me when I say I know this probably better than most. However, I can't help but feel that in almost all cases I would rather have a cheaper ship with 3 base attack and far better maneuver dial like Soontir Fel. In other words, he often functions as a more expensive Soontir Fel with a worse maneuver dial, one less attack, and doesn't get to double focus. Fel with PTL, SD, RGT, and TC is 35 points and for me at least has served as much more effective flanker and one-on-one end game dogfighter.
  15. There is one thing that he does better than any other ship. He shoots missiles like a boss. At PS9 he will almost always activate last and have superior knowledge of the boardstate with his target lock. Further, with his two actions he is the only pilot able to focus and target lock at PS9 without extra ships or cards. The problem is missiles are expensive on top of vader already being the most expensive 2 attack small base ship without upgrades. Another problem is engine upgrade is one of the best upgrades Vader can take and it's hard not to take it but that's another 4 points. Usually Vader ends up being around 40 points for me. This is 40% of my squad for a ship that in most rounds will only do as much damage as a single tie fighter in a tie swarm headed by howlrunner...
×
×
  • Create New...