Saving 30 seconds of clean-up... by spending 30 more seconds of in-game time doing it. That's rather funny, I mean:
Another thing making the game faster:
Am I the only one who finds this kind of... contradictory? "Interrupting your game to make recharge checks? Absolutely inefficient, let's make a new rule about that! Interrupting your game to banish locations? So efficient, let's make a new rule about that!"
Also, I'm really not seeing what's better about "instead of rolling for your check, you can choose to take 0 (which is a failure)" rather than "instead of rolling for your check, you can choose to not roll and count it as a failure". You still "take the time to decide" between taking 0 or rolling the dice...
Don't get me wrong, I liked the blog post as a whole, informative and interesting, and I'm sure that games with the new Core will be overall faster than the previous sets; but it shows how you can turn anything into a positive by putting the right spin on it, even contradictory statements and non-changes...
Regarding win-loss ratio in coop games: to me, there's a HUGE difference between a one-off game and a campaign game.
For one-off games, like Pandemic, Spirit Island, and The Mind, having a low success rate is all right, and can even be a feature. I play these games for the challenge first and foremost*.
But for campaign games, like Gloomhaven, Sword & Sorcery, and PACG, my main reason to play is to experience the story and character progression. I don't want to have to replay every scenario two or three times to win it, especially since playing a complete campaign is already a big time investment, and having to replay scenario feels like a waste of time. I'm completely fine with having a success rate of 100% (or almost) for campaign games.
Regardless of the type of game, I still want my choices to matter: to me, no game can justify a turn 2 loss due to randomness with no player agency!
*Obviously, the actual first and foremost reason to play coop games in general is for the camaraderie and fun!
We don't know how much space a scenario takes up.
Mike mentions that each scenario is a two-page spread. So, for Core, if the pictured scenario 0 really starts on page 6, that would mean a maximum of 9 scenarios for the 24-page storybook. For Curse, if the first scenario is on page 2, that's a maximum of 23 scenarios for the 48-page storybook.
I'll have to admit, being used to 30+ scenario APs, this (seemingly?) low number of scenarios has me a bit worried. Still, I'm reserving final judgment until I get the actual products/ official confirmation.
I can't help but notice that a lot of cards previewed in this blog use the names and images of existing cards, but they all have different powers to the original in some way. How does that fit with the previously-mentioned design policy that cards with differing powers should be uniquely named? Will it be possible for players to have two cards in hand with the same name but differing powers, or will there be errata released for a lot of older cards to bring them in line with the Core version?
I feel the latter could be problematic for Organized Play? (-"A Wisdom check, I'll play my Sage to add 1d6." -"Sorry, the Sage can't do that anymore." -"In that case, I'll play my Teamster to add 1d6." -"Sorry, the Teamster doesn't do that anymore either. Didn't you bring and read the mandatory 250-page errata along with your 110-card Class Deck?")
The way my group plays these cards, if you aren't required to "do an action" with the displayed card (recharge, discard, etc.), displaying it and immediately using an optional power counts as a single "use" of the card, so can be done in response to a situation.
So, Winds of Vengeance, Fire Shield, Chalice of Ozem, and Sphere of Fire could all be displayed and used immediately. Since the Brutalized Flesh Golem requires a recharge, it could not.
Another example would be the Hunter Class Deck Cohort, Pygmy Ankylosaur, which has both of these powers:
-While displayed, you may reduce all damage dealt to you by 1.
So we would allow a player to display and use the first power in response to taking damage, but not the second power.
Card layout-wise, I really feel the "hour" and the "traits" locations on the cards should have been switched. Now, when holding a hand of cards, the traits will be mostly hidden.
Also seems like there's more "unused" space on the card. I hope the size of the text in the Powers box won't be smaller than on the current cards.
Mike Selinker wrote:
What about WotR Seelah's Wardstone Sentry power, "When another character encounters a monster that has the Cultist or Demon trait, you may immediately move to his location."? Should that be changed to "flip over", or can you temp close your location then move to the villain's location if it has one of those two traits?