Hi all,

For Labyrinths(or any standalone scenario I guess) where you are starting with a certain amount of XP cards, I assume you can't include any of the identified cards like Strange Solution level 4 since you couldn't have identified the solution in a previous scenario. Am I correct about that?

Yep.

11 minutes ago, rsdockery said:

Yep.

Short and sweet, thanks!

Wait really? That sucks and feels counter-intuitive.

It is a shame, but I don't think it's counter-intuitive: there's no campaign log for Labyrinths (or indeed any standalone you're playing, because it's standalone, rather than part of a campaign), and the upgraded solutions and glyphs specifically mention your campaign log.

not really. cards that would need a campaign clause to upgrade are meant to be campaign only cards, much like the 2 basic weaknesses in Forgotten Age.

6 minutes ago, Radix2309 said:

Wait really? That sucks and feels counter-intuitive.

The XP versions have 2 conditions for deck inclusion (upgrading from the base version and having a specific entry in your campaign log). In standalone mode, neither of these conditions is fulfilled (you're directly including XP cards in your deck rather than upgrading them, and you don't have a campaign log). What's counter-intuitive to me is thinking you could include those cards without fulfilling their conditions.

32 minutes ago, zooeyglass said:

It is a shame, but I don't think it's counter-intuitive: there's no campaign log for Labyrinths (or indeed any standalone you're playing, because it's standalone, rather than part of a campaign), and the upgraded solutions and glyphs specifically mention your campaign log.

I'm actually happy about it. When we played the epic mode at Arkham Nights, one of the groups in our game had 3 guys who had played the scenario at Gen Con so, knowing what was coming, they all made experienced Seeker decks with 2 copies each of Strange Solution: Acidic Ichor and then proceeded to absolutely nuke the end part of the scenario for all three groups, completely taking any of the challenge or fun out of it.

No one in the 3 groups realised that they can't put the upgraded unidentified solutions into their decks?

10 hours ago, KBlumhardt said:

I'm actually happy about it. When we played the epic mode at Arkham Nights, one of the groups in our game had 3 guys who had played the scenario at Gen Con so, knowing what was coming, they all made experienced Seeker decks with 2 copies each of Strange Solution: Acidic Ichor and then proceeded to absolutely nuke the end part of the scenario for all three groups, completely taking any of the challenge or fun out of it.

Yeah it seems to me you have to be pretty obtuse not to realize it was illegal. This was a clarification/ruling almost the week the card was released and the cards themselves have wording that should at least make you check (hence why the OP asked this question here),

Even if you are not sure, the grim rule should kick in. (deckbuilding rules are rules)

12 hours ago, DarkFate said:

No one in the 3 groups realised that they can't put the upgraded unidentified solutions into their decks?

The 2 non-cheating groups (including ours) had no idea what was in their decks until the end of the game, and apparently the 4th person in their group didn't know or didn't care. As far as the players themselves, considering the level of cheese involved, I don't think it would have stopped them anyway.

31 minutes ago, KBlumhardt said:

The 2 non-cheating groups (including ours) had no idea what was in their decks until the end of the game, and apparently the 4th person in their group didn't know or didn't care. As far as the players themselves, considering the level of cheese involved, I don't think it would have stopped them anyway.

For me, this game is a fun cooperative game, so I'm pretty lax about the rules. If we miss something, well, we'll do a better job next time.

The moment this becomes a competitive game, however, I flip into a very different mode.

Several years ago, I figured out what I didn't like about professional basketball. In addition to the refs having a controlling say in who wins, I despise that when a team is behind at the end, the go-to strategy is to foul other players so that they can get the ball back. Yes, the other team gets to shoot free-throws, but their percentages aren't necessarily great. It breaks down to exploiting a rule, by literally cheating. In hockey, if you cheat, the play isn't whistled dead. The umpire raises his hand and the opposing team gets to press whatever advantage they have so long as they maintain control of the puck. The moment the offending team gains control of the puck, the play is whistled dead and the rules-breaker is removed from the game for a specified amount of time (2 min, 5 min, or the rest of the period/game). His team must now play the game without his position filled. In American football (I know a number of you are in the UK) the penalties are handicaps based on the significance of the edge the cheating allowed, or on the likeliness of harm to the assailed player. Both of those sports do a good job of punishing unfair play. Basketball encourages it, and I can't stomach it.

If I don't like it when the team I cheer for cheats - or worse - is cheated against, imagine how I feel when I'm the one playing (or my online buddies by proxy).