Most Hated Villain?

Games Sentinels of the Multiverse
#21

Yep all aboard the Spite hate train. Its the exact same game every time waiting for him to flip. Flipping him not only makes him stop playing his own deck but his drugs that destroy the environment every turn basically means those two decks dont see any play at all. Very boring to fight against, worse yet I brought Sentinels to a friends place, there were like 7 or 8 people there so we split into two groups and the group I wasn't in decided to play against Spite. The new players pretty much came away from their game thinking it was a stupid game.

 

Tried to tell them otherwise but it was too late. I'm not even keeping Spite with the rest of my set anymore, he's a liability to new players.

#22

Just hide the original Spite, and claim that GloomSpite is the only Spite!

 

(I haven't actually played against GloomSpite yet, so I don't know what he's like)

#23

GloomSpite is somewhat questionable thematically (in that saving victims actually hurts you) but certainly reduces the sameyness feel that the original has.

 

#24

I don't mind GloomSpite.

We once had 6 players and so I volunteered to run the villain and environment (that actually didn't happen because the people who were actually playing kept jumping in and doing villain/environment things, leaving me with absolutely nothing to do, but that's another story). Two people were new, one inexperienced, one moderately experienced. We randomised Spite.

It didn't go well. The game dragged on forever, with the newer players entirely confused by all the triggers and effects and by having to basically weather the storm waiting for the drugs to turn up and trying not to die. I completely lost interest and although the players politely played on it was obvious no-one was having fun.

it's a shame, because I think Spite's thematically very interesting. Unfortunately he's mechanically somewhat dull.

#25

I completely agree Silverleaf and I think it also has to do with the fact that even rescuing the Victims, literally the one major interaction his deck has is rendered completely irrelevent by forced entry. Sure you could save them, but he busts into the safe house and everyone is immediately back on the field. So whats the point? He's going to kill them anyway, cant feasibly stop em. 

I wish Spite was more interesting to fight, because yeah hes got a cool theme, but my god is it boring to fight.

#26

Nothing against folks who don't mind Miss Information, but it seems like there are a lot of asterisks attached to a fun game against her.  Three hero game with deck manipulation practically guarantees a team with Parse, Wraith, Visionary, etc.

Possibly all three at once, in fact...

#27

Maybe forced entry could be houseruled and modified to include a cruel choice for heroes. Simenon like immediately destroy/discard this card if all heroes discard their hands. (Big damage or non caracter card destruction would also be options that could be considered.

#28

Wager Master is awesome thematically, but I don't see myself running against him very often.  And the biggest reason is that WM introduces the most randomness out of any other Sentinels villain, and I personally don't find pure randomness too fun.  Does it have an amazing theme, though?  Absolutely.

#29

LaCapitan is a kind of a hit or miss for me. I had two or three games in a row that ended with the boat out, her entire crew out, and her at full HP. We kept killing things only to have them brought back the next turn. I've mellowed out against her, but it was hard not to hate her for a bit.

#30

 

Well, I prefer to have some deck manipulation but does it matter either way? When I play Akash Bhuta I like to take along heroes that have a long setup as it gives me time to explore those decks more fully and simply pummelling her with Ra and Knyfe is effective but monotonous. Similar to taking on Iron Legacy without any access to Ongoing destruction, there's nothing inherently wrong without it but the game is more fun, more engaging, if you bring some along with you. Many villains provide a beter playing experience with a particular spectrum of heroes, some moreso than others.

If you only ever played Miss Information with deck manipulation but in doing so you enjoyed the game against her, would that really be a problem?

#31

I would say that it seems like there are a lot of asterisks attached to a fun game against her.

By all means people should play the game how they want to play it.  I'm not making any claims about something being good or bad.  It just isn't something I would personally enjoy.  But in my experience playing with deck manipulation against Miss Information doesn't make the game fun, but functional.  It actually gives the players something to do rather than wait for her to flip and endure her damage and destruction in the meantime.


I am definitely not saying that people who enjoy a game against her in any way, shape, or form are causing any sort of problem.  I'm saying that she is one of my least favorite villains to play, as even when I am part of a team that can meaningfully effect her front side I still find it to be a rather tedious and frustrating prospect.  Honestly I'm glad someone can even stand her deck, let alone find some joy in playing it.  That someone, however, is not me.  But it would be pretty lame if I said that it was a problem that someone appreciated something in this game that doesn't adhere to my aesthetic or preference.  Who knows?  Maybe with a solid team I'd have a blast against her.  But when my friends and I have an evening free together we don't want to risk our limited free time with a game that will most likely not be one we'll enjoy.

#32

I prefer to play random. That way there's no stacking the "best" decks against the villain.

#33

I totally understand your point, and I'll refer you back to what I think is the more significant part of my post:

It's not about stacking the "best" decks, it's about building a game that looks like it will be enjoyable at the time. If a randomiser gave you a setup that you just weren't feeling in the mood to play would you still go ahead and spend your time on it, or would you randomise again? Or would you maybe think "that setup is okay but I feel like playing Tempest today so I'll just switch one of the other heroes out"? It's been far too long since I was available to G+ but that was always the way it went down, basically using the randomiser to initially set the game up but then tweaking a little bit here and there if needed until it felt right for everybody.

 

I'm semi-random in that I don't use a randomiser but I also don't consider what particular team ought to be pitted against any given villain. In group games we randomly shuffle a villain into play then just pull whatever we fancy from the box and see what happens; when there are a lot of new players at the table I let them choose first, then I grab either a support hero or someone that I think will be particularly useful against the villain in case we start to flounder and the game stops being fun for them (all bets are off in subsequent games though). On the occasions that I solo I just go with whatever I feel like at the time, which is the more holistic approach I was getting at earlier; do I fancy a game with Visionary/Parse and a couple of others going up against Miss Information? Do I want to play AZ, Bunker and AN other against Akash Bhuta? Or maybe just a damage-centric beatdown on somebody? These are the kind of games that we don't indulge in during group play but are still a valid part of what Sentinels has to offer. Some villains just have a smaller spectrum of heroes that make the game 'work' than others.

All in all the great thing about this game, mentioned so many times before, is that there is something for everyone here and nobody has to like all of what it has to offer all of the time :slightly_smiling_face:

 

#34

I've never had a problem with Spite because I've always managed to save enough people that when he flips he practically kills himself with the damage he takes. (But maybe I'm playing him wrong or I always get lucky card draws) That being said I usually don't play him just because there are other villains I would rather play. But I absolutely hate playing Plague Rat so I always try to avoid him, and I also dislike the Chairman but that's just because I've only ever one like once against him. Difficulty of 4, more like 5 or 6.

#35

Weirdly enough I dont hate Iron Legacy, but I do use him as a threat during game night.

#36

I don't know that I hate playing against any villain.  All of them have some setups or combos that'll frustrate a team normal or advanced.   

#37

As printed, Gloomweaver. I only ever play him with variants to make it more of a challenge.

Miss Information is much harder with 5 than with 3 (same with The Dreamer).

#38

Advanced Dawn also strikes me as nastier with 5, more firepower can turn against you as you run out of gentle citizens quicly and will need heavy gymnastics if she flips.

#39

I don't know about Dawn. It really depends on the team. A 5 with enough damage or ongoing control doesn't care too much.  I can usually whittle her down then alpha strike her to death either right before she's going to turn or right after I turn her back.  The deck controllers (Wraith, Visionary, Parse, sometimes Legacy and Nightmist) make it too easy and less fun, though.  I generally prefer advanced Voss, though, for his lack of destroying all my stuff.

#40

Dawn is only scary if you rely on equipments and ongoings. Parse's Buffer Overflow helps keep her Devastating Aurora at bay (her main trump card), and so does deck manipulation with Wraith and Visionary.