At first I thought yes, true.. And then I wondered if the same logic could be applied to exploits... No offence yeah ... :)
At first I thought yes, true.. And then I wondered if the same logic could be applied to exploits... No offence yeah ... :)
I'm not saying there isn't a problem with the Lncer (though I don't think there is) - I'm saying that "the rest of my group isn't having fun while this player is using his perfectly-legal-at-this-point-in-time powers" isn't a very good argument. I've been the Oloch to a Ranzak and my first thought has never been "Hey, I only shine at support! Let's cripple the green-skinned runt!".
Besides, if I'm doing an Alain solo and *your* gaming group feelings of inadequacy get me hamstringed mid-adventure, I'd feel pretty pissed, I'd imagine.
I did have an experience with Kyra in a 4 player group that they others would keep overextending and leave themselves almost dead after explores
I would spend most of my turns giving up my explore to heal one of them.
Since I was driving across town to attend I thought this was pretty impolite behavior. Suffice to say I stopped playing after a while
Perhaps the existence of such heated debate alone on one char ability suggests that the 'fun' factor could be affected? I appreciate that the beauty of the game's design lies in variety and difference of each character. Everyone has a part to play within fair limits of balance & capability - which also leads to the engaging challenge of maximizing potential & play style.
I hope that more folk trying out this particular capability can provide additional feedback. So far it seems most have house ruled to balance it out - so while perfectly legal at the moment - seems to suggest something should be done about it.
I did have an experience with Kyra in a 4 player group that they others would keep overextending and leave themselves almost dead after explores
I would spend most of my turns giving up my explore to heal one of them.
Welcome to AD&D 1st and 2nd Edition Clerics! You are the walking first aid kit! :)
But seriously, before you left I hope you had a chance to talk with your group about how you weren't having fun playing that role for the party. It's a social issue, and ideally your group could have adapted their playstyle, changed characters, or otherwise found a way to let you be more involved in exploring on your own if that's what you wanted to do.
In the RPG I like playing support characters and I don't mind not being the focus in combat, but I want to be active in areas that suit my character. For example, my (recently retired) stereotypical Bard's combat contributions were relatively passive (numeric bonuses and situational reactions) but he was amazing in social situations.
What Parody said. We had a Meliski in our S&S OP run that would do a lot of support and was kind of underpowered in terms of fighting - and on top of that, he is pretty bad at rolling - but he would help by giving us rerolls and Cures, and on top of that I had a scout that could help him because if he couldn't encounter the top because it was unsafe, I could scout the bottom of a location and that would most likely be safe.
The difference in an RPG cleric is that I had other things I could do. Healing didn't mean I couldn't participate. Whereas with Kyra's RotR ability she is often left holding the baby
Yes I did speak up. It had gotten worse over a number of weeks and I was having fun ( nice people). I just realized I may as well not be playing as I wasn't actually playing. They can run my character if that's what her role was.
We think we've seen enough to make a change. More info soon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We think we've seen enough to make a change. More info soon.
Well, I don't know the party compositions of all those that are complaining about Lancer trivializing the game, but I'd ask when you make revisions you consider both mid- and large character count games. It was about damn time 6-player groups got a break, and now I have to sit and see it taken away for the sake of the "too easy" camp. I can only hope those same people won't get me a "Everybody makes an Acrobatics 20 check or buries their hands" barrier in the Mask of the Mummy Base Set... >:(
"Everybody makes an Acrobatics 20 check or buries their hands" barrier in the Mask of the Mummy Base Set... >:(
Haha bluddy acrobatics check.. hardly anyone suceeds on those. It's definitely difficult in wrath.. my team loves the challenge. 6p is universally difficult - we find we need to be very very careful on each turn and everyone watches each other back. One mistake could cost the game. Different from 4p we could take it easier for the first half, horse around a bit.. some small mistakes here & there... and only tighten up on focus/discipline in the second half. Which is also cool as you can see the team's concentration go up..
Or we just decide to abor, curse/laugh it off and try again...
I wish we had two more players to try out the 6p format. Without disparaging people I don't know, I think the biggest problem with a big group is the increased probability of having weak players. Each player receives less turns, but the team as a whole gets just as many turns. Outside of a blight, horde, or army, the difficulty isnt compounded by additional players. There are more blessings to throw to offset the extra cards. The reduced total turns per player means each player can play more aggressivsly. However, I haven't done 6p so this is just a thought exercise.
I also want to point out coming down to the wire isn't immediately correlated with jeopardy. Sometimes we isolate the villain, scout it to see the mechanic, and farm out the scenario while tracking the blessings deck to make sure people's hands are prepped and a designated villain slayer makes final engagement at 99%+. It's a longer but lower variance strategy.
I'm not going to beat a dead horse (Alain might whip out his Soulshears and have words) and rehash what has already been said, particularly when Mike says they've seen enough. Assume your Alain doesn't fail combat checks, judicious usage of blessings and mythic charges to overcome barriers and tricky mechanics, and holds one good armor to save a bad beat - then work out the math with blessings and how many explorations Alain needs to trivialize the blessings.
Vic asked about gameplay xp. Our handicapped Alain still makes 4 explorations per turn.
Our 4p (Alain, Adowyn, Enora, Kyra) cleared AD3 and AD4 with Alain handicapped by making his ability match Adowyn's. AD5 scenario 1 was interesting since some scenario mechanics made it harder for Alain to perform his recursion. Without that limitation, scenario 2 was very easy again.
I wish we had two more players to try out the 6p format. Without disparaging people I don't know, I think the biggest problem with a big group is the increased probability of having weak players. Each player receives less turns, but the team as a whole gets just as many turns. Outside of a blight, horde, or army, the difficulty isnt compounded by additional players. There are more blessings to throw to offset the extra cards. The reduced total turns per player means each player can play more aggressivsly. However, I haven't done 6p so this is just a thought exercise.
Here is one of the big difficulty increases for 6 players. Additional players add additional locations that need to be explored through, without additional free explores, since the blessing deck isn't increased.
This becomes most apparent in close every location scenarios: a 4 man group has 6 locations with 10 cards each. Assume you only need to on average explore through half of a pile to find the henchman and close the location. That is 30 cards worth of explores (6 locations X an average of 5 cards to explore per pile). You have 30 cards in the blessing deck, on average the provided blessings will allow you to complete the scenario with your free explores alone.
BUT a 6 man group is looking at 8 locations with 80 cards. That is on average 40 cards you need to explore through to complete the scenario. That means we need to generate 10 explores in addition to our free explores complete the scenario. That means we're expending 10 more cards as a group compared to that 4 person band, 10 cards that could go to helping succeed at checks.
If we each explored only using our free explore, we will on average fail, while a 4 person group on average will succeed.
SO, tying this into point at hand, Alain's ability to generate additional explores for a very low cost is really useful to a 6 player group since we're already behind the 8-ball when it comes to explores.
"BUT a 6 man group is looking at 8 locations with 80 cards. That is on average 40 cards you need to explore through to complete the scenario. That means we need to generate 10 explores in addition to our free explores complete the scenario. That means we're expending 10 more cards as a group compared to that 4 person band, 10 cards that could go to helping succeed at checks.
If we each explored only using our free explore, we will on average fail, while a 4 person group on average will succeed."
You don't seem to account for the fact that, as a 6 person group, you have roughly 10-12 more cards in hand (slightly more than those 10 more cards that you are expending) and forty more cards in you decks, compared to a four person party. Those resources matter.
Since I don't mind beating a dead horse until the only thing left requires the Magic trait to be defeated:
You don't seem to account for the fact that, as a 6 person group, you have roughly 10-12 more cards in hand
Arboreal Blight, Demon Horde and Armies would like a word with you.
Since I don't mind beating a dead horse until the only thing left requires the Magic trait to be defeated:
You don't seem to account for the fact that, as a 6 person group, you have roughly 10-12 more cards in handArboreal Blight, Demon Horde and Armies would like a word with you.
Those barriers have nothing to do with with Longshot11's post, and armies, in particular, are totally irrelevant to any discussion of the Lancer role (unless we get some showing up in AP6).
You don't seem to account for the fact that, as a 6 person group, you have roughly 10-12 more cards in hand (slightly more than those 10 more cards that you are expending) and forty more cards in you decks, compared to a four person party. Those resources matter.
Whether or not there are two additional hands worth of cards present to give aid doesn't change the fact that a 6 person group MUST expend resources to succeed while a 4 person group does not have to.
With your comment about 10-12 more cards in hand, I think you are referring to the one area where a 6 player group does have a marked advantage over a 4 player group; which is on single checks. On a specific check, a 6 player group is able bring a lot of resources. In a 6 player game, most bosses are an after thought. Imagine having 6 blessings to help you on that check. Since losing to a boss is very costly (another place 6 players game have it harder, more location means more cards off the blessing deck), we throw everything we can against that boss. We generally beat bosses by twice their difficulty. When you pull out all the stops, the 6 player group can go farther on a check then the 4 player group.
But for the economy of normal play, 6 players is just more difficult. In a 4 player game, you could expend cards on each other player's turn to help them succeed. Since they only need to explore on average once this would cost you 3 cards a round. A character with a hand size of 6 can still have 3 cards left over in their hand on their turn for personal use.
In a 6 player game, to give each player aid will cost you a minimum of 5 cards out of your hand. But since 6 players need to generate 10 extra explores to suceed, that means that every 3 turns a character has to explore twice on their turn. That means that you need to spend between 6 card (if you do one of the extra explores) to 7 card (other characters do the extra explores). You need to be a hand size 7 or 8 to even have cards to use on your turn.
Our hands have to go farther then they do in a 4 player game. There are 5 other people who potentially need help, compared to 3. There are two more off-turns where off-turn damage or off-turn combats can threaten your hand.
The player group size changes the game. When you lower players, it reduces the pressures of the blessing deck; that 2 player game has 40 card in the locations, that is 20 cards they need to get through on average with 30 free explores. You have time to spare! When you raise players it reduces the pressure of specific checks, like I said earlier, imagine how great it is to receive 6 blessings on a check to defeat.
Since this debate regards an exploring power, 6 player groups have a pretty big interest in it since our true nemesis isn't villains but the blessing deck. That is why 6 player groups have been vocal about not stripping Alain of his power to cheaply get explores since that is a huge boon to us. It gives us a bit of breathing room in case something goes wrong.
Alliteration - The presence of more blessings/bows/healers/support in general combined with each player taking less turns means that every player can play their turn more aggressively to explore more locations. It's a fallacy to believe that more locations is more difficulty. Solo is likely harder than 4p.
Longshot - "Outside of a blight, horde, or army, the difficulty isnt compounded by additional players." I get it, but those are problems with the blight, horde, and army - if it's even a problem. In my group, Adowyn hands out evades to people who can't handle the blight. 3/4 of the group can handle being selected twice, sometimes even three times with the horde. Armies are gone. Beyond that, there are so many barriers in the barrier deck aside from blight and horde. But sure, these banes are challenging and part of the fun of the game. Farming might help. We farmed a couple of times while we were waiting for the next adventure path to show up.
Joshua - If I'm reading you correctly, I think I agree whole-heartedly. Alain's recursion ability remains recursive even in the presence of those barriers. If the recursion is strong enough, a round of hand dump is still not going to matter in the totality of a game. The game will still be boring as Alain rides around.
Alliteration - I also want to point out that it's wrong to assume there are 20 more cards. That's only true if you play to run down every single deck. If you position yourselves, scout for the villain, and temporarily close, you have a number of extra players equal to the number of extra locations to be able to cover the temporary closing.
"But for the economy of normal play, 6 players is just more difficult. In a 4 player game, you could expend cards on each other player's turn to help them succeed. Since they only need to explore on average once this would cost you 3 cards a round. A character with a hand size of 6 can still have 3 cards left over in their hand on their turn for personal use.
In a 6 player game, to give each player aid will cost you a minimum of 5 cards out of your hand. But since 6 players need to generate 10 extra explores to suceed, that means that every 3 turns a character has to explore twice on their turn. That means that you need to spend between 6 card (if you do one of the extra explores) to 7 card (other characters do the extra explores). You need to be a hand size 7 or 8 to even have cards to use on your turn."
The math here is way off. The VAST majority of cards have the same difficulty regardless of the number of players. Increasing your group size from 4 to 6 doesn't change the number of cards you need to spend on each individual check.
You are assuming that players in a four player game expend 3 cards per check and that players in a 6 player game expend 5 cards per check. That isn't the way the game works.
Yes, the blessing deck is a much bigger problem in larger groups. But you can't talk about the challenge that posses without acknowledging that you have a greater pool of resources available in a large group and can spend them more aggressively because you have a much smaller number of draws.
Several people seem to be arguing that because that because Wrath is so hard on large groups, players need to have the Lancer being able to turn every card into an explore to succeed. I have a couple of responses.
a) If you need alain to be able to win, that suggests some fundamental issues with the design and confirms that he is out of balance with other characters.
b) Are people actually losing a lot in AP 4 and 5? I know every large group got kicked around early in the AP, but are you still having problems in the second half? Performance in the second half of the AP is the only thing that matters for evaluating lancer.
I'm personally ambivalent on the changes. Yes, Lancer is stupidly powerful because it gives ridiculous combinations of moving, healing and exploring for minimal cost. But I am not convinced that that Lancer is actually more powerful than the other ridiculous characters in the set (Andowyn and Imrijka), which makes me wonder about reducing its powers.
I think it is wrong to mix up the two following problems, which clearly exist, as is apparent from this thread:
1) WotR becomes just too difficult with 6 players compared with 3-4 players.
2) Alain's lancer power (Recharge a card to search your deck or discard pile for a card that has the Mount trait and add it to your hand) is just too good for a single power feat.
I think the right approach would be to try to resolve each of these problems independently rather than think that they just cancel each other and thus all is fine. After all, there could be 6p-parties without Alain and 3-4p parties with him!
Those barriers have nothing to do with with Longshot11's post, and armies, in particular, are totally irrelevant to any discussion of the Lancer role (unless we get some showing up in AP6).Since I don't mind beating a dead horse until the only thing left requires the Magic trait to be defeated:
You don't seem to account for the fact that, as a 6 person group, you have roughly 10-12 more cards in handArboreal Blight, Demon Horde and Armies would like a word with you.
You probably meant "Alliteration's post".
And those barriers have everything to do with the statement that a 6-person group you has 10-12 more cards to burn, when in (my experience with) WotR that is too often not the case, not to mention off-turn total hand-wipes. And everything left is usually not a resource you can 'burn', but rather cards you need to hold to, just so your character doesn't kick the bucket.
Alliteration already made the point why extra explores are crucial to 6-party, especially in a set where resource preservation is at a premium.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several people seem to be arguing that because that because Wrath is so hard on large groups, players need to have the Lancer being able to turn every card into an explore to succeed.
I ... can see why it's coming off that way.
Actually, for me, it's not so much about needing Alain to 'win', as it is about some well-deserved relief for the party, so than not every scenario is b@lls-to-wall, down-to-the-last-card hard.
What annoys me personally is that as soon as there're cries of "game too easy!" - here come the official FAQs. However, when people where complaining about cards and scenarios being absurdly difficult with 6 players - we were basically told "home-rule your game" (the AD1 before the base adventure thing) or with no response at all. It's this perceived (admittedly, maybe only by me) double standard that irks me. Then again, maybe I'm just a bad person for thinking I'm *entitled* to some fun with my game as much as the rest of the players...
I think it is wrong to mix up the two following problems, which clearly exist, as is apparent from this thread:
1) WotR becomes just too difficult with 6 players compared with 3-4 players.
2) Alain's lancer power (Recharge a card to search your deck or discard pile for a card that has the Mount trait and add it to your hand) is just too good for a single power feat.
I think the right approach would be to try to resolve each of these problems independently rather than think that they just cancel each other and thus all is fine. After all, there could be 6p-parties without Alain and 3-4p parties with him!
Agreed. It's also important to remember that characters are portable across sets, so it would be a mistake to balance character power solely based around the base set that they are printed with. Otherwise we'll end up with OP characters from hard sets that throw off the balance if used in other paths (and/or UP characters in easy sets that aren't up to par in harder ones).
(Of course, it's fine---good design, even---if characters have path-specific strength to make up for path-specific difficulty: Adowyn's "I kill summoned adds without blinking" in WotR, where a large portion of the difficulty comes in the form of brutal barrier, location, or scenario-summoned monsters, means that she's a ridiculous powerhouse in this path, but might merely be great in others where summoned monsters are less of a problem. See also: the survival skill in S&S vs. other paths, etc.)
You probably meant "Alliteration's post".
And those barriers have everything to do with the statement that a 6-person group you has 10-12 more cards to burn, when in (my experience with) WotR that is too often not the case, not to mention off-turn total hand-wipes. And everything left is usually not a resource you can 'burn', but rather cards you need to hold to, just so your character doesn't kick the bucket.
Alliteration already made the point why extra explores are crucial to 6-party, especially in a set where resource preservation is at a premium.
Apologies for mixing up my posters.
Yes, demonic hoard and arboreal blight suck, but they suck most early in the campaign when the barrier deck is smaller and the party has less tools to mitigate them (through scouting, evasion, damage reaction, etc.). how often are you seeing those cards in AP4+?
Those barriers are 6 cards in a 45 card deck. Even in AP4, which is a very barrier heavy portion of the adventure path (averaging of 12 barriers per scenario), you will only have, on average, 2 of them in your location decks. And since you don’t have to explore every card and should have some scouting ability, you shouldn’t be hitting both of them every game.
You’re making it sound like you are hitting these barriers every few turns. You should be hitting them once or twice a game. And at that level of rarity, they don’t massively skew the math of the game.
I ... can see why it's coming off that way.Actually, for me, it's not so much about needing Alain to 'win', as it is about some well-deserved relief for the party, so than not every scenario is b@lls-to-wall, down-to-the-last-card hard.
What annoys me personally is that as soon as there're cries of "game too easy!" - here come the official FAQs. However, when people where complaining about cards and scenarios being absurdly difficult with 6 players - we were basically told "home-rule your game" (the AD1 before the base adventure thing) or with no response at all. It's this perceived (admittedly, maybe only by me) double standard that irks me. Then again, maybe I'm just a bad person for thinking I'm *entitled* to some fun with my game as much as the rest of the players...
If it's any consolation, I totally agree with you that the things like elven entanglements and army card sin 6 player games need an errata.
Short term: I don't think Alain needs to be errataed. If he's too powerful, there are ways to handicap him already via house rules.
Long term: He definitely needs to be errataed. Some day in the future, Cavalier's will be legal for OP. Once that happens, you can't have a Cavalier who will dominate the game and ruin the fun in OP (where you can't house rule things).
If you don't like the nerf that happens, keep playing him as written originally. It's your game. You don't have to adopt any errata that you don't enjoy. But Guild players will not have the option to change his powers from whatever the final wording is, so that power needs to be more in-line with the average power and not something that takes all of the explores and closes multiple locations in one turn. Radillo was less exploitable than this and she had to be errataed as well.
But Guild players will not have the option to change his powers from whatever the final wording is, so that power needs to be more in-line with the average power and not something that takes all of the explores
I don't mean to argue, but I'm genuinely curious: does that mean Ranzak is illegal in OP ?
I don't mean to argue, but I'm genuinely curious: does that mean Ranzak is illegal in OP ?
As far as I know, Ranzak is illegal in organized play. At least, until we get a goblin deck or some specific scenario rewards allow you to play him.
But Guild players will not have the option to change his powers from whatever the final wording is, so that power needs to be more in-line with the average power and not something that takes all of the exploresI don't mean to argue, but I'm genuinely curious: does that mean Ranzak is illegal in OP ?
Yes, but not because of his power-level, purely because there's no class deck to play him with.
But Guild players will not have the option to change his powers from whatever the final wording is, so that power needs to be more in-line with the average power and not something that takes all of the explores and closes multiple locations in one turn. Radillo was less exploitable than this and she had to be errataed as well.
A quibble: pre-errata Radillo could fully scout, loot, and stack locations with zero risk and zero resource cost, fast enough to guarantee that the blessing clock would never be a problem. Regardless of where one stands on the acceptability of Lancer Alain's power level, it is markedly lower than the 'is-this-even-still-a-game' nature of Radillo (he needs party resources to really go crazy, and has to encounter the banes in a location, rather than just getting all the boons and then putting the henchman/villain on the top).
Alain takes very little risk when doing his explores, he is a boss a combat, and his recharge for mounts works as a heal/ablative armor. I always recharge for full mounts before an explore obviously there are things in the game the create problems for him but they are far enough and few enough I can't say i fell concerned. We haven't played Radillo, I assume he is a class deck character.
Vic and Mike one of the things we are discussing in our group is to make his mount retrieval once per turn for as many as you would like. Something along the lines of Once per turn recharge as many cards as would would like and retrieve up to that many cards with the mount characteristic from your discard or deck.
Slappy, we thought about "once per turn per card." However, we thought there was a conflict between that and cards not having memory.They cards don't know they've been pulled or not. They're just cards.
How did you get Enora up to 15 charges, anyways? It's pretty easy to get a couple over 5, but getting up to 15 is impressive.
I'm guessing 2 mythic marshals in the party...
And probably counting it as transferring all 5 charges, rather than just 1. Okay, yeah, that'd do it.
And probably counting it as transferring all 5 charges, rather than just 1. Okay, yeah, that'd do it.
If a Mythic Marshal performs their 5-charge-special-action, doesn't it allow them to give 5 charges away? I don't have the card in front of me.
Yes, since you can distribute it all to 1 person. You have to do that at the time of an encounter though (which is fine for the Baphomet encounter).
So we tested out the once per turn last night, and it really overly gimped Alain. What ended up happening is because you had to go get all your mounts at once it diminished his ability to handle anything but a very basic combat. I am not sure what the solution is but ours was a pretty big failure. We went back to RAW and other than scenario 5-3 we still would crush the scenario pretty good, we did have our enora destroy Baphomet quite handily on all 3 checks with 15 mythic charges and 14 d20 total on the last roll. Poor Baphomet never saw it coming.
Could you share with the boards what weapon Alain is using along with a qualitative description of the # of blessings selected as card feats (as few as possible, a couple, balanced, almost maxed, as many as possible)?
We use the limitation of "at the start of your turn" for Alain's fetch ability. He usually gets 3-4 explorations with 3 mounts in his deck. Hand size 6, Soulshears, Donahan, an armor or whatever else is an armor isn't available, and the 3 mounts. Every member of our 4p team has as many blessings as possible w/ the kicker being Kyra containing 8, one of which is her iconic blessing that allows her to play two blessings in a single check.
Yes, since you can distribute it all to 1 person. You have to do that at the time of an encounter though (which is fine for the Baphomet encounter).
Hum... that's tricky, you have to be able to give 10 charges to Enora between two of her turns knowing you can only give one charge at a time (one per check), and you need to be able to regain one charge (e. g. blessing or defeating mythic banes) between each of these checks because you need to get back to 5 to be able to give one again.
Doable, but needs a lot of hand optimization and location deck scouting to trigger.
Yes, since you can distribute it all to 1 person. You have to do that at the time of an encounter though (which is fine for the Baphomet encounter).Hum... that's tricky, you have to be able to give 10 charges to Enora between two of her turns knowing you can only give one charge at a time (one per check), and you need to be able to regain one charge (e. g. blessing or defeating mythic banes) between each of these checks because you need to get back to 5 to be able to give one again.
Doable, but needs a lot of hand optimization and location deck scouting to trigger.
zeroth_hour is talking about the Marshall's "ultimate ability" where he spends all 5 counters at once and distributes them among other players (in this case - giving them all to Enora). With two Marshalls that's 10 instant counters upon a single character, no checks or hand-optimization needed.
You don't seem to account for the fact that, as a 6 person group, you have roughly 10-12 more cards in hand (slightly more than those 10 more cards that you are expending) and forty more cards in you decks, compared to a four person party. Those resources matter.But for the economy of normal play, 6 players is just more difficult.
I'm glad someone else understands the math behind this. I just wish the game developers did. Even if math isn't their thing, playtesting at 6 players would have revealed this. I have a feeling playtesting was done primarily with 4 players since several mechanics (such as the number of blessings in the blessing deck, barriers such as Arboreal Blight and Demonic Horde, and Armies) are markedly more difficulty at 6 players as compared to 4.
I keep having to make small rules adjustments for my 6-player group to properly scale the difficulty comparable to a 4-player game.
You don't seem to account for the fact that, as a 6 person group, you have roughly 10-12 more cards in hand (slightly more than those 10 more cards that you are expending) and forty more cards in you decks, compared to a four person party. Those resources matter.But for the economy of normal play, 6 players is just more difficult.I'm glad someone else understands the math behind this. I just wish the game developers did. Even if math isn't their thing, playtesting at 6 players would have revealed this. I have a feeling playtesting was done primarily with 4 players since several mechanics (such as the number of blessings in the blessing deck, barriers such as Arboreal Blight and Demonic Horde, and Armies) are markedly more difficulty at 6 players as compared to 4.
I keep having to make small rules adjustments for my 6-player group to properly scale the difficulty comparable to a 4-player game.
The "spreader banes" change all the math for larger groups. Although you have more resources on table you have higher chance the encounter a spreader (more locations) and when you do encounter them you have to use more resources to try and defeat. Add in locations that scale with number of characters eg abbotoir and that really kicks larger parties. Makes me really glad we only play 4 players!
200th post! 5-3 tonight. Donahan- mount up!