Zombie Movement No Open Paths and Doors. - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Zombie Movement No Open Paths and Doors.

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrmypops View Post
    If it's any consolation you aren't the only one to have done that. I prepped a game for a friend to run at our club. The weapon and zombie decks were ready to go, but for some reason he chose to open the pack with all the extra cards and shuffle them in. I've many necromancers from getting the game via kickstarter and the stretch goals were lots of extra characters, abominations and necromancers. I checked after the game, they had 27 necromancer cards in the deck. I was too busy laughing to count how many different abomination cards there were.

    1) I think it's 6 permanent spawn zones, as in the starting spawns plus any from successful necromancers fleeing. It would be a bit much to wipe just from an unlucky spike in necro' spawns.

    2) The way I go with those particular tough situations is one wound at time. Folk with armour, or that Iron Will skill, can keep soaking up hits until they fail enough to be overwhelmed. Any remaining wounds have to be shared out amongst the rest of the survivors.

    Rough as a crushing defeat can be, are also some memorable experiences.
    It's funny you should mention that as I was going back through the Necromancer rules last night.

    The game is immediately lost if a Necromancer manages to escape once there’s a total of 6 Zombie Spawn tokens on the board (including the Necromancer Zombie Spawn tokens).
    This is what I ran into even with the twelve Necromancers in my deck at the time.

    I don't think I'm following your second point for the damage distribution I thought based on this rule book example (which I could be misreading) I could put all 21 points into one person.:

    EXAMPLE: A group of seven Walkers is in the same Zone as two Survivors. Six of them would be enough to kill both Survivors, but the players decide to allocate all Wounds on the same Survivor. Your name will be remembered, pal!

    EXAMPLE: Baldric and Clovis are in the same Zone as three Walkers. Both Survivors have full health and Clovis wears a Chainmail Armor (Armor 4+). The Walkers attack, each one inflicting one Wound. The players decide about the way these three Wounds are distributed among the Survivors:

    - One of them could endure them all. Clovis is the obvious choice as a buffer, as his Chainmail Armor can negate Wounds.
    - They can also share the Wounds in any way they please. They choose to give one to Baldric, and two to Clovis. Baldric has no Armor, and thus can’t negate the Wound he receives. Clovis rolls two dice for Armor (one for each Wound), obtaining • and •. One success! A Wound is negated, and Clovis takes the Wound his Armor failed to prevent.


  2. #22

    Default

    I'm not sure I ever read the rule that sacrificing one character to soak up all the damage, so much time later I could just be rationalising the way we've done it, but, having one survivor take all the hits leaving the others free of wounds feels mechanical and gamey.

    Aside: I've a similar problem with the torch item. One person finding one, and it getting passed around so each character can get the benefit of its two item search. We do it though, cos we'd only be depriving ourselves if we didn't. Can feel clever too, working out who is to go first next turn and factoring that in to who ends up with the torch.

    Of the two examples the first could be regarded as one survivor leaping forward, grabbing all the attention, a less gamey and more narrativist view.
    My players and I tend to allocate the wounds one by one. So in the case of the second example we'd have had Clovis step up, roll to see if his armour protected him and if not then he'd take that wound, then do that over a second time for the second wounding hit, and probably a third time, if only as it'd feel daft not give try our luck with the armour again.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrmypops View Post
    I'm not sure I ever read the rule that sacrificing one character to soak up all the damage, so much time later I could just be rationalising the way we've done it, but, having one survivor take all the hits leaving the others free of wounds feels mechanical and gamey.

    Aside: I've a similar problem with the torch item. One person finding one, and it getting passed around so each character can get the benefit of its two item search. We do it though, cos we'd only be depriving ourselves if we didn't. Can feel clever too, working out who is to go first next turn and factoring that in to who ends up with the torch.

    Of the two examples the first could be regarded as one survivor leaping forward, grabbing all the attention, a less gamey and more narrativist view.
    My players and I tend to allocate the wounds one by one. So in the case of the second example we'd have had Clovis step up, roll to see if his armour protected him and if not then he'd take that wound, then do that over a second time for the second wounding hit, and probably a third time, if only as it'd feel daft not give try our luck with the armour again.
    Thanks for sharing those points and I can see how with the damage thematically all damage to all survivors would be more 'realistic' in the game. So in my example from before I had three survivors in one room with 21 zombies. (this was when I had 12 Necromancers in my deck and four Spawn tokens in the same room (yeah, it was fun). So game rule means I'd be alive for three-game rounds seeing how I could dump all 21 into one survivor and just delaying the inevitable since I could not run. Using your more thematic way all the survivors would be dead in that first round. I probably will teach the game rules first with the new people and then move on to the thematic house rule.


    Once again I'd like a point of view question.


    It seems each day I'm getting a better handle of the Necromancers, while I've been pretty obsessed with them they are the one class of character that's what has fouled up gameplay, not win-lose, but how the game is played. In most cases, I'd either have too many cards in the zombie deck or just not playing them correctly. Last night I was going back through the rules of the 'running out of miniature' section specifically the part about Necromancers how there is only one miniature in the core box and the same goes for the Abomination. In my current gameplay, I've taken each time I draw a Necromancer card that I put in a new Necromancer (I bought some new Wizkids D&D prepainted figures as place holders for not official figures.) I also would do the same with Abomination ( I have the Boss Abomination pack). So I in my current game I have three Necromancers and three Abominations on the table. Yes, it creates quite a challenge, but after reading the 'running out of miniature' section maybe I'm doing this wrong.


    While I have not seen it in print in the rules I think what I should be doing for Necromancers is only using the one figure in the BP core box. (unless I'm playing Cabal Rules?) and any time I draw a new Necromancer card I just give him an extra activation. I assume I would apply the same rules for Abominations.


    Yes, free will say I can pick either way I want to play it but I'm curious base on your experience which is the right way and which way to play it. I'm close, I can feel that I have these rules down, now it's just a matter of talking through some specifics.
    Last edited by BKThomson; 03-17-2020 at 08:41 AM.

  4. #24

    Default

    Necromancers will likely remain the trickiest part of the game to handle. Their movement sometimes going in different direction to zombies can sometimes be forgotten, and new necromancer characters all have their own special rule to fold in. That extra activation can upset victory and be a struggle to allocate the right amount of activations.

    I suspect my memory might be at fault but I think upon drawing any necromancer card, be it regular or a special character one, all necromancers already placed should get an extra go, and if a necromancer on the board is of the same type as the card drawn they get an additional activation, though I can't remember if that's "just because" or only if there's no extra necromancer to place giving the one already placed that extra activation the way you would had you run out a zombie type.
    I invariably forget one of those things, or the group does and one the rare occasion I remember I don't like to push my glasses up my nose and "aaactually..." at them.

    Just having the one necromancer from the core box would be a peculiar challenge I'd expect. Don't think I ever played a game like that, cos I get an extra one of the regular chaps from the kickstarter, and then a bunch more character necromancers too.
    I'd be inclined to do as you're doing, and use as many other minis as necromancers as you could get fold in.

    Not sure I'd do that with abominations though. With characters beyond the ones in the core box some get skills that with the right weapons in hand could kill an abomination (like a +1 damage skill, and a damage2 weapon, together can do the 3damage required) but without those characters you're stuck with the hard to find dragon bile/torch combo. I think I'd rather let an abomination have an extra activation rather than plonk another one down.
    Even with new abomination characters, unless the spawn deck is padded out with cards of a new zombie type, I've felt the need to remove one of the regular abomination cards when adding a card for the Abominarat or Ablobination, just so there's not more behemoths on the table than we can handle. .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->