Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SGPrometheus

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Honestly if you were able to beat the second and third scenario, it sounds like things are already easy enough. You might want to actually go up in difficulty until you can't beat it. As far as a "meta," people generally prefer two-handed solo (one person playing two characters), with one character being dedicated to clues and the other dedicated to enemy management. Having two characters smooths out the variance you sometimes encounter in every scenario. I can't remember any specific things about return, but it is harder. More enemies, more complexity in general, a faster ramp of the overall difficulty. I wouldn't say it's that much harder though, since the second and third scenarios are already so brutal. One other thing: some characters will struggle hard in solo, especially with the starter decks. Daisy, for instance, lacks a way to deal with the ghoul priest and many of the cultists. Agnes, conversely, has nothing but the flashlight for investigating (and maybe drawn to the flame?). Something to consider.
  2. I think that's actually correct, except that the revelation effects from the weakness you draw should occur after Rook's ability has completely resolved. Mandy's weakness specifically interrupts the search, which creates a nested sequence inside Rook's ability, but most weaknesses don't interrupt the ability that draws them. Likewise research abilities create nested sequences because of their "when" usage, as you say.
  3. I don't know if you've gotten an answer in the last month, so here goes: The composure talents are assets, just like the talents from the core set (physical training, hyperawareness, etc); they don't have the "permanent" keyword like Scrapper/Keen Eye etc, and start the game shuffled into your deck, not in play. Once played, the composure assets have one sanity and a "Forced" ability that requires you to assign horror to them before you assign it to your investigator. As long as you don't take horror, the asset remains in play and you can activate its free ability whenever you wish, paying its cost each time. Once you assign the asset horror, and it successfully gets dealt, the asset has taken horror equal to its sanity and is discarded, just like an ally or any asset with sanity. Hopefully that helps. Feel free to ask again if you're still confused!
  4. Hello all. I've decided to create a series of threads each meditating on a different basic action, not counting parley and activate. I'm doing this on my phone during my lunch break, so don't expect any hard-hitting, deep analysis; it's more a study of how we use the rule of thumb that all actions are equal, which is great for learning the game and teaching it, as well as analyzing card effects, but in practice isn't always the case. Anyway, let the rambling begin. What percentage of actions taken in an average scenario are move actions? My feeling is that it's higher than one would expect, and as the situation gets worse it goes even higher. Move actions are arguably the action you want to take the least, and there's a good reason for this: every other action has a concrete, measurable way of improving the board state, assuming you succeed. All move does is position you to accomplish those things, while often punishing you with forced effects on locations. I think my point here is that move has the largest "feels bad" element or stigma attached to it, both for being a workhorse action that does nothing on its own and for often slapping the player with a devious "gotcha" effect (you can almost hear Matt Newman giggling with sadistic glee every time you turn over a location in "Where Doom Awaits"). Experienced players know: NEVER move into an unrevealed location on your last action. For these reasons, cards that let you skip/generate move actions are considered some of the best in the game. Pathfinder and both versions of Shortcut are highly prized for essentially cutting the fat out of the game, and even the massive costs of Astral Travel and Open Gate (more of an opportunity cost there) feel pretty reasonable for their effects. Rita Young and Track Shoes practically negate the problem entirely. The thing all these effects have in common is they allow you to focus on winning instead of getting from here to there. But moving is an essential part of any game that claims to have deep strategy; more specifically, positioning is essential (not that there's a distinction here). So what can be done? I don't think the problem is movement itself, so perhaps there's a more nuanced design format for it? I don't claim to be a game designer by any stretch, and I can't think of anything as clear and simple as the current system, but there's definitely something chore-like when a treachery effect moves me someplace and I have to basically waste a whole turn getting back. Perhaps the problem will be solved with the release of new cards, if we can even call it a problem in the first place. After all, even Lord of the Rings had an extended running sequence, so sometimes your characters do just waste whole swaths of time going from place to place. In LotR though, I remember a "will they get there in time?" tension that pretended to make it interesting; in Arkham it's often a binary "I still have time and can do this" or "welp, now we're boned," with very little in that sweet middle spot. Oh right, I wanted to talk about how actions aren't always the same value. This one's easy: move as little as possible. Every move away from the objective is two actions you could have spent working on that objective, at least (one to leave, a second to return). Of course, if the fighter has no hope of investigating and there's an enemy generating doom across the map, go kill him, but as far as your seeker is concerned, a move action is practically a two-action weakness. Unlike Resource or Draw, unnecessary move actions are actively harmful most of the time. A weird action, when you consider it. Thanks for reading! I'll probably do resource or draw next, depends on what I'm thinking about. Also I don't think I'll cover Play; like Parley and Activate, it depends entirely on the card and should be judged on a card-to-card basis.
  5. Maybe they'll fix it in "Return to the Dream Eaters," but that's a ways off.
  6. Seems legit. Saves you an action to get essence into your hand, but I would want even more value out of knowledge is power, personally.
  7. We don't play with many house rules; we try to keep it as close to what's printed as possible. We do use the Taboo list though. The one thing I do sometimes is take out the basic weaknesses from the core set - ones that we've seen a million times already - and we will occasionally allow mulligans on weaknesses, but so far only for Doomed and Overzealous.
  8. What?! Where? Is this real? Source! Source, **** you! In all seriousness, I was going to be the odd man out and claim that xp boosting doesn't fit into the Guardian archetype, but something monster-killing related is definitely the most likely.
  9. New scenarios in this campaign, but not in other campaigns. If they wanted to include them in a scenario outside this campaign, they'd have to include the punch-board with the tokens in the blister pack, because they'll never release a scenario that requires more than the core campaign to set up.
  10. People keep talking about Bandolier; I think we're forgetting that it can only hold weapon assets. Is there a gun-toting Daisy I don't know about? More pertinent perhaps is the new spell asset from the Harvey Walters deck that gives you tome slots: Arcane Enlightenment. It's almost a reprint of bandolier, but for tomes. The advanced signatures look super interesting, regardless. I feel like her new weakness is much better than the old one in specific campaigns, where the bag only has skulls and one other bad token type.
  11. I'm practically certain it should be the same as the rest. There's definitely only one mythos pack's worth of cards in it (about 60).
  12. As others have said, the game is quite difficult, not only to play, but also to understand. I've been moving enemies with "prey" wrong since Dunwich. All that said, the third scenario in NotZ is absolutely brutal, and gets my vote for worst scenario ever. If you have the option, you might try switching over to one of the full campaigns like Dunwich. Dunwich is a much more gradual ramp up in difficulty, and it's very beginner friendly. Even if the only campaigns you've got are The Circle Undone or The Forgotten Age (widely regarded as the most difficult campaigns), I still feel those would be a better experience for a beginner than the actual tutorial scenarios. Of course if you don't have that option, I think downshifting all the way to "Easy" is a great idea. I also like to re-read the rules when I'm confused or something feels unfairly difficult. Good luck out there.
  13. Very exciting. I wonder: spoilers for anyone who hasn't read "Shadow over Innsmouth" but the story's over eighty years old so that's on you - How do we think Matthew and Jeremy are going to work that into the narrative of this campaign? I'm sure it'll be in there, but I'm hoping for something more substantial than the "possessed" footnote at the end of Carcosa. Thoughts?
  14. "Then" as a mechanical term only looks at the text immediately preceding it, which in this case is the damage/horror. In your example layout, it would be indented under the damage/horror line. Here's the Arkhamdb.com entry: https://arkhamdb.com/card/01173
  15. The use of the word "then" requires that the preceding conditions have been filled. If you succeed, you don't take the damage and horror, so you don't move onto the "then" instructions either. Would be convenient sometimes, though.
  • Create New...