Chris McGuire
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So, I don't have Rise of the Crimson Hand yet, though I expect to get it soon (it may be sitting under the Christmas tree ). As such, I haven't actually read the rulebook yet. But from reading on here, I understand that there's an optional variant rule for dealing with Temple Collapses. It seems that with this rule, collapse tokens are added when a Hero goes to Cliffhanger, but not in increments of Dangers being overcome. And I gather the roll for collapse mechanic is different, though I don't know exactly what it is.

So, for anyone who has played with both options, which version do you prefer and why?

I've also seen a couple threads talking about a problem with using the variant temple collapse rules and then not knowing what to do with Villains adventuring at a Temple, since they don't encounter cliffhangers. Based on that confusion alone, it sounds like it would be better to use the original rules instead of the variant. But, again, what are people's thoughts?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Sinelli
United States
Macomb
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chris:
I my opinion the original rules are better. I think some people are not sure how the new optional rules work, but it seems clear to me that only the Hero's actions contribute to temple collapse. So, villains on a temple adventure can collect treasure without risk unless a Hero is there who might contribute to temple collapse. If a hero goes to a cliffhanger, the hero rolls dice equal to the danger level of the temple. On a roll of one or two a collapse marker is added. When collapse markers are equal to or greater than the danger level, the temple collapses. I think the intent of the optional rules is to make temples sturdier and the procedure slightly more streamlined. Hope Santa is good to you!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Buman
United States
Harlan
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Scott. I still play with the old collapse rules for the same reasons. Happy Holidays!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas White
United States
Pacific Grove
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thinking on it now I think I prefer the original rule better as well. In our last few games with the revision, it seems like anyone in a temple just breezed through with little consequence. Even a cliffhanger is little danger compared to the original rule. I think I may go back.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tristan Hall
England
Manchester
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
LIFEFORM - LATE PLEDGE NOW!!!
badge
LIFEFORM - LATE PLEDGE NOW!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I ignored the new variant rule too, doesn't seem to add anything, and taking away temples collapsing on villains is removing one of the more fun aspects of the game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Robinson
United States
Neptune City
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Note that the Temple Rules changes are intended for the Heroes NOT the Villains. I prefer and still use the original rules as well.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tristan Hall
England
Manchester
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
LIFEFORM - LATE PLEDGE NOW!!!
badge
LIFEFORM - LATE PLEDGE NOW!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TigerTailz wrote:
Note that the Temple Rules changes are intended for the Heroes NOT the Villains. I prefer and still use the original rules as well.


So the heroes use the NEW variant temple rules but the villains continue using the original OLD temple rules?
That seems unnecessarily confusing.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oleg volobujev
msg tools
mbmb
same here. original rule is better in my opinion
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris McGuire
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ninjadorg wrote:
TigerTailz wrote:
Note that the Temple Rules changes are intended for the Heroes NOT the Villains. I prefer and still use the original rules as well.


So the heroes use the NEW variant temple rules but the villains continue using the original OLD temple rules?
That seems unnecessarily confusing.


Yeah, confusing and then you'd lose the aspect where both sides' explorations are adding together to make the Temple more and more unstable (which I like). Sounds like with the variant, you'd have to keep track of 2 separate collapse indicators and that also, as a result, the Temple would be far less likely to collapse as a result of the Villains' actions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Pritchard
United States
Highlands Ranch
CO
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I definitely like the idea behind the alternate rule, because it is less fiddly and adventures with higher danger values are now more dangerous than those with lower danger values. As with everyone else who has chimed in, though, I didn't like that Villain activity had no impact on a Temple collapsing.

So, I use the following variant.

Roll for Collapse using the new alternate rules when:
1. A Hero goes to Cliffhanger (per the official alternate rule).

2. A Villain completely fails their Search test (they roll 0 successes). This doesn't happen all that often, but I don't find that Heroes go to Cliffhangers all that often either. This also means that Villains with lower Search values will be more likely to cause the Temple to collapse.

3. After the Artifact is recovered. I found that I was rarely rolling for Collapse even after implementing the Villain rule, so I added this. This is more thematic for me, too, because it's now more likely than even under the original rules that you'll get a "Raiders rolling boulder" moment after taking that last artifact.

Since you roll for Collapse more often in this Variant, I was tempted to change the roll needed for adding Collapse markers from 2 to 1, but in two play tests, I found that 2 still worked fine.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin S
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This is no criticism of FFP but the original rule is better IMHO as ALL adventurers contribute to Temple collapse.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Sinelli
United States
Macomb
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Achtung_Panzer10 wrote:
This is no criticism of FFP but the original rule is better IMHO as ALL adventurers contribute to Temple collapse.
Go ahead and criticize. I don't think the optional rule is very well thought out, especially for coop play. I have no way of knowing, but sometimes I wonder if this might have been the original rule developed during play testing.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Hurst
United States
Gastonia
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the original rule better, but the one thing I Do not like is that the lower the danger number the more dangerous a temple is. This is opposite of all other artifacts (for them, higher danger means higher risk).

I would much rather have a rule that keeps things consistent, to make it easier to remember for new players.

However, i have wrapped my head around it by now.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin S
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
tarheel wrote:
I like the original rule better, but the one thing I Do not like is that the lower the danger number the more dangerous a temple is. This is opposite of all other artifacts (for them, higher danger means higher risk).


I like this rule for that very reason as Temples offer higher Fortune - so the high risk of collapse is there to be taken.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward Williams
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry for the thread necromancy but we were playing the Crimson Hand expansion today and had some thoughts:

I think the revised temple rule is a good idea in the sense that it streamlined the rule and keeps the temples from collapsing so much, but the real problem is that they did not revise the temples for villains. So, there is this gray area where a villain is adventuring in a temple. As we read the rules literally, the villains now grab up all the fortune and never cause the temple to collapse by searching. One game of this and in no time they have nearly won it quickly.

Then of course if you read further into what is NOT mentioned in the revised temple rule, then it sort of implies that the revised rule only applies to heroes. If that is the case, then it makes things way too confusing as you still have to use the old rule for the villains. So, either way, the revised temple rule doesn't seem to be... thorough, to say the least.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.