House rules ?

[Kapharnaum]

Hello,
Just wanted to know if you are using house rules / what they are?
I was thinking about the following (mainly taking into consideration the Tier1 characters to lessen their power):
- Making daze last only until the next attack to mitigate the power of this effect (and Chooloo)
- Having Spike able to deal damage with crits on defense only up to his level
- Having Heartless and Seth substract defense dice up to their level
- Having Nibbles heal an amount of wounds equal to his level
- Having the Smily Face use the reroll of only one of his guild members - or - able to use a maximum number of rerolls equal to his level
- Having Wisp power active only until he succeeds at a quest
- Having Hobsbawm power make the activated heroe dazed
- Having Sonja gain only +1 die for each close enemy other than the original target and only up to her level
- In 2p games, the number of quests to fulfill is 3 like in a 3-4p game
- Having the Amulet of Retribution deal wounds only on crits on defense
What are your thoughts?
++

 

[Kangataz]

I've always felt daze mechanic in general is a little weird. I like that it is either the next attack. Or for limited amount of turns. Having rest as the only means to recover from daze is a little weird in my opinion...For example, monsters can't recover from daze ever....

 

[odinsgrandson]

In larger games, the daze modification can make daze after hit characters even more useless than they already were.

 

[Carrots]

I'm considering a house rule to say Villains can't be dazed.

 

[Kapharnaum]

I'm considering a house rule to say Villains can't be dazed.

I like that.

 

[Bouncy]

Assassin's Cloak grants one extra free wound when you attack, rather than the movement rule. This would eliminate Wisp's abuse of it.

Seth ignores defence on Crits only, normal hits get a defence roll against them.

Spike's ability maxes out at the number of hits done to him, not all the Crits he rolls.

Campaigns are won by majority medals and killing Lord Fang acts as a tie-breaker. If the killer isn't in the tie-break it is then decided by the total number of wins within all the medal classes for the tying players.

 

[Parker]

Hello,
Just wanted to know if you are using house rules / what they are?
I was thinking about the following (mainly taking into consideration the Tier1 characters to lessen their power):
- Making daze last only until the next attack to mitigate the power of this effect (and Chooloo)
- Having Spike able to deal damage with crits on defense only up to his level
- Having Heartless and Seth substract defense dice up to their level
- Having Nibbles heal an amount of wounds equal to his level
- Having the Smily Face use the reroll of only one of his guild members - or - able to use a maximum number of rerolls equal to his level
- Having Wisp power active only until he succeeds at a quest
- Having Hobsbawm power make the activated heroe dazed
- Having Sonja gain only +1 die for each close enemy other than the original target and only up to her level
- In 2p games, the number of quests to fulfill is 3 like in a 3-4p game
- Having the Amulet of Retribution deal wounds only on crits on defense
What are your thoughts?
++

Mostly are pretty much balanced. We didn't have much trouble with Seth/Heartless or Wisp per se. The amount of advantage that they give it doesn't seems so unfair.

The amulet... It's something that has to be reworked. It's limited per se to the amount of hits that the enemy has done (not like Spike that it's unlimited), but even so. I don't know if cutting it to only crits on defense it's enough. Maybe leaving the original text but with an activation rule like: "You may exhaust your hero to..."

I'll add to the list: Assasin's Cape limited to one damage per monster every activation.

 

[Gormash]

I'd change dazing on monsters so that it last until the next time they roll to attack, at which point they are un-dazed.
I'd also change it so that monsters with no defence dice roll one less attack dice the next time they attack, the they are un-dazed.

 

[Mary Pumpkins]

- In 2p games, the number of quests to fulfill is 3 like in a 3-4p game

that not seems possible. There's 2 Pve quest to fullfill and some allows only one accomplishment. that will leads to situations where one player kill the troll and the other one has no possibility left to win the game since only 2 quests left available for him.

but i agree that a 2 player game is heavily frustrating due to the early end of every scenario. Most of the time you don't have the time to play that your opponent already won. (I feel that way even in 3/4 players game actually)

the problem is that pvp quests can be done really quick (like round 1), only pve quests usually give the scenario some weight.

the solution should be that the scenario can't end until every pve quest have been completed at least once. (who like to let the boss survive anyway ?)

if more than one player have completed the needed amount of quests when the end occurs then the winner is the one with more quests completed. If there's still a draw, then the winner is the one with most Pve quests completed.
that can still allow draw situations but that's not such a big problem. this will not be a common situation and multiple winners for a single scenario does not disturb the flow of the campain. the first to complete 2 quests (3 in a 3/4 players game) should be the "first" winner for everything that need a precise "winner" player (such as choose the next scenario).