Welcome to Steamforged Games Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

hamsjams

Members
  • Content count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Very informative and straightforward! You made it look so easy! If I had the funds, I'd be very tempted by this video to give it a go. These miniatures really are fantastic.
  2. I can easily see future expansions and fan expansions adding alternate AI cards. I feel like Minions were originally supposed to have behavior decks very early in the kickstarter but that may have just been my own personal assumption at the time. Certain minions, if ever included, might flat out need multiple cards to accurately reflect their diversity of abilities and role in the video game. I'm more interested in the possibility of minion types having whole behavior decks than picking just one randomly. It would be most cool to me if the minions had multiple behaviors based on board states, though. It would feel more like actual AI and programming. Taking your Silver Knight example, I think something like the following could be neat: -If more than 2 nodes away from a Player, they stay put. -If within 2 nodes of a player, they do their normal behavior. -If on a node with a player, they do a less damaging attack with no push and then back away one node. It could really add a lot of flavor to minions. I think just the rules above could do a neat job of emulating how Silver Knights in the video game just stand back looking cool as opposed to rushing you and also how they tend to back off and circle you a bit. I can see it all being a mess to balance though haha. EDIT: This just gave me an idea. I've heard people were disappointed in the tactical options when playing with only one character. What if single character games added actual "aggro" rules to enemies. If an enemy's behavior card cannot take them into attack range of you, they don't do anything. If you make an attack against an enemy, that enemy and all enemies on that node are considered "activated" and will come after you no matter what. In this way the player has more considerations about their movement and order of actions, so as to avoid being dogpiled. In a multi character game you have to juggle the aggro across characters, and maybe this can provide a way to juggle aggro with just one character present. I'm curious to try this.
  3. I obviously support my interpretation, haha. It makes the most sense to me when the name of the move "Hammer Smash" is taken into consideration. The name makes me think that the strike is a downward smash, thus likely to be aimed at only a single target. Smough's hammer is big, but not big enough to hit such a large zone in its entirety with only a single vertical attack. Plus, I don't remember video game Smough pulling off too many 360's. It also makes it feel as if the move's real purpose is to cover Ornstein's flank against over-aggressive players. Additionally, it gives clever players the opportunity to counter-flank Smough, promoting tactical options. Like I said I don't think the rules support this interpretation, and other cards in their deck may even contradict it, but it's the interpretation that makes most sense to me personally.
  4. It is certainly gear dependent (so is the video game) but there is also a definitive skill element to it, the likes of which I'm not sure I've encountered in a board game before other than the abstract greats like Chess and Go. Despite what all the marketing and memes tell you, Dark Souls is not about being hard. It's about the feeling of accomplishment players get by conquering that difficulty. When my group finally overcame the Gargoyle after taking a demoralizing death to him before the feeling of hopelessness that transformed into immense satisfaction felt exactly like what I get from playing the video games. The rest of my group cannot play the video games, and so finally being able to actually share that feeling with them was wonderful. The moves that killed us became top priority to keep track of in the next attempt and consequently never hit us again, resulting in victory. Part of that satisfaction comes not just from the bosses, but by revisiting and "grinding" the encounters. I can see individual encounters becoming tedious after multiple playthroughs, much like the video game. However it's only by "grinding" the encounters that players get to see firsthand how much stronger their new gear and knowledge has made them, revealing just how tactical and complicated the game can get even with such relatively simple rules. I think it's a shame that so many reviewers and players are totally averse to all encounter revisiting because I feel they're robbing themselves of that small satisfaction. No wonder they tend to have a more negative opinion of the game than others. I would too were it not for those constant small feelings of achievement. I'm really enjoying what I've been able to play so far and I'm having so much fun that I've already made sure to make the time to play it more than most games in my collection. It's not perfect. I have a few ideas that I'd like to test out and I think the campaign could use more narrative flair. But I believe the core rules already very much capture something that is very important to the feel of Souls: the feeling of satisfaction gained from overcoming difficulty.
  5. I don't think there's anything in the rules to support this interpretation, but is it possible this attack is supposed to hit the nearest player in range but ONLY if they're within the front arc?