Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About noahboa

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Massachusetts, United States
  1. Well the Uthuk sure seem horribly overpowered to me. I'm no deck-building genius, but I've played the Rune Wars scenario maybe 15 times, with 2, 3, and 4 players. The person playing the Uthuk has won literally every time. We played a 3 player game yesterday, and a guy who was totally new to hobby games in general, and had never even heard of deck-building before, played the Uthuk against two opponents who were fairly experienced gamers. He still won.
  2. There seems to be a typo on p. 10 of the rulebook, where it explains what to do when a player has lost a battle against an Instant. It says to subtract the Instant from the Army and apply the result as damage. I assume this is backwards and you're meant to subtract the Army from the Instant. Also, I assume that you randomly select the Neutral Cities that will be available at the beginning of the game, but I don't see where this is actually stated, so a clarification of that might be good.
  3. The Undead seem to have a very powerful combo that lets them secure all three of their strongholds plus a neutral card on the first turn. It is discussed on this bgg thread http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/687967/attacking-multiple-strongholds Is this legal?
  4. pumpkin said: ??! said: Here’s another question that has been discussed only a short time ago on this forum, and the answer is – let’s say unexpected. Rule Question: "Really a basic question: Ranged attacks with pistols or automatic weapons may only target characters sharing a path with the attacker, while melee attacks may target characters adjacent to the attacker even if they don't share a path with the attacker. Right or wrong? Also concerning melee attacks: When Eva Krämer uses Strafe to attack a target at range 2, can she attack a character that doesn't share a path with her? Thank you for answering!" A character may always attack an adjacent character, even if out-of-path. When attacking a non-adjacent character with Strafe, Eva must share a path with her target. Surely the bit in bold is just clarifying that you can always attack an adjacent charatcer using unarmed if all you have is a ranged weapon and the target isn't on your path - surely its not suggesting ranged weapons can attack off path adjacent targets? I think Mr. Sadler is indeed suggesting just that. The questions boils down to which section of the rulebook is correct, the bit about sighting on page 17 or the bit about attacking on page 21. They can't both be right. One of those sections is right and the other is a mistake. Now, which section is more likely to be in error? The rules on page 21 are clear, no more complicated than necessary, and intuitive. I strongly believe they reflect the designers' intentions. Mr. Sadler's response seems to bear this out. The section about sighting on page 17 is --in a word-- a disaster. Let's take a look. The rule books is quoted in bold, my comments are in regular type. Sighting: It is sometimes [why sometimes? It's either important or it's not. If you think it needs to be in the rulebook then it's important] important to know which characters can SEE each other. One character who can see another character is sometimes said to have Line of Sight to that character. [Again, why sometimes? Is it sometimes called something else? Just tell us what Line of Sight is.] Two characters who share a path CAN ALWAYS SEE EACH OTHER. (Exception: Certain equipment, such as Smoke Grenades, can limit this. See Smoke Grenades on page 23.) [so here's a universal pronouncement about Line of Sight reciprocity which is immediately undermined by an exception which requires turning to page 23 to understand. But wait, it gets worse.] The only [!] exception to this is Hand to Hand attacks. [Wait, what about the exception you just made? Did you forget about that already? And what is this section doing here anyway? The rulebook hasn't even discussed combat yet. There is only aspect of the game that has any relevance to Line of Sight, and that is combat. If you're going to bring up Line of Sight you need to talk about combat now and not four pages later.] Hand to Hand attacks may target a character on the other side of a door, regardless of Line of Sight. The target must still be in an adjacent circle, as indicated by the tactical maps on page 80-82. [Great, so I can punch someone on the other of a door but I can't shoot them. How is this supposed to make sense?] The whole section just sucks. Fortunately, the rules for attacking on page 21 are a model of technical writing by comparison, so I'm playing that you can always target an adjacent circle. I think official statements from FFG will probably continue to confirm that this is how they intended the game to be played and that the apparent exception spelled out on page 17 will vanish from any future revisions of the rulebook.
  5. Hey guys, I thought it was kind of crazy that the revised rules are almost two years old and yet nobody has written a proper review on BGG, so I wrote one. http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/719000/tannhauser-a-fantastic-game-unfairly-shafted-by-t I've also raised the issue of getting the second edition Tannhauser its own distinct entry in the BGG database so its rating won't be diluted by all the 1st edition stuff. I submitted an entry and was contacted by an admin about revising it. I'm not too optimistic it will go through, but you never know. If a few other folks started contacting admins and asking nicely it might help.
  • Create New...