For 2-1C, we closed the standard number of locations, with no henchman at all. For 2-2C, we not only have henchmen, we have extra henchmen -- a lot of them -- and we need to close one fewer location than usual?
Is this really the intention?
I played this solo with S&S Alahazra, CD Ezren, CD Lini and Athnul. I completed the scenario in 10 turns. Something seems amiss.
I don't think defeating a summoned Faceless Stalker should permit you to close a location. And I think we should use the standard number of locations.
|
Yeah I was wondering this too. I ran the scenario a week ago in local store and several people had to check the rules that we were playing correctly. I wonder if they play tested this scenario at all or did we play it wrong?
I agree on summoned Faceless Stalker should not permit close location. We finished this scenario on turn 8 I think. The easies scenario I have played ever. I have to say it being so easy made it a bit unfun too.
Can anyone official comment on why this scenario is designed to be so easy?
Something seems to have been missed in its design.
My game group (CD Sajan, Olenjack, CD Seelah, Grazzle) defeated this in 8 turns. We only played it straight up because the Olenjack player hadn't slept well and wanted to get home.
If you want to enjoy this scenario, I suggest modifying the rules.
I'll admit, my personal preference would be for _most_ scenarios to be tougher than written. I agree that this one is a particularly easy loot run, with extra close chances and a low number of locations.
I've just put in an issue with some suggestions. That said, part of the problem is that just adding another location would require another Charmed Faceless Stalker, and we need that last one for summons, so that's probably part of how it got here.
That said, part of the problem is that just adding another location would require another Charmed Faceless Stalker, and we need that last one for summons, so that's probably part of how it got here.
You could always use Eliandra's favorite thing: PROXIES. ^_~
|
That said, part of the problem is that just adding another location would require another Charmed Faceless Stalker, and we need that last one for summons, so that's probably part of how it got here.You could always use Eliandra's favorite thing: PROXIES. ^_~
It would actually not bother me in this case because I never* play with 6 people, so I would not need to use proxies.
*Do not test me on this, Fate.
The scenario already has two non-faceless-stalker henchman. We could have added a third. Admittedly, that would have changed the overall feel for low player counts.
I think the more serious oversight was allowing a close attempt after defeating a summoned henchman.
I'm contending that not appreciating how easy this made the scenario was an oversight.
Unfortunately, the design process has a few steps where things can go not ideal. It's much easier for those to happen in OP than in the printed product. OTOH, it's a lot easier to fix OP :)
That particular style of mechanic works, IME, when you have henchmen that don't close, or if you shuffle allies into the decks instead of henchmen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoyed dropping in on a random table playing 2-2C at Origins. Nice to just be able to play with folks. Of course, I was aware of this thread's feedback when we played, and learned some things. So we'll be talking about that around the office.
It was 10 of 11. The first 10. Man, oh man, we could not roll a 1-3 to save our lives.
