Desert Setting Monsters:

Scorpions - Immobilize, Poison

Mummies - Shambling, Cursed Trait, Terrify, Bewitched (LoR Condition)

Cobras (Like the Snakes in D&D's Wrath of Ashardalon) - Poison

Sand Worms (Can't call them Graboids ) - Burrow, Immobilize

Basilisks

Giant Centipedes

Jackals

"Anubis" Lieutenant

"Cleopatra" Lieutenant

Sphinx Lieutenant

Ohh, I would love to see a Act I 10/12 Hp, grey armor mob with 3 move + shambling introduced.

Would be great for blocking the way or chasing down heroes without being the absolute fodder that Zombies are.

5 hours ago, LeeroyPorkins said:

Desert Setting Monsters:

Why doesn't anyone ever say landshark?

1 hour ago, Bucho said:

Why doesn't anyone ever say landshark?

That's cool. What is it from?

52 minutes ago, Lightningclaw said:

That's cool. What is it from?

That's a Bulette from D&D.

I like the idea of a land shark, though i don't know how someone might make the abilities for such a beast.

2 hours ago, ATM2100 said:

I like the idea of a land shark, though i don't know how someone might make the abilities for such a beast.

Choose any space within 3 spaces of Land Shark. Remove Land Shark from the board and place in chosen space. Place any figure in chosen space in nearest empty space. That figure and any figure now adjacent to Land Shark suffers 1 heart (or fatigue, if it's too harsh).

The plague worm already has burrow, I was thinking something like removing the monster from the map. Though swallow is also fun, I miss it.

5 hours ago, Bucho said:

The plague worm already has burrow, I was thinking something like removing the monster from the map. Though swallow is also fun, I miss it.

Huh. I don't have that monster, I was spit balling an idea off the top of my head based on how a bulette acts in D&D. Guess FFG already had the idea.

an appversion of "Sea of blood" expansion would be great.

On 8/27/2017 at 6:08 PM, zwara81 said:

an appversion of "Sea of blood" expansion would be great.

Did you ever play the original? It was widely considered a trainwreck...

13 hours ago, Bucho said:

Did you ever play the original? It was widely considered a trainwreck...

It was just not ment for "Sunday warriors". Hardcore 1ed. players that used to frequent my work place back in the day ware just amazed by this expansion. They even created up whole campaigns based of the "road to legend" and "sea of blood" combined that took them few weeks to play. Whole first batch of these expansion boxes sold the same day we got them into our store.

4 hours ago, Reedmooley said:

It was just not ment for "Sunday warriors".

*shrug* I suppose you can make fun of all the people who gave it bad reviews if you want, it doesn't change the reality that the sea encounters were so badly balanced that significant numbers of heroes were immediately fleeing off the starting edge of the map.

Quote

The Sea of Blood Errata
Rule Changes and Clarifications
Fleeing Encounters
Players and lieutenants may only flee off of the opposite
side of the map they appeared on. They can no longer move
off the “sides” of the map, only the edge opposite from their
starting edge. Lieutenants who flee from an encounter are
now moved to their starting space on the overland map.

5 hours ago, Reedmooley said:

Whole first batch of these expansion boxes sold the same day we got them into our store.

Oh I'm sure that initial hype had them flying off the shelves. Road to Legend was awesome and this has cool looking boat cardboard and a Kraken! But once the game became a known commodity... So much so that I can still buy new half priced boxes of sea of blood. Whereas every other expansion sells used for more than it's original cost.

Was Sea of Blood a "Mid" Campaign to play in order to keep XP? I was thinking it would be cool if they made Rumor Deck Expansions. their Rumor Books would tell what Expansions are needed (Like how Dark Elements needs Lair of The Wyrm).

OMG, what about a random campaign?

OL starts the game with 5 rumor Act 1 rumor quest cards. Each quest has a win reward for the OL (relic available or finale affecting reward) and the Heroes (gold, relic, etc). At the start of the game OL must play 2 rumor cards, these are the starting available quests. Heroes choose which quest to do.

If the Heroes win, the quest card is discarded, and the OL must play an addition card from his hand at random.
If the OL wins, OL gains the quest card into his reward pile, OL plays an additional card from his had of his choice.
Act I continues until 3 quests have been played.

Transition to Act 2, OL gains rewards for all cards in hand or still in play. OL then draws the ACT II version of any cards in play, or in hand (should be at least 2), and then plays 2 of his choice. These are the available quests.

Heroes choose the quest from the 2 available.

If heroes win, they gain the reward listed on the ACT II quest card (relic, finale affecting reward) and the card is discarded. OL plays an additional quest card at random if able.
If OL wins, he gains the reward on the ACT II quest card (relic, finale affecting reward), and the card is discarded. OL then plays an additional quest card of his choice.

Act II continues until either there are no more available quests, or 3 quests have been completed.

OL then gains all rewards for any cards remaining in play or in hand, and chooses the Finale.

And what happens when heroes or OL win all the act one missions? I like the idea but i think that some groups might have heroes win all or OL wins all. I will think more on a all rumor quest myself (I am interested in making one myself).

31 minutes ago, ATM2100 said:

And what happens when heroes or OL win all the act one missions? I like the idea but i think that some groups might have heroes win all or OL wins all. I will think more on a all rumor quest myself (I am interested in making one myself).

Well if the OL won all the act I missions, there would be 6 available Act II missions, 3 of which would be played, with a possible max of 6 rewards (min 3 rewards) for the OL going into finale.
If the Heroes won all the act I missions, there would still be 2 available Act II missions ( 1 from hand, and one from the unplayed pool) for act II, so max 2 rewards (min 0) for the OL going into the finale.

If the Heroes win all, then OL gets a slight bump for act II in the sense that there is one fewer campaign/shopping phase.

The balance for the structure would have to be in the win/lose rewards on each card;
potential Act I hero win rewards would be relics (since it foils the OL scheme and pulls the card off the table)
Act I OL win rewards should be minor OL cards or XP (with the main thematic reward being saved for the ACT II version).

Act II rewards for heroes would be relic/gold etc
Act II rewards for OL would be relic, or including specific monster groups or Lieutenants as additional re-enforcement groups for the finale.

I am thinking the finale has a kind of reenforcement pool, with 1 monster group in it, but the ability to add additional groups based on rewards, so that OL is still limited as to the number of monsters he can re-enforce per turn, but has more options and a higher maximum units on the board based on success.

On 4.09.2017 at 4:52 PM, Bucho said:

*shrug* I suppose you can make fun of all the people who gave it bad reviews if you want, it doesn't change the reality that the sea encounters were so badly balanced that significant numbers of heroes were immediately fleeing off the starting edge of the map.

I'm not making fun of people who do write reviews, but if you consider them as part of gaming community- they are maybe 1% of all buyers. If you check BGG profiles of most active revievers, they are game collectors rather than game players. When you write a review?-When you don't like something. If you get well with a game-you will probably just rate it, and go back to have fun with the stuff. Sea of blood was maybe bad balanced, but it had a strong sides: graphics, nice box content, familiars etc, fun new mechanics, campaign etc .

And it was quite well received by people who was frequent players of 1ed. and by frequent I mean they gathered and played it in my workplace at least 3 times in a week for some long hours for two years I've worked there. The same type of frequent players as D&D guys used to be back in 90's. Most of people can go ahead of some flaws (by homebrews for example) to get more fun from their game, and don't give a dime on reviews.

It was also the last produced expansion, and most of people gather expansion in their release order. That is the reason of people getting it as last expansion IMO, not because it is that bad. You may think otherwise and I understand that.

1 hour ago, Reedmooley said:

I'm not making fun of people who do write reviews, but if you consider them as a small part of gaming community- they are maybe 1% of all buyers. If you check BGG profiles of most active revievers, they are game collectors rather than game players. When you write a review?-When you don't like something. If you get well with a game-you will probably just rate it, and go back to have fun with the stuff...

... and by frequent I mean they gathered and played it in my workplace at least 3 times in a week for some long hours for two years I've worked there. The same type of frequent players as D&D guys used to be back in 90's. Most of people can go ahead of some flaws (by homebrews for example) to get more fun from their game, and don't give a dime on reviews.

No matter how small and biased you want to call the internet you must recognize that some people in your local game store who made a homebrew is an even smaller and more biased sampling.

Well the idea of a expansion in the islands of Torue Albes is not bad.
It doesnt have to be the same as SoB. It can take some ideas from there.
There are some people who would like to see boats, sea monsters, dead pirates, lost island of Dread etc.

On 8.09.2017 at 4:07 PM, Bucho said:

No matter how small and biased you want to call the internet you must recognize that some people in your local game store who made a homebrew is an even smaller and more biased sampling.

I do recognize it, but I don't dismiss something because of some internet reviews, I trust my own experience and live contact with product more than some internet hype. I don't see the Sea of Blood remake a bad idea from a start. Like Jopan said above, it's decent theme and I would be happy if we get some of that kinda stuff incorporated into IIed.

On 9/11/2017 at 6:08 AM, Reedmooley said:

I do recognize it, but I don't dismiss something because of some internet reviews, I trust my own experience and live contact with product more than some internet hype.

*sigh* And this is why Americans are having such a hard time staying oriented to reality these days. You're ignoring most of the data at your disposal in favor of your personal experiences.

I resent that comment...even if I must acknowledge its veracity.

26 minutes ago, Bucho said:

*sigh* And this is why Americans are having such a hard time staying oriented to reality these days. You're ignoring most of the data at your disposal in favor of your personal experiences.

I need more likes for this. It's really obvious how true this is down here in Texas right now.