Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About totgeboren

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

721 profile views
  1. I think this is taking some liberties with the definition of what "winning" is. When you get wounded (loss of all your health the first time around), you are punished by the game, and it makes playing more difficult. You have certainly not "essentially lost", the game is still very much on but it's more difficult and thus often more exciting! If you health drops to zero a second time, you die. Only then is the game lost. The loss of all sanity the first time around should be seen in a similar light, especially since the game is made in a way that makes sanity loss much more likely than health loss. The first time you lose all sanity your character has become a bit unhinged, but they are not beyond recovery. The loss of all sanity the second time around means the asylum for you, your mind has snapped and no amount of restful rustication is going to improve your mental condition. I.e. the first time you lose all health or sanity, your character can recover should they survive. Therefor you can still 'win' the game. If someone loses all health or sanity the second time around, they are either dead or permanently insane, therefor they cannot lore-wise win the game anymore. I admit I haven't tried finding other dedicated MoM forums online, to my knowledge this place is where the action happens. Since MoM does not have a tournament scene, official rulings and such are generally not needed. The amount of feedback the company gets will also be seriously reduced due to the character of the game. I suspect die-hard gamers are over-represented among the posters on this forum, so whatever we can learn of the the general sentiments regarding the game will be skewed. But even taking all that into account, the only source of 'public opinion' available at the moment is this forum, and here a noticeable proportion of those responding to this thread have issues with the way some of the insane-conditions have been written. And why would people send in feedback on their own? My main MoM group (casual gamers except me) all hated the instant-death win condition for some of the insane cards, and so I changed them to function more like the fun insane conditions. Done. I don't need FFG to approve my suggestions, no for them to publish erratas because my group was unhappy with that part of the game. And that goes for all other groups, due to this being a co-op game. You don't need an external arbitrator, so why would people contact FFG with their objections?
  2. Thanks for the kind words! Hope you have some use of the pictures, and I'm happy you noticed that I really tried to find all the details. The models are not really all that crisp and it's easy to miss stuff. It took a friend of mine to point out that the writer Gloria was not supposed to carry a handbag, but of course a portable type writer!
  3. 1.) Take your pick, a metaphor is a simplified example, an analogy shows a logical equivalence, so my example was more of an analogy, though I had originally intended it to be a metaphor. 😛 You refute the examples of negative impact on gameplay given by stating that no one has to try and fulfill their win-condition. The problem many have with this is that it is counter-intuitive to how games normally work. People go in to games expecting the rules to explain how to win. i.e. the win-condition is what ones strives to achieve. Not going for the win is something you might do when playing games against kids, not when playing co-op with your mates. 2.) Again, defending odd win-conditions by saying "no one needs to try and win the game" is something of a cop out. In most games the game-play win condition is perfectly aligned with the emotional win condition. Winning is supposed to make you happy. Many insanity cards create situations where it is simply not fun to win the game, or at least it's more fun to lose. That might not be a problem for you, but it is a broken mechanic for many. 3.) How many here have said they dislike how many of the insanity cards affect the game, and how many have supported you? This is why one uses a team of test-players, not just one. You might have no issues with it, but it seems like most other play groups have. Therefor the mechanism seems factually broken, because the point of games is to have fun, and the cards in many cases seriously diminishes that fun, and not just for the player who drew the card, but for the entire group. And I think this is the issue I at least have with your objections presented in this thread. A few people have essentially said: "My group isn't having fun when using these cards", and it feels like your response is that the cards are fun, and they are wrong. What I want is for the game win-condition to be aligned with the emotional win-condition. I should always have an emotional drive to try and win, so mechanisms that misalign those conditions are bad in my opinion. p.s. Thanks for overlooking my sometimes confused grammar in the previous post, English isn't my first language and I was tired when writing. d.s.
  4. @LabanShrewsbury First off, not understanding a simplified metaphor made to highlight the issue reflects badly on you, and if you understand the metaphor, it is better to argue against it rather than pretending it is to complicated. Secondly, about not trying to fulfill the insanity card on purpose. Sure, you might start your turn with a knife in a space with exactly one other player, but what's the point insanity if the player is allowed ignore their insanity card, i.e. fulfill their insanity win condition? I think most people assume the insanity conditions are supposed to introduce an rpg-element to the game play? Or should we view the game as a session of x-wing or Descent2ed? This is a cooperative game, and the fun comes from trying to survive the horror together in a semi-rpg way. Winning on your own by making the other lose in a co-op generally feels like a loss for everyone for most people. If you can choose to ignore your insanity card, they become pointless since then most people will just ignore them. Or, I know that a few of our games have ended in success, except for one person who was insane and needed say more evidence or something and thus failed. That person, given the choice of making the investigation fail for everyone or fail only for them due to their insanity card, always elects to fail their own insanity. And if you can read the cards as optional, why could you not just ignore the Mute-card for example? (btw, I rewrote that card to disallow the 'Investigator' from interacting with persons and cast spells. The player is of course still allowed to speak! Everyone was very happy with that fix.)
  5. Some of the insanity cards have the same impact on the game as a "you die" injury card would have. Lets say your intrepid gang snoops around for a few turns, then investigator X gets a mythos event which causes one damage. "No problem" one might say. But then lets say the card drawn said; "Your investigator dies. The investigation is over, but due to your investigator being a good person, he/she goes to heaven which means you win!" Would you have a problem with this sort of win condition? The rules are clear, the investigation is over and the player that drew the "you die" card won. Fun for all? Because this is essentially what happens. There is zero player interaction, and suddenly the game is over. I can only agree that the problem seems to be that the game does not have any mechanism for restraining or effectively hindering an insane investigator, even if it is entirely obvious what they are up to. You can't even shoot or try to knock someone out! And on top of that, the game action-economy is so tight that the loss of even a turn or two due to having to try and deal with an insane investigator probably means the game is over anyway.
  6. Agent Mole-Dan and Agent Scurvy. But you are absolutely correct, there are already lots of great models out there to count-as for all these. I know Hasslefree does a sort-of Hellboy which looks amazing (I own the model!)
  7. Yeah the Lovecraft-specific stuff should be fine (I have sculpted some on that theme myself), but the Hellboy, X-files and Evil Dead are certainly not,and could, if someone is a killjoy, cause you some grief. Perhaps. Or not.
  8. Sure thing! But remember that if you wanna sell them, there might be copyright issues and such. 😕
  9. These are really good, pleasantly surprised! They almost made me wanna try and sculp the models myself! Love Lovecrafts "drawback", made me lol! 😛
  10. totgeboren

    1st Edition Gators Only?

    One of the bags in the base game contains investigator cards and monster card for the investigator figures and monster figures that came with the first edition of the game. If you own the first edition of the game, you would have a bunch of monster figures, investigator figures, and tiles, and the conversion kit contains everything you need to use those old components with second edition straight away! If you have clicked in stuff you don't own (i.e. stuff from first edition) in the "My Collection" part of the App, many scenarios will ask you to use tiles and monster that you don't physically own. So if the app is asking for stuff you don't own, I suggest you unclick the expansions you don't own from the App (or use count-as or something). However, if you want to use those investigators and monsters that are described on the cards from the conversion kit, they are available in the Suppressed Memories and Recurring Nightmares "Figure and Tile collection", which, as the name implies only contains the figures and tiles. Those component are the same as was included in the previous first edition base game and expansions.
  11. Oh, cool! Will keep the model close by when I play the next time!
  12. Bottom post of the previous page.
  13. Got paint on my Hast... King in Yellow! *** *** (Odd, the two censured words above was the written form of the sound Zoidberg does when he flees. Has that turned into some something offensive as of late? )
  14. totgeboren

    Quests auto failing upon a character's death.

    I guess the answer has been given, but in RtL is really important too keep each other alive. For example, playing a party without a healer will probably be really difficult. Playing with a Dungeon Master means you win or lose depending on who achieves their objective first (The DM or the players), and the only thing death does is make it easier for the DM to achieve their objective. I RtL the app always has the same objective, kill the number of players +1. As soon as that is done, the app wins.
  15. Thanks guys! And now I'm finally done (again!) All that is left is to put some clear varnish on the edge of the bases to make them a bit more transparent (I sanded down some cheap plastic to make the bases. Much cheaper than buying them directly!) Halfway done with my King in Yellow too, some one more update on its way at least.