Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Last Night on Earth: The Zombie Game» Forums » Rules

Subject: Heroes Replenish, Zombie Heroes and the Black Zone rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jason Hill
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmb

No. The 'Heroes Replenish' Scenario Special Rule means that the Heroes always get to replace a dead Hero character (not just if the Sun Track is still in the Black Zone or if it is the player's last character). The fact that it is still in the Black Zone just means that the dead Hero is also turned into a Zombie Hero anyway.

- Jason
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan H
msg tools
That suggests I've been playing things wrong the last few months. I thought you replaced a dead Hero with a new Hero whenever the dead Hero becomes a Zombie Hero, and vice versa. Can you clarify under what other circumstances these two things don't go together?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Hill
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmb

Currently the only times that a player gets to replace a dead Hero are:

- If the Hero was killed while the Sun Track marker was still in the 'Black Zone' (this also turns the dead Hero into a Zombie Hero).

- If the Hero killed was the last Hero that the player was currently controlling (this also turns the dead Hero into a Zombie Hero).

- If the Scenario being played uses the 'Heroes Replenish' Special Rule that first appeared in the Growing Hunger Expansion (this does not turn the dead Hero into a Zombie Hero unless they would become a Zombie Hero for some other reason).


A dead Hero is currently only turned into a Zombie Hero when:

- The Hero is killed in the Black Zone (as noted above)

- The Hero killed was the last Hero character controlled by the player (as noted above).

- The Hero has a 'Remains in Play' Zombie card on them that specifically says that they are turned into a Zombie Hero (such as "I Feel Kinda Strange" or Bitten).

- The Scenario uses the 'Always Zombie Heroes' Scenario Special Rule first introduced in the Survival of the Fittest Expansion.


Hope that helps to clear things up.

- Jason


5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
DOUGLAS BRUNDIN
United States
Akron
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Actually I'm still confused. Specifically, what does the "last hero that a player controlls" mean? I only ever play 2 player with my son. So if he is controlling 4 heroes by himself, isn't he sort of just playing as 4 separate players? I mean, if we had enough people interested,and each player controlled one hero, does that mean that each time a hero died that a new hero would spawn in? So it's confusing what that rule means with 1,2,3 or 4 hero players.

Please help me understand?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dbrundin wrote:
Actually I'm still confused. Specifically, what does the "last hero that a player controlls" mean? I only ever play 2 player with my son. So if he is controlling 4 heroes by himself, isn't he sort of just playing as 4 separate players? I mean, if we had enough people interested,and each player controlled one hero, does that mean that each time a hero died that a new hero would spawn in? So it's confusing what that rule means with 1,2,3 or 4 hero players.

Please help me understand?


Officially the rule is that if 1 player is controlling 4 heroes, he only draws a replacement when the LAST of the 4 dies.

In my opinion, it's a poor rule because it results in very different situations based on how many players are on the Hero team, when that has no impact on any other rule. Personally, I prefer to replenish Heroes and make Zombie Heroes when a Hero dies, no matter how many players are on the team.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan H
msg tools
Okay, so the two go together unless you're using one of the expansion rules (but not both) or the Hero is killed by one of the "I Feel Kinda Strange" cards. Got it! Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Powers T
msg tools
mbmbmb
When the HEROES are played by 1 person, it is NOT as he is taking the place of 4 other people. He is CONTROLLING 4 HEROES.

This means in a 5 player game where 1 person is the Zombie Master, is it easier for new HEROES to come into play vs a 2 player game where all your HEROES dies before new heroes enter (though most or all scenario ends with 4 hero death).

This is the way it is, because if 1 player control all he can in a way plan better to maximize his efforts (so to offset that benefit he do not get heroes that quickly) vs when multiple players are playing they would go their own way and not work as a unit. Get it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No, because there is no reason to assume that a group of 4 people is less capable of making good decisions as opposed to a single person. If the people are deeply flawed and have personal attachments to their characters and stuff like that, I could see having more people as being a disadvantage, but if the human players are allowed to freely communicate and all share the exact same victory conditions and win and lose as a team, adding more players to the team does not make it weaker.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Powers T
msg tools
mbmbmb
It's not that they are less capable or anything like that, it's that they will not work as a single cohesive unit according one plan, there is always room for the players to make their own decision.

Unlike the problem in the game Pandemic (if you don't know the game just skip this) where there is a possibility for an ALPHA player to make decision for everyone and usually can't be argued back, LNOE have too many randomness for a player to judge what another player should do.

I understand the ruling because in my game group for example, when my hero is going to be surrounded by Zombies in a building, I would like to get out as soon as possible, but my fellow gamers would "urge" me to stay and take the risk. In a 2 player game he can make that decision and if the hero dies, too bad you made a bad move because of your own actions, but with more than 2 player why should one be penalize for anthers decision.

Like you said, having more people looks like a disadvantage, so to balance out heroes will return faster with more people.

At least I like to believe so . Also this may have been explain before in the rule book/errata/on BGG before if i am not mistaken, maybe.

What do you think?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel V
msg tools
mbmb
Hi,

Several players controlling heroes doesn't make them weaker but as a zombie player I always witnessed times when players disagree on what action to do, or are overprotective on their characters keeping items that could go to others. In a way they are totally in the spirit a zombie movie

When there is only one player, he/she is generally more keen to sacrifice his/her pawns, so not being able to get right away a replacement helps to keep the "fun horror" feeling of the game.

Cheers
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djay16 wrote:

I understand the ruling because in my game group for example, when my hero is going to be surrounded by Zombies in a building, I would like to get out as soon as possible, but my fellow gamers would "urge" me to stay and take the risk. In a 2 player game he can make that decision and if the hero dies, too bad you made a bad move because of your own actions, but with more than 2 player why should one be penalize for anthers decision.


Dying isn't really a disadvantage. This is what I was talking about earlier where becoming overly attached to your hero is poor play. You should recognize, even as part of a team, that your hero is not any more valuable than another player's hero just because you are controlling him, and you should be willing to make sacrifices to help the team fulfill their objectives.

It depends on how you play, I guess, but there's also no reason that "randomness" should interfere with the ability of a single player to make decisions and advise the rest of the team. It's hard to plan in advance, but there are still short term decisions to be made, and if one player is much more experienced at the game then the rest of the team, then he's still the most qualified to make decisions, and if the other players on the team are interested in winning they ought to listen.

Any problems that result from having more than one player on the team are the result of the players themselves being unreasonable and playing suboptimally. There's nothing stopping a single player controlling all 4 heroes from being unreasonable or playing suboptimally -- I guess it depends on whether your players have a more difficult time making decisions or agreeing on decisions. If nobody wants to cooperate, a team might have it tougher than an individual, but there's simply no reason to assume that people shouldn't be willing to cooperate.

With experienced players, any negative effect that could result from them disagreeing or lacking coordination is so minor that it does not at all offset the enormous advantage they get by being able to replace every Hero that dies. It might be balanced if your Heroes play poorly, but I don't think the rules should be balanced around poor play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Finazzo
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Heroes Replenish" and "Always Zombie Heroes" are both two dot variants, so we always play with both rules in effect. Keeps four heroes in the game but the threat of the zombie heroes and the 4 kill will for the zombies keeps us from needlessly throwing away our heroes.

I love how the game can be easily tailored to everyone's taste.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roman F
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This is sort of a tangent, but I really hate when a hero gets killed from getting caught in explosives but then comes back as a Zombie Hero. That's one rule that IMO should be changed. In terms of game play, it's fine but this is a game based on theme and experience, and it doesn't fit that a character gets blown up but then returns as a Zombie.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Biodiesel
United States
Manassas
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Roman Farraday wrote:
This is sort of a tangent, but I really hate when a hero gets killed from getting caught in explosives but then comes back as a Zombie Hero. That's one rule that IMO should be changed. In terms of game play, it's fine but this is a game based on theme and experience, and it doesn't fit that a character gets blown up but then returns as a Zombie.

Maybe it's a crawling torso? zombie
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dennis Russell
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Roman Farraday wrote:
I really hate when a hero gets killed from getting caught in explosives but then comes back as a Zombie Hero. That's one rule that IMO should be changed


Well, this has been changed... if ALL players agree beforehand.

From SotF, pg. 9:

Not Much Left:
You may add the rule that any Hero killed by an Explosive may not be turned into a Zombie Hero (there is simply not enough of them left in one piece).

But I am soooo loving Sappington's: Any Hero killed by an Explosive comes back as a Crawling Torso, (if the Hero would be turned into a Zombie Hero).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Finazzo
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Blodgett wrote:

But I am soooo loving Sappington's: Any Hero killed by an Explosive comes back as a Crawling Torso, (if the Hero would be turned into a Zombie Hero).


Oooooo, I'm using this.
 
 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.