always suspect people of doing this in the online game, as the results often seem too pat to be truly random (which is a case of Reality is Unrealistic and I know it, but still, I get paranoid about it).
I can't tell you how hard it was to not cheat when I was running the Matriarch and neither of her cohorts came out till the end, they were sitting next to each other 31 cards down I believe. The first turn with no birds also stunk.
On the other hand one of these matches I'll get a great run of cards and they will all die.
The one thing I have vs. potential cheating is my first game on the forum, I got what was a horrible hand, and if I hadn't posted it right away I probably would have shuffled and redrawn, but as the game went on it turned out to be just what we needed. Even if you just draw the "right" card each turn, you still are a round too late more often than not. There are times I drew the perfect card only to have it sit in my hand the rest of the game.
My favorite forum game I played a hero was as Ra, where I got to sit and Flesh of the sun god while the fire in the biosphere destroyed the Chairman. Having that and two excavations to start the game sucked, but that flesh of the sun god turned out great.
This current game (vs Dawn in Tomb) is being epic, with everything going really well and making writing the story text really easy. The Matriarch was awkward, I ended up having her run away from the heroes, even though she was there to fight them and the heroes had no reason to chase her. It was pretty terrible.
It couldn't be 31, since villain decks (Chariman and Ennead excepted) contain only 27 cards, including the character cards. 21 down, on the other hand, is eminently believable. And if the heroes can't get the Mask killed on round 1, it's not all that improbable that most of those 21 cards will fly by in three turns.
Ah, so it's public knowledge before you drop your pair, but after the pair is dropped it no longer is?
I know this seems like an off-topic discussion, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. That subtlety is not included in the guide, and it makes no mention of hiding your hand after playing a pair. Common sense would dictate that you hide your hand when you've secretly dropped your Style and Base, but every picture in the rulebook played with them face up on the table. What seems like a perfectly basic bit of knowledge was a complete hassle to find out.
Meanwhile, here on the Greater Than Games forum, we have an answer for things like this. Communication is openly encouraged among players. "Put into play" is different from "play". You shuffle your decks before drawing your cards at the beginning of the game. Absolutely fantastic!
How could Fire in the Biosphere destroy the Chairman when he's immune to environment damage even after flipping? Or do you mean it destroyed everyone else but not the Chairman himself?
Yeah, Fire was instrumental in wiping out his horde of minions when the other heroes were struggling a bit, bought some time and Nightmist went crazy.
Oh and speaking of a great run of cards.
Yowsa.
I had never seen Urshe really screw up a game before, esp. like he just did in our storyline game. Go check it out if you want to see an insane run brought on by some scenario rules and an epic Urshe throwdown combining to end the game.
I honestly thought giving Anubis a bit more damage and making him ignore immunity and reduction would benefit the heroes a lot against Dawn, esp. with Citizen Truth (who never showed up) it did not go that way this game.
Both of those pictures show the state of the game before attack pairs are selected. And yes, I agree that it's common sense that when attack pairs are secretly selected, you also hide the rest of your hand.
I'm not sure comparing a rulebook, which has to be written ahead of time and anticipate all the reasonable questions that might be asked, to an internet forum where every question, reasonable or unreasonable, can be reactively answered, is entirely fair. But when I compare the Devastation of Indines rulebook, which I personally found to be remarkably complete, with the Enhanced Edition rulebook, which doesn't even tell you what to do when you run out of deck, it's just bizarre.
But that's what I'm talking about. I didn't find the answers in the rulebook and I didn't find them on their online forum. Whether common sense is a necessary built-in mechanic for understanding the game is irrelevant. I didn't know the answer and I didn't find it anywhere in their official information. Common sense told me to shuffle the hero decks before a game of Sentinels, but if there was any question of it the answer is located on the Sentinels forum.
If I don't find an answer in the Sentinels rulebook then I typically find it in the forum. Note that my answer for Juto and his life counters in BattleCon came on the playtesting forum, and only after an incorrect citation of dealing damage (which is distinct from lifeloss) came from the creator of the game.
I just find it to be somewhat insulting and incredibly rude when the explanation to someone's question is "Well, common sense would dictate…", because that implies the player or players lack common sense. Sometimes it's something as simple as approaching a new game and being unsure about it. I don't know of any other games that operate like BattleCon, so I'm not going to go off of Chess or Magic or Poker rules for how to play the game if I have a rulebook for BattleCon. The same goes for Sentinels. Thankfully, my questions are typically answered either through the Sentinels rulebook or forum. BattleCon? Maybe. If I get lucky. And I typically get an immediate answer on these forums rather than a patronizing, exasperated "Ok, people, for the last time, THIS is how this mechanic works!" commen like I've experienced with BattleCon.
I just find it to be somewhat insulting and incredibly rude when the explanation to someone's question is "Well, common sense would dictate...", because that implies the player or players lack common sense.
Yeah, I hate that too. It's a condescending way to start a sentence. It costs nothing to just answer the question in a friendly manner.
Actually, that IS a cost for those of us who are, well, not naturally all that friendly. Many of us have grown up in unsafe environments where reflexive hostility was the best way to keep potential threats at a distance. Being "friendly" is unnatural and dangerous-seeming behavior to someone who's grown up with that mindset. The world is not a nice place, and pretending otherwise doesn't protect you…quite the opposite.
Just curious here… if that's the case why even answer the question, which is supposed to be a helpful gesture… or even make the effort to be part of a community?
It's a matter of cost-benefit analyses. For someone with my generally antisocial, introverted nature, I approach all social interactions as transactions - I pay as little of my mental energy as possible in order to "purchase" beneficial reactions from others, in order for me to derive more happiness from the interaction than I would by staying home by myself. Since the "prices" are never clearly labeled and difficult to guess, it's an often frustrating process of trial and error…generally, I keep trying as long as I'm able to, but frequently things go south for reasons that I don't consider to be under my control, and that turns me off even bothering to try for a very long time.
