Jump to content

mm26

Members
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I would suggest the following. 1: As someone else suggested, make sure the others know the content of your OL deck and look over your monsters before each quest. If they don't know what Reach or Fire Breath or whatever means, ask. Then they have less cause for complaint. 2: Table the less problematic disagreements and solve them offline. * Should they get paid twice for unused potions? Note the amounts separately. Look/ask/find the answer online. Bring the answer to the next game and adjust the money accordingly. * Should Khorayt have the Shadow Ability? Play it out both ways. Track the damage that Alric does to him by spending surges or not. If this is infeasible, say, "Fine, we'll do it your way, but if you're wrong, the consequence is forfeiting the quest." I've done a number of post-session compensations. We thought, legitimately, that a card was supposed to play one way only to find out it did differently. For example, I played Word of Misery taking 1 stamina per heart instead of 1 stamina every time I took hearts. After the game I read the FAQ, found out that it was wrong, and we worked out giving them something to compensate for the wrong play. You're inevitably going to get a rule wrong even without arguing about it, so the question is what's the remedy. Arguing about more rule interpretations isn't happy or fun. I would also keep the Rules, FAQ, errata, and if possible BGG's rule forum open while you play. Their Search question is easily and squarely resolved on pg. 20 of the rules. Step #1 of the Campaign Phase. There's no reason to even waste time arguing about it. Or, as I said earlier, just table it until you can look it up. 3: A last option is to institute a Wrong Rules Interpretation policy. Any time there's a rule in dispute, write it down. Resolve them all the next week by reference to rules/faq/ask fantasy flight/etc. Whichever side played the most rules wrong get penalized (or the other side gets rewarded). Say 25 gold for them or a third an XP for you. Or 1 threat if you play with that. Increase the penalties if the wrong rules being played result in disproportionate awards. The overall gist, though, is don't get too heavy into arguing rules at the table. And when something is played wrong, figure out how much of a difference it made in the gameplay, and what should be done to compensate. And if that doesn't work, just start fining them for pushing the envelope too much on rules that shouldn't be disputed.
  2. I think it can be understood as simply as: Heroes have options to improve their actions (move, attack) by using up a limited resource. The limited nature of the resource is the trade-off for them to achieve their benefit. If an Overlord assumes temporary control, that trade-off doesn't exist. They benefit by improving the action and by using up the hero's resource. So you disallow it. There's nothing special about stamina as such. You can walk a hero into a lava pit, causing them to take damage. In the example above where you entered a swamp, I see no reason why that would not be totally fine.
  3. The syllogism would be: P1: All monsters have no stamina value. P2: DC'ed heroes are treated as monsters. C: Therefore DC'ed heroes are treated as having no stamina value. The argument is valid (if the premises are true, the conclusion must be), and according to the rules as written, there is no specific evidence suggesting that it is not also sound (all premises are true). So we are waiting on the ruling from FFG, whether or not P1 or P2 is in fact false. P2 isn't false. As others have said, the rules don't define monsters as being things without fatigue. They just don't have it. You're just using certifiably bad logic. I don't get Christmas gifts on the 4th of July. I didn't get a Christmas gift today. Therefore, today must be July 4th?
  4. On what are you basing that conclusion? If I had to guess it's the same thing I'm basing it on, which is the fact that nowhere in the rules are monsters "required" to have no stamina value. It just so happens that monsters are designed without stamina. The hero isn't, and nowhere does it state that his stamina disappears when he becomes treated as a monster (or that any of his other attributes change.) It's very similar to how monsters (in general) auto-fail attribute tests because they don't have attributes. However, LT's do have attributes so they don't auto-fail, yet they're still monsters- they're just a special type of monster. Pretty much. There's no reason to believe the syllogism of, "monsters don't have stamina. Therefore, heroes as monsters don't either."No monster is named Elder Mom. But he doesn't change his name. The no spending stamina is clearly to avoid using the card to burn out their staminan and do a more powerful attack. For a hero, that is a good/bad tradeoff. For an overlord controlling a hero, it's only good/good.There's no reason to extend that any farther than that.
  5. First things first- I agree with BentoSan- you should ask (looks like you did.) But, if I may- the issue is not whether the hero is allowed to suffer fatigue at all. The issue (that I've been trying to address, and I think you understand) is that the Wendigo's ability doesn't trigger when the hero moves adjacent, because he's treated as a monster, not as a hero. "Freezing" reads: Each time a hero enters a space adjacent to this monster, the hero suffers 1 fatigue. When a DC'd hero moves adjacent to a Wendigo, he is treated as a monster, not a hero. There is no hero moving adjacent, so "Freezing" doesn't trigger. If the Wendigo's ability read: "Each time a figure moves adjacent..." , then the DC's hero would indeed suffer 1 fatigue, and that would be perfectly legitimate. We are in perfect agreement about that point. However, the question now is whether DC'ed heroes, treated as monsters, should be considered to temporarily have no stamina value, like any other monster, and should suffer any legitimate fatigue loss as damage accordingly, which seems easier and more consistent than considering them a special kind of monster which has a stamina value. This would allow the overlord to inflict legitimate damage via movement, but not allow the overlord to use DC to drain a hero's fatigue, which is consistent with the wording of DC. Even when charmed, heroes have fatigue.
  6. I'm not sure answering the critique of, "You can 1-shot a monster" with, "I was forced to 1-shot a fellow hero" is a satisfying outcome. Everyone wants to feel like there's some push and pull and places that things could have gone right for them. Flipping a coin to see who controls the rocket launcher isn't it. It's anti-climactic and unsatisfying no matter what the outcome.
  7. Whether to try to accomplish the goals of the scenario or take the time to search for more treasure is often the biggest trade-off that a scenario presents. If you can do both, fine. But lots of times you can't and that's intentional.
  8. There's also a number of times that I'd prefer any variety of OL cards to Frenzy. Bloodrage over Frenzy in many instances. One more attack and get a weak monster back fully healed in somewhere that might be even more useful. Trap cards that pick on heroes weak attributes. If they don't have great might, Web Trap is great. It can cost them most of a whole turn. Reinforce? C'mon. I think you're vastly overrating Dash and Frenzy. They're situationally nice, but so are many other cards which you might want to play as you tailor it to the encounter, monster groups, and hero attributes.
  9. Take Aurium Plating from Valyndra's plot deck. Give a whole monster group immunity to pierce. That makes the damage that they take from heroes significantly less each turn. So they finally manage to do 4 or 5 damage onto one of them, and then you heal 3? While you also heal some of your smaller monsters which they thought that they were almost done with? And you would rather give 1 monster group 1 extra move action? No. Not unless you have a specific reason that you need to move a specific monster or lieutenant somewhere as a win condition. And even if you do, Dash and Frenzy can only be 4 cards in your deck. You need to populate it with others. Not only is Secrets of the Flesh a really good one to do so with, it also is 0 experience points so you can spend your XP somewhere else.
  10. I guess it's just possible that you don't know what it does. Secrets of Flesh doesn't heal 1 monster with 1-3 health. It heals all of your monsters 1-3 health. That could add up to 15 health. And crucially, it could be the difference in keeping a key lieutenant or monster alive. Between defense dice, monster abilities, and other tricks, it's extremely unlikely that I'll let heroes do that much damage a turn to a key figure. So healing them up 3 health could be half a turn's output if not more.
  11. That's an awfully long rant. The Taskmaster's Ring is a great relic for the OL. Why? Same reason that you like Dash. Movement points are key, especially many times for lieutenants who are trying to race somewhere. What do they have to do to use it? Get a surge. Not terribly difficult. And it's the reward for 2 of the 3 Act I rumor quests for Trollfens, which are under the OL's control when and whether to play. The Act II relics are better for the heroes, especially since they can always use them whereas the OL is limited to just when he has a Lieutenant in play, but the Omen of Blight isn't bad. The Secrets of Flesh is a very good OL card. There's a lot of times that I would prefer to see that to a Dash. Healing every monster on the board 1-3 health? Crazy good. The OL can also gain up to 6 threat from each rumor quest; that is nearly worth the 150 gold they may get out of it. The LotW rewards are pretty heavily skewed towards the heroes. Heroes using Valyndra's Bane every encounters is much, much, much better than the OL having the option to use Her Majesty's Malice with a lieutenant. Similarly, Aurium Mail is much, much better than Valyndra's Gift. But that's why Trollfens is better balanced than LotW. And that's why I would house-rule LotW and not Trollfens. But that's based off of the actual and specific things of each quest, not some diatribe on how things sit generally in some theoretical balance between the OL and heroes.
  12. From an RPG/character creation aspect, think of it this way... their starting die is their "natural" defense. So for the most part, they're similar in vulnerabilities. The reason that warriors are generally harder to hit is because they walk around in full plate mail versus some cloak or leather armor. So as the characters start getting equipment, they'll start looking different.
  13. Not true. Some of the Trollfens rewards are balanced or even skewed towards the OL. For Ghost Town, for instance, the Taskmaster's Ring is more useful than the Workman's Ring and the Secrets of the Flesh is a good OL card. Even with the extra gold, the quest is pretty even if even a little in the OL's favor.
×
×
  • Create New...