JerusalemJones said:

Heh...  If you really wanted handicaps I could have made the entire investigator pool three movement characters ;')

I guess the one thing I'm concerned about is it sounds like some of your players were getting disheartened and are considering quitting (and I was thinking if they think it's hard now, dear god, they're going to be screaming bloody murder soon).

The investigator pools will be challenging enough (and no, at no time will Patrice or Hank be used).  Heh...  I still haven't heard a word of feedback on the second scenario from anyone (other than myself-- I thought it was hard!)

I'll be playtesting the third scenario soon.  I'm looking forward to it (I've never used the custom components for it before), and while it's very convoluted, it should be challenging (and I want to write its plot).

Also, an early ally purchase isn't that useful for this investigator pool (since none of them can carry over their allies).  There'll be one investigator with an ally in the second group of scenarios, the third group of scenarios, and the fourth group of scenarios though (I think).

The first scenario was designed to be relatively easy (well, by my definition of easy apparently), so that players would have a chance to stockpile some good items for scenario two (which is when the scenarios *really* start).  Perhaps your players are underestimating the difficulty of these scenarios.  They shouldn't :')  This is no FFG league.  They need to arm up, play hard, and lock and load.  The closest thing each set of scenarios has to an easy scenario will be the first one of each series (but as you're seeing now, even the first scenario in a set is somewhat challenging).

I suggest your group try to make these games as easy as possible ;'D they still won't be easy.  I guarantee it (when I look at the last scenario design, my blood runs cold and I am filled with a strange mixture of pleasure and panic).

In my game, I actually blocked a curse with Wendy's Elder sign :'D I was so happy when that happened.

Avi_dreader said:

We did the same.

JerusalemJones said:

::Laughter::

I'm tempted to say something about this, but I can restrain myself for a month ;') I think.

 ::Gulp:: I playtested the third scenario tonight...  It was somewhat disasterous (although I think partially it was the result of my stupidity for not thinking through my strategy properly, and partially bad luck— I can't fully explain it without spoilers, first I got a gate on Jaqueline on the second turn (when I'd just gotten her four clues— then I got Mary devoured when she had more than half my money, and two of my best items on her)...  All on the second turn.  I decided to tweak the altered game parameter's a bit (not that that's what caused my disaster— it's just the more I thought about it, the more potentially problematic I decided an aspect of the scenario design was).  It has an interesting corruption mechanic :') but you'll see it on Friday.  I can think of several strategies teams could potentially play against this scenario, it's fairly complex (it might be one of the most complex in the entire twenty four), but I think it's fairly interesting, so, I hope you don't throw your boards at me for making it :')

I have to admit, I'm a little worried about the difficulty on this one...  It almost feels like Quachill/Ghatanatoa mixed with Hastur and a short doom track.  It's...  Not though.  It's very unpleasant...  I like it :')  

I'll weaken it a bit though— I'm worried about the instant devourings (I could get around it with my size team, but I'm worried it'd decimate an 8 player team extremely rapidly)...  Heh...  Okay, I've done something to fix it a bit :') I'll still be quite nasty, but not quite as immediately game ending for large teams.

 @Jerusalem Jones

How are your games coming along?  Have you made it to the second scenario yet?

 Hrm...  Okay, I just finished writing the bi-weekly story and playtested the third scenario and...  I'm going to make it a little easier than I would have liked, but, eh, it should still be somewhat challenging (I'm throwing in an optional Visions as a starting item, I got it randomly with Jacqueline and thought it would be appropriate in terms of plot— and mechanically, I'm worried that the game might be a bit tough without it, it'd still be doable, but it would require a bit more luck than some people are comfortable with).

I hope you guys like corruptions :') because we're going to see some this Friday.  I got five in my game.  And it's very conceivable that you'll get into the red corruption pile (or burn though all the corruptions).  It depends on how you play really.

Well, let see how it goes. I haven't played the first one yet. :-( But will do soon hopefully. :-)

amikezor said:

Heh :') well, the sooner the better (sure, why not).

I'm looking forward to showing next week's scenario mechanic.  I think the abstraction principle behind it is fairly useful.  Having something on the board that distributes things and has some negative penalty for removing it from the board.

The concrete example you'll see on Friday :') (or Thursday night really).

Sooo...  I'm just curious...  Is *anyone* up to schedule?  If not, I can make the release tri-weekly (which would make it easier for me too).

Avi_dreader said:

Not even started Scenario 1, yet... no time... 5 weeks without playing AH... so sad  ::crying::

You know Avi,

I think every three weeks would be much better for me. Like Julia, I have not started the scenario 1 (but have printed all the components :-). Though if people are really pushing for bi-weekly that is OK since we can go our own paste.

 Alright Jerusalem Jones, it's all up to you.  Bi or tri-weekly?

 Posted :'D

Okay, tell me what you think of the Corruption distribution mechanic.

 I finally managed to play the first scenario. It was very fun, even though I lost by a bit. The game started really badly (the doom track was at 5 before I did anything :-), but I finally managed the game almost through but lost by a bit (unexpectedly LiTaS while I was suppose to seal the last one).

I played it with 4 investigators and it was the right size (Sister Mary, Yorrick, Dexter Drake and Zoe, the cook). I played with Innsmouth only (I do not like games with many boards) but I think that is OK, right ?

Several minor questions popped out during the game.

First, the handcuffs, Yorrick started with some. Since nothing was mentioned about them, I jailed the first vampire-cultist and another one later in the game.

I am not clear on what are the cultist/maniacs "basic statistics" ? Does this include the awareness ? does this include physical resistance ? Do maniac loss their ability about terror ? I did not find particularly easy to always look for Dracula to check the cultist stats. (though it is a minor trouble :-)).

All in all, it is challenging and fun but doable. In a typical game it will be less of a bad start :-). I will certainly give it a second shot (maybe next week ?). If I loose again, I will move to the next.

On another tone. What about making Dracula a Herald rather than an AO ? (I liked very much the powerfull flying vampire, but had the feeling of a nasty bastard and not so much of a cosmic entity that wait in the dark to devour the eart :o)

amikezor said:

Heh...  You can't use the Handcuffs.  There are no cultists in that game, just Vampires.  I only used the phrase vampire-cultists to differentiate between proxy vampires and Dracula.  I'll add an extra bit to the clarification though.  Why should it be difficult to check the vampire for stats?  Instead of checking a cultist/maniac/whatever for its stats, just look at the Vampire instead (those exact stats and name on the front and back of it are the stats and name on the lesser vampires).

You can play just one board if you want.  Hell :') you can even skip scenarios or preitems of any type you want, if you want ;'D I won't break down your door screaming "FREEZE, ARKHAM POLICE!" Or will I?  

Making your one board Innsmouth will probably make the game more difficult, making it Dunwich will probably make it easier.  I should warn you, I haven't playtested with one board, so if it's buggy— too easy or too hard, don't blame me :')  Both boards gives you a higher gate limit, and a 5th investigator without raising monsters from gates to two.  (I'd go for Innsmouth if you only want to play one board), but some of the scenarios will require Dunwich (there are a few that start off with monsters or gates there).  Actually, I think the second scenario will be more difficult if you only play Dunwich (and Dunwich is required for it).

I'm shocked you didn't use Wendy (she's one of the best investigators— I didn't make her mandatory in the first investigator pool, but I have to admit, I didn't think anyone wouldn't use her).  I think if you were playing the vampires properly you would have been massacred :')

::Sigh:: the real problem is I ought to have carefully re-written Dracula's cultist modification before doing the scenario.  Instead I got lazy and tried to take care of it in a clarification.  Oh well.  Too late now.

Clearly everyone else playing these scenarios is braver than me ;') because I always use Jacqueline.  Apparently I'm more scared of myself than you guys are ;'D

Just curious, what was your rationale for using Dexter instead of Carolyn?

----

Heh...  I can't wait to test scenario 4.  I'm quite pleased with it.  I might end up releasing it in two weeks instead of three weeks (if I don't feel pressed for time), just so I can talk about it sooner ;'D