|
Fat Samurai posted:Apologies is I'm misunderstanding you, but you know that the double negative modifier only applies to Evade actions, right? ...maybe I'm an idiot? lol
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:...maybe I'm an idiot? lol Ah, well yes, if you misread that card I can understand Mind Wipe being quite useful. It's not a bad card, but in core the only enemies I have trouble with would be any of the random 'Agents of XXXX' sets you use to set up scenario 3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
So, the Dunwich Legacy has a new preview up, spoilers exactly one new card: Strange Solution Asset - Seeker - 1 resource -? Action: test knowledge(4). If you succeed, draw two cards and discard Strange Solution. Note in you campaign log that "you have identified the solution".  It's a player card, not an encounter card, so you need to build you deck with it. This game is going strange (albeit awesome) places.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Came to post about that card. Not sure whether it will work or not (it looks like something that will surprise you exactly once in an campaign, and then it's either a must-include or a never-include), but they are trying to make new things and it's great. I really dig the Permanent Talent cards, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
I kinda wish they would have made it not an action just so its more generically good. Or not discard. As is like was mentioned its something you'll probably run once in each scenario if it does something and otherwise not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
I know this doesn't represent the full top 8 of each tournament because it's just people submitting their own decklists, but it's still a bit alarming: http://thronesdb.com/decklists/tournament Lots of Lions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:I know this doesn't represent the full top 8 of each tournament because it's just people submitting their own decklists, but it's still a bit alarming: http://thronesdb.com/decklists/tournament Eh, lots of Stark and Targ too. Not to mention Valar is about to hit and shake everything up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
I'm really hopeful for Valar to shake things up, although I'm kinda fearful that it puts you too far behind with the lack of cheap dudes in 2.0. Another thing that may shake things up is the upcoming Alliance agenda (75 card deck, but you get to pick 2 banners). IIRC all the old agendas that increased your min deck size previously had some card advantage built in so the 75 cards may end up being too big of a negative, but it definitely will open up deckbuilding. Also I think everyone realizes that Lanni's easily the best faction and the most consistent. Ideally they'd just quit releasing Lanni cards for a few packs, or print cards for sideline strategies and whatnot vs. the raw power increases that have been happening for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
I think the only problem is that Lannister has so many archetypes and the strong cards to support all of them, cards that work well in multiple lists, plus characters that are just Good No Matter What. Their big box added yet another archetype for them as well as support for the lists people already ran. The only faction that comes close is Stark, but their cards are much more focused on specific archetypes, and every other house is behind them by a large margin. That's why Lannister is played so much, not because they're necessarily the best, but because they have so many viable lists that are all pretty consistently competitive. Basically it's Lannister's versatility that's the issue, not necessarily their overall balance being too strong. This is apparent if you look at the data of how many Lannister lists show up in each tournament vs how many tournaments are actually won by them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
I wonder if the designers couldn't shake the thought that the Lannisters were the most powerful house in the time period the card game currently covers (the first two-ish books) and that seeped into their design. It doesn't really bother me since we mostly play casually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Stark Fealty just won a ~300 person tournament over Bara Sun so I'm not super worried that Lannister is too good. Are they good? Definitely. Unbalanced? Probably not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I think the only problem is that Lannister has so many archetypes and the strong cards to support all of them, cards that work well in multiple lists, plus characters that are just Good No Matter What. Their big box added yet another archetype for them as well as support for the lists people already ran. The only faction that comes close is Stark, but their cards are much more focused on specific archetypes, and every other house is behind them by a large margin. That's why Lannister is played so much, not because they're necessarily the best, but because they have so many viable lists that are all pretty consistently competitive. Basically it's Lannister's versatility that's the issue, not necessarily their overall balance being too strong. This is apparent if you look at the data of how many Lannister lists show up in each tournament vs how many tournaments are actually won by them. Lannister was the best house even before their box. They have the best cards, that's why they're the best. Also if every tourney has 40%+ lanni, that's an issue (which is currently the case now). Even if they only win one in four (which I believe they're winning much more), if you read tourney reports you see how non-Lanni decks are being built heavily just to neutralize the lions. Maybe Valar will shake things up, but if not I think FFG will really have to do something to curtail them. I'd rather them create cards to support odd or offbeat archetypes, or just not print Lanni cards for awhile rather than them print junk though. But they're obviously extremely warping to the environment currently. The funny thing is that I was talking with some folks about this and we agreed that Lanni is probably too strong, but there's not much to be done. I brought up the restricted list like in 1.0, but we couldn't think up any cards that need to be restricted outside of Lanni cards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Metas/Tiers are not a direct reflection of power levels, that's a fallacy of competitive communities. They are a report of what people are playing, which can cause a self fulfilling feedback loop and warp competitive scenes to playing what is perceived to be the best or playing what counters it the best. That is where I think the game is now re: Lannister. I do think they're the best house overall, but nowhere near the point where they need restricted cards or a hold on new cards. I think the biggest reason they're so played is that their archetypes are just straight up easier to pilot thanks to cards just being good for almost any scenario. Worlds top 16: quote:Lanni KoW 6 out of 16 obviously shows they're strong, but isn't as bad as some make it seem. The more worrying thing is that there wasn't a single Martell, Stark, Greyjoy, or Tyrell. Stark was considered to be the main competitor to Lanni, yet they didn't make top 16. NW was a sleeper surprise, and Baratheon is still going strong on their original Kneel list basically. Targ has been the most consistent placing house from core to now I think, always a contender but never seemingly OP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
What technically counts as "You defeat an enemy" as seen on 'Roland Banks' or 'Evidence!'? If my 'Beat Cop' deals the last damage to an enemy can I use Roland's ability or play Evidence? Edit: If I have 2 core sets, do I shuffle the weaknesses from both sets together? Or am I only supposed to use the weaknesses from a single core set? Also, question regarding lethal damage and checking for elimination timing, with spoilers from the "The Devourer Below". Our Agnes controlled Lita in play with 1 damage token. Agnes herself had 7 horror. She takes the action to throw Lita under the Ancient One bus. The game goes "hey, that isn't a Fight, Evade, Parley, or Resign action, trigger an Attack of Opportunity." The Ancient One deals 3 damage and 3 horror. Unless all 3 horror is placed on Lita Agnes will be eliminated and all of her cards (including Lita) will be discarded from play. If 3 horror is placed on Lita, when is she checked for elimination? Is the effect still happening, since it was true when activated? PJOmega fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
This game is amazing. My friend and I tried the first scenario and got wiped, then built actual decks and got 6 XP and Lita added to my deck. The second scenario went poorly: only two cultists. The third scenario was a clusterfuck and we got massively unlucky with chaos pulls. I was playing Agnes and got stuck in one of the locations which has a knowledge skill check to get out of. Even when I boosted my knowledge considerably, I'd pull a -4 or auto-fail. To make things worse, the shroud was also three, so I spent almost the whole game in there before chucking Lita at the big bad. The game doesn't do a good job at telling you how important investigating is in the first scenario; there's a low-shroud location you can clear easily, and then a tanky boss, so you spend much more time fighting than investigating. That's why we were dismissing the investigation/knowledge cards. If you're not vacuuming up clues in scenario two, you're going to have a bad time. The campaign ended so badly that we're going to build real decks this time and give the game what for. I'm not sure if I should spoilerize deckbuilding tips, but as Agnes with a Roland partner, I totally neglected knowledge, to my downfall. This was a terrible decision because although Roland is okay at investigating, he was usually hopping all over the place mopping up threats. I also didn't play Arcane Knowledge because I dismissed the free action skill boosters, but I spent most of the last two scenarios sitting on way more crate bux than I needed, so those are definitely going in. I had also included two copies of Knife and Baseball Bat, but Agnes has Shrivelling, that evade spell, and enough ways to make sure she gets them, so she never needs pure might. Had I focused more on knowledge, we could have easily done way better at the second and third scenarios. Has anyone tried putting enough double-skill draw cards in that they'll refresh their deck? I never got close to it, but I had minimal of those and I think Agnes is perfectly suited to taking the one horror for refreshing and getting a third and fourth chance at her cards. PJOmega posted:Edit: If I have 2 core sets, do I shuffle the weaknesses from both sets together? Or am I only supposed to use the weaknesses from a single core set? You just use the one core set's worth of cards, plus any basic weaknesses from expansions you own that aren't out yet. I don't know the answer to your other questions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:Has anyone tried putting enough double-skill draw cards in that they'll refresh their deck? I never got close to it, but I had minimal of those and I think Agnes is perfectly suited to taking the one horror for refreshing and getting a third and fourth chance at her cards. One thing to remember is that you take mental damage when you have to reshuffle, so turbo cycling isn't exactly free.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:
1). I would rule it that you defeat the enemy. Didn't find any specific rule for it, but I would think that if you defeat an enemy with a card you control, that would count as deafinting it for the purpose of the abilities. 2). With two cores, you should only use one set of weaknesses. They are going to release more of them in Dunwich Legacy, so putting them all in one pool would skew the balance unless you buy multiples of that one also. There's an example of this in the rules somewhere. Feel free to house-rule it if you wish however. 3. This is tricky. We know that "An attack of opportunity is made immediately after all costs of initiating the action that provoked the attack have been paid, but before the application of that action’s effect upon the game state." Since "if you control Lita" is part of the cost, I would say that if you assign the damage to yourself, you die, but if you assign the damage to Lita, you "win", since the resolution of the ability doesn't actually check if she's under you control, only the cost. I do think you should mail/tweet the designer this, because it would be insightful to hear how they apply the rules. As for when assets are checked for elimination, it is at the exact time they get the damage, so right after the AoO, but before the resolution of an action. Zerf fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
alansmithee posted:I burned through my Skids deck fairly quickly. I run pretty much all the double skill draw cards (but I've also been trying him solo). That's why I said "Agnes is perfectly suited to taking the one horror for refreshing". It can actually work in her favor to take horror sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Played Arkham Horror with the "intro adventure," and it was pretty fun. I think the campaign stuff is interesting, although I don't know how much investment I would have in it, but I'll reserve judgment until they get into the really interesting spaces that, say, LOTR has been getting into. I do feel like there should be a companion app to handle the draw and the campaign stuff, though, if only because I don't want to keep a million different booklets around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Can't seem to find an email for the Arkham Horror LCG devs to ask them the question. Point me in the right direction?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Finally picked up a copy of AH: TCG. I love it! I've been a fan of just about every FFG Arkham product and while Eldritch Horror is still my favorite, this game is just about the perfect Arkham Horror game if you like LCGs at all. I'm already hunting down a second copy so I can start tinkering with the decks. Been playing/demoing the first scenario a couple of times now, and I'm wondering something; is it a good idea to take your time in getting through the Acts? It seems to me that (with Roland, at least) it's a good idea to get out some assets before trying to end it, lest you get stomped by the ghoul priest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:Can't seem to find an email for the Arkham Horror LCG devs to ask them the question. Point me in the right direction? Use this: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
I have no idea what game you people are playing, but it's not AH:LCG. I decided to give it one last try yesterday. Played the introductory scenario as Wendy. Got the card that adds 2 to the investigation requirement on the first Mythos phase. Played Unexpected Courage, drew a -3 and failed. Cycled my deck including using the Rabbit's Foot and bonus actions from Leo, found enough cards to have another go. Drew Rune and failed. Cycled with the Foot, hit Amnesia, gave up because gently caress this lovely game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Drawing a -3 sucks but did you not use her special ability to re draw? And how were you cycling your deck? I also think most people are playing two characters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I have no idea what game you people are playing, but it's not AH:LCG. I decided to give it one last try yesterday. Played the introductory scenario as Wendy. Got the card that adds 2 to the investigation requirement on the first Mythos phase. Played Unexpected Courage, drew a -3 and failed. Cycled my deck including using the Rabbit's Foot and bonus actions from Leo, found enough cards to have another go. Drew Rune and failed. Cycled with the Foot, hit Amnesia, gave up because gently caress this lovely game. I'll give you $25 for your set.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
I don't get how you can cycle your deck once, let alone twice. Rabbit's Foot is exhausted when you use it after failing a skill check, so it's once per turn. If you investigate the Study on the first turn, there's no way it can have an attached card (you skip the Mythos phase first turn), meaning it's a 2-skill test against Wendy's base 3 plus whatever assets she has played (always mulligan if you don't start with at least 1 decent asset) plus whatever card you can boost it with, plus Wendy's ability to redraw with a discard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Forget it Jake, it's Jedit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I have no idea what game you people are playing, but it's not AH:LCG. I decided to give it one last try yesterday. Played the introductory scenario as Wendy. Got the card that adds 2 to the investigation requirement on the first Mythos phase. Played Unexpected Courage, drew a -3 and failed. Cycled my deck including using the Rabbit's Foot and bonus actions from Leo, found enough cards to have another go. Drew Rune and failed. Cycled with the Foot, hit Amnesia, gave up because gently caress this lovely game. Frankly it sounds like you got a ton of rules wrong, or simply didn't know what sort of options you had. Wendy has the best loss mitigation in the game, and it's not even close. Hell, she can investigate better while losing than some other characters can while winning thanks to cards like "Look What I Found!" Some thoughts: Wendy's Investigate value of 3 has good odds of beating the Study's value of 2 + 2 for Obscuring Fog. Without the Fog, she has excellent odds. There's an entire Investigator phase before the first Mythos phase. You could have tested against that value of 2, three different times before there was even a chance for the Fog to pop up. Sounds like maybe you spent that time playing assets (Leo, Rabbit's Foot) and gathering the resources for those assets. Doing that is risky; Investigation is how you win. Playing assets just makes it easier--to a point. Assets can't replace investigation. Once you drew the -3, you could have used Wendy's ability to discard a card (any card) to draw again. Same when you drew the "rune," whatever that means. You can commit cards from your hand to a skill check for free (before you draw from the bag) to get a bonus to the skill check equal to the number of icons on it that match the check. It doesn't cost resources to do this. An example is the Rabbit's foot. It has a ? icon, allowing you to commit it to any check from your hand for a +1 bonus to that check. This is different from playing it as an asset, which would cost you resources and let you use its printed ability but doesn't give you +1 to the check. Virtually every card can be committed this way, and you can commit any number per check. Not sure what you mean by "cycle your deck," unless you mean draw a card? I don't see how you could have possibly went through all 30 cards in your deck to cycle it. Not sure what you mean by "enough cards for another go". You don't need ANY cards to make an Investigate check. You should also start with 5 cards (and draw one each round), plus using the Foot to draw another if you fail. You should have had a ton of cards at any given time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
I really do wish FFG released a 3-4p gear pack so i dont have to waste money on another box and toss out half the cards. (For Arkham LCG) I got a chance to play it over the weekend by another person that'd played before, and right now i'm leaning towards another box due to my standard group being 3p. I just have a real sour taste over half a worthless box.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Sloober posted:I really do wish FFG released a 3-4p gear pack so i dont have to waste money on another box and toss out half the cards. (For Arkham LCG) Every player card is useful in a second core set. The only thing you're "wasting" are the encounter cards. I don't have the sets in front of me, but you could use the extra encounter cards to have multiple scenarios built at the same time. Overall, I'd say AH is one of the best value propositions as far as LCG core sets go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I have no idea what game you people are playing, but it's not AH:LCG. I decided to give it one last try yesterday. Played the introductory scenario as Wendy. Got the card that adds 2 to the investigation requirement on the first Mythos phase. Played Unexpected Courage, drew a -3 and failed. Cycled my deck including using the Rabbit's Foot and bonus actions from Leo, found enough cards to have another go. Drew Rune and failed. Cycled with the Foot, hit Amnesia, gave up because gently caress this lovely game. If you cycled your deck, there are a number of cards that would've helped you: Lucky! adds 2 to your skill check if you are about to fail. "Look what I've found" nets you 2 clues if you failed by less than 2. Flashlight lowers shroud by 2. Wendys ability lets you redraw tokens. Also, if you played the starter deck, you have a total of 9 intellect icons and 7 wild icons to use. There's a lot of stuff you can do to help a 3-against-4 test, even though you got a bad start. Surely you don't expect the game to play itself without your interaction? Edit: Lower the difficulty level is also an option, either until you've gotten a hang of things or permanently if you don't like the challenge - it's a coop game after all, not a competitive one. Zerf fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
One thing I was not aware of at first, because this is one of those rules that they buried, is that your skill can never go below zero. If you have used the flashlight and brought a shroud value down to zero, then there is pretty much only one single token that will cause you to fail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
With 2 cores you can have all the core set encounters pre built. There's very little waste with 2 cores.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
frgildan posted:With 2 cores you can have all the core set encounters pre built. There's very little waste with 2 cores. The only one you'll have to fiddle with are the two locations in scenario 2 and picking one of the random encounter groups for scenario 3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
frgildan posted:With 2 cores you can have all the core set encounters pre built. There's very little waste with 2 cores. Thanks for that great idea!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
mongol posted:Every player card is useful in a second core set. The only thing you're "wasting" are the encounter cards. I don't have the sets in front of me, but you could use the extra encounter cards to have multiple scenarios built at the same time. You don't need them, to me this makes them a waste. Yes, you can make the argument about prebuilding scenarios, but the fact remains that you are able to make them with 1 core only. So you're getting convenience there when you need the extra player deck cards for 3-4p. I'm not approaching this from the side of someone used to LCGs; i don't like extra parts that are not necessary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Zerf posted:If you cycled your deck, there are a number of cards that would've helped you: Sorry, by "cycling" I meant I was cycling through it - not going all the way, just as far and as fast as possible. I think I was able to draw 12 cards total, and I got roughly the average number of icons including both Unexpected Courages. I did play Leo for the extra action, but I didn't draw Lucky, LWIF or Flashlight - if I had I would have used them, obviously. I could have made three 3v2 checks on turn 1 if necessary, but I would have lost three draws from the Rabbit's Foot including the second UC. Getting to Act 2 on turn 1 would probably have put the Fog on the Cellar - a Fog on the Attic is something you can cope with, so I would always go to the Cellar first to reduce the risk. Having fluffed my first try with Roland due to missing a rule I went through the rules three times to make sure I wasn't missing anything this time. So far as I know difficulty was already at the easiest, but if it wasn't that's the recommended setup in the LTP book and if that's not good enough then nobody should have any confidence in the game designer to create balance. And no, I don't expect the game to play itself. I don't even expect it to be easy, as such; I know the Golden and Silver Rules of Arkham Horror. But what I also don't expect is for the game to be effectively ended by a couple of bullshit draws, and that's what AHLCG gives you far too often.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I could have made three 3v2 checks on turn 1 if necessary, but I would have lost three draws from the Rabbit's Foot including the second UC. How? The Rabbit's Foot draw is a response to losing a skill check. It's not just a draw action. Card draw is always an action you have available to you; Rabbit's Foot just means failing those skill checks isn't such a blow. And no, you wouldn't have had 3 draws - like I said earlier, it's an exhaust, so once per turn only. I'm not sure you've read the rules or cards properly. quote:But what I also don't expect is for the game to be effectively ended by a couple of bullshit draws, and that's what AHLCG gives you far too often. You've not really answered anything about not using Wendy's special ability or why you were trying to draw so many cards, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Sorry, by "cycling" I meant I was cycling through it - not going all the way, just as far and as fast as possible. I think I was able to draw 12 cards total, and I got roughly the average number of icons including both Unexpected Courages. I did play Leo for the extra action, but I didn't draw Lucky, LWIF or Flashlight - if I had I would have used them, obviously. I could have made three 3v2 checks on turn 1 if necessary, but I would have lost three draws from the Rabbit's Foot including the second UC. Getting to Act 2 on turn 1 would probably have put the Fog on the Cellar - a Fog on the Attic is something you can cope with, so I would always go to the Cellar first to reduce the risk. Having fluffed my first try with Roland due to missing a rule I went through the rules three times to make sure I wasn't missing anything this time. So far as I know difficulty was already at the easiest, but if it wasn't that's the recommended setup in the LTP book and if that's not good enough then nobody should have any confidence in the game designer to create balance. The difficulty used in the LTP book is 'standard', so they've defined an easier one if you feel like trying it out. Rabbit's Foot also exhausts FWIW, so you can only use it once per turn. Not exactly helping your case though. The thing with LCGs is that I find them a lot easier once you start building you own decks - for two reasons - First, you know the deck and are more aware of their weaknesses and what you can do about them, making the weaknesses less frustrating. Second, the starters in all LCGs are just plain bad - you'll notice once you build decks yourself. I was super-frustrated with my Wendy deck at the end of our first campaign and it was so much more fun to play a self-made Agnes deck. Are you playing with a single investigator? I haven't tried playing solo yet, but I believe the game is likely to be balanced around two players, so an alternative could be to dual-hand it for a first playthrough, since the characters can complete and help eachother, alleviating a lot of frustration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
You do not need to deckbuild to not get cockblocked by the first scenario. You have 3 actions available, and 5 cards. Some of those cards should at least be useful, or you can mulligan. The study is difficulty 2, and you need 2 clues. As Wendy that means you're +1 on skill checks by default, ignoring any cards you can spend. Given a) Wendy can discard to re-draw the token, and b) the recommended token pool, that's very good odds on your first turn. Once you add in the fog then it gets harder, but then you'll have better cards to play with, either from hand or with assets, and you only need to get lucky twice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:40
|
|