Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Samea

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,280 profile views
  1. You do not necessarily have a choice — if there already is enough fire on the board to meet the condition and you draw "Pyromania", the game ends at the beginning of your next turn, whether you want to or not. But even if you do have the choice, there is no incentive to act out your insanity and no disadvantage to disregard it. Ending the game is the last thing I want, so if I draw "Pyromania", I'd probably go around extinguishing fires so the dumb card does not cut the game short.
  2. ****, yes, we're upset when a game ends just like that. We don't mind losing, we lose all the time. But at least this *feels* like losing, with time running out, the board filling up with monsters, getting horror and damage left and right, it is fun, it is satisfying. Being told the game is over is not. And most of the times this came up, the "winning" conditions of the insanity were already met when the card was drawn — there already was lots of fire on the board or the insane 'gator was already standing in the same space as another with a knife in their pocket. We love this game, in fact, although pretty new, this game has already seen more play than every other boardgame we own. But nothing is perfect and in my opinion, some of the insanities are simply not very well done and could use fixing.
  3. I have read a ton of Lovecraft and other Mythos stories. Every single I've read has a proper ending. The main characters may not live to see it or may be too mad to comprehend. But for me as a reader there is some sort of closure, none of the stories simply stop. What does a card that basically says: "the fire in the game is too much fire, game night is over, pack up and go home, Janet won" reflect? It doesn't feel like an ending, it doesn't feel like winning.
  4. As I see it, it is a choice between technically "winning" by ending a game night early for everyone and technically "losing", but playing for another hour, solving the mystery and getting killed with everyone else. I play the game to play the game. I feel that everyone wins when they see the game through and everyone loses, if the game ends prematurely.
  5. Or read the very fine comic adaption.
  6. For now I just stack them in the game box. During a game we stand them upright in the box and flip through them to search for a tile. But with Descent we use ring binders with the tiles in numbered sheet protectors. A few more expansions and we will do the same with MoM, with a printed list of the tiles (by name) and where they go.
  7. This is a board game, not a tactical combat simulation. For this grade of complexity it is better to have one abstract rule that covers ranged combat, area of effect, room size, monster targeting and more, even if sometimes this leads to strange results. Time is also strange in the game — walking across the hall into the opposite room takes exactly as long as reading dozens of diary pages, picking up an item, learning a magic spell, questioning a subject or finding the secret door code… ?
  8. Also for some reason, all shipments of AH products are discharged in this tiny port in Massachusetts. Perhaps there is something fishy going on there?
  9. All cycles are self-contained stories and do not depend on each other regarding story content, rules, investigators or player cards. Also, they have no real order in which they should be played. If you have a core set, you can grab any cycle you want and play that.
  10. This is still a game. This is mostly about trying to kick alien monsters in the tuckus. This is about the pulp stories of the 1920s and the evocation of the backdrop of all of Lovecraft's "contemporary" texts, not about actual history. So the focus should definitely not be on barbarisms of the past that, in a historically accurate setting, should hold back and hinder all investigators that are not rich anglo-saxon males. But that does not mean that discrimination does not exist in the world of AH, the character backgrounds and AH fiction make it pretty obvious that there is lots if racism and sexism and classism going on. They're not hidden or redacted or retconned, they just do not stand in the way of the characters' ability to be effective investigators and they do not take center stage. And that is what I'd want to "get right" — I'd actually be more okay with a dumb American Indian character background of "my family was swindled by corrupt officials, lost their land and then they fell sick and died, but that does not stop me from being awesome and kicking *** left and right" than with "this horrible historical event is inconvenient for my character idea, so I'll just leave or write it out of the setting". I'd at least wanted to acknowledge that the thing happened, not ignore it entirely. This is my personal opinion, of course, everyone else's mileage may vary. But I'd not really feel ok doing something like this with the Holocaust or 9/11 and I'd not feel ok doing this with other tragedies just because they get less attention.
  11. Or Willpower… balancing along a steel girder hundreds of feet above certain death like walking down the sidewalk probably takes nerves of steel…
  12. This is probably hard to get right. Before the "Indian New Deal" in the 1930s, American Indians had it really bad. There was an active effort to destroy Native culture, and assimilate tribal society into Anglo-American society. This went beyond racism, unfair laws and neglect, we're talking abducting children to boarding schools for brainwashing and removing land from Federal protection to sell it. I imagine that doing an "outdoors-y" character that is supposed to represent any "typical" Native American living in a reservation in the 1920s will step on someones toes. It might be easier to just cast some pulp fiction role (the pilot! the inventor! the mortician! the stunt (wo)man! the mathematician! the bus driver! the groundskeeper! the accountant!) with an American Indian. Or pick a historical role with a mostly positive connotiation like Mohawk "skywalker".
  13. Ok, that makes it pretty clear. Hadn't found it, so thanks for pointing it out.
  14. I agree that I cannot use the effect. But changing the number of my hand cards does not count as changing the game state? Especially in a situation where it changes the chance of getting rid of a weakness from "probably" to "guaranteed"?
  15. What if the Treachery is something like Twisted to His Will, and I want to remove "Forewarned" from my hand to get a higher chance to "randomly" discard weakness cards in my hand? Committing "Forewarned" to the test instead is undesirable, because to get rid of the weaknesses in my hand, I want to fail the test…
  • Create New...