Jump to content

Bjorne

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bjorne

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden
  1. This is remarkable. Why wouldn't FFG support this fan-driven effort in every way they can? My image of FFG has changed for the worse. I seriously hope this is a mistake...
  2. I think it could work and be a lot of additional fun. Obviously, my version above is crude but I am sure someone of the FFG'ers could turn this into something great. Maybe the rules could leave it open for this but not being included from the core. Also, I don't know if intrigue would be the best way to allow 'attacks' into shadows, but somehow, in order to open up for traps and bluffing later, the game would have to allow some way of interacting with the opponents shadows cards. Maybe, instead of my original suggestion, the intrigue challenge could allow a player a peak at one of the opponents shadows cards, in addition to the normal claim? Thanks Kennon, BTW, for your great work for the community with the podcast!
  3. Hi, I would love to see a shadows mechanic that utilizes the fact that cards are played but unknown to the opponent to an even larger extent, something like installed corp cards in Netrunner. What do you think about this: When you play a shadows card, you don't pay gold for it. You can then 'scheme' the shadows card by playing gold tokens on those cards, basically like advancing in netrunner (maybe this can only be done in the marshalling phase or some other restriction to slow the buildup of tokens on the shadows cards). When a shadows card is to be brought out of shadows, you can only bring those out that has enough scheming/gold tokens on them. During an intrigue (and maybe also/instead on a mil/pow) challenge, the opponent who attacks can choose to target specific shadows cards instead of normal claim. The shadows cards can then be dealt with before they become a real threat, OR they can be traps that initiates upon being targeted with 'shadows-claim' leading to all kinds of mind games. I think it wouldn't change the game too much and still be a very nice ways to add more bluffing and mind-games to AGoT.
  4. Very unfortunate that FFG has taken this move. I would have hoped that they could have communicated what they didn't like about netrunnerdb.com and given the guy a chance to change the site first. SIGNED!
  5. Partly, this is probably because it is hard to figure out how to make fair tournament rules that would allow people to compete for real despite this beeing a cooperative game. I put up a suggestion for how it might be done at BGG here. I'd be happy to hear what you think about it.
  6. Plus, There doesn't seem to be a way to see how many times you failed a quest. What is the point of being able to log failed quests if you can't see the full statistics afterwards?
  7. So, the way I understand this is that you are supposed to log the total team score, but do it several times if you are more than one player(deck), right? Example, Adam and Anna get 150pts in total for one game (the combined team score). Anna logs the play as 2-players, 150pts and puts her heroes in. Adam logs the game as 2-players, 150pts and puts his heroes in. Is this the right way to do it?
×
×
  • Create New...