|
Hallucinogenic Toreador posted:Both versions I've played use decals for those stickers. I don't know what that means. Where on the table do I find them? I don't see them in any of the boxes or bags.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:I don't know what that means. Where on the table do I find them? I don't see them in any of the boxes or bags. There's a bar on the left of the screen (like a UI not a part of the mod). The bottom part of that is a 'stamp' like box that puts new graphics on existing assets. That's where all the stickers are so you have infinite stickers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
Miftan posted:There's a bar on the left of the screen (like a UI not a part of the mod). The bottom part of that is a 'stamp' like box that puts new graphics on existing assets. That's where all the stickers are so you have infinite stickers. Oh poo poo thanks! I would never have thought to look there!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Oh poo poo thanks! I would never have thought to look there! Yeah, me neither. Glad to help.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Cephalofair/status/1022168321750380544
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Takeaways It won't manage to come out at Essen, aiming for Dec/Jan maybe Has puzzles and alternate ending for scenarios "Choose your Own Adventure" style Pre-sale not through Kickstarter
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:Takeaways The CYOA style refers to the scenario book. Evidently you will be making choices within scenarios and they will have different endings that you flip to within the book. Looks to mitigate the problem discussed upthread about looking at all the rooms contents before opening doors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Isaac's puzzles have all been huge loving turds so "more puzzles" is just about the worst news imaginable. But it's not him writing the puzzles, so maybe it's not so bad? Puzzles are hard no matter who is writing them because if you write a puzzle that puzzle-lovers will enjoy and not just instantly know how to solve, regular people will usually be in way over their heads. You can make puzzles that anyone can solve (like the sliding block puzzles in Zelda), and make them hard to solve only because they take character actions to complete, so that you can only solve them if you are efficient in beating the scenario. That could work okay. Edit: CYOA also sounds bad because Isaac has already shown that his idea of "choices" is either "Do you open the wooden door on the left or the metal door on the right?" with no other information given to decide between them, or "do you catch the vegetable thief and turn her over to the cops, or do you steal veggies yourself?" This all sounds like "hey, so you know the few parts of this near-perfect game that actually kind of suck? We're going to give you more of those!" Please, just give us more "kill all enemies" scenarios with cool new enemies instead. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jul 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
So... we just tried to do Scenario 33. What the everloving gently caress were we supposed to do? 33 involves racing into a series of large / long rooms to grab four pieces of treasure, and then race back out. There are only four mobs in the rooms to begin with (with two players); however, every turn, another mob spawns back towards the entrance / exit in the small hexagonal room that begins the race. The mobs are Savaas Icestorm and Lavaflows. These Savaas both have monster decks that include summoning elementals. So, in other words, the map fills up with mobs faster than you can handle them. That should be okay - there are a few "smash and grab" style maps in 'haven and I don't mind the change up from kill-kill-kill! However. The spawns all happen in the small room. Meaning that you NEED to have jump to get in and out; if you do not, you simply cannot get through the room. You also NEED to have very long movement to get through the next two rooms. The four treasures are protected by traps, so I hope you have multiple jumps or ways to deal with traps. The rules do not change the number of treasures - four - for two players. Oh, and, if any player goes exhausted without making it back to the exit, the scenario is instantly lost. We could. not. win. this. scenario. We tried a whopping six times, failing each time. I looked online, and Reddit and BGG basically said "yes, you need characters with large movement and lots of stun." I'm playing the Spellweaver, and my partner is playing the Angry Face. We do not have stun. And I, the Spellweaver, went exhausted four of the six failures. And I've got two stamina potions (one of each flavor, I'm not cheating)! The best Reddit could come up with was "don't use the spellweaver". Someone else confirmed they could not complete this scenario with the Spellweaver. Has anyone completed this with two players, one of whom was the weaver? If so, how? We tried fighting, we tried running, we tried splitting up, we tried sticking together. We do not have stuns. We both changed our decks to include all the movement cards we could find. We are both level 6. We could not do it, and we gave up. First and only scenario I've ever had to just give up on, and it felt pretty bad. There have been difficult scenarios before, and we've failed one or two, but we have never encountered a scenario we simply could not complete with the characters and items we had. And we even houseruled that we could both change our decks; technically, we shouldn't have even been able to do that. Overall, of course I still love the poo poo out of this game. But running into a scenario and learning "you have the wrong items / characters / deck, come back later" sucks. No other scenario has done that. Some scenarios are more difficult with certain pairings. Some scenarios are easy with certain items. But I haven't seen one like this: impossible unless... Thursday Next fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jul 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Thursday Next posted:So... we just tried to do Scenario 33. What the everloving gently caress were we supposed to do? We just did 33 last night as well. Edit: Misread the post, sorry. That scenario isn't great for 2 players. You need a loot 2 or to run as fast as you can. We still lost by 1 movement point. OmegaGoo fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jul 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
My team was able to complete that scenario with Spellweaver, Tinker and Triforce, but it took some doing. The Spellweaver used Ride the Wind to loot everything, used Ether to get back Ride the Wind, used Ride the Wind with boots to land perfectly next to the Tinkerer who gave him a loss card back (Ride the Wind) and they both dashed for the door. I'd fallen over on an exit spot a couple of turns earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:This all sounds like "hey, so you know the few parts of this near-perfect game that actually kind of suck? We're going to give you more of those!" Please, just give us more "kill all enemies" scenarios with cool new enemies instead. This seems like a really pessimistic way to read things, why can't it be "hey people tell us these parts of the base game suck, so we're going to focus on improving them for the expansion"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:My team was able to complete that scenario with Spellweaver, Tinker and Triforce, but it took some doing. Ride the Wind wouldn't help for looting everything, would it? You need to end your movement on the tile in order to loot it; therefore RtW would only let you get one of the four treasures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
OmegaGoo posted:We just did 33 last night as well. Yeah, that's what Reddit said as well. It's the first time I've run into a badly-designed scenario. On the whole, it's one out of a hundred, so I'm still insanely into this amazing game. Was just wondering if we'd missed something (like, hey, dummy, you only needed to loot one treasure or something).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Thursday Next posted:Ride the Wind wouldn't help for looting everything, would it? You need to end your movement on the tile in order to loot it; therefore RtW would only let you get one of the four treasures. Ride the Wind's top action could get up to two of the four chests as a single action if you can eat the damage from the trap. Only a couple scenarios require you to be on top of a chest to loot it and 33 isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Thursday Next posted:So... we just tried to do Scenario 33. What the everloving gently caress were we supposed to do? Aren't there only two additional spawns in this mission? One lavaflow when you open the door at (1) and one icestorm when you loot all of the chests? Both triggers are 'at the end of the round' that something specific happens. With 4p and Two Minis we found this scenario extremely easy as the character swap ability made it simple to retrieve the looter we left behind. Definitely could see how it would be harder with another team or fewer people, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Don't get me wrong. Our group isn't perfect at all and we've made a lot of mistakes but we've caught ourselves and looked things up ASAP after each session and fixed a lot of things. I think our biggest stupid was letting advantage overrule disadvantage, rather than cancel each other out. We've also had the usual stupid with monster movement and with AoE attacks from monsters. God drat, this is a good game. I think I might try a solo game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
Recaffeinated posted:Aren't there only two additional spawns in this mission? One lavaflow when you open the door at (1) and one icestorm when you loot all of the chests? Both triggers are 'at the end of the round' that something specific happens. I THINK the rules state that a spawn happens every round, not just the two you mentioned. It would be much easier if only two mobs spawned in! Re-reading the rules, they say: "At the end of the current round..." but this does not seem to have a trigger. Maybe we read it totally wrong, and that's the issue? Oh my god, if we did, then that's why the whole thing felt impossible. Like, we read the above as "At the end of each current round until you get the four treasures" as opposed to "At the end of only this specific current round until you get the four treasures" And, yeah, 4p is easier for this map. And different characters  . My issue is that it seems this scenario is not well-balanced; it was not possible to do with the 2p characters and items we have. That has not happened to us with any other scenario. Some are harder, some are easier, but until now none have been impossible.hoooooolllleeeee poo poo if that was our mistake, then yeah that makes this a fuckload easier. two additional mobs versus eight. Thursday Next fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Jul 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
SettingSun posted:Ride the Wind's top action could get up to two of the four chests as a single action if you can eat the damage from the trap. Only a couple scenarios require you to be on top of a chest to loot it and 33 isn't one of them. Yep, but that still only nets you two of the four (and you're eating a LOT of damage from that trap on a VERY squishy character). If the rules stated that you only needed two chests for two players (which it should, damnit), I think that'd make this scenario a lot more possible using the method you describe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Thursday Next posted:I THINK the rules state that a spawn happens every round, not just the two you mentioned. It would be much easier if only two mobs spawned in! Re-reading the rules, they say: The special rule is part of the opening of the door labeled '1' and is thus the trigger. You spawn just twice as the previous poster describes. If you were spawning every round that would certainly make the scenario nigh impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Thursday Next posted:I THINK the rules state that a spawn happens every round, not just the two you mentioned. It would be much easier if only two mobs spawned in! Re-reading the rules, they say: It's only 2 spawns total.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Going by the Gloomhaven Scenario Viewer App: that whole additional rules block is under the trigger for (1). Also, I think the scenario book always uses 'every round' (e.g., 'every odd round' / 'every round thereafter') when it indicates events that happen more than once. 'Current round' appears when things only trigger once.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Hahahahahahahahaha OK, yep, I'm an idiot. My partner is also an idiot. We had nearly thirty mobs on the map at one point, between Savaases and their elementals. We are going to get some revenge tonight. Thanks, Goons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
King of Bleh posted:This seems like a really pessimistic way to read things, why can't it be "hey people tell us these parts of the base game suck, so we're going to focus on improving them for the expansion"? Well, yeah. I agree - it is pessimistic. But, two things: first, there doesn't seem to have been any acknowledgement that these aspects were weak and that they want to improve them, as opposed to just giving us more of the stuff I don't like. Second, I'm giving them the benefit of the assumption that the tactical combat poo poo will be top notch and for the same reason I expect that the puzzles will not be. I'll be happy to be wrong because I'm almost certainly buying it! Even if it comes out and is weaker than the core game, it's probably still pretty good. If it's only and 8/10 instead of a 9.5/10 like the base game, that's still an easy buy for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Well, yeah. I agree - it is pessimistic. But, two things: first, there doesn't seem to have been any acknowledgement that these aspects were weak and that they want to improve them, as opposed to just giving us more of the stuff I don't like. Second, I'm giving them the benefit of the assumption that the tactical combat poo poo will be top notch and for the same reason I expect that the puzzles will not be. I'll be happy to be wrong because I'm almost certainly buying it! Isaac has definitely talked about wanting to improve the narrative for the sequel. It may or may not end up being an improvement, but it's something he's aware could use some work. He'll probably always be a puzzle nerd though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Isaac has definitely talked about wanting to improve the narrative for the sequel. It may or may not end up being an improvement, but it's something he's aware could use some work. He'll probably always be a puzzle nerd though. Isaac isn’t doing Forgotten Circles, the main “guest scenario” person Marcel C is
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:Isaac isn’t doing Forgotten Circles, the main “guest scenario” person Marcel C is Yeah, I know. i'm just saying doing something different with the narrative is a goal beyond just this expansion, so if the 'something different' here ends up working, maybe it'll be incorporated in the second campaign too. I imagine there's at least some degree of interaction in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Well, yeah. I agree - it is pessimistic. But, two things: first, there doesn't seem to have been any acknowledgement that these aspects were weak and that they want to improve them, as opposed to just giving us more of the stuff I don't like. Second, I'm giving them the benefit of the assumption that the tactical combat poo poo will be top notch and for the same reason I expect that the puzzles will not be. I'll be happy to be wrong because I'm almost certainly buying it! The core game mechanics are sound, and Isaac has gotten a lot of feedback (positive and negative). That doesn't mean he will fix everything you (or I) didn't like about the first game; some of it was designed for specific reasons which might appeal to some players but not others. I'm unclear that he's deploying the word "puzzle" with much precision, both because of what some of the multiple choices in the base game suggest about what he thinks constitutes a puzzle, and because of the whole Envelope X thing. Based on Marcel's designs in the base game, we can make some guesses about what constitutes a puzzle: Spoilers for scenario 52: Breaking a core mechanic by separating the characters and forcing each one to figure out how to operate solo. Scenario 54: Placing a limitation which again forces one character into a leading role. In multiple of his scenarios, he has a goal besides "kill all enemies" that involves some level of thought; my sense is that figuring out how to tackle these goals constitutes a "puzzle" from Isaac's perspective. I'd bet we'll end up with a mix, but I want to see them experiment and try things that may or may not work for the majority of their audience so that Isaac can take that feedback into account for the next big game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
Oh, rules question Does "I'm going about a third of the way through the round" or "I'm going at about the halfway point" count as forbidden communication? I ask because the rule says no "numbers" and no "card names" but fractions are kindof numbers
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh, rules question That's fine. We even run with "I'm going quick even by Mindthief standards!" or "I am definitely going first eat my dust". Spice it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
It's entirely up to you. It's not really going to break the game to have stronger initiative communication. The spirit of the rule is that you don't go much beyond "hey go slow so i can buff you" or "I'm going to go as fast as I can to get out of melee". If you're giving more detail than that it probably goes against the spirit of the rules but also who cares? I usually try to quash strategy discussions once they get to a certain point and just say "you do you, play what cards you want" because the goal is to Foster the atmosphere of a loose coalition rather than a cohesive well-oiled machine. Short version; fractions are numbers don't try to game the system just play the way that lets everyone have fun . Board game police are off duty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
On a similar note: does letting people know you'll generate a specific element violate the rules? For our first game we stuck to leaving out specific numbers (initiative, attack number, number of enemies, etc) but some other stuff like special effects (statuses, elements) seem harder to be vague about without explicitly giving away the game (Cragheart is generating earth like 30% of the time anyway, does that need to be kept a secret?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Do what you want as long as it's not numbers or card names. Once you get to know your party well enough you'll know what cards they're playing based on the tiniest hint of what they're doing anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
I personally would not use fractions. I'll say I'm generating an element and we'll say things like "can you go before me?" "how slow can you go?" etc
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
My group is fine with stuff like "I'm going to hopefully take out this enemy and then open the door" or "is it useful for me to stun those two guys?". We just don't discuss exact numbers. For initiative, we use "very fast", "fast", "slow", or "very slow", depending on which quarter of the round you're going in. The real rule is to do what's fun for your group. If your level of communication seems to be making the game too easy, just crank up the difficulty one level. For us, we get to play infrequently enough that we play on Normal, despite winning about 90% of scenarios on our first try.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Our group has things essentially divided into 30's and 10s when more specificity is needed: Fast includes "gently caress you fast" (<10 - as in gently caress you i'm going first), fast, and slow end of fast (also sometimes cragheart fast). Medium is fast end of medium, medium, and slower end of medium. Slow rarely needs specificity tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
"I'm going as fast as a rock monster can go!" was a line I used, iirc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
OK what I'm hearing is that fractions are functionally fine because any other convention quickly develops into fractions as the playgroup learns what you mean by "very slow" or "slow" etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:OK what I'm hearing is that fractions are functionally fine because any other convention quickly develops into fractions as the playgroup learns what you mean by "very slow" or "slow" etc. I used fractions, but imo you probably don't get want to much more specific than halves or thirds. If you start saying you'll go in the 2nd 10th of the round, you start to get to a point where you may as well just be using open info. It's all a judgment call though, so whatever doesn't feel like cheating to you is fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
In games that limit communication, it's almost a guarantee that you'll develop a meta that doesn't violate the letter of the rules but does violate the spirit of them. My group considers the rule a bit arbitrary so we play with it very loosely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 21:08
|
|