Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
marius8

New FAQ available!

Recommended Posts

 I'm stunned too.  I would have expected Descendent of Eibon to be banned if anything...  That's one of those cards that pretty much every competitive deck needs to include, which tells me it is overpowered.  And it reduces the variety of game play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eibon got a slight adjustment.  It's now 2 success tokens.

This surprised me though:

 (v1.1) Committing to Stories
Once the active player has committed one or more characters to a story, opponents are able to commit their own characters. Opponents are able to commit characters only to stories where the active player has characters. Stories will resolve only if the active player has characters at that story. 

My group has been playing this wrong forever.  We always allowed the following:

Active player commits some single character (lets say Aspiring Artist, just for kicks.  [evil grin])

Defensive player defends with a single character that has an investigation icon.

Defensive player then uses Shotgun Blast to kill the Aspiring Artist.  We'd been resolving that story since the active player committed to it, giving the defensive player one success token for the investigation.  Guess we've been whiffing there.

 

For reference, we had been doing so because of this rule in the rulebook:

During the story phase, in the order determined by the active player, each story card (that contains committed characters) must be resolved.

We understand, however, that since there are a lot of things now that keep characters at stories or put characters at stories where the attacker hasn't committed that it's a bit different.  I guess this ruling gives one big sledgehammer ruling for things like Captain, Trent Dixon, etc etc, and that's probably good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Endless Interrogation ruling is up. sweet.

Not too suprised that Descendant of Eibon got a wiff of the nerf bat after a short discussion I had with James post worlds at gencon. Still a little suprised that it made it through though.

Banning the Artist...man. Definately didn't see that one coming. Sure its really good card, but... man... really suprised that Aspiring Artist was at the top of the broken card list (excpetion to Descendant, but its a champion card and no one wants to see that banned).

I don't mind miliarty bike's nerf either. Its still useful, but doesn't create that awefully unfair situation it used to. Plus its better flavor wise too.

Still kinda dissapointed in the banning though... having banned cards is just terrible.

Thats all for now, gotta get to sleep, possibly more tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been struggling with one of my opponents lately.  He has this one deck that annoys me greatly.  First turn, he always seems to have an Aspiring Artist and a Thing Behind You in his draw.  So on his first turn invariably he now has one Artist in play, one thing behind you in play, and he's drawn 4 extra cards.   It's pretty hard to combat that deck when he gets out to that big "cards in hand lead" as he now has access to his power drains and a lot of his combo stuff.

Also, now that they've put the Mulligan rule in there officially, I can understand having the ban there.  Without the ban, any Hastur deck should include 3 artists, and reshuffle if it doesn't have one.  It effectively shrinks the deck size down to 47 with added drawing.

And I agree, bummer to have a banned card.  Awesome to have the Endless Interrogation ruling.  

And, awesome to have the Descendent cost 2 tokens now instead of 1.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Wait...so we just have to remember these different erratas? Like just remember that Eibon now costs 2 tokens instead of 1? This seems silly...but oh well I guess that happens.

I'm glad they released this though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MechSpike said:

Wait...so we just have to remember these different erratas? Like just remember that Eibon now costs 2 tokens instead of 1? This seems silly...but oh well I guess that happens.

I'm glad they released this though!

Yeah, I am cool with minor errata that is there just to clarify how a card works just because it could have been worded better. But we have clarney still agancy, yet eibon gets an actual rules change.

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

 

MechSpike said:

just noticed the Mulligan rule. That's awesome!

If you say so. I think it makes it into a baby game for babies. Whats the point in mulligan? To make sure you have resources. I would love to see any CoC deck draw a hand and not have resources. This miracle hopefully will be videotaped for all to witness.

So now we have a mulligan rule. A very extraneous and frankly pointless mulligan rule.  Let me sit here for a few more minutres after you decide to mulligan just because you didnt like your hand. Its a 50 card deck for chrissakes.

Some of you folks who played magic back in the day, you know, before there were any maximum card amounts for cards in a deck (20 plague rats anyone?), may recall the mulligan at that time. It also was an unrestricted mulligan...in a 40 card minimum deck no less. Yeah...those were the bad ol' days.

I honestly want someone to make a rational and logical explanation that satisfactorily explaines why mulligans should be included this game other than wasting my time by stalling. If I wanted to play Magic the Gathering, I would do exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few point to discuss :

I'ml feeling fine with the banning of the Artist. The pool hadn't reached the 500 cards limit and is very sensitive right now. The artist do provide a very huge hand advantage, especially is you consider that it's faction has  some skill in the "returning to hand" strategy.

It don't mean you'll never have this card to return in the pool later, but right now, it's really a powerfull card for only 1 cost !

Some of you blamed on FFG who did'nt take your points into accounts concerning the ravager... But the new resolution rule do provides extra limitation (he will not be able to gains Investigations tokens after every opponent"s characters are wounded and dead !) try it this way !! and the Ravager won't benefit it's Arcane icon.

concerning clarney, I really don't mind, as Miska has more character in its faction that the Agency one ! So that don't make sense to beg for him to return in his previous faction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PRODIGEE said:

A few point to discuss :

I'ml feeling fine with the banning of the Artist. The pool hadn't reached the 500 cards limit and is very sensitive right now. The artist do provide a very huge hand advantage, especially is you consider that it's faction has  some skill in the "returning to hand" strategy.

It don't mean you'll never have this card to return in the pool later, but right now, it's really a powerfull card for only 1 cost !

Some of you blamed on FFG who did'nt take your points into accounts concerning the ravager... But the new resolution rule do provides extra limitation (he will not be able to gains Investigations tokens after every opponent"s characters are wounded and dead !) try it this way !! and the Ravager won't benefit it's Arcane icon.

concerning clarney, I really don't mind, as Miska has more character in its faction that the Agency one ! So that don't make sense to beg for him to return in his previous faction.

Good point on the ban. Perhaps later it will be lifted. *shrug* who knows? Since I question consistency so much right now I doubt even FFG knows at this point.

Your point regarding clarney is debatable though. Its akin to saying that because a card with terror was accidentally made into miskatonic, and because miskatonic doesnt have any terror icons that it makes sense to keep it there. It goes down to the fundamental fact of how a certain faction is percieved to work. Miskatonic is all about cheap weenie characters and not much support of event cards as other factions,. They depend on getting those extra success tokens from investigation struggle in order to outweigh their detriment of being able to survive other struggles as well as other factions can.

That and I look at my core set binder, and smack dab in the middle of a miskatonic page there is a agency character due to placing cards numerically. Either clarney is a misprint, or a really badly collated last minute design decision to make him an agency character. Both are sloppy as hell.

All that criticism aside, I do enjoy the new FAQ. Its actually formatted nicely and clears up quite a few things that needed attention. But I have high expectations for the money I spent and would like to remit the criticism so that the designers can hopefully glean something constructive to keep in mind when they revisit it in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PRODIGEE said:

concerning clarney, I really don't mind, as Miska has more character in its faction that the Agency one ! So that don't make sense to beg for him to return in his previous faction.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I disagree. It makes _a lot_ of sense to return him to the faction where he rightfully belongs. The number of available characters doesn't have anything to do with it, if none of them is a reasonable replacement.

Unless Secrets of Arkham will give us something to compensate, we'll continue to play him as belonging to the Miskatonic faction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, guys, I know the subject is sensitive enough to take into great considerations what you said.

But, actually, the French meta show up that the last AP's do provide extra ammos to this Miska faction. That's why I said, and it was only my opinion, that this card need'nt be reprint or anything. Consistency or anything, I'm not the one who'll judge it's efficience.

If you consider the position of a new comer that discover the game, this is not such a big mistake, as he will join Clarney to agency and will have great game with it! Despite everyone is able to play Clarney where he wants, the question of the FAQ is to provide stricts rulings for the Tournaments. So, this will merely concern the players who are already found of this game. And those ones already know what they want to do with this card. happy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KallistiBRC said:

Eibon got a slight adjustment.  It's now 2 success tokens.

This surprised me though:

 (v1.1) Committing to Stories
Once the active player has committed one or more characters to a story, opponents are able to commit their own characters. Opponents are able to commit characters only to stories where the active player has characters. Stories will resolve only if the active player has characters at that story. 

My group has been playing this wrong forever.  We always allowed the following:

Active player commits some single character (lets say Aspiring Artist, just for kicks.  [evil grin])

Defensive player defends with a single character that has an investigation icon.

Defensive player then uses Shotgun Blast to kill the Aspiring Artist.  We'd been resolving that story since the active player committed to it, giving the defensive player one success token for the investigation.  Guess we've been whiffing there.

 

For reference, we had been doing so because of this rule in the rulebook:

During the story phase, in the order determined by the active player, each story card (that contains committed characters) must be resolved.

We understand, however, that since there are a lot of things now that keep characters at stories or put characters at stories where the attacker hasn't committed that it's a bit different.  I guess this ruling gives one big sledgehammer ruling for things like Captain, Trent Dixon, etc etc, and that's probably good.

I am confused as the exactly what the FAQ is clarifying here.  Is it changing the way characters are assigned to story cards either for the active palyer or defender?  Is it changing the way struggles are resolved?

I get that the poster above indicates that it is only chaning that during the Story Phase, after the opponent commits characters and both players are done passing, then each story is resolved, but only those that still have a character from the active player commited.  Maybe it is just me, but when I read the FAQ this did not seem obvious to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The v1.1 story rule was never specified before and never a question? Must be a change. Active player can be more sloppy in his commit. But it is a more basic gameplay to have that story end in mid struggle.

FFG long ago stated that Clarney was indeed wrongly painted blue, but that for simplicity, he is now officially blue. They more recently informed that a new MU Clarney is coming. Who knows when. MU is much weaker without him. He is a strong standard. You would have included him in your MU decks every time going all the way back. He is missed. We just diagnosed Keeper Breaker to find only Randolph has willpower, one MU willpower card. For distribution, that's worse than zero. Maybe blue Clarney will be banned then and all the Clarney activists will realize he's way cool for blue too.

Way to go Hellfury on your rant against the mulligan rule. Even sounds corney, though accurate. They could at least have called it the unexpected calamity or yithian mental contact, or even inspector mulligan. But it is a pass no one wants except the brand new player. And the tournament is exactly the wrong setting for pacifiers and long delays. On the other hand, mythos, perhaps still the better game, had various hand replacement options.

v1.1 is great to see. There's always fired up discussion. I still need to undergo the Endless Interrogation and digest the Descendant discussion. Sad to see the beautiful full color v 1.0 give way to a more standard two color pdf. But that's no big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: Hellfury and the Mulligan rule - 

I actually like the Mulligan rule.  Nothing better than a draw where you end up with 1 card of faction A, 7 cards of faction B, and due to a bad distribution, B is a lot of high cost, or a lot of events + attachments and no characters.  Yay, now I get to wait for a few turns and hope I draw something I can play while my opponent steamrolls over me.  That's a game I'd rather just resign and start over.  But now, I can mulligan in the rare case I draw a very badly distributed hand.  

And before you go into the argument of "Well you should have built your deck better so you don't end up that way".  It's possible to have a very well built deck and still get hit by a bad draw.  I have a very successful Cthulhu + Hastur deck (and this is very successful *before* the Mulligan rule).  Just last night I had this fun draw: (two power drains, one polar mirage, two cthulhu, princess zura, two ward phillips).  Yay.  I now get to lose.  This deck is 30 cthulhu, 20 hastur, with 31 characters.  Zura and Cthulhu happen to be the only characters that are a greater cost than 2.  So now, with that draw, despite having a very well crafted deck that wins about 80% of my games, I'm going to start very very slow and likely be unable to have any defense for two or three turns.

I don't really buy the argument that it delays the game for a few more minutes.  I look at my hand, it sucks for some reason, I shuffle it and redraw.  Takes all of... 20 seconds?  45 seconds if I'm really slow?

My point here, is that the Mulligan rule is good for situations like the above.  Not for situations like "hmmm I don't know, maybe this hand sucks, lemme draw again" or "hmm I've sat here for 10 minutes deciding which domains to place, lets redraw just to piss off my opponent."  

If you're up against an opponent that is going to play really slow just to annoy you off, then the mulligan rule doesn't matter.  He'll do it anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE- Steve Clarney staying as Agency

I think probably the final reason he hasn't changed back is to do with the domains.  It'd be a real pain to have to remember the entire game that "no no no, this resource over here is actually Miskatonic, not Agency."   Not a real big deal if you're playing Agency without Miskatonic.  But if you're playing the two together, and have to worry about resource matching, that's a pain to keep straight.  Should you keep an extra Miskatonic card nearby to resource as a proxy for him, and set him aside when you resource him.  Remembering to put him in the deck / hand / discard pile from a domain in the case of card effects that allow you to do so, etc etc.  

I think it's a rule that could have been fixed, but I think the end result would have been to cause a lot more confusion than he currently does.

Sorry if that was in somebody else's post already.  I admit to reading through them rather quickly and could have missed it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mulligan Rule -

Unless I missed it somewhere this game is still best of 1. You get one and only one game to decide who moves on to the next round. While this can often be exciting, sometimes situations similiar to the one Kal listed above appear. Its not fun, really fustrating, and just wrong when that happens. The winner is happy that he won, but is unhappy of how he won. The victum is usually upset and dissapointed. There are only a few ways to fix it so that awful situation becomes as rare as possible. Best of 3 (which I have been suggesting for years) is one way, and another is the mulligan. Time wise, right now the mulligan seems to be the better option. Also, its not babyifying (2 points for made up words) the game. In fact it makes it more challenging as now you actually have to beat your opponent more often. Less stupid wins the better in my opinion.

Besides, it really doesn't take that long to mulligan a hand. The pre-game setup (shuffling, cutting/shuffling, deciding who goes first, drawing the opening hand, decision to mulligan, reshuffling, cutting/shuffing, opening hand) should take no more than 5 minutes tops. Usually this is done all within 3 minutes. Most games (ones that don't mulligan) take roughly 2 minutes to complete. Its not that big of a deal.

Steve Clarny -

He is an Agency guy now. Get over it. You'll probably get your Miskatonic version in the next starter set. I know thats later than everyone wanted, but I really can't believe people are still squabbling over this. If you want to house rule him into misk... sure. Nothing wrong with that. Hell, I incourgae it! House rules can be really fun, and that one seems perfectly fine to me.

While the mistake of printing him into Agency was well... dumb and ill met. I have to side with FFG on this one in their decision to stick to his new color. It just makes everything cleaner and easier. I pray that his new printing comes soon, and the sooner the better. Misk could really use him back.

Aspiring Artist -

Was the mono hatsur(or near mono-hatsur) strategy really THAT powerful. Granted, drawing 4 new cards while only expending 2 on turn 1 is certainy strong and well... really fun, but I wonder if its that game breaking. After all, that is your whole turn, and your completely drained out with a very weak board position (for that turn anyway). I dunno, in my own little gauntlet, it wasn't leagues beyond what any other deck could do. Though, that testing was done without the other nerfs so perhaps I underestimate its power post nerfing.

Ultimately though, the actual reason I think this card entered the banned list was because there really isn't a good erratta for this card. Everything I can think of (off the top of my head) would take it from a really good card to barely playable at best. Hopefully one day it will be removed and we can get back to a clean banned list. Until then... I get to re-think several of my decks... Hatsur to me was mainly 2 must-have cards and a half-dozen or so playables when using it as a splash. One of those must-haves is now gone...

Descendant -

Just gonna go on record that I HATE that this card was altered. However, in the current enviroment it seems like a necessary evil and I hope with all my heart that eventually this evil will no longer be needed. The removal of this erratta could not possibly come soon enough.

Military Bike -

Good change. The card is still neat, it now is more flavorful, and no longer creates those wierd unfair situations. I'll miss it, but its defiantely better for the game.

Paying Costs -

Seems good other than the '...you must, if able." parts. I get the meaning and intent, but just confusing enough that I had to read it twice. I worry that some players might get confused. Just a nitpicky observation. For example:

"When any player has a sacrifice effect, that cost must be paid, if able. If said sacrifice does not happen, then the cost has not been paid and the effect does not resolve."

Could be:

"When any player has a sacrfice effect, that cost must be paid. If the sacrifice is unable to happen, then the cost has not been paid and the effect does not resolve."

Probably not worth changing, but having a 'must-do' next to 'but only if I can' seemed to bother me for some reason. Then again the english language annoys me like that sometimes (sadly its my 1st and only as I dont' count spanish in my list anymore).

Conclusion -

Overall, I give the additions/changes to the FAQ a thumbs up. I may not of liked everything, but overall it seems healthier for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

johnny shoes said:

On the other hand, mythos, perhaps still the better game, had various hand replacement options.

This is true, but then again Mythos was a reactionary game made to cash in on the CCG craze where every game mimiced M:tG to some extent. Its still true today, of course, but why try and mimic it further? I still lurv me some Mythos though, even if I do immensely enjoy CoC.

Thanks for the explanation from everyone for their views on the mulligan rule. I now have a better understanding given rational rationale. I still dont like it, but at least I dont hate it.

Magnus Arcanis said:

Overall, I give the additions/changes to the FAQ a thumbs up. I may not of liked everything, but overall it seems healthier for the game.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta digress from faq here. This strong thread will survive it.

I disagree that Mythos was a reactionary game made to cash in on the CCG craze where everything mimiced Magic. An arguable position, and well put. I'd say rather that mythos managed to detatch itself. It did so with the adventure card, with field of play, and the story deck. The cosmic struggle too was epic and unique. It is as much an adventure game as any format of adventure game. And the theme, well...


Chaosium published mythos in 1996, yes on the heels of lofty magic. Chaosium is distinct from Wizards of the Coast. Wizard's exciting boom was not unlike subpop. Magic was a tidal wave. The seminal CCG was possibly the biggest shift in gaming since the beginning - Gygax' D&D. Whereas Chaosium made the one quirky foray into CCG gaming and is a book publisher, and actually probably the best cthuhu mythos publisher ever since the all powerful Arkham House.


Mythos card management was fun, with the ranges and maximums and minimums. Compared to seismic changes, like the three card rule, LCG itself, and now mulligan, mythos, with a number of re-shuffle and redraw phases, was distinct from the start. But I am won over some by those who say it is better to win against an opponent at his best, not jammed up.


I just like rambling about that great old game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

johnny shoes said:

I just like rambling about that great old game.

 

I hear ya, man. One thing I am sure we will both agree on though, is that Mythos is mucho bueno and died before it's time. Johnny Shoes, old bean, we should start a thread in the off topic area to discuss this further as I am always eager to yammer incessantly about the greatest of all CCG's.

R.I.P. Mythos. Loved but not forgotten. 

Grandpa

(which reminds me, I really need to make a fanbased card for the CoC LCG of ol' 'Grandpa' himself just as a nod to both great games)

 

So as to get back on topic, I played a couple games with Jaffer Batica tonight at the FFG event center and I asked him to help explain a few of the changes in the FAQ while the GF and I were brawling it out on the streets of Arkham card game style.

Regarding the committing to stories change: 

He said this change was made mostly as a reaction to military bike and to keep it from getting so far out of hand, simply put. I realize that this is merely words going down the grapevine, so take it for what its worth. While I dont have much experience playing against opponents other than my GF's Miskatonic weenie rush deck, after he schooled me in a couple games with a solid Cthulhu/Syndicate deck, I can see how this makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thinking about it more im ok with aspiring artist being gone. if he belonged to any other faction id call it a stupid move, but hastur is the cancel faction and increasing the chance of getting that power drain or whatever else they have in there seems sorta unfair. cost one for 2 cards is good even for miskatonic. seems its about 1 cost for 1 card, so honestly he should probably cost 3 or 4 as a hastur card, and at that point he is pretty useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's true. MU is the card draw king, and has nothing so powerful, not cost one New Research.

not much was said of the card that shall no longer be named until now. Seems now he quietly pulled those great hastur cards out early in all the winning hastur decks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...