|
Yeah. You aren't invisible until you attack. Just one round. Card stays in front of you and you can use it if you invisible later.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Well fortunately we didn't let them do it anyway because it would have been phenomenally stupid to spend 5 turns doing nothing, but good to know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
People being greedy worthless deadweight for RP reasons is my biggest RPG pet peeve. Unless someone else is literally playing a loving babysitter why the hell would they bring you along? If a character's motivations doesn't work with the party's goals the player needs to make a new character or come up with a new set of motivations. If they aren't willing, it is actually the player that is a worthless deadbeat, not the character.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Pro strat. Open a door then go invisible. Everyone else long rests. Hope they aren't ranged
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Choosing not to kill an enemy to try and guarantee two check marks is totally worth it even if your Tinkerer takes 4 damage because of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Failing a battle goal in the first two actions of the scenario is a real 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:Choosing not to kill an enemy to try and guarantee two check marks is totally worth it even if your Tinkerer takes 4 damage because of it. Kiranamos posted:Failing a battle goal in the first two actions of the scenario is a real
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 21:28
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
misguided rage posted:Heck I'd do it even for one check mark. Is he getting super lucky and drawing it as one of the two random ones, or are you playing a house rule where you just go through the deck and pick?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:Choosing not to kill an enemy to try and guarantee two check marks is totally worth it even if your Tinkerer takes 4 damage because of it. As a Tinkerer, I disagree E: On the player count thing, we've played the whole campaign so far four player (maybe 15 scenarios in) and whilst our sessions are taking longer than I've seen other people listing - I'd say we average about 3 hours for a scenario including doing admin in Gloomhaven beforehand - it hasn't felt like it drags. It does help that we're all super into it, and we probably spend longer than we should discussing our actions each turn, but I'm more than happy with how four player is flowing. One weird thing is that even though there's four of us, our Brute and Scoundrel as our two melee characters have retired and the classes they unlocked aren't really melee focused. So I, as the Tinkerer, am now the de facto tank. The summons are helping in that regard as splitting enemy focus and having an extra chunk of HP absorb attacks means I'm not having to constantly heal, but it is a bit of an odd dynamic. Aston fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Dec 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Yeah, all of us love every bit of gloomhaven and aren't bothered by slow set up times. We set up super casually while hanging out. Our scenarios take a long time (1.5-2.5h after setup) but that's fine. The problem is how short days are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Vehementi posted:Is he getting super lucky and drawing it as one of the two random ones, or are you playing a house rule where you just go through the deck and pick?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Vehementi posted:Yeah, all of us love every bit of gloomhaven and aren't bothered by slow set up times. We set up super casually while hanging out. Our scenarios take a long time (1.5-2.5h after setup) but that's fine. The problem is how short days are. Yeah. Just did the road event and setup next scenario. Then kids ran off. Usually have gloomhaven/setup time. Then come back later or next day to play. Helps having a dedicated game table! But I don't like being rushed while looking at the store or leveling/perking up. Bombadilillo fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Dec 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:Pro strat. Open a door then go invisible. Everyone else long rests. Hope they aren't ranged My favourite pro strat is with the Tinkerer. stand next to door. Open door, back up a square, drop a proximity mine in door (or later a stun mine) Laugh as the first thing through the door explodes and you mark xp. or later, the first thing through the door stops in the door and causes the entire room to queue up impotently behind it Or just kick down the door and stun or immobilise the first two or three enemies inside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Aston posted:As a Tinkerer, I disagree I healed him and in the wake of that, we cooperated pretty well. Our Mindthief is the one who does his own thing and has earned some group ire. He'll run up, shank something, turn invisible, decloak and shank something else and then hoover up all the coins. It's really annoying.a Although more than anything, what I'm saddest about is that as Cragheart, I'm lagging behind everyone else. The whole team leveled up after scenario 3 and I'm still below 40 XP
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
That's what mindthiefs do  Until you open a hard room and he controls this to kill that and walks this guy into a trap and the hard room turns into a mop up exercise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
More rules elegance - drawing a rolling modifier with advantage just adds the 2 cards you drew together instead of drawing more cards, unless you draw 2 rolling modifiers in which you keep drawing and then add everything together? And in this way, you can actually end up playing a null from an advantaged attack? That's a laffo right there, I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Kiranamos posted:More rules elegance - drawing a rolling modifier with advantage just adds the 2 cards you drew together instead of drawing more cards, unless you draw 2 rolling modifiers in which you keep drawing and then add everything together? And in this way, you can actually end up playing a null from an advantaged attack? That's a laffo right there, I think. That is the only thing I've encountered so far that really needs to be house ruled. Rolling modifiers are bad with advantage. We'll probably do them the intuitive way that makes them not suck: draw two results one at a time, take the best. We'd also prefer to pick with advantage rather than leave it to a chart that says +1 stun is better than +2 fire or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
The rolling plus advantage thing is vexing because it’s counterintuitive and kinda inconsistent, but I think about asking certain people i game with to actually pick between +1 rolling and a flat +2, and how that would play out, and am instantly okay with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:We'd also prefer to pick with advantage rather than leave it to a chart that says +1 stun is better than +2 fire or whatever. Pretty sure the chart says that those are "ambiguous" and you should use whichever one was drawn first. Which is still kinda dumb, "advantaged player picks" (and use the rules-as-written for the monsters) is 90% the same and avoids some really lovely feelbads the other 10% of the time. Not sure what the best way of dealing with rolling modifiers is though. Resolve two stacks separately then pick which one you want? That potentially gets degenerate later on, but keeps the overall feel of "draw 2 pick 1".
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Yeah I really don't see why rolling modifers shouldnt just continue the first draw. Is there some obvious imbalance that I'm missing about playing it that way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:Although more than anything, what I'm saddest about is that as Cragheart, I'm lagging behind everyone else. The whole team leveled up after scenario 3 and I'm still below 40 XP We're at the same point, and I'm lagging behind our brute a bit, but she pulled off a number of big moves and exhausted while I was pacing since we had some big enemies left. I'm about on par with out mindthief though, so I don't think it's that exaggerated. Honestly, Cragheart has so many experience granting moves that are tied to using the leaf element track that I'm debating picking the leaf rolling modifiers just so I have a better chance at using them. I bet that would speed it up significantly. We just leveled up and I'm really torn as to which perk I should grab.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Mikey Purp posted:Yeah I really don't see why rolling modifers shouldnt just continue the first draw. Is there some obvious imbalance that I'm missing about playing it that way? Isaac has said this and any other way of resolving including the two stack variant is overpowered. I'm not really that sure that simply ignoring the ability to miss the entire attack would be OP, with all of the other moving parts in the game...
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
Frush posted:We're at the same point, and I'm lagging behind our brute a bit, but she pulled off a number of big moves and exhausted while I was pacing since we had some big enemies left. I'm about on par with out mindthief though, so I don't think it's that exaggerated. I'm pretty sure my first perk is going to be ignore negatives so I can pull the -1s my Hide Armor added to my deck and then I'm going to pull out four 0s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
Kiranamos posted:Isaac has said this and any other way of resolving including the two stack variant is overpowered. I'm not really that sure that simply ignoring the ability to miss the entire attack would be OP, with all of the other moving parts in the game... Maybe use the low-luck rule for advantaged attacks only (if you aren't using it already, of course)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:I'm pretty sure my first perk is going to be ignore negatives so I can pull the -1s my Hide Armor added to my deck and then I'm going to pull out four 0s. You'll find that removing 2 -1 cards is basically always the best pick. Get that first (ideally twice) then do the remove four +0 cards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
Kiranamos posted:Isaac has said this and any other way of resolving including the two stack variant is overpowered. I'm not really that sure that simply ignoring the ability to miss the entire attack would be OP, with all of the other moving parts in the game... My issue with this is that I'm at the point where I don't want any more perks because I've thinned my deck and have good modifiers. I'm also always attacking with advantage. This means all the random +1s and rolling modifiers make me worse, not better since I'm more likely to miss and less likely to draw +2 fire/ice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:My issue with this is that I'm at the point where I don't want any more perks because I've thinned my deck and have good modifiers. I'm also always attacking with advantage. This means all the random +1s and rolling modifiers make me worse, not better since I'm more likely to miss and less likely to draw +2 fire/ice. That is the point where I'd be making a hard push to my retirement goal. My brute still could benefit from a few more perks so leveling/gaining checks feels great. Once that is past or I'm bored with his style... I guess I am coming also from a really easy to accomplish retirement goal of Beat 3 crypts to get a character unlock mission - Cthulhu-like logo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
ChiTownEddie posted:That is the point where I'd be making a hard push to my retirement goal. My brute still could benefit from a few more perks so leveling/gaining checks feels great. Once that is past or I'm bored with his style... I need 6 side quests and we've unlocked two. I can't really do anything to retire any faster. The advantage/disadvantage issue also has the side effect of making rolling modifiers worse, and they are already the last thing you generally want to get. Edit: I found where Isaac said it would be overpowered to do advantage differently: "If you are drawing until two non-rolling cards come up, and then adding all the rolling cards together, that is far too powerful." This was in response to people drawing cards until they had two non-rolling cards and applying rolling modifiers to both. This is different and a lot more powerful than the two pile method. KPC_Mammon fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:I healed him and in the wake of that, we cooperated pretty well. Our Mindthief is the one who does his own thing and has earned some group ire. Play to win - David Sirlin. Mindthief supremacy
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
The two pile method seems like a pretty decent compromise. I already feel too strong with a few thinning perks anyway, as I do find the uncertainty to be necessary to prevent pure mage knight puzzling. You can also still miss with an unlucky null plus curse draw which is totally fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Kiranamos posted:The two pile method seems like a pretty decent compromise. I already feel too strong with a few thinning perks anyway. You can also still miss with an unlucky null plus curse draw which is totally fine. During scenario 2 the other day I think I drew null, null, -1, null, curse at one point. After one of the shuffles I cut to ensure I wasn't a moron, and still got hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:You'll find that removing 2 -1 cards is basically always the best pick. Get that first (ideally twice) then do the remove four +0 cards. He's got that option because of the hide armor, otherwise straight removing -1 cards isn't an option Craghearts get. You can replace a -1 with a +1 as a perk 3 separate times, but I feel like I can get more bang for my buck elsewhere first. I feel like taking the zeroes makes your deck more swingy, but if you also put in some rolling modifiers they'd come up more often so it might be worth it to do that first? How useful are people finding the 'ignore negative scenario effects' perk? We've only done 3 scenarios so far so I don't really have a bead on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:I healed him and in the wake of that, we cooperated pretty well. Our Mindthief is the one who does his own thing and has earned some group ire. oh please I haven't been taking all the money. This is just more Vermling racism that we've all come to expect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:You'll find that removing 2 -1 cards is basically always the best pick. Get that first (ideally twice) then do the remove four +0 cards. I guess replacing a -1 with a +1 is pretty close, but immunity to negative item effects does the same thing and will get better when I get better armor. Istvun posted:oh please I haven't been taking all the money. This is just more Vermling racism that we've all come to expect. But you're right, I'm projecting all my rage at everyone else getting coins on you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:I guess replacing a -1 with a +1 is pretty close, but immunity to negative item effects does the same thing and will get better when I get better armor. It's not bad overall, but statistically it is different. Taking out two -1's means you have a smaller deck, better odds of getting rolling modifiers or something else (potentially good or bad). Replacing a -1 with a +1 means you have a better chance of drawing positive (better than you think, since removing a -1 would just mean less odds of a negative, but putting a +1 in its place shifts the stats even further of drawing positive). I wasn't going to do math, but maybe lets take a bit of a look. Your standard player attack modifier deck has 20 cards, with a 5% chance of drawing any particular one given a single draw. The deck looks like: 1 each of Null, crit, -2, +2 5 each of +1, -1 6 each of +0 So overall 35% chance of positive, 35% chance of negative, 30% neutral, 5% of a crit or null. Not bad. Wouldn't have guessed from how I've been drawing that I was more likely to be positive than neutral though. So as a Cragheart what's best will likely depend on our goal which could be one of a few things including 'draw less negative', 'draw more positive', or 'draw more rolling modifiers'. The variance in goal here is going to primarily determine what you want to do, and each successive perk is going to make the math more complicated. I found a calculator someone made and we'll trust their math for the moment; https://www.reddit.com/r/Gloomhaven/comments/7g8jis/attack_modifier_calculator/. Please ignore a bit of rounding where decimals are messy. Ignore negative equipment effects - If you're using hide armor (for example) you've added two -1 modifiers to your deck. Meaning you have 7 instead of 5. This means your odds of drawing any card are 4.6%, positive is 32%, and negative is 41%. Your odds of drawing positive haven't actually suffered that much, but a 6% increase to negative could hurt. It's not a bad idea to get rid of those negatives, but is is more effective than switching one out to a positive? Taking the 'replace one -1 with a +1' perk puts that balance at 36%/36% roughly as good as ignoring the item effects but since removing the -1s winnows your deck down as well for rolling modifiers it would be my preference. Taking the perk twice makes it 41%/32%, and the third time goes to 45%/27%. Replace one -1 with one +1 - Pretty simple and on the nose, the deck stays the same size, and instead of your +/- balance being 35%/35% you've now altered it to 40%/30% in one perk. Not too shabby. By the time you do this three times though, you're rocking 50%/20%, and that's pretty huge. Rolling modifier odds stay the same, with an argumentative 2 added having 9% odds. This doesn't thin out your deck any, but it's hard to argue with the numbers. It also has the advantage of keeping its positive effect should you switch up or remove your armor. Overall this would be my choice. Remove 4 +0 cards - Our odds of drawing any particular card in a vanilla deck swings up to 6.25%, chance of positive or negative to 43.75% each, and neutral to 12.5%. Basically all we've done here is make our deck more 'swingy'. For argument sake if we add two rolling modifiers to this deck, you have a 11% (2/18) chance of drawing one compared to 9% (2/22) before. So realistically, taking the zeroes out doesn't seem to make a big difference on the odds to draw a rolling modifier. Of the four goals stated above, removing the zeroes increases your odds of drawing positive by about 10%, at the cost of negatives being the same so it's actually pretty ineffective of a perk. It is however, pretty decent after you've picked the 'replace' perk 3 times bumping +/- to 62.5%/25%. Add one -2 and two +2 cards - I think everyone realizes this is a bit of a gamble, but it's not really as risky as it looks. This makes your deck more swingy of course, and a -2 can sure hurt, but overall increases the +/- chances to 39%/35%. Great for big hits if you like that, but if you just want to draw positive you get more in terms of odds for your perk by replacing a -1. In summary, assuming your goal is just to draw less negatives or draw more positives, I would take 'replace one -1 with one +1' first. If you're wearing armor and intend to keep doing so, the negative item effects is also a solid choice. Next I would either start adding rolling modifiers or other positives to your deck, or take out the zeroes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
I'm wearing Hide Armor right now and for now intend to upgrade it when the better version becomes available. That said, I like your math and I may ditch the armor entirely and focus more on putting out damage; the stats on swapping 1s is compelling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Frush posted:He's got that option because of the hide armor, otherwise straight removing -1 cards isn't an option Craghearts get. You can replace a -1 with a +1 as a perk 3 separate times, but I feel like I can get more bang for my buck elsewhere first. I feel like taking the zeroes makes your deck more swingy, but if you also put in some rolling modifiers they'd come up more often so it might be worth it to do that first? Oh herp derp I completely missed he was a cragheart. The replace a minus 1 with a plus 1 isn't nearly as good as the remove 2*-1 cards. With negative scenerio effects, a discussion that involves some stats and things that happens about future scenerios, but nothing specific about any particular scenario About 20% of scenarios have a negative scenario effect - but some of them are totally inconsequential (start the scenario immobilized), some a fairly mild (start with a wound) and some are complete dick moves (start with 3x curse cards or 3x minus 1 cards). So on balance I don't think it's very good, because the ones that really matter - removing 3 curse cards - are very infrequent, and the 3x minus -1 cards are more than offset by rolling +modifiers in general. Cthulhu Dreams fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
If you are going to play random build a scenario. Then that perk becomes HUGE. Fyi
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:If you are going to play random build a scenario. Then that perk becomes HUGE. Fyi Doesn't the FAQ say that the 'reveal a room' effects from the random scenerios are not negative scenario effects? Edit: Yeah, it doesn't work like you think it does - https://boardgamegeek.com/article/25415811#25415811
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Doesn't the FAQ say that the 'reveal a room' effects from the random scenerios are not negative scenario effects? Oh good to know. Then yeah negative scenario perk not nearly as useful as somethin you use all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 00:33
|
|