Jump to content

C2K

Members
  • Content count

    351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About C2K

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

596 profile views
  1. 1. It sets up faster than the boardgames for sure. The lcg has varying difficulties, so in some difficulties it will be easier than the board games, but you can play on the challenging difficulties to remedy that. It plays different than the board games though, and in fact will have you getting hints of RPG gameplay. The LCG will take you on an adventure based off the Mythos where your actions will have consequences, for better or worse, as campaign continues. Choices, successes, and failures will impact you as you continue, as well has being to "level up" your deck as you gain experience. 2. as everyone said, yes. The game does seem to scale well based on the number of players most of the times. There are only a few scenarios where this seems out of whack. 3. as answered already, each campaign cycle(deluxe box and 6 packs) is its own standalone story in which all you need is the core set. While player cards from those cycles can be used no matter what, Encounter cards for one campaign are not used when when doing different campaign. As for the question of whether its hard to play/master, its not as difficult as Lord of the Rings LCG, where deck building truly matters. On low difficulties, you can get away with even playing with 1 core decks(because you only have 1 copy of cards) and do well. If you do plan to tackle the higher difficulties you will need to streamline your deck more, and hence more card selection. There are also a few investigators that are very new player friendly, which I would say 3 of them are in the core set, that would be good first investigators to play. I've taught this game to many people now who have had no experience with Co-op card games, and they picked it up really fast.
  2. I would never play a card how I feel it should work; I would play a card as the rules define it would work. What I am afraid of is if a developer feels that a card should work a way other than it is worded or if the majority of the community feels this is the way the card should work, abandoning the definitions of the rules. If design wants to come out and say "hey we messed up on our templating", that would be upsetting, but at least accepting accountability and acknowledging they will get better at it. Heck, even if they throw something in the next faq that adds the word "set" to the card print, that would have the same effect.
  3. Unleash the Djinn has the word "set" in it, which is defined in the reference to be absolute. What bothers me about this is there needed to be a ruling in the first place. Waning Hostilities was worded poorly and thats why we are where we are at. In the same vein, I'm pretty sure Hawk Tattoo wasn't meant to be a harpoon, but here we are. 😏
  4. My problem with this is there is nothing i can find in the rules reference that states Waning Hostilities "sets" the number of challenges. The ruling appears to be "um... yeah so this is how we wanted this card to work so thats how it works". They set up a templating for their card game and then they poorly word cards by going off their template.
  5. Waning Hostilities is nothing like Unleash the Djinn. If it was, Waning Hostilities would have the word "set" in it. There is nothing in the rules reference to where "only" = "set". Perhaps is bad wording or an oversight, but HMT should work with Waning Hostilities. Or they should errata Waning Hostilities to include the word "set".
  6. I wouldn't predict worlds just yet. I expect the restricted/banned list to grow before worlds and that might shake things up. As for the Dragon/Phoenix role debacle, I respect the troll completed by the Dragon clan. But this is exploiting how unhealthy the role situation is for the game by making moves to force your others how to play their game competitively for prolonged periods of time.
  7. Even though FFG is doubling down on locked roles, I still believe roles should be open to all. Deckbuilding options increase the health of the game. I still think roles can have an impact while being open to all clans however. Fore instance, perhaps the winners of the Kotei will affect the story based on the role they chose. I know FFG is very protective of and doesn't want the players to have that much influence on story direction, but the roles would still leave a lot of room for the story team to not "get trolled" into an uncomfortable decision regarding the story.
  8. I think xp depends on class. If you go Seeker, for instance, you don't really want to go above 19 xp because of all the card draw seekers tend to use. In general, I think 19 xp is a good average to shoot for.
  9. i have come to accept that winners can troll the community with their picks. you can beat them to stop them. The issue with role-locking however is more of a game health issue. Why should i buy a dynasty pack on speculation that maybe next year i can play the card i want to use in it? in a game like l5r, where the clan you play does have some implications (albeit not as heavy as old5r), people are getting dynasty packs and may only use 3-5 cards from it.
  10. I think restrictions based off the roles are fine. Like if the deck uses fire, it can't use void only cards. That actually seems reasonable. But marrying a clan to a specific role for over a year pigeonholes deckbuilding to the point where if that particular clan doesn't get support within and around that role, that clan is getting useless cards in the cycle. Right now, there are a slot of cards that aren't seeing much play, and its because they are terrible cards for the clan that is allowed to play them... but they could find room in a clan that unfortunately can't play them. And then there are the dynasty cards.... 🤣
  11. I believe role-locking to a clan is a failed experiment. It took a game with a lot of restrictions in deck-building and added even more restrictions on top of them. In the end, it really didn't change anything that exists in current games. If anything, it took away the deck building aspect of the game since you are locked into definitive, best options based on your role. So you get a year of the same deck until the role changes. The game is going to get stale at this rate.
  12. i think the release for this lcg is fine. i play with 3-4 groups that meet up once a month each, and so far waiting for a pack to come out isn't bad. in fact i rather like the pace at which arkham is being released; it usually requires longer waits between the last pack in the cycle and the next box. if this pace can be kept for the same, i think it would be beneficial to all types of gamers that are into this one.
  13. not really. cards that would need a campaign clause to upgrade are meant to be campaign only cards, much like the 2 basic weaknesses in Forgotten Age.
  14. finn's extra evade action is also still an action, not a reaction or skill effect. when you declare an action, you cannot pool other actions into it; you can only play reactions and/or fast cards to it if triggers are satisfied or skill cards/symbols during the test the action creates. Finn's evade action is a use of any action keyword Evade: and it doesn't take up one of the 3 actions you are provided during your turn.
×