Jump to content

sanityismyvanity

Members
  • Content Count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sanityismyvanity

  1. Awesome! Well done! Two quick things, just noticed on pg. 3 of the Realms Untravelled rules that a reference to the Border Region is made when it should say Shadow Region. Also, the Stacking the Adventure Deck rules only mentions using 36 Nether cards total. Since it is part of the Realms Untravelled, shouldn't it suggest to use all 52 cards (a 16/36 split)?
  2. GW was dead to me as a company the moment they stopped printing the Realms of Chaos books.
  3. I look at it in a similar light to what Bludgeon mentioned, the events that caused the Cataclysm wrecked the lands substantially, but not completely. The Harbinger apocalypse, on the other hand, will literally destroy everything...no rebuilding from that.
  4. I love the new Endings! Especially the Nether Portal, it's kind of like Horrible Black Void Lite!
  5. Current high bidder on the English edition, woohoo! However, the shipping is confusing. It says "Possible shipping abroad. Cost according to the rates of Polish Post." then it says "Shipping abroad: no"? Am I screwed being in the USA? I think, nope. Since I'm the translator of the Polish version, and my friend put in on auction, I'm pretty sure he sends stuff outside the Poland. It might be that the auction itself (by default) set it to "no", but he will send it anyway. I contacted him and he said shipping to the USA was ok! The bidding escalated quickly though, so not sure I'll be top bidder for much longer (currently 305,00 zł)
  6. Current high bidder on the English edition, woohoo! However, the shipping is confusing. It says "Possible shipping abroad. Cost according to the rates of Polish Post." then it says "Shipping abroad: no"? Am I screwed being in the USA?
  7. Regarding the Trails remaining on the space, I think that could work fine. One additional thing to consider would be in the wording for the Trails portion of the Rules, adding an amendment that Trails are discarded after they are encountered. So basically Trails that are drawn but not encountered remain on the space, but once encountered they go back into the Border deck. Beyond that, part of the strategy for the Lost Realms in my opinion is to avoid turning in Trophies gained there until you have revealed a Trail. This helps thin the deck so to speak, and increases the chances of drawing a Trail in the first place. I also like the Lodestone/Diamond better than the other gems, good call bowlwoman!
  8. I like the 2nd image personally, but both work well.
  9. This was my line of thinking when I read you are looking to include 6 more Border cards. I'd suggest making 2 of the 6 new Trails, dropping the Outlaw as you mention and also the Treasure Hunter. Perhaps have a Winding Cavern as a Trail? As the Trails lead to the destination spaces, and you have to get past whatever you encounter before you encounter the Trails, and successfully get past the Trail itself while still remaining in the Region, I think the ratio of Trails should be 8 of the 42 total cards.
  10. I thought that was a cool idea I also wasn't convinced of the link between healing and the Forgotten Road, so changed it to this - Oh, very nice change! I like the Lost City result being a 1-2 like the other Trails too. I have a couple of small suggestions for 2 of the other Trails. For the Enchanted Path, I'd like to propose changing the 3-4 result from attacked by a Craft 4 Fae Crone to "Companion bewitched! Ditch 1 Follower at random". For the Shadow Pathway, I think the 3-4 result should be changed to "Lose all of your fate." instead of just being restricted to light fate. Also maybe change the 5 result from a dark fate gain to "Choose a character to lose 1 life". Makes it more evil and shadowy!
  11. When I suggested the draw from Purchase deck for that Trail, I was thinking there was something else in the game that did that already, but I think Rig is correct that there isn't. It would be a bit messy to have to shuffle it up, especially if the Cataclysm cards are involved. Probably easiest to just let a player pick from available Purchase cards instead of it being random.
  12. Very nice! The only thing I noticed is the example graphic that uses the Highlander has the "A" & "B" reversed.
  13. Looking fantastic! Thanks for your efforts in getting this all put together so professionally Jon! Quite a fetching layout. A small editorial note for pg. 3 of the Rules: Under "Entering the Realms", it says you can enter the Iron Peaks from the Dungeon.
  14. That could certainly work, have the only "escape" option from the card stack in the Eleven Labyrinth be to go to the Dwarven Trail, since that is currently looking like a straightforward draw 2 card space. No need to have an escape measure from the Dwarven Trail as an option. Highlands->Dwarven Trail->either Forge or Elven Labyrinth->either Elder Village (if stack is completed) or Woodlands (whether or not stack is completed) Woodlands->Elven Labyrinth->either Elder Village (if stack is completed) or Dwarven Trail (whether or not stack is completed)->Highlands or Forge Doing this would certainly speed up the process of using it as a Bridge, but still have the time cost should you plan to go to the Elder Village.
  15. Agreed. That was exactly my thinking in my previous post. I'm of the opinion we remove the Objects & Spells restriction with the addition of the stack. I'd also suggest removing the draw 3 choose 1 aspect of the Destiny draw. I don't really see that as being necessary myself. What I suggested before was to have the top faceup card of your stack always be discarded at the end of your turn, whether or not you actually won the encounter. This would eliminate being stuck on a bad encounter, and is thematically more appropriate to do this since you have freedom of movement to get away from something beating you up. You lack that option when stuck in a catacomb/sewer. If we do this, we can disallow escape upon entering. I'm still interested in doing this, since it also prevents people from cycling out of a Path part way into the Woodlands to just jump back out to grab a different Path. This abuse needs to be curtailed, and this would solve it nicely.
  16. I like the stack concept quite a bit, works well to help balance the Destiny being too easy issue. However, since the spaces are also "Bridge" spaces that have Places in the deck, and the fact that the spaces themselves represent large areas with freedom of movement as opposed to catacombs, I would think the top faceup card on your stack would be discarded at the end of your turn. Also, I would suggest that you cannot choose to "Escape" like you can in the Deep Realms, but will have to resolve your stack of cards before having the option to move elsewhere. Thematically, this is represented by the Elven Something Else being a large expanse with confusing paths, and the way you entered disappearing without a trace moments after arriving. I personally like the Dwarven Something space being a straight Draw 3 and encounter all at once space, while the Elven side is the 2-4 card stack. I don't think the Forge rewards need such a time investment to claim them. Also, this helps speed up the "Bridge" function, since if both are stacks, it could take way too long to cross from the Highlands to the Woodlands. As Neil says, the current wording is too broad. My intention was more along the lines of "Roll 1d6 *insert table results here*. No special abilities or effects may be used to modify the result of this die roll." This is general enough language to ban all forms of cards from changing the result. However, with the stack concept in play creating a time cost to get to the space, we may be able to dispense with this restriction altogether.
  17. I think the thematic justification is simply the Fates won't allow any outside influences to pervert or manipulate whether or not one is chosen to be destined. Allowing Fate re-rolls is ok I suppose, so long as other effects are banned. That also opens the door to dark fate being in play, so it balances out.
  18. It still feels a little too easy to get a Destiny this way compared to the Woodlands methods. I'd be ok with it if we ban using Fate, Objects, Followers, Spells & Quest Rewards when rolling. If you are truly destined to have it, make it a single, straight up die roll without any ability to modify it or re-roll.
  19. Another possibility would be a d6 roll on a table of Quests ala the Warlock's Cave, upon completion you gain a Destiny. The Destiny Quests would need to be tougher than "Travel to X" or "Visit Y". This removes the component of having a Fate cost to boost a roll, and introduces more of a time cost commensurate with the Woodlands.
  20. I've been meaning to bring up the Fairie Trod again, thanks for the reminder. My initial concern was if we used the standard rules for Paths, any Path gained in the Lost/Hidden Realms from the Trod would very quickly get discarded since no one is likely to spend much time in the Region. However, I have a suggestion that could make the Fairie Trod viable and tackle another potential issue that has me a little concerned. I'd like to propose a rule along these lines: "Any Path a character has when entering from the Woodlands to the Lost/Hidden Realms, or that they have when entering the Woodlands from the Lost/Hidden Realms, is retained instead of being discarded for having left a Region." This would make any Path gained from a Fairie Trod in the new Realm remain if they went to the Woodlands, and since the Region is related to the Woodlands, they would stay with you if you enter from the Thicket. Additionally, this would help eliminate any potential abuse whereby a player makes a quick pitstop into the Lost/Hidden Realms to discard their current Path to just simply turn around and re-enter the Woodlands to select a new Path. I'm personally in favor of closing this potential loophole, and this proposal should do the trick.
  21. Just a quick clarification, are the new Gauntlets +2 S/C against Fae as originally proposed, or against everything?
  22. Curious to hear what the Gauntlet of Fate is like. As Morak's Hammer now has a non-discard use, do we want to add non-discard abilities to the Ring of Denial and Black Iron Key? If so, what would they be? I think a simple "+1 to Craft" works well for the Black Iron Key, since stat gains are always nice. For the Ring, maybe something like "Whenever any character gains more than 1 Spell, they instead only gain 1 Spell." or "All characters have their Spell Limit reduced by 1." I personally think the Forge Master works fine in the deck. There are many instances where being able to choose your reward will come in handy. A Gladiator might want the Iron Talisman to pair with their Sun Shield. A character might be on their last life and want to grab the Rune Shield. Another character may possess the Talisman of Censure, and the Black Iron Key starts to look incredibly useful. Either Lost or Hidden works for me.
  23. Where do those cards grant special permission to override the rules of the game? The standing rule is that you must travel through the Valley of Fire. It requires special permission to break that rule (such as the Lord of Darkness). Without explicitly stating that they override the standing rules of the game, they do not override the standing rules of the game. Otherwise, what's the point of having standing rules? Because the rule explicitly states that a character must pass through the Valley of Fire with a Talisman, unless something gives pointed exception to that rule, the rule stands. So no, it is against the rules to teleport from the Plain of Peril (or any other inner region space) to the Crown of Command. The FAQ 1.1 explicitly states that the Arnkell does this, and also explains that anything with the mention of "instead of moving normally" that also includes teleporting within the Region does as well. Furthering this is the Golden Rule of Special Abilities Vs. Rules, which also says that any card effect that conflicts with a rule is resolved by giving deference to the card effect. I personally wish the game did not include such loopholes, but that is how it is.
×
×
  • Create New...