I play this solo three handed because of exactly what you said in the review. It isn't hard to manage at all and makes the decision on when to use heroes much more interesting.
I play almost exclusively two player (and each player 1 deck only) with my son and love it. Perhaps it's best with 3+ but it's still great at 2 for me. I backed the expansion today but I'm worried about storage. I sleeve the shuffled cards (not the big ones) and there's not enough room for the new content. I'm hoping I can make it work by removing the insert as I hate needing more than 1 box for a game.
Backed. Only downside is that there is over a year of waiting! Hoped that just printing some cards would be faster... Well, I love that there is a lot of cooperation between players, not enough coop games care about this.
This is a surprisingly glowing review. 4 pros and 1 mix for a game that has a 7.1 rating on BGG. Your ratings would be equivalent to at least an 8.0 to 8.5 on BGG.
Well first of all, why should any individual care how their personal opinions and reviews match an aggregate of tons of people with varied tastes and preferences :) But also, when the game first came out it was TERRIBLY balanced. They had a really bad "tutorial" scenario that was close to unwinnable, and had to add a rule to the second edition of the game that let players heal in between encounters to make the game not pretty much impossible. So I think, if the game had come out in its current form originally, that average rating would be a lot higher. I imagine there are a lot of people who rated the flawed first release and never returned.
@@PublicExecution it wasn't much except: 1 - making a tutorial that actually eased players into the game 2 - Making the official rule for healing, which made scenarios winnable (while still giving players the option to turn healing off if they wanted hardcore mode) It's minor, but it's the difference between playing the game 1 to 2 times and giving up versus having a fun time :)
@@OneStopCoopShop sounds like this creation not only deserve a high score in your collection, but also a comment with a sentence or two to whomever curious about the reason. Nevertheless, it has none of them at the moment 😕 But - Speaking of Top10s... Will you guys to upload any of those anytime soon (..no pressure..) ?
I’m not sure what you’re referring to? BGG collection? I no longer rate games or marked owned and not owned games over there, sorry. We have a bunch of “best of 2022” lists coming soon, so hopefully those will be fun :)
@@OneStopCoopShop bgg yes. That's unfortunate to hear. I really appreciate when reviewers share their opinions. But I guess that it requires... time..(?) Anyway, last question about Heroes of Tenefyr, the game does appear there as "Prev. Owned".. Does its longevity limited?
İ really like the game the issue, as usual, is the shipping cost and VAT for EU... Almost double of the price in the campaign... Maybe better to wait the retail version
A lot of heroes deal strict damage (no roll), and all dice except white are weighted towards a consistent average result, so the dice don’t stand out for me as a major element of swingy chance. But I certainly understand while others might not like them
@@OneStopCoopShop I will always prefer strict damage... If it's competitive play sure add some dice maybe if someone attacks me and them misses its a lot of fun But in solo/co-op? Not so much
@@mabos555 interesting. I believe solo/co-op completely lives and dies on methods of randomization. Otherwise it's a solvable puzzle, since you don't have an opponent to tangle with. I'm fine with all of it in moderation. But some gamers are going to like card draw luck and not dice luck or vice versa. Good thing we have so many options these days!
@@OneStopCoopShop yeah deck/bag building already has element of luck using the draw itself. Adding entire layer of more luck is just not relevant for this kind of mechanism in my opinion. I'm not against randomness entirely sure, but I'm against the idea of "not letting you do action before let the luck decide". It's like in dnd I want to attack I already decide my action! Let's see if you succeed doing this action by rolling a die. Why? I know what I want to do on my turn, the die will most likely screw it up for me with not valid reason at all. I think the same is here as well, you already know how much to attack, adding more or less based on luck make the game easier in my opinion. And vice versa, if the die is rolled for the enemy and he attacks you randomly by a die - you have nothing to do against it and can die from the die really quick 🤷 I don't know I'm just OK with letting card decide for me and against the die, maybe it's dumb but with cards it feels more controllable sine I was the one to shuffle the deck, while dropping the die on a random pip feels to me like I have no control at all
@@mabos555 I also get frustrated with output randomness (where you make a choice and THEN the luck comes in), though it's barely a concern for me in Greyport for the reasons mentioned previously. Compare that to something like Robinson Crusoe, where I can completely waste actions (with sometimes a minor compensation) based on a bad die roll. Except for the rare instance of a 1/6 on the white die in Greyport, their dice luck never has that level of screwage. But don't get me wrong. I'd be happy if almost every co-op game went with something similar to the Salder brothers dice system from Street Masters/Altar Quest/Hour of Need where a miss gives you tokens to mitigate your luck on the NEXT roll.
