Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About schmoo34

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Blaine, Minnesota, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm on my eighth campaign now. 6 of them, I was the OL. I've learned along the way the nifty tricks such as playing rumor cards VERY early in act I and Act II because that is when your monsters are the strongest. I've also learned the value of dash, and avoiding blast. ANd lastly, someone mentioned the Grisban effect, where he has 18 health and a black and grey die...with the latest expansions, it is more like 24 health and 2 black dice. You have to just simply ignore that hero and move your minions around it. I'm in one right now. Nanok (champion), Grey (Wildlander), Sahla (Prophet), Reynhart (Berserker) My butt gets handed to me every single mission. Normally, if it is Grisban, I can at least web trap him, but these heroes are strong. Normally, I can loop them up with traps, but all of these have great awareness. They rarely fail checks. And that gets to my point in this. Certain synergies of heroes, if the heroes know what they are doing, are unstoppable. It matters not what cards I have or what tactics I use. I feel that the conversion kit, while awesome, unbalances the game a lot. And I mean that in both directions. I just don't feel the combinations of skills and OPEs were well thought out vs. if you stick with the base game and the expansions and only use those heroes and monsters. A well placed golem rocks for the OL just as much as Nanok rocks for the heroes. I do feel as if my being rewarded with a card is not much of a reward. Many of the missions are won/lost in the first two opening moves and many of the times, I feel as if I could fare a better chance if I went first as the OL. As it stands, I lose entire groups of monsters (you name them, they all die) before I can even take my turn. Grey can spend one stamina to move two spaces...nothing I can do to stop him with a basic II deck (mistake on my part)...but let's say I did stop him...I can only stop him once. Then my card is gone, and he can just do it again next turn. The tenuous nature of a well played game is what I want and what anybody wants. Getting steamrolled is not fun. I keep investing in this game because I believe it can be fun. I would like cards that allow me to overcome "reach" ability. My shadow dragons are useless against reach. Someone mentioned "Only pick large monsters". Large monsters just die quicker using less actions. At least if I have kobolds, the heroes have to spend more actions killing them and it buys me more time. I refer to my monsers as being made out of butter. Because they are. The trick to being the OL is to prevent early expansion. To prevent the heroes from beefing up. And perhaps the biggest issue I have is that once the snowball starts rolling down the hill, there is no mechanism to catch back up. So being just 4 hours into a 20 hour campaign, you will already know if you are doing well or not...then there is no point in playing the remaining 16 hours. And that is how it feels broken to me.
  2. I got this on my table several times with my group. Every person said, "It's six player solitaire". And as much as I didn't like that description, they are right. The time between turns is lengthy, the order of combat heavily favors one class over others and attempts to balance it out only partially do so. With that said, I enjoy the theme, the heroes, the richness of all of it. And I still want to play and enjoy playing it. The board expansions really did take it to whole new levels and the mini expansions added so much to it and gave more goals and scenarios. It was really well done in that regard. I'm very mixed on this. I feel it would serve better if the party moved together instead of separately...just from a "speed up the game" and "keep others engaged" point of view. I truly have no vested interest in what other players are doing as it stands. Also, so many wonderful item cards, the stack is very high, yet it is so difficult to get them into play. It is also a limitation. I would be a big fan of 3rd edition as I feel there are tweaks that would get this back in the limelight.
  3. Well, considering that the OP was from over 3 years ago...you may be holding your breath for a long time. If FFG does resurrect this, I'm guessing it will be a 3rd edition.
  4. After playing it... I do understand this is a remake from some other game from 2011. But THAT game in 2011 is basically Scotland Yard on Steroids. And before I get flamed, I say that there is nothing wrong with that...and all of the "steroids" are wonderful. Jack has to make kills over several days. (that is a new concept from Scotland Yard) Jack performs hidden movement in the streets of London. The gameboard, the hidden movement, everything is near identical to Scotland Yard. Also the police moving around is near identical to Scotland Yard. Here is where they differ: Police aren't restricted with Taxi, subway, bus tokens. In some respects, this is good, but it is also bad. THe police can't move as quickly around the map as a result. But it makes them able to remain in the game to the very end. Jack can have a policeman move through him and unless/until an arrest is performed he is fine. Investigating vs arresting The whole cat & Mouse dynamic prior to the kill (which is a big part of the game) The fact that it occurs over multiple days. The concept of a hideout. Instead of black tickets and taking the ferry, they implemented stagecoaches (which replaced the x2 token) and alleyway movement (which is much more powerful than the black ticket) The fact that Jack and the police use different squares for movement. At the end of the day, this truly is Scotland yard on steroids. I do enjoy everything about this game that makes it different from Scotland Yard. The similarities are almost criminal, at times. If you've played Scotland Yard, you will understand the concepts behind this immediately. The cat & mouse part will be new for you...and it is important. The concept of the hideout changes Jack's strategies quite a bit. And even though Jack can't go through a police officer, a police officer can go through him. All of that takes some getting used to. It takes much longer to play this game than Scotland yard as well.
  5. And what exactly is the tactical challenge in your eyes? Heroes go first, OL just sits there and watches his troops die. Boy, that is some challenge! OL can use tripwire, pit trap and web trap (if he has it). And that is based on random luck of the draw. He has a 4/15 chance of getting one on turn 1. It isn't like this is a realtime game and the OL has options at his disposal. And you pick any scenario, the opening moves are crucial. But, hey, if you feel that is a tactical challenge vs. an exploit, by all means...go for it. The wording on the card wouldn't say what it says if it was intended by the designers to be used multiple times per round. I don't envy their position...all of these card effects, especially with the conversion kit create numerous possibilities that were not considered. But calling an oversight a tactical challenge...I at least like the optimism there...this isn't much of a challenge in my eyes, it is an exploit.
  6. That is a fair and reasonable reason. I wasn't intending to cast judgment on whether it is right or wrong to passionately pursue the answers to the rules, but I was rather stating a point for why forum members read but don't bother to clarify. At the end of the day, you gotta do what works for you. With that said, I actually think my interpretation of reach and stealth put together is the correct one...for what its worth. (And if I find out it isn't, it will be on my table! HA!) Also, I truly believe you are coming up with scenarios the designers never considered. So this isn't a monet, where everyone is debating what the creator was thinking...it's an "oops", and they are scrambling to figure out how to rule on it based on the current ruleset and mechanics. As for mana weave, per the rules, all cards refresh at the beginning of a hero turn. So if Leoric the book had it, used it, and then moves and hands it off to Tomble and ends his turn. Tomble then refreshes his cards at the start of his turn (including mana weave) and then uses it, performs a move action to hand it off to Hugo the Glorious; ends turn. Rinse and repeat. Mana weave has now been exploited in its full glory, Leoric got off a fire blast, Tomble did dastardly surges, Hugo, was able to add uber damage, and so forth. The designers could also fix it by having heroes refresh their cards prior to the first hero taking his/her turn. That way, if an item is traded, it remains tapped. There is a similar exploit/variant with that conversion kit character that is allowed to take his two actions separately (take one action, end his turn, let another hero go and then gets to take another turn). The rules for start of turn is "refresh cards" so some believe that hero gets to refresh all of his skills twice in one round. No offense intended, only being my eastcoast blunt self. All discussion is good...even when I don't understand it.
  7. Perhaps we don't post anything decisive because it really doesn't matter? Take Monopoly...free parking, per RAW is free parking. Nothing happens on that spot. Yet, most people put a 500 spot on there, or place additional monies there so it has morphed into a house rule lottery space. Now take this game. Heroes can take mana weave, use it to trade from hero to hero every turn, and exploit a trade mechanic allowing them to fireblast/attack the OL with automatic surges four times per turn instead of the intended one time. RAW states it is perfectly ok to allow the heroes to decimate the OL's armies before the OL takes a single turn. But is it fun? No, it isn't. So most people houserule that if you trade an equipped item, you need to wait until next turn to equip it on the new character. (Or any flavor of this) The best solution would be to have party inventory and scrap the trading mechanic altogether. And we have houseruled that mechanic and it makes the game BETTER to play that way. I don't care that it isn't RAW or people on a forum don't see it that way. The game is more fun because it is possible for someone other than the designer to think of something they didn't. So why do you care so much about what the rules are? I certainly don't. Just do what makes sense for you and your group. And just to show how different people can interpret things differently, "Reach" means to me that they have long arms, or a polearm and can attack from one space away. I.E. So if they have to add +3 to their range for stealth, then they still only need to roll a 4 range because a character with reach has the same odds as one without reach, but gets the added bonus of attacking from one more space away. The fact that he has or doesn't have reach doesn't even factor in AT ALL with the stealth calculation. Reach only determines whether or not an attack can be made. Rolling to see if you successfully hit is done AFTER that determination. So Reach has no business being in that calculation.
  8. I vote D. I only own everything through Darrowdelf. I play solo, but with two decks (emulate two players). All quests are winnable, I don't like powerdecking. I like theme. I like campaigns, i.e. stringing quests together vs. doing a single mission. I prefer to create a single deck and go through, I really dislike creating new decks. It is a chore for me...I'd rather go to work and do my career because I at least get paid for that. The game is more about building your deck then actually immersing yourself into missions. That is where this is an epic fail for me. I vote D because I cannot just choose cards I like and have a shot. As many mentioned, you have tons of choices for cards and heroes, but you'd be a fool to exclude certain ones. It's like making a boardgame with melee and casting characters and you only stand a chance if you use the casting characters and the melee ones are nerfed. If I take the time to powerdeck it, I'm sure it would be C or better...but I honestly spend more time building my deck than I actually do playing and immersing myself into a mission. There is something wrong with that. I don't mind Legendary, even though it takes forever to put away and set up, because the game itself lasts a while. Games like Descent are fun because even though there is setup time between quests and encounters, there is a string and a progression and a feeling of epicness. This game is a series of independent missions. Nothing more. I get that many of you love it. I just don't.
  9. schmoo34

    Not so fun

    fogelbaby said: Got this game recently after seeing it at my local games store. Sort of dissapointing. As mentioned by others, it plays very quickly, even with many players. The length of the game is very dependent on how the players go about the game - it can be brought to a close in very few moves if players go that way. The art is beautiful and the production quality excellent, as is typical for FF games. The fighting system is very basic, and almost uneccessary, as it doesn't seem like fighting is even required to advance in the game. In the end , I just didn't find it very fun to play. I've had the same experience. We also get into situations where combinations of the sheriff, etc. can cause the game to go into a stalemate and no extra buildings or track is laid so the game doesn't progress. But even with that aside, the gunfights are pointless and you lose more than you gain by engaging in them. As far as worker placement games go, there are so many better ones out there. I was really hoping for a wild west themed game, that was the draw for me. This game sits on my shelf. My kids won't even play it with me. My group has decided "never again".
  10. Gencon is coming up. All information dries up prior to gencon and then a flurry of announcements come out that week. Two steampunk games in 2013…*yawn*
  11. So much analysis over triviality…does it make sense for your gaming group or doesn't it? That is all that matters.
  12. I think the argument of "It is too expensive to produce minis" is bullcrap. Kickstarter exists; FFG could make it into a kickstarter and put the cost out there and basically reduce their risk to near zero. If they raise enough interest/money, then the minis are available for everyone to know and love. Otherwise, we now at least understand why they aren't available. 1st edition minis plus lieutenants kickstarter. I bet it would double or even triple its original goal.
  13. I see how powerful the advantage/threat concept can be towards adding "flesh to the bone" with encounters…but in another sense, as I plan a campaign, I feel it is a nightmare of micromanaging…firstly, there is the counting of the dice (which immediately followed the equally cumbersome calculating of the dicepool) and then each and every encounter can be dazzling because you can have unique advantages/threats for each one or you can just simply use a generic list and then only get "fancy" when encountering special places or bosses. Unfortunately, I'm more the latter type of GM as it is just so much micromanagement. But I like having the option to use it when I see fit and I can make awesome encounters from it.
  14. I feel that more market cards available in cities makes the game more exciting. The game feels too "empty" in the beginning. Having more available in each city market gives players more to plan for and shoot for. And witht he market decks being as large as they are, it does make sense. Another variant we've been using, to deviate from the market house rules…the downtime between turns is atrocious. So we play a co-op variant. -- All players travel as a group together. -- When hitting an encounter, draw X encounter cards and one is dealt to each player. Each player is battling their encounter at the same time and as encounters are defeated, players can team up or vice versa. There really isn't much else to change in the game…you'd be amazed at how much more it flows.
  15. I agree that the game has run its course…but running its course vs. not selling, either way they both lead to death. A 3rd edition might happen…I am more optimistic that FFG has intentions to revisit Terrinoth in general. Descent is getting the love, at the moment, Runebound might as well. My biggest issue with Runebound is there is a lot of downtime between turns. It is a great exploration/adventure game…in fact, it is what I was looking for, but I have no vested interest in seeing how other players fare other than knowing whether they took the spot I was hoping to get, etc. The battle rounds do heavily favor the dex characters as well and I feel it could use some improvement, but it works as it is. The big box expansions breathe the life into the game as every one feels and plays differently. I really do enjoy them. I just cannot get my gaming group into it…they see a game with too much downtime. And nothing I can do can change that. I feel I could improve it…for example, make it a single party where we quest/adventure cooperatively and when we reach an encounter, we battle many encounters, not just one. So many ways to liven it up in a 3rd edition. There is a need for a game like this, there are players who want to play them. A perfect analogy a person in my group used: It is 6 player solitaire. I agree with the sentiment…but solitaire can be a ton of fun. And Runebound is fun.
  • Create New...