Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Scottgun

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

501 profile views
  1. Thanks. Update: We played tonight. He played Unicorn with some Lion splash. I played the Crab. He leveraged lots of honor, I had him down to three at one point, but he was cracking my provinces like peanuts and finally trounced me by feeding Utaka Infantry and managed a 20-point political attack on my stronghold which I couldn't come anywhere near as I had all beefy military guys on the board--so he learned reeeaaal fast how to spot and exploit a weakness. Good on him. More importantly, he really likes the game. He is a fan of poker, and he noted that conflicts are like a poker pot in which there is lots of agonizing (in a good way) over whether to go all in or fold. Now I gotta figure out how to improve and play a Crab deck...
  2. Thanks. So Lion, Crab, Dragon? As far as which unicorn, im up for suggestions. Otherwise, I might just use the Team Covenant basic.
  3. Gonna teach my son the game and he read the strategy notes in the L2P book and he really wants Unicorn. What clan should I match up with him not to crush him, but have a good time and learn? I have 3 cores and first three packs. Thanks.
  4. 1). While I check this forum regularly, I prefer either boardgamegeek.com or the Netrunner Reddit. 2-4 I'll leave to others. 5. They are runners in their own faction, but they have higher prestige limits allowing them to draft more cards from the usual three.
  5. Personally, I like the "sampler" method for LCG. I bought one core set of Arkham Horror, realized it was not a game I wanted to invest time and money in, and I was only out $30 instead of $60. Not even that since I traded it in a sweet deal as I kept it sleeved and in pristine condition.
  6. One core set can be pretty fun right out of the box. If you like it, like said above, get the big expansions and that's plenty for casual. The Genesis and Spin cycles have been rotated and some of the cards from those cycles are now in the core set. Also see the MWL for restrictions and banned cards.
  7. I enjoy The Expanse and season 2 sneak peek tonight. It's billed as Game of Thrones in space, but thankfully it isn't.
  8. Exactly. Keep the football aspect or don't bother.
  9. Well done. Looking for loose change in the cracks of my sofa for a second core after lunch.
  10. Thanks for the replies. Bear in mind I'm just discharging my mind in line with the idea that writing about something frees me from having to think about it anymore. To that end I'm just going to play as officially ruled rather than house-rule testing it just so I can move on with enjoying the game. It's a sleek game that FFG should be proud of. I just find this ruling to be a minor kink in a sharp blade that can easily honed out with a few passes on the whetstone. Even if my case fails, perhaps FFG can take a look at the language in the Spawn and Prey sections and see if they can adjust it to make it more dispute-proof for future newcomers.
  11. Props to FFG for the improvements to their rule writing over the years bucking the temptation to refer to the company as "FAQ Flight Games". But, as with many things in life, there's always one isn't there? In the case of the Arkham Horror LCG for me, it's the rules about the "Prey" instruction vs. an Enemy spawn without a specific spawn instruction on the card. It's not just me as there have been several threads both here and at BGG debating the application of the rules to the point that an FFG official chimed in with a ruling. To wit: If two Investigators are at the same location and an enemy card does not have a Spawn instruction, it goes engaged to the Investigator that drew it regardless of any "Prey" instruction on the card. On the surface this seems reasonable. After all, pg. 19 of the rulebook under Spawn says, "If an enemy has no spawn instruction, it spawns engaged with the investigator who drew it." Well, I find several problems with this to the point that FGG might want to consider adjusting the rule. I could be wrong, but the problems as I see them are as follows: 1. It's persnickety in old-school FFG fashion: This rule has confused people because pg. 17 under Prey it says that, "If an enemy that is about to automatically engage an investigator at its location has multiple options of whom to engage, that enemy engages the investigator who best meets its "prey" instructions..." The result is that you have one side saying, "Aha! Drawing an investigator without a specific spawn instruction is an automatic engagement, therefore the "Prey" instruction applies!" and the other saying, "No, no, no. The key word here is "is about to". It isn't "about to" engage the investigator, it's already engaged and therefore the card does not have multiple options." C'mon guys. This is like trying to separate the gnat poop from the pepper. Especially when there is a much simpler solution available. Which brings me to... 2. It's counter-intuitive: The great thing about recent FFG LCGs is that once you have a little experience with the rules framework, the cards take over and drive the game forward eliminating many rulebook dives stopping play. This is intuitive: "Time to draw from the encounter deck. Ahh, a Ravenous Ghoul with a Prey instruction. Well since we are in the same location the card instructs us to give to the player with the lowest health. That's you, here you go." This isn't intuitive: "Ahh, Ravenous Ghoul. Even though every natural instinct tells me to obey the card and give it to the investigator with the lowest health which is you, we have to remember kewldood94 v. rlzlwyr17, 671 P.2d 1085 (FFG 2017). where the appellate FFG court ruled that "spawns engaged" is the governing word in the rules, so it's actually mine." Ok, that's an exaggeration, but you get the point. Card text should run the show wherever possible. And it is possible as far as I can tell, so finally... 3. It's persnickety and counter-intuitive in an unnecessary degree: Here's where I might be off base. That is, there might some card combo I haven't thought of that would wreck the game by changing the prey/spawn rule to be more natural. Really I can't think of one. Sure it would change a few consequences during a game, but to a game-breaking degree? I don't see it. Letting a Prey instruction on the card dictate its placement is more natural, follows the doctrine of letting the cards run the game and therefore ought to be officially made so. So what do you think? Right? Wrong? Bonkers? Way too much time on my hands? (Nevermind, I plead no contest to that one).
  12. Yes, but bear in mind that investigating a room without clues will not work to remove clues from Cover Up.
  13. Quite frankly, they'd work great with a much needed reboot of Lord of the Rings.
  14. Bastions are great for preventing early game zerg rushing for objectives. A Bastion and a single unit is enough to force someone who wants the world to take the time to build bigger and deeper. The become less effective in the late game, but never entirely useless.
  • Create New...