General chatter - discuss anything here

[Exit Chamber]

15 hours ago, LaParka said:

I have a love hate relationship with BGG. It's such a treasure trove of information and yet people on the forums can be right twats. 

 

I posted a quick question about a rule. All I wanted was a quick confirmation about how I was playing it and someone went out of their way to type 

 

 

Twat 

 

Fucking prick. Honestly, why do people bother with that shit?

[Kzo]

15 hours ago, LaParka said:

 

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1795492/workers-placed-cars-market

 

I'm lonely luchadore, I could do with some chums on bgg

 

I'm fairly new to BGG, is there a way to add / follow other users?

 

Nothing worse than those oh-so-superior passive aggressive types. I'd much prefer "read the rules you silly cunt".

[Stejay]

41 minutes ago, Kzo said:

Nothing worse than those oh-so-superior passive aggressive types. I'd much prefer "read the rules you silly cunt".

 

AKA the RLLMUK method. 

[Pelekophoros]

The criticism is bunkum anyway. It insinuates that rulebooks are well written, well laid out, easy to digest, easy to process and that everyone is capable of consuming information in the same way. We know, even from just picking up random Fantasy Flight rulebooks, this is not the case.

 

What a dickhead. 

[Mortis]

Christ I've had space hulk death angel for ages and if it hadn't been for BGG fan made rule sheets I'd never have deciphered the rules. 

[MalevolentPanda]

Shark: not optional.

[Alex W.]

Quick LCG question - I had a go with the Arkham Horror Card Game set on the assumption that it's basically a complete game with expansions, but there's a lot of griping online about needing two copies of each product to have a full "set" of each. If I don't want to feng shui the deck and I'm mostly going to try to co-op my way through the scenarios is this really an issue?

 

Damn do I like these big big stacks of cards though. I haven't built a deck in earnest since the Star Trek TNG CCG by Decipher. 

[Benny]

I think you only really need 2 core sets if you want to play with 4 players. As for the expansions you only need one of each to continue the story in each cycle.

[Hexx]

35 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

Quick LCG question - I had a go with the Arkham Horror Card Game set on the assumption that it's basically a complete game with expansions, but there's a lot of griping online about needing two copies of each product to have a full "set" of each. If I don't want to feng shui the deck and I'm mostly going to try to co-op my way through the scenarios is this really an issue?

 

Damn do I like these big big stacks of cards though. I haven't built a deck in earnest since the Star Trek TNG CCG by Decipher. 

 

Assuming you mean the core set - it's enough for 2.

 

The suggested basic builds in the booklet with you will tell you how to build most combos (but kot every combo).

 

If you want 3-4 you'll need 2 core sets (well actually about 1/3 of the cards in box) to make enough viable working decks. 

 

Not sure how it works with expacs. The Dunwich cycle main and myriad packs includes player cards but I think it'd depend on how you build your decks.

 

I know people playing as duos and they've only needed one of everything. People who've 4ed seem to have survived with 2 cores and one of everything else. Couldn't tell you their decks though.

 

The standalone (Carnvial and Ragarou) should be fine.

 

[Alex W.]

OK, so it sounds like unless I want to play with more people, it should be fine. Some people online seem super mad that there's not quite enough cards to have two players have access to every possible combination but I guess that's just anxiety about optimisation. It's complicated enough that I can't imagine doing a 4-player game with people who didn't already have their own set anyway.

[revlob]

11 hours ago, Alex W. said:

OK, so it sounds like unless I want to play with more people, it should be fine. Some people online seem super mad that there's not quite enough cards to have two players have access to every possible combination but I guess that's just anxiety about optimisation. It's complicated enough that I can't imagine doing a 4-player game with people who didn't already have their own set anyway.

 

I don't know the specific deckbuilding rules for AH, but every other LCG from Fantasy Flight is like this. You're restricted to X copies of any given card in a single (tournament legal) deck, but you'll only receive X-1 or X-2 copies of some cards in a single core set.

 

Netrunner for example, allows you three copies of a given card in a deck (with a few exceptions), but you only get one or two copies of certain cards in the box. It doesn't really matter unless you're playing in competitive tournaments, where having the full three copies of particular cards might give your deck a slightly higher win percentage versus decks with only two. At that level of play you'll probably have multiple sets anyway, so you have enough cards to keep multiple decks constructed at the same time.

 

It's a "problem" which becomes less of an issue over time, as expansions grow the card pool, and players become less reliant on core set cards.

 

Cynics believe it's a tactic to "force" you to buy multiple core sets, I believe it's more likely that their margins only allow them a certain quantity of cards in a box, and they'd prefer a greater variety than a uniform distribution.

 

I don't think it's as much of an issue with a cooperative game? The Lord of the Rings (FFG's other co-op LCG) comes with cards and components for two players. You can buy multiple core sets to get more Gandalfs and/or the dials you need for four players, but technically you could create four decks from the contents of a single box and use counters to replace the dials if you wanted. Also, every LotR core set comes with another deck of encounter cards, having multiples of which is useless. I suspect AH is similar, making owning multiple core sets pretty silly, unless you have very specific reasons for doing so.

[Hexx]

8 hours ago, Alex W. said:

OK, so it sounds like unless I want to play with more people, it should be fine. Some people online seem super mad that there's not quite enough cards to have two players have access to every possible combination but I guess that's just anxiety about optimisation. It's complicated enough that I can't imagine doing a 4-player game with people who didn't already have their own set anyway.

 

It's annoying - but I've had absolutely no problems solo (and I've heard of no problems of people duoing unless they're absolutely uncompromising...but that same would apply if they both want to be one character :P)

 

Basically in the box there's a mixture of 5 character/class card groups and then neutral asset cards group to build decks (and the all the monster/encounter cards for the scenario).

 

When you build a deck you'll (keeping it simple) use one of the classes and some neutral cards.

 

But most neutral cards only have 2 copies in there, so you can only make 2 decks. (And sometimes not every combo. e.g. the red and blue classes basic suggested decks might both want 2 of a certain neutral card, but you only have 2 so the red/blue combo isn't possible based on the basic suggested decklist, custom decks might be)

 

But if you want to make a 4 player game you have to rebuy the entire thing (the duplicate 5 character/class groups will be largely redundant and all the monster/encounter cards are completely wasted duplicates) making it an expensive purchase for a small amount of needed cards. It's this that seems to upset larger groups. If there was a neutral card "top up" pack I don't think so many would mind (although FFG would make less money)

 

(it's actually a bit more complicated as classes can borrow some basic cards from other classes, further distorting the build options due to limited card numbers...e.g. a blue deck might use 5 red cards, so the red deck now can't be built, meaning not blue/red combo, just blue & green/yellow/purple)

If you buy the Dunwich you get 5 new investigators (that fit into existing classes) and some new class cards which give a few more combos - but they all still rely largely on some of the basic sets (e.g. if you just buy Dunwich alone you won't be able to make a single viable deck)

 

It sounds restrictive, but to be honest for up to two there's good range of deck combos. You (and chum?) might just need to be a little flexible on you both might not get your first choice of character. You definitely won't both be able to be the same class (e.g. Mystic/Purple. Even if you have Dunwich/Core you won't be able to make 2 decks of the same class that are really viable since both need so many of the purple cards)

 

Here's a full list of the basic suggested decks that can combo with 1 core and 1 Dunwich

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qp7TbMvtLAnVvQuD9lQcCAOJhT8s8A_gmUWRPQFmJzo/pubhtml?gid=0&single=true

 

Are you duoing/solo? And just core or Dunwich?

 

 

[Alex W.]

Duoing with core, and if it goes well eventually Dunwich and the other scenarios in that cycle. Sounds like it won't be too much of an issue, thanks both!

[Hexx]

14 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

Duoing with core, and if it goes well eventually Dunwich and the other scenarios in that cycle. Sounds like it won't be too much of an issue, thanks both!

 

Here's FFG's starter deck list for the core (I think a couple might be in the learn to play guide as well) and bit of explanation of who the characters are/how they play.

 

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/c0/87/c087e26e-c6d6-4533-ba2e-2b97b3f05917/ahc_decklists_v20_web.pdf

 

"Using the contents of only a single copy of the core set, up to two of these starter decks may be built at the same time, in the following combinations: Roland and Agnes, Roland and Wendy, Daisy and Skids, Daisy and Wendy, or Agnes and Skids"

 

Any of those combos could be good but I'd suggest not Daisy and Wendy on your first try,

 

There's a similar list of combos for the Dunwich lot later on (but annoyingly not a mixed list, which is where the Google Doc I posted helps :))

 

 

[SimonC]

1 hour ago, Alex W. said:

Duoing with core, and if it goes well eventually Dunwich and the other scenarios in that cycle. Sounds like it won't be too much of an issue, thanks both!

 

It will totally be a non issue. I've played the core set through with a friend and it didn't bother us at all. You probably want to play two characters with different strengths in any case which means you will want different cards in those two decks.

 

The final card pack in the first cycle comes out this week. We've held off playing Dunwich until all the cards are out so we can build characters from all the cards in the cycle. Really looking forward to getting stuck into this again!

[Hexx]

4 minutes ago, SimonC said:

 

It will totally be a non issue. I've played the core set through with a friend and it didn't bother us at all. You probably want to play two characters with different strengths in any case which means you will want different cards in those two decks.

 

The final card pack in the first cycle comes out this week. We've held off playing Dunwich until all the cards are out so we can build characters from all the cards in the cycle. Really looking forward to getting stuck into this again!

 

Oh bonza! is that this week? I've had it pre-ordered for ages.

 

The new cycle can't be far off.

 

I've played as they've come out, and there's been a nice power progression. I don't think you've actually gained much holding off. A lot of the pack cards/upgrades you get are level 1+ cards.

 

My Ashcan Pete is redonculous now (on a low difficulty :P). He's a beast solo as it is, but he's now using his army of allies as meat shields left, right and center.

 

 

 

He even found time to run off to Rogarou and the Carnvial in his campaign.

 

With mixed results

 

 

 

 

 

[SimonC]

Yeah I expect we haven't gained much either but it will be nice to binge on it over the next few weeks! 

[Hexx]

Far enough - I've liked all the scenarios (bar 1) as they all do things different mechanically - unlike the core stuff which is largely a clue hunt.

 

I'll prob do a run through all of it with a different character. But Pete's SOOOOO good.

 

 

 

[LaParka]

Anyone been to any conventions other than the UK Expo? Going to Stabcon on Sunday. If one of the guys hadn't mentioned it I wouldn't have known it was on, info seems pretty sparse. 

[LaParka]

I read a lot blogs and forums about rulebooks and how best to lay them out and the type of language used. A lot of companies are now looking for gender neutral examples, which I think is a good thing. Subconsciously a lot of the older rules I have say 'he' and 'his' a lot and it's been shifting towards 'they' and 'their'.

 

Reason for the post is that I've just got a game (Wordsy) which is gender neutral throughout but also has a physically disabled variant added to the rules. In the game there's an element of being the quickest player and grabbing a sand timer. This variant eliminates the need to grab the timer and instead a different set of criteria is used for becoming the sand timer holder. Really impressed that this was considered and so more people can enjoy these games. 

[Alex W.]

So, as mentioned before, I got Arkham Horror the card game last weekend. We've just gone through the first scenario and lost. I wasn't expecting so many role playing aspects which is kind of new to both of us. It's an interesting system though.

[Hexx]

On 08/07/2017 at 22:17, Alex W. said:

So, as mentioned before, I got Arkham Horror the card game last weekend. We've just gone through the first scenario and lost. I wasn't expecting so many role playing aspects which is kind of new to both of us. It's an interesting system though.

 

How far did you get?

 

There's 3 scenarios in the box/campaign.

 

 

[Alex W.]

We managed to get into the parlour and run into the "boss" but it all went sideways at that point.

[Hexx]

2 hours ago, Alex W. said:

We managed to get into the parlour and run into the "boss" but it all went sideways at that point.

Him ok. I think the best tip I could give you

 

Try to Parley with Lita

[Alex W.]

That's what we were trying to do.

 

I think we'll play through this a couple of times before we try Dunwich, probably with the other investigator pairs. 

[Kzo]

Any opinions on Gloom of Kilforth? I have it sitting under my desk at work, but am considering selling it on.

 

I bought it as I liked the artwork and theme. I think I would only play the game solo. Reading reviews it sounds a bit similar to Eldritch Horror, which I am not a fan of. Let me know if this is wrong.

 

Is difficulty tied mainly to dice rolls, or are there tactical decisions to make, card combos to play etc?

 

Also interested to hear opinions on replayability.

[michael]

It is Not That Good. I played it last week and was very unimpressed. It was quite boring, the rulebook was messy and unclear, and we'd played four turns in just under three hours. Progression was iceberg-slow and not a lot of fun. However, the guy who owned it swears that the solo mode is good, so it may be grand for you. There's lots of dice rolls, yes, but they can be mitigated. Personally, I'd go Eldritch Horror over it.

[Hexx]

17 hours ago, Alex W. said:

That's what we were trying to do.

 

I think we'll play through this a couple of times before we try Dunwich, probably with the other investigator pairs. 

 

Alright thought you might have been a bit gung ho and trying to kill the Priest.

 

Can't you just do a runner on that scenario to advance? I can't recall.

 

Also - maybe turn the difficulty down?

 

What's the opinion on Exploding Kittens. One of the few Prime Day game sales...

[Alex W.]

There's actually a fork in the scenario if you lose which is nice!

[Hexx]

36 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

There's actually a fork in the scenario if you lose which is nice!

 

Yeah most scenarios tend to have different resolutions which carry over to future scenarios int he campaign (sometimes just story, sometimes mechanics, sometimes difficulty related)

 

There are some where some resolutions are death/game over though