Olivier Vannerom
Belgium
Rixensart
Brabant wallon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I won't spoil.

But for me the logic/réflexion aspect of the campaign's investigations is broken.

For the other "loner" there is no problem and althought Sherlock kicks our asses, there is a way to get the answer, and a logic path to lead the "good" investigation.
In the campaign I thought it was only luck that brings some elements to be interresting instead of another. Like you have two witnesses and only one has the answer. But Sherlock knows who has it right. Without any justification.
I'm really disappointed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yuliyan Kalaydzhiev
Germany
München
Bayern
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
An interesting comment. Anyone else share the sentiment? I am thinking of getting the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian K
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is the english version available yet?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Grogan
United Kingdom
Cullompton
Devon
flag msg tools
designer
Check out all my instructional How to Play videos at youtube.com/GamingRulesVideos
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Jack campaign is very different from normal SHCD stuff.

However, I think the set is worth getting even if you don't play the Jack campaign. The other 6 west end cases are really good and more like the original cases.

Jack tries to do something different, and is very thematic, but not what most SHCD players will be expecting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil
United States
Morton Grove
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
yolace wrote:
Like you have two witnesses and only one has the answer. But Sherlock knows who has it right. Without any justification.


I haven't played these new cases yet, but I saw this in the original game where Sherlock always knew if someone was at home/pub vs at work.

I'd waste leads by going to where someone worked and they'd say, Oh, he's at home/pub, or I'd visit his home and the butler would always say he's at the pub. Sherlock never made that mistake.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cerys
United Kingdom
Cardiff
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I actually found the Jack the Ripper cases really satisfying to complete, even moreso than the original Consulting Detective cases which we had already played through. We didn't get negative points on any of the four cases - our scores ranged from 15 to 45. Our score on case 4 was...
Spoiler (click to reveal)
40, having followed a total of 24 leads.


I kept exhaustive notes for each case of the possible leads, noteworthy evidence, etc, and this felt rewarding. And we still had to use logic and deduction to figure out the answers.

Yes it's true that we always had to chase a whole lot of leads and red herrings to get to the right answer, but I feel like that is expected of you, especially given that the first case basically instructs you to do so. And yes Sherlock always manages to sidestep the duds, but I think this has been a problem in the previous cases as well. Perhaps I've just missed the guiding logic in the other cases; but I also feel some of the original cases have really unlikely leaps of deduction, and I didn't feel that was as much of an issue in any of these.

Once I'd accepted that 100 points was not really a possible goal and that I should be happy if we managed to solve most of the case, I found the whole thing a lot more enjoyable!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mel H
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
I generally did better with the Jack the Ripper ones...until the very last one!

I struggled to know where to go often in the standard cases 5-10, missed some important clues, often finding myself completely stuck and with no idea what I was even supposed to be searching for! I felt that Sherlock made several leaps in these that I was just nowhere near figuring out. Sherlock always just knows exactly where to go and I feel that him knowing which of the leads to follow up is true in all the cases, not just the Jack ones! He knows how to find people without being given the information I need to find them often too.

With the first 3 Jack cases I felt I had a better idea of what I was actually supposed to be doing and which information I was supposed to be going after. I wonder whether the different nature of these better suited my way of thinking as I didn't fare so well in the 'easier' ones! Even in the last case I had got a fair way to figuring out the logic, just missing the final leap to find the answer I needed.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Neale
United States
Delaware
flag msg tools
designer
badge
"The game is afoot!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We got a negative score for one case (case 2 I think), but solved case 4. This is how we worked out the solution to case 4 (needless to say, spoilers for entire the Jack campaign):

Spoiler (click to reveal)
We had a very hard time finding George Hutchinson, but when we realised he had lost his job and so would be looking for a new one we scoured the newspapers and found his advert. Then he told us about a man with a horseshoe pin from an association, so we looked in the directory and found the Riding Club under Sports (Association). We found him there, and he said he saw Mary run towards a market at around 4 or 5 in the morning. We had already deduced the killer could work at the market, as they had killed very close to spitalfields at around 5am on two occasions, when the market is coming to life.

Then Holmes told us to look at the days, times and locations of the murders, and to think about the killers habits and routine. He also said the killer moved unnoticed because they had a reason to be where they were and no one saw a killer in them. At that point we formed two hypotheses: the killer was either a policeman, doing his rounds, or a carter, delivering to the markets. We put pins on the map, and times and days, and realised the murderer always acted between 3.30am and 5.30am except for one case: Catherine Eddowes. We thought the pattern could be someone who did a circular route from near Catherine Eddowes East and then West through Whitechapel. We went to Scotland Yard to try to get information on police schedules, but there was nothing. We checked testimony of the policemen we had spoken to on the previous cases, but only found scattered information about their beats and routes.

So then we turned to the carters, starting with the 2 who found the body in the first case. At this point, we discover that Charles lied about his name, and also find he lives very near the first crime scene. We visit his wife, who says he works at night, leaving at 3.20am each morning and returning 3.30pm, except for Sundays - his day off. We realise this fits perfectly with what we already knew - the killer acts between 3.30 and 5.30, with the killings at 5.30 happening to the west, furtherest from Charles' house. Catherine Eddowes, the exception to the pattern, was killed on his day off at 1.30am when he may have been out for some other reason, perhaps drinking or at the card club.

We have two problems: the first is we want more proof, and keep looking, but don't find any. The second is that the time doesn't quite work for Martha Tabram, who was killed at 3.30 but was found over ten minutes away from Charles' house, so Charles could not have got to her if he left at 3.20, as his wife said. As there was only about ten minutes in this we ignored it. Also, we hadn't found anything on anyone else's schedules to suggest they worked at the time the murders happened, would be walking round Whitechapel from east to west, were linked to the markets, and would be unnoticed and 'banal' as Holmes put it, because they looked like an ordinary worker. So, we went for Charles being the killer.

I think we would have liked Martha Tabram's time of death to have been more consistent - maybe ten minutes later. And also perhaps some more evidence against Charles once we suspected him. But still, we managed to work it out, and the revelation that almost everything in the cases was real, including Charles and his suspicious testimony, was amazing and we were very impressed.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Victor Lamy
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A question about Sherlock’s final deduction - if you’ve finished the four Jack cases, you might be interested in reading and might know the answer!

Spoiler (click to reveal)
One of The leads that drove Sherlock to suspect Cross is the fact that he has a 10 minutes gap in his schedule the morning of the crime. Cross said he left home late that day, which could be any time between 3.20am and 3.45am.

Where is it actually mentioned that Cross left home at 3.30am?
 
 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.