Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

Gloomhaven» Forums » Variants

Subject: Variant for enchanting loss actions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Paulius Sileikis
msg tools
Is anyone else bothered that actions which cause you to lose the card are enchanted at the same cost as normal cards. Normal actions can end up being played 4-6 times per scenario. Actions with loss symbol will be played once per scenario, baring some Spellweaver shenanigans.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
AFAIK if you're really determined, you can do it up to 5 times, or probably even more as I've not seen all the content, but this is rather an exception than the rule.


I'm thinking of introducing our first house rule which will allow enchanting loss actions at half the base price.

I'm a bit worried that Spellweaver would get too much of a benefit from this change, but other classes really need an incentive to even consider enchanting loss action.

Please keep in mind that I have unlocked only 1/3 of the content at most so I might be missing some crucial information.

Guys what do you think? Please keep the responses spoiler free.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Schofield
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Personally I think they should be at the same price as lost card actions typically already do more damage, so to enhance them would make them even stronger. To put the enhancements at half price would probably make you only want to enhance your lost cards, whereas now you need to decide if you want to upgrade a one-shot already strong card or a multi-use card that will get slightly better.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Liam Brennan
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Eternally
badge
Deluded
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would imagine this has been accounted for in balancing by ensuring loss actions are generally more powerful than others, and adding to them would make them even stronger. Not every decision is equal tactically, and the Spellweaver would definitely benefit more. Saying that, though, they also have more cards that have the 'loss' symbol and a smaller hand, so there's that to take into account as well.

Personally I'd try playing the game as written for a while longer before making any decisions early that might have a knock on effect later in the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Kameron
msg tools
I think it is a great idea - I will implement it too. They are crappy to enhance right now.

Quote:
I would imagine this has been accounted for in balancing

Fair point, except it was a stretch goal and realistically Isaac did not have the time/energy to properly balance stretch goals as he did core content.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grey Fox
Portugal
Sintra
Sintra
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Even if the abilities are more powerful, the upgrade is the same, so I don't think that balances it.

In fact, you can consider the reverse to be true.

Let's say you add a +1 to a 1 attack card, it's a 100% improvement, but if you add a +1 to a 10 card it's only a 10% improvement.

Regardless, I definitely understand the TC's problem. If I'm adding +1 damage to a card I'll add it to the card I'll use more than once. In the end, it will be like a +7 on the long run if I use the card seven times, while in a lost card it will, at most with the spellweaver, be a +2.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mathue Faulkner
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fizi wrote:
I think it is a great idea - I will implement it too. They are crappy to enhance right now.

Quote:
I would imagine this has been accounted for in balancing

Fair point, except it was a stretch goal and realistically Isaac did not have the time/energy to properly balance stretch goals as he did core content.

I doubt that. Stretch goals are usually already designed game elements, but they're needed to push projects. Five of the character classes were stretch goals as well, and I'm sure those were heavily tested. Additionally, the fact that enhancements can only be placed in specific places indicates that they weren't simply an afterthought.

I'd have to look at all of the possible Lost card enhancements before giving an opinion on the variant.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know, to be honest.

You want to enchant a move 2 to be a move 3, yeah you'll get a lot of mileage out of that. You want to have Impaling Eruption now curse every enemy it hits too? You've taken something you will almost always want to do in a scenario and made it even better.

The cards are lost because they have a big effect, that's the nature of the balance. I don't see what's gained making it cheaper to enhance. Realize that there are ways to regain lost cards too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kester
United States
Johnston
Iowa
flag msg tools
Also consider the usage. You use loss actions when you need them most - against a tough enemy, in a pickle, etc. Repeatable actions give you steady value when you don't need it as much.

For the spellweaver, if you give +1 target to Fire Orbs, you're giving yourself +2 xp, +6 dmg (+2 card draws). If you're also using say a minor power potion or a piercing bow on one of those attacks, it's even better. It's powerful stuff. If you are into reading guides, most spellweaver writers consider FO/IE strong considerations for enhancements.

Other starting classes tend to rely less on their loss cards, and I'd discourage many of those enchantments. Even if the cost was half price, I wouldn't typically enhance many of those abilities because you're limited by prosperity level, at least early on.

Half price discount for non-spellweavers seems reasonable. I wouldn't give any discount to the spellweaver.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grey Fox
Portugal
Sintra
Sintra
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Redboots wrote:
For the spellweaver, if you give +1 target to Fire Orbs, you're giving yourself +2 xp, +6 dmg (+2 card draws).


Am I missing something, or should all of these values be halved? (+1xp, etc...)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel Cwertetschka
Germany
Vienna
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Gloomhaven: Forgotten Circles!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CodenameGreyFox wrote:
Redboots wrote:
For the spellweaver, if you give +1 target to Fire Orbs, you're giving yourself +2 xp, +6 dmg (+2 card draws).


Am I missing something, or should all of these values be halved? (+1xp, etc...)

he is calculating after recovering it once
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grey Fox
Portugal
Sintra
Sintra
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Morthai wrote:
CodenameGreyFox wrote:
Redboots wrote:
For the spellweaver, if you give +1 target to Fire Orbs, you're giving yourself +2 xp, +6 dmg (+2 card draws).


Am I missing something, or should all of these values be halved? (+1xp, etc...)

he is calculating after recovering it once


Oh, although I highly doubt you'll find 2 situations with 4 monsters close together apt for it. At least with 2 players (how I've been playing). But ok.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kester
United States
Johnston
Iowa
flag msg tools
Yes, finding the targets is tougher for 2p. With 3p or 4p you'll consistently find enough baddies.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Ziemer
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
While I appreciate the OP's point of view and ability to do whatever they want with their game, I don't think this is something I would do or recommend. Not all things in life are fair and it feels more like trying to break the rules to get cheaper enhancement on cards you want to enhance but not have to pay for it.

Life is not fair and not all enhancements are created equal. Some are more expensive and some might not give you as much bang for your buck.

This same line of thinking applies to higher level cards. Look at an atk 4 lvl 1 card next to a atk 4 lvl 3 card. If you want to enhance +1 atk it is the same effect on either card but will cost double the money simply because 1 card says "3" on it. Not fair but that's the game. IMO it makes for a much more thought provoking decision process as you need to decide what you want to spend your money on.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grey Fox
Portugal
Sintra
Sintra
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
meziemer wrote:
IMO it makes for a much more thought provoking decision process as you need to decide what you want to spend your money on.


I think OP is arguing the exact opposite. By making upgrading the lost cards the clear worst pick you have less to choose from and thus, less "thought provoking decisions".

Also life isn't far is a pretty bad argument for any balancing question by the way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philipp Schuster
Austria
Innsbruck
Tirol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
By the way, I am not sure that I agree with this argumentation:

Quote:
Let's say you add a +1 to a 1 attack card, it's a 100% improvement, but if you add a +1 to a 10 card it's only a 10% improvement.


In my opinion it does not make much sense to calculate a percentage of improvement. To begin with, for the majority of enhancements (like for example all the added status effects) this is not possible anyways. And furthermore, a +1 enhancement on an attack adds just that - one additional point of damage, bringing a monster exactly one point closer to death. I do not see why this should be more valuable on an Attack 1 than on an Attack 4.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grey Fox
Portugal
Sintra
Sintra
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Complex wrote:
By the way, I am not sure that I agree with this argumentation:

Quote:
Let's say you add a +1 to a 1 attack card, it's a 100% improvement, but if you add a +1 to a 10 card it's only a 10% improvement.


In my opinion it does not make much sense to calculate a percentage of improvement. To begin with, for the majority of enhancements (like for example all the added status effects) this is not possible anyways. And furthermore, a +1 enhancement on an attack adds just that - one additional point of damage, bringing a monster exactly one point closer to death. I do not see why this should be more valuable on an Attack 1 than on an Attack 4.


I don't agree with it either. If you read my post you'll see I'm just saying it's quite possible to argue the opposite of what the other poster was saying. Personally, I think it's pretty much the same.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Ziemer
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
CodenameGreyFox wrote:
meziemer wrote:
IMO it makes for a much more thought provoking decision process as you need to decide what you want to spend your money on.


I think OP is arguing the exact opposite. By making upgrading the lost cards the clear worst pick you have less to choose from and thus, less "thought provoking decisions".

Also life isn't far is a pretty bad argument for any balancing question by the way.


Hi Mr. Grey Fox

I agree that was the intention of the original post, I was simply stating I disagree. If the rules eliminated the option for those enhancements maybe it'd give you less to choose from but instead, it allows those choices. Meaning more choices and in my opinion, if all the choices are the same, or fair, then that doesn't make it very thought provoking. The fact that some choices seem too expensive or unfair or very different makes it more thought provoking. (Plus I don't think it's unfair or overpriced) I maybe want to enhance a card but it seems to cost a lot for little effect but it's a card I want to keep in my hand and I don't want to enhance a card I'm not keeping just because it's cheaper. Hence a lot of thought, do I spend the "extra" money or not.

I guess it's like those that don't like the game due to card loss and how it "gives you a reduction in choices as the game progresses" and then there is those (I'm one) that say the loss of cards mean more interesting, thought provoking choices as the game goes on. Cup half full or empty maybe?

-----

To your second point. I didn't see this as a balance question. I agree a good game should have a good balance but this can mean a lot more than fair or the same or everyone does the same amount of damage. It's so much deaper than that and this seemed more like "But I don't wanna pay that much for the shiny thing."

Also I didn't just say "Life's not fair". I also explained why I felt this was relevant to this situation and gave examples.

Plus I feel in this day, quotes from our parents, such as reminding people that "we don't always get what we want" or "if your
Friends jumped off a bridge would you jump too?" is a pretty important thing. People seem to be forgetting that basic stuff.

Thnx for reading.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mauro Moura
msg tools
Spellweavers actualy use their loss cards twice per scenario (if you have a support class with you that know what he is doing might even use some of them 3 times per scenario), so if youre doing this for the sake of her you're doing it wrong. If you make it cheap to enchant loss cards your spellweaver would make her Fire Orb card a murder machine in no time (attack 4, range 4, hitting 4 targets and giving her 4 XP...)and would rule the board even more than she already does with that thing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre Oliveira
Brazil
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, lost cards are pretty bad for enhancing. I would go as far as 1/3 for double loss cards.

Of course that wouldn't apply to effects that last more than one turn, like summons or active effects.
 
 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.