Jump to content

TheFool

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I wish I could come up with a simple houserule to encourage shopping, but I'm coming up blank 😔
  2. I for one am glad FFG made their own version of the Cthulhu mythos. Playing Lovecraft by the books would be quite boring, in my opinion.
  3. I had a random system in place, mostly for people entirely new to deck building games. By giving them a limited number of cards to choose from after each game, they didn't get overwhelmed by choice. It went like this: after each game, the player is dealt a number of random cards based on the difficulty we played on (3 cards on Easy and 5 cards on Standard, for example). The role/color of the deck the cards are drawn from is chosen by the player, though he must pick at least two different decks (he could choose to pick 2 cards from the Rogue deck and one from the Guardian deck on Easy, for example). Cards that can't be purchased by the player (because he already has the maximum amount, or the level/type is prohibited) are returned and replaced by different cards, until the player is presented with viable cards. He can then use his XP to purchase them as desired. There were some other rules as well, but that was basically it.
  4. The Arkham Horror Files 'universe' has expanded quite a bit beyond Lovecraft's work. It has its own characters and themes to call on, and isn't limited to what would 'fit' in a Lovecraft novel (which is why we can have "Ashcan" Pete blasting a Star Spawn with his shotgun while in the Antarctics).
  5. Taking your deck/weaknesses with you is definitely harder than starting fresh, in my experience.
  6. Again - I don't care how you play. I do care how we discuss the rules. There is a distinction there. It's only a gray area if you're trying to force the rules to justify the way you play. The RPG bent for this game has been well-stated, and it should be rather obvious that solving the same mystery each campaign is not intended. So just own it - you're playing against the design, and that is up to you, but please spare us the disingenuous "Oh, the rules could go either way!" fainting spells. You assume too much. In my reading of the rules, I genuinely believed the design to be different. I mostly came around due to discussing it in this thread, stated as much, and now you claim I'm "disingenuous". I've been anything but. You're arguing with some personal ghost. Feel free to get your last word in, and then I suggest we move this thread back to the original topic.
  7. How someone plays doesn't affect me, and I truly don't care. If they want to take out half the cards they don't like, play with every location face up, treat shrouds as zero and Umhordoth as if it had 1 HP, it's all good. But how we talk about rules around here does affect me, and I do care. My point was actually very nearly the same as yours - it's a co-op game, do whatever you want, but don't force the rest of us to endure tortured hairsplitting of the rules to try and justify it to yourself. "Tortured hairsplitting of the rules", geez. It was an honest (and civil) rules debate about a grey area. You claim you don't care, but there was quite a bit of disdain in your post from my reading.
  8. If it's the doom that's getting you, perhaps you are playing too carefully? Don't spend too long getting your perfect character setup, and don't be too afraid to take some damage/sanity if it means getting an objective faster. Play like your characters are in a hurry, 'cause they are
  9. I think talking about the intent when we are talking about something that explicitly breaks the rules is a little odd. As it is at the moment you are intended to start a new campaign with a new investigator. Now, who knows, maybe the expansions will add official rules about continuing with the same investigators (the rules are written to support the Arkham Horror core set as a stand-alone game, and so there is only one campaign to work through at the moment), but at the moment it is explicitly counter to the rules. Now, the decision to adding weaknesses and trauma at the end of a final scenario of a campaign suggests they realise players may want to try and continue with the same investigators, and so they are proofing the system for that kind of thing, but it doesn't mean it was intended within the design space of the system. Personally I would argue that if you are doing campaigns with the same instigators it is just one long campaign, and so you can't do side missions again. All the rules regarding "campaigns" would apply to the whole length of playing through. It also runs counter to the spirit of the thing in my mind. Presumably if you want to run the investigators on you are expressly choosing to be attached to the characters, which suggests a story-telling motivation, and it doesn't make much sense in the story to go and do the same side quests twice. You wouldn't do it in an RPG, so you wouldn't do it here. Why would talking about intent be odd? It's a variation to the rules suggested by the developers themselves, not something dreamt up by the community. I agree that "one long campaign" is the way they envisioned this to work though, for the reasons you've given. I'm personally going with the "multiple campaigns" approach though, because while I like having a persistent Investigator, I also like replaying stuff As long as you're consistent, either approach works.
  10. Exactly. When you play in "gritty mode", you need the trauma to balance out your deck (though honestly, I feel they overdid it). If you don't, then the trauma is purely there for thematic reasons.
  11. Intuitively, I might have gone with the "no partial resolutions" route, but the quoted rules now make me lean in the other direction. I do have a question about this rule though: When a non-targeting effect attempts to interact with a number of entities (such as "draw 3 cards" or "search the top 5 cards of your deck") that exceeds the number of entities that currently exist in the specified game area, the effect interacts with as many entities as possible.When does this apply? I mean, if I have to spend two clues to advance the objective, surely this rule doesn't allow me to just spend the one I have? Honest question. Edit: Reading more, I think it's because paying clues to advance the objective is a cost, not an effect. It's actually pretty clear to me now, then. In the original hypothetical provided, losing just one clue is valid.
  12. So are you playing this and Dunwich Legacy as one big campaign? As in, you won't be repeating the side-stories but will keep all Story Assets and Weaknesses?
  13. Nice! Curious to see how he will perform in Dunwich Legacy, 3 mental trauma seems rough. Are you planning on taking more cards to deal with this (first aid?), or do you think the Elder Sign Amulet is enough of a buffer?
  14. Yeah, but if you take the same Investigator on multiple campaigns, he could run the same side-story more than once. I guess if you treat it all as one big campaign as you suggest, you would not run into story asset problems either. So either you treat them as separate campaigns and return story assets at the end of each, or you treat it as one big campaign and keep them, but you won't be able to ever run a side-story again. I remain convinced that bringing Weaknesses over from campaign to campaign underpowers your investigator greatly though. But maybe that's the intent.
  15. If you take an investigator on multiple campaigns, you can run the same side-story several times, resulting in having certain story-assets in your deck while you should be setting them apart, or earning certain story-assets double, etc. This is all prevented if you limit story-assets to be with your deck until the end of a campaign (as written). Weaknesses aren't THAT prevalent, even if they were that's part of the experience of it. Won or gifted story assets and weaknesses stay unless there's a reason to get rid of them, I don't see any reason why not. In my book it's the same as Trauma. Your character has more battle scars from the things they've been through but they also have more people they can call on, more skills or oddities they can swing in their favor. That's part of what makes going forward fun. It's a different experience than just trying to run the same characters. Your strategy has to evolve over time, incorporate new tactics, account for new problems. To me it adds a dimension to the gameplay. This is a matter of taste, of course. I find taking veteran investigators to a new campaign hard enough as is with just the trauma. You can get two Weaknesses added to your deck in the starting campaign. If you look at the stand-alone rules, that's worth up to 29 xp! No way you're getting that, and on top of it you also have the trauma. If you do limit Weaknesses and Story Assets to just the campaign you're running, it balances out better and you don't run into weird conflicts (like setting aside a story asset that's in your deck). These are also the rules as written, and while I agree they may not be the rules as intended, the fact that they work/balance out better means I prefer them. To each their own, of course, I definitely see your point of view as well.
×
×
  • Create New...