3 hours ago, Buhallin said:

I think there's a difference between "This will be really challenging for some investigators" and "It's impossible to complete this unless you have one very specific card in your deck."

But again, you are looking at the game as if it had a binary kind of resolution. You either win with it or lose without it, no middle ground.

This game has multiple endings and paths to victory, so it's possible one scenario or one single act of a 8 scenario campaign has one resolution that is not achivable by all investigators (be it because they can't find the solution or something else). That doesn't mean those investigators will be unplayable and the world will fall upon them, it only means those investigators will find other ways to progress (and there are always ways to progress, even when you are eliminated in game).

I don't see that as a bad design. It incentivates multiple paths to victory and separates the investigators even more, giving them more replayability.

5 hours ago, xchan said:

But again, you are looking at the game as if it had a binary kind of resolution. You either win with it or lose without it, no middle ground.

This game has multiple endings and paths to victory, so it's possible one scenario or one single act of a 8 scenario campaign has one resolution that is not achivable by all investigators (be it because they can't find the solution or something else). That doesn't mean those investigators will be unplayable and the world will fall upon them, it only means those investigators will find other ways to progress (and there are always ways to progress, even when you are eliminated in game).

I don't see that as a bad design. It incentivates multiple paths to victory and separates the investigators even more, giving them more replayability.

I disagree with the results being utterly unachievable being good design. Make it hard, make it something you have to adapt for, fine... but it shouldn't be impossible. It doesn't matter if the result is "utter failure" or "mostly failure" or "you would have succeeded admirably but here's a little bit of failure you couldn't do anything about." A scenario should not present an investigator with punishment for something that is literally impossible for them to overcome.

But even ignoring that, even if we only consider the investigators who can take it, making the card a requirement to avoid a negative result is bad design. It basically becomes a trap that may or may not be waiting to go off. Every character who can take it will feel obligated to do so, and finish it as soon as possible, because you're never going to know when it will be required. That becomes permanent deck slots and spent actions which will be useless a great deal of the time.

This has a lot to do with psychology. Humans react far worse to loss than gain, even if the loss/gain is effectively equal. Make it give people something extra, it becomes a fun gamble. Make it punish you for not using it, and it's a deeply stupid idea.

Does it say, anywhere at all, that killing the Abominations is required for completing the scenario?

We don't know much. But based on existing scenarios, my guess is that it's not. Not defeating the big enemy in a given scenario might not yield the most favourable resolution, but none of the scenarios I completed so far (I haven't completed The House Always Wins or either of the standalone ones yet - I played Carnevale once, but we got soundly thrashed) require it.

On 1/26/2017 at 1:14 PM, unlimitedpower said:

One thing to consider is that cards like Strange Solution will VERY likely only be relevant to the campaign in which they appear. It is bad customer service to put out new content that requires non-core content to make sense. New stuff can be used backwards but old stuff (non-core) usually isn't required moving forward. Being an LCG - you can pick and choose which story or stories you want to play.

That being said there is a lot of this game that breaks the LCG mold so we will see. My prediction is that we will only see this card relevant (in a game changing kind of way) in the Dunwich Legacy campaign.

Additionally the core investigators are up a creek if it is critical as others mentioned. Not that being doomed isn't thematic, it just isn't as fun as having hope and then failing.

Um, that's how every mythos pack is, since they're all going to require the deluxe expansion that comes before it...

3 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

Um, that's how every mythos pack is, since they're all going to require the deluxe expansion that comes before it...

Good point - I should have worded it differently. While it is great that the player and encounter cards can be used at any point in the game (when allowed by the campaign/scenario rules) there are certain times when it may not make sense to require it for certain progress/outcome to occur.

2 years down the road, hopefully we have three total expansion cycles of 8 scenarios each, plus the core. It doesn't seem like good practice to require strange solution in the latest cycle for some key check or story crossroads. Newer players to the game may not have Dunwich or it may be a forgotten card or the party doesn't have any investigators that can have it in their deck. It makes sense that it could still 'do something fun/interesting' just not story breaking if you don't have it.

That being said this game is breaking the mold (in a good way) so anything is possible! Maybe that one person who includes Strange Solution in every deck going forward will someday be vindicated, even if it is 3 years from now

I doubt we'll see anything about "identifying the solution" out of the Dunwich campaign. Otherwise, we fall into the bad design you talked about. A campaign should only require the Core Set and its own cycle (deluxe and packs).

My guess is that there will be a player card in one of the Dunwich legacy mythos packs that in some way requires the solution be identified. Maybe having identified the solution is a condition for adding the card to your deck. Maybe you get an additional bonus if you have identified the solution. Either way, in future cycles strange solution + this other card will be useful for players. This is no different than cards in LOTR that referenced other cards not available in the same pack, but were part of the same cycle. For example, Elladin and Elrohir each receive a boost if the other is in play - but they were not released in the same adventure pack.

To restate what everyone else has already said I don't think that strange solution will be mandatory to beating the campaign. Will it add a benefit? Most likely, I think that the route of allowing more cards to use if the solution is identified is very likely. But for the long term, I don't think that everyone is always going to add it to their deck several cycles down the line. I think it will have a purpose for the Dunwich campaign (Why else include it?) But I don't think that it will be necessary to identify it to "Win" the campaign, that would be a highlight of bad design.

The thing about making the solution a log entry is not only can each campaign have a different result of finding the solution, each campaign can have a different method of finding the solution.

Dunwich has a player card and and an as yet unknown result. It could be another player card, or in the log. Or an act, an encounter card, an agenda, and so on.

In campaign 3, finding the solution could come from a location or an act or anything. Likewise the result of the solution.

And in the end, all solutions could be interchangeable. Finding any of the possible solutions in each campaign creates the log entry that triggers a different effect in each campaign.

2 cards per cycle isn't that much of a commitment, if they go this route.

2 hours ago, BD Flory said:

The thing about making the solution a log entry is not only can each campaign have a different result of finding the solution, each campaign can have a different method of finding the solution.

Dunwich has a player card and and an as yet unknown result. It could be another player card, or in the log. Or an act, an encounter card, an agenda, and so on.

In campaign 3, finding the solution could come from a location or an act or anything. Likewise the result of the solution.

And in the end, all solutions could be interchangeable. Finding any of the possible solutions in each campaign creates the log entry that triggers a different effect in each campaign.

2 cards per cycle isn't that much of a commitment, if they go this route.

Wow, I really hope they read these forums. That is one of the best ways I have heard to keep older cards relavent and exciting as new cycles come out.