$60.00
$20.00
Edward B.
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I love Betrayal and have played it over a dozen times. Although there's been an occasional hiccup with a rule here or there, I've never ran into any major issues.

However, I've had several friends tell me they've had problems with the way some of the haunts have been written for this expansion.

I played my first game of the expansion recently, and I had a lot of issues with it.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
The haunt was, I believe, 71. The 'traitor' is an exorcist trying to rid the house of ghosts (the remaining players). I had two pretty serious problems with the rules. I may have misunderstood them, but first issue: when a ghost is exorcised/defeated it isn't killed. Instead, all it's stats are clicked down to the last level.

Major issue: every turn a ghost doesn't attack, it's sanity goes up by one. Ghosts use sanity to kill the traitor. Maybe this was an intended mechanism to give the ghosts a better chance of winning, but it just seems like it could cause the game to drag out.

Second major issue: in order to defeat a ghost, the traitor must best them in combat and steal one of their items. The traitor then takes the item to either a room marked with an omen symbol or item symbol (the rules seem to give contradictory instructions on which room, exactly). The traitor can not win unless he gets an item from each ghost and uses the items to banish them.

Okay, we had this scenario. One of the ghost player had a lucky stone for an item and used the lucky stone, which then resulted in it being discarded. The ghost was now basically invulnerable as the traitor could bring down the ghost's attributes through attacks but could never kill it or banish it.


I understand that they used a bunch of guests writers for this expansion. I guess one explanation could be that not all of the writers were familiar with the nuances of the game and/or scenarios weren't playtested rigorously.

Like I said, this was my first game. I was just trying to get an idea if there are issues with the expansion or if it's just isolated to a few haunts.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Hughes
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We played 89, which was a Rocky Horror Picture Show themed adventure, which I thought was a nice inclusion, but the rules were a confusing trainwreck. All the traitor is doing is waiting for the heroes to fail. The heroes have things they are trying to do, but one of those tasks is actually to fail, and the traitor only counts down toward victory if the heroes do not achieve a 'victory'. It begs the question, is a "successful fail" a victory?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Britt B

Connecticut
msg tools
We've played about 4 scenarios from the expansion so far, each time there has been interpretation in the haunt rules. One went so far that we had to ask an outside player for a ruling based on how he read it as an uninvested party.

I'm not sure how they missed all these little issues in play testing but I anticipate errata to be released eventually.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward B.
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
One of the people I game with mentioned another confusing scenario involving

Spoiler (click to reveal)
something about werewolves attacking, only one of the players was a werewolf. But that person didn't know they were a werewolf? So it was a very confusing and awkward scenario as the 'traitor' didn't know they were supposed to be working against everyone else.


Kind of a shame to hear this as I know a lot of people who were looking forward to this release. Hopefully an errata comes out. Again, I'm just going off hearsay and the one game I played. The scenario I played didn't even seem like it was playtested, though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dio Tsoumas
Greece
Athens
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
One of the scenarios we have also played, don't remember its number but it included a pair of twins, had some wild interpretations as well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Liolio
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
I consider myself picky with rules.. I like official explanations and specifications.. so I thought I may have been a little picky, looking for clearer explanations..

But yeah, I know personally, I've had some trouble with every new haunt. We still managed to play and finish the games, but not without some sense of 'are we doing this right?'

I too thought it may be in part do to the guest writers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeffrey
United States
flag msg tools
Make it so
badge
Captain Picard
mbmbmbmbmb
willowGR wrote:
One of the scenarios we have also played, don't remember its number but it included a pair of twins, had some wild interpretations as well.:(
I was the traitor in this one. Not only did the scenario give a big twist to the rules without nearly enough explanation of how it would work, I never felt like I had a chance as the traitor.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bucho Bucho
msg tools
mb
NeedsNewDice wrote:

Kind of a shame to hear this as I know a lot of people who were looking forward to this release. Hopefully an errata comes out. Again, I'm just going off hearsay and the one game I played. The scenario I played didn't even seem like it was playtested, though.


I've played three of the new scenarios and had questions about two of them. We lost the third one that seemed straight forward on account of never suspecting the traitors win condition, everyone including the traitor thought there should have been more in our book about it.

Not that this is a great situation but it seems pretty typical for a wizards game and just like the original game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bucho Bucho
msg tools
mb
Polioliolio wrote:

I too thought it may be in part do to the guest writers.


I don't know, thought I will say every game with Mike Selinker that I've played has been like this.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward B.
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Bucho22 wrote:

I've played three of the new scenarios and had questions about two of them. We lost the third one that seemed straight forward on account of never suspecting the traitors win condition, everyone including the traitor thought there should have been more in our book about it.

Not that this is a great situation but it seems pretty typical for a wizards game and just like the original game.


I've only played maybe a dozen or fewer of the original scenarios, but, although some had a niggle here or there, I never came across any with contradictory rules or win conditions that could be rendered flat out impossible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bucho Bucho
msg tools
mb
NeedsNewDice wrote:

I've only played maybe a dozen or fewer of the original scenarios, but, although some had a niggle here or there, I never came across any with contradictory rules or win conditions that could be rendered flat out impossible.


I've certainly had a scenario in the original that was impossible for the heroes to win. I became the traitor extremely early in the game before there was a chance for the house to get established and the group to get spread out. So it was super easy to just murder all the heroes standing close to me.

P.S. If you look back at the threads in base game's forum there are a ton of threads about people not being able to figure the haunts out.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Jonas

Oakdale
Minnesota
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This expansion is just like the original, partly because it builds on top of the original. I have never had a story where there is some type of confusion. We just figure out what best fits what the story is trying to accomplish.

For example, one of the new stories one person is the survivor and everyone else are the traitors. We had to figure out what "opponent" on item cards meant since based on the story synopsis the traitors were competing against each other, not just the survivor.

In another story monster's could pick up items, but the story rules didn't say if they could use them. There's nothing in the main rules about this because it explicitly says monster's can't pick up items. This was a difficult one to figure out without giving away much of what the other team was trying to accomplish. We weren't sure if the purpose of the monsters were to keep items away from the survivors, if they could use the items they picked up, or maybe just to retrieve them for the traitor.

Just remember, this is not a competitive game. Interpret rules in a way that supports the story. This game is not about winning or losing, it is about playing out the story. Otherwise they would have used game designers to make the stories. As long as the story is fun the game will be fun.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dio Tsoumas
Greece
Athens
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sirpoonga wrote:
This expansion is just like the original, partly because it builds on top of the original. I have never had a story where there is some type of confusion. We just figure out what best fits what the story is trying to accomplish.

For example, one of the new stories one person is the survivor and everyone else are the traitors. We had to figure out what "opponent" on item cards meant since based on the story synopsis the traitors were competing against each other, not just the survivor.

In another story monster's could pick up items, but the story rules didn't say if they could use them. There's nothing in the main rules about this because it explicitly says monster's can't pick up items. This was a difficult one to figure out without giving away much of what the other team was trying to accomplish. We weren't sure if the purpose of the monsters were to keep items away from the survivors, if they could use the items they picked up, or maybe just to retrieve them for the traitor.

Just remember, this is not a competitive game. Interpret rules in a way that supports the story. This game is not about winning or losing, it is about playing out the story. Otherwise they would have used game designers to make the stories. As long as the story is fun the game will be fun.


On the other hand, if you came up with those questions after a single play on a few of the new scenarios, their testers must also have..
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Liolio
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
sirpoonga wrote:
This expansion is just like the original, partly because it builds on top of the original. I have never had a story where there is some type of confusion. We just figure out what best fits what the story is trying to accomplish.

For example, one of the new stories one person is the survivor and everyone else are the traitors. We had to figure out what "opponent" on item cards meant since based on the story synopsis the traitors were competing against each other, not just the survivor.

In another story monster's could pick up items, but the story rules didn't say if they could use them. There's nothing in the main rules about this because it explicitly says monster's can't pick up items. This was a difficult one to figure out without giving away much of what the other team was trying to accomplish. We weren't sure if the purpose of the monsters were to keep items away from the survivors, if they could use the items they picked up, or maybe just to retrieve them for the traitor.

Just remember, this is not a competitive game. Interpret rules in a way that supports the story. This game is not about winning or losing, it is about playing out the story. Otherwise they would have used game designers to make the stories. As long as the story is fun the game will be fun.


I'll have to try to explain it in that way to my friends. One of our guys is kind of an alpha gamer, plays to win, and doesn't really like back and forth about rules. It's annoying, but I'll try to push the concept of playing the story, toward them next time we encounter a hiccup.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bucho Bucho
msg tools
mb
willowGR wrote:

On the other hand, if you came up with those questions after a single play on a few of the new scenarios, their testers must also have..


Yeah, it's a head scratcher. My favorite Wizards-ism is in the D&D adventure system. They put a FAQ of rules clarifications on the back of the manuals instead of fixing the manuals.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward B.
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Bucho22 wrote:


I've certainly had a scenario in the original that was impossible for the heroes to win. I became the traitor extremely early in the game before there was a chance for the house to get established and the group to get spread out. So it was super easy to just murder all the heroes standing close to me.

P.S. If you look back at the threads in base game's forum there are a ton of threads about people not being able to figure the haunts out.


Slight nitpick. I think what you were talking about is the board setup against players at the time of the haunt, which can happen frequently. In the scenario I'm talking about the rules themselves can setup an impossible win condition.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate
msg tools
themanfromsaturn wrote:
We played 89, which was a Rocky Horror Picture Show themed adventure, which I thought was a nice inclusion, but the rules were a confusing trainwreck. All the traitor is doing is waiting for the heroes to fail. The heroes have things they are trying to do, but one of those tasks is actually to fail, and the traitor only counts down toward victory if the heroes do not achieve a 'victory'. It begs the question, is a "successful fail" a victory?


I didn't see anyone else comment on this, and I played that haunt 2 days ago. The traitor is just waiting for his timer to go off so he can do his thing, and his timer ticks down each time a hero does not score a victory or attack a monster on their turn. The secrets of survival tells you the different ways to score the necessary victories (farces, climbs, and the fountain) so yes, failing a roll (for the farces only) counts as a victory.
 
 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.