Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Harry Potter: Hogwarts Battle» Forums » Variants

Subject: Tweaks for number of player scaling, market stalling rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
S. Colcord
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As others have noted here, this is a fun game, but has a couple of rough spots: Its difficulty increases dramatically with more players, and the market has a tendency to stall. The fixes I'm trying for those issues are:

1) In 3P and 4P games, any attack that would normally hit all Heroes excludes the Hero with the lowest health.

2) Starting in Year Four, before buying, a player may remove one card in the Market that is more than three or more years old from the game and replace it.

Has anyone else has tried something similar, and if so, how did it work?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Both ideas sound feasible.

Quick note on the second one:
sacolcor wrote:
2) Starting in Year Four, before buying, a player may remove one card in the Market that is more than three years old from the game and replace it.

In year 4, there are no cards that are more than 3 years old.
The oldest cards are 3 years old.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ethan McKinney
United States
El Segundo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
In a 4 player game, if a player removed Lumos from the marketplace, they would get punched in the face ...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
elbmc1969 wrote:
In a 4 player game, if a player removed Lumos from the marketplace, they would get punched in the face ...


Is that really an appropriate reaction in a card game?

I'd hate to think 'receive broken nose' was a possible consequence of playing this game.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Cordeiro
United States
Cumberland
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sacolcor wrote:
1) In 3P and 4P games, any attack that would normally hit all Heroes excludes the Hero with the lowest health.

I don't disagree that it's harder with 4 players, but I think it's still quite beatable. The 2 strategies I recommend are 1) make the "all heroes get x" cards a priority, and 2) try to specialize the heroes to trigger their abilities and proficiencies as often as possible. Ron buys attack cards, Neville buys healing cards, Hermione buys all other spells, and Harry buys everything else.

sacolcor wrote:
2) Starting in Year Four, before buying, a player may remove one card in the Market that is more than three years old from the game and replace it.

There is an optional rule, which is approved by USAopoly for the base game and appears in the rules for the expansion, that is very similar to this. Once per game, instead of taking a Hogwarts card, any player can discard the 6 cards in play and draw 6 new ones.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ethan McKinney
United States
El Segundo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
cordeiro wrote:
sacolcor wrote:
1) In 3P and 4P games, any attack that would normally hit all Heroes excludes the Hero with the lowest health.

I don't disagree that it's harder with 4 players, but I think it's still quite beatable. The 2 strategies I recommend are 1) make the "all heroes get x" cards a priority, and 2) try to specialize the heroes to trigger their abilities and proficiencies as often as possible. Ron buys attack cards, Neville buys healing cards, Hermione buys all other spells, and Harry buys everything else.


This.

Lumos isn't worth much in 2P, it's much better than many expensive spells in 4P.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S. Colcord
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Celtic Joker wrote:
The oldest cards are 3 years old.

Fixed, thanks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S. Colcord
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
cordeiro wrote:
sacolcor wrote:
1) In 3P and 4P games, any attack that would normally hit all Heroes excludes the Hero with the lowest health.

I don't disagree that it's harder with 4 players, but I think it's still quite beatable. The 2 strategies I recommend are 1) make the "all heroes get x" cards a priority, and 2) try to specialize the heroes to trigger their abilities and proficiencies as often as possible. Ron buys attack cards, Neville buys healing cards, Hermione buys all other spells, and Harry buys everything else.

I wouldn't say it's impossible to beat with four, but there's a very high risk that once the unforgivables are added, a bit of bad luck will just KO even fairly healthy Heroes between turns, setting off a Doom cascade that ends the game. If you quarterback/groupthink everything, it can help your chances, but that makes the game somewhat less fun, IMHO. Sparing the weakest player from the AOE damage seems to work well; it means an injured player usually gets at least one turn to try to heal up before they're KOed.

cordeiro wrote:
sacolcor wrote:
2) Starting in Year Four, before buying, a player may remove one card in the Market that is three or more years old from the game and replace it.

There is an optional rule, which is approved by USAopoly for the base game and appears in the rules for the expansion, that is very similar to this. Once per game, instead of taking a Hogwarts card, any player can discard the 6 cards in play and draw 6 new ones.


I was aware of that rule, but don't feel it does enough to address the problem. In many of the games I've played, we've been forced to buy cards that we didn't really want in our decks, in order to unclog the Market, and we agreed that we didn't like that.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Emma
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We have a house rule where you can pay the cost of any card in the marketplace to banish it. It really helps to get rid of those cards that you simply do not want to have in your deck (I'm talking about you, Gilderoy).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre Parker
United States
El Paso
Texas
flag msg tools
byronczimmer wrote:
elbmc1969 wrote:
In a 4 player game, if a player removed Lumos from the marketplace, they would get punched in the face ...


Is that really an appropriate reaction in a card game?

I'd hate to think 'receive broken nose' was a possible consequence of playing this game.



Hermione punched Draco in the face.

Draco kicked Harry in the nose.

It's thoroughly appropriate.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sublevel27 wrote:
byronczimmer wrote:
elbmc1969 wrote:
In a 4 player game, if a player removed Lumos from the marketplace, they would get punched in the face ...


Is that really an appropriate reaction in a card game?

I'd hate to think 'receive broken nose' was a possible consequence of playing this game.



Hermione punched Draco in the face.

Draco kicked Harry in the nose.

It's thoroughly appropriate.


Neither of those were players, they were characters.

It is never appropriate to punch someone else in the face due to an action in a board game.

You should be ashamed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dale Stephenson
United States
Buford
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
byronczimmer wrote:
Sublevel27 wrote:
byronczimmer wrote:
elbmc1969 wrote:
In a 4 player game, if a player removed Lumos from the marketplace, they would get punched in the face ...


Is that really an appropriate reaction in a card game?

I'd hate to think 'receive broken nose' was a possible consequence of playing this game.



Hermione punched Draco in the face.

Draco kicked Harry in the nose.

It's thoroughly appropriate.


Neither of those were players, they were characters.

It is never appropriate to punch someone else in the face due to an action in a board game.


Very true. That should be confined to card games.

Quote:
You should be ashamed.


You are either trolling or need your TIC meter checked. I'm sure neither elbmc1969 or Sublevel27 have actually harmed anyone during a HP game, or have had any intention of doing so.

More seriously, a player-option banishment house rule does open a path for a player to ramp up the difficulty by banishing particularly useful cards that are in the market early -- this may not be appreciated by fellow players. Probably not a large problem in practice, though.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dalestephenson wrote:
Quote:
You should be ashamed.


You are either trolling or need your TIC meter checked. I'm sure neither elbmc1969 or Sublevel27 have actually harmed anyone during a HP game, or have had any intention of doing so.


Calling someone a name rarely gets them to see your perspective better or faster.

Since I don't think you know elbmc1969 or Sublevel27 any better than I do, I have to assume that the lack of visual cues, smiley faces or other indications means that they were serious.

I am advocating that we remove threats of violence from casual conversation in public spaces. I've seen such statements made at game tables and everyone laughed until the person later acted on their words and claimed they weren't at fault "because I told them I'd punch them".

I've seen players grab another player's fingers and threaten to break them -- and then not let go when the table attempted to make light of the threat. I won't allow that kind of talk at my table and I don't think it should permitted in a public forum either.

Such language encouraging violence really has to be stopped when it first manifests, not when someone gets hurt. If you are not working to stop such casually violent language, you are enabling it.

Both of my posts addressed the threats of violence. Please join me in calling out people when they casually encourage violence and lets make game tables a fun, nonthreatening environment. Thank you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dale Stephenson
United States
Buford
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
byronczimmer wrote:
dalestephenson wrote:
Quote:
You should be ashamed.


You are either trolling or need your TIC meter checked. I'm sure neither elbmc1969 or Sublevel27 have actually harmed anyone during a HP game, or have had any intention of doing so.


Calling someone a name rarely gets them to see your perspective better or faster.


And telling people they should be ashamed does get them to see your perspective better and faster?

Quote:
Since I don't think you know elbmc1969 or Sublevel27 any better than I do, I have to assume that the lack of visual cues, smiley faces or other indications means that they were serious.


Well, there is the fact that the action to be punished is ludicrously unlikely and the reaction is ludicrously over-the-top. I don't know elbmc1969 at all, but this isn't a situation that's likely to happen anywhere. That's an obvious cue that he's *not* serious.

Sublevel27 merely pointed out (correctly) that violence to the face was found in the source material. You think he didn't realize as well as you did that Harry and Malfoy weren't characters instead of players? You think he didn't know that Draco was a dangerous jerk, not someone who should be emulated? It's not plausible to me that it's meant as a serious argument, and it is plausible to me as a TIC "support" for an imaginary situation. Even in the absence of "visual cues" and "smiley faces", I think it's reasonable to assume that posters are normal people instead of sociopaths until proven otherwise.

Quote:
I am advocating that we remove threats of violence from casual conversation in public spaces. I've seen such statements made at game tables and everyone laughed until the person later acted on their words and claimed they weren't at fault "because I told them I'd punch them".


That would certainly fall under "proven otherwise". You recognize, I hope, that the person who actually committed physical violence is 100% at fault, not the ordinary people who laughed at what *they* thought was a joke. (Though in person, I would normally expect visual and auditory clues to signal quite effectively whether such a statement was jocular or an actual threat.)

Quote:
I've seen players grab another player's fingers and threaten to break them -- and then not let go when the table attempted to make light of the threat. I won't allow that kind of talk at my table and I don't think it should permitted in a public forum either.


"Grab another player's fingers" goes well beyond talk whether they let or go or not. There's an enormous difference in kind between making a ludicrous post in a public forum and physically assaulting a fellow player, and conflating the two is not helpful. I wouldn't allow that kind of behavior at my table either; I would also push back against any physical threat that seemed remotely credible or that was meant to demean a fellow player. I've luckily never had to do that, perhaps I've been fortunate enough to play with better people than you.

Quote:
Such language encouraging violence really has to be stopped when it first manifests, not when someone gets hurt. If you are not working to stop such casually violent language, you are enabling it.


I doubt the causal link between imaginary violence done for humorous effect and actual violence. I don't think slapstick routines or cartoons really make children more violent, and I don't think elbmc1969 was remotely speaking from experience or announcing his intentions. I think pushing back against *all* references to violence will backfire, both by causing resentment in those criticized, and granting cover for actual violence by grouping criminal behavior with harmless jokes.

Quote:
Both of my posts addressed the threats of violence. Please join me in calling out people when they casually encourage violence and lets make game tables a fun, nonthreatening environment. Thank you.


Calling out people may be necessary sometimes, but it's neither fun nor non-threatening. Both of your posts addressed "threats" of violence that in my opinion were completely imaginary. Since it's not elbmc1969's house rule, there's no possible *mechanism* for someone in his group to banish Lumos from the marketplace in the first place, let alone get punched for it. (Nor did elbmc1969 ever say that he would be the one doing the punching).

In my opinion, calling out posters for referencing *imaginary* violence will do absolutely zero to prevent violence at actual game tables, and will make boardgamegeek a less fun, more threatening environment. But YMMV. As you take their remarks seriously, it's entirely appropriate for you to respond seriously. But I'd be willing to give you good odds that in this particular case, you are wrong about their intent.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ethan McKinney
United States
El Segundo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Well, that certainly sucked all the fun out of this game ...

byronczimmer wrote:
I've seen such statements made at game tables and everyone laughed until the person later acted on their words and claimed they weren't at fault "because I told them I'd punch them".

I've seen players grab another player's fingers and threaten to break them -- and then not let go when the table attempted to make light of the threat.


The problem is that you're playing with d***s. If you want to address the real problem, anyone who inflicts physical harm should be permanently banished from the group, club, convention, or what have you. For crying out loud, if you're dealing with people who can't understand the moral difference between normal speech and committing a crime (petty assault), you need to find a new hobby.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I find the reactions appalling.

I don't need a lecture, this isn't a debate.

Don't threaten people. Don't joke about it. How simple is that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ethan McKinney
United States
El Segundo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
byronczimmer wrote:
I don't need a lecture, this isn't a debate.


Perhaps, but you chose to deliver one.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
LudoH LudoH
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Back to the OP, I also realised that the market sometimes gets difficult to handle and this is very luck dependent. However I do not like too much the rule based on the age, and paying the price of a card might be an issue if all cards cost 5 or more in the early game...

This is what happened to us the other night: we had a lot of expansive cards in the market including one petrificus. We did not want to let this one go, and chose not to clean the market for a couple of turns, I believe it was a mistake but if we could have payed 3 influence to remove any card it would have been a useful houserule (I guess you should only do that if you do not buy anything of course)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S. Colcord
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If the designers are watching, they could help this issue by releasing more cards or proficiencies that interact with the market. Perhaps a Cartomancy proficiency that allows putting one card per turn from the top of the market to the bottom of the market deck? A card that cycles two cards and draws a card? A spell (Homenum Revelio?) that lets you dig for an Ally and add it to the market?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam D.
United States
Suquamish
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Or maybe something thematic in a different direction, like 'Panic in Hogwarts!' or 'Butter Beer half off in the village' to justify a lot of cards being removed from the market. If those cards already exist, cool, I'm only up to year 4

As to the post about safe spaces I have nothing printable to add ("thank goodness" says the group).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeff bee
msg tools
The market really shouldn't be that big of a deal, even in Year 7. The largest issue is if you don't get skull removals or dice rolling cards, but that still doesn't spell doom and gloom. One of two things ends up happening normally that makes you not like the market: 1) it's full of cheap cards that aren't that useful, or 2) it's full of expensive cards that you're struggling to buy. In the first case, that shouldn't last that long as you can quickly turn through the market. Please don't discount those chocolate frogs, Dittanys, and Reparos - they're great cards. Heck, anything with a "discard for" is awesome, and contrary to popular belief, double influence cards are amazing. The fact that Reparo couples with the option to draw makes it even better. As for the second option, this can be more challenging to get through. I would suggest taking a look at some of the decisions you're making though - are you discarding Alahomoras every chance you're told to discard something? That can severely hamper your ability to purchase expensive cards. Is Hermoine exclusively buying spells? If not she's much less likely to trigger her 4 spell ability.

But with all of that said, you're looking for a house rule to make the market easier to manage. USAopoly has already provided an errata rule that once per game you can clear the market. If you want an additional rule, might I suggest "Once per turn, a Hero may spend influence equal to half the cost of a card (rounded up) to banish that card from the market."

This house rule would allow you to address both situation 1 and 2 above. Perhaps you have 3 influence. You can purchase the Dittany and banish a Chocolate Frog, opening two slots in the market. Or perhaps only have 3 influence and the market is full of 5+ cost cards that no one can afford. You can go ahead and banish Sirius Black, opening up a spot for something (hopefully) cheaper. All while preventing that Petrificus Totalis from getting trashed by resetting the entire market. But it still comes with a cost - If you end up having 5 influence, you'd still be better off buying Tonks than banishing a card.




PS (which is longer than my on topic post)- Gilderoy is awesome - why would you ever want to get rid of him? There are way too many things that force players to discard (Poison, Heir of Slytherin, the-lose-1-heart-and-discard-1-card-event, Tom Riddle, Stun, Crystal Ball, Cho Chang, Sybill, Divination) and he says "no problem, discard and draw to replace!" It's great. Admittedly, if you're forced to play him, he's not that good, but he still triggers potions and Ron's Beans. And since drawing cards is the most powerful single action, even playing him isn't that bad.

If we take the example that you purchased Petrificus Totalis and Gilderoy as your own two cards, and compare it to only purchasing P.T., purchasing Gilderoy ends up being a good thing. Without him, you have a 45.5% chance on a fresh shuffle to get PT in your hand. With him, you have a 41.7% chance of getting PT. But you also have a 41.7% chance of getting GL, and a 68.2% chance of getting both PT and GL. Which means 61.1% of the time that you have GL, you wont' have PT, and you'll be using him to hopefully draw PT, which will be a 14.3% chance of happening. Adding that into the base probability, and you end up with 45.8% chance of getting PT, marginally better than before. By itself not really worth anything.

And by playing GL, you don't cycle through your deck any quicker. If you have him, you went through 6 cards, and have 6 remaining. If you didn't buy him, you went through 5 cards and have 6 remaining. The difference is if you have him, you play what equates to 4 cards while if you didn't you played 5 cards. Which is an understandable hatred. So you're slightly better off (but not enough to make it worth buying him) when it comes to pulling a card you want, but much worse off when it comes to playing your hand.

But that's ignoring his discard effect, which is very powerful. If you can pair him with the crystal ball, you can draw 2 from the ball, discard GL, drawing a third. Now you've converted two cards in your hand to 3 cards in your hand, that's always a win. If you get stunned, you normally discard 2 cards and have a hand of 3. With GL you end up with a hand of 4, barely getting hurt by the stun (except of course by that skull that gets added, and all the tokens you lost). If Tom is out, he can discard for himself (or for another ally if you're in the camp that reduces the total discards needed), gaining you a better card. And all of that is not even mentioning that whenever you discard him, you cycle your deck faster. Sure, he's not the best card in the game, but at 2 points, I love to see him pop up and add him to my hand.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ethan McKinney
United States
El Segundo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
ranissi wrote:
If you want an additional rule, might I suggest "Once per turn, a Hero may spend influence equal to half the cost of a card (rounded up) to banish that card from the market."


I'm not convinced that there really is a huge problem, but I like this fix much better than anything proposed so far. If you use it, drop the official "purge the market!" rule.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
LudoH LudoH
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Indeed, I do not think that solving the cheap useless cards in the market is a tough issue, there are not that many cards that are cheap and nobody really wants. In the worst case a cheap spell is not too bad for hermione or a cheap ally for ron or a cheap healing card for Neville. No the problem is indeed when most cards are too expansive and some of them are great ... you either discard everything or accept that hermione takes this ally that does not fit her strategy because she cannot afford anything else, and you have to buy cards at some point to improve your deck ...

That said, it does not happen so often but when it happens this is perhaps more frustrating than when you are beaten up badly because a tough combination of villains
1 
 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.