Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Invincible Xykon

    I don't know if anyone else had this problem, but in our game The battle size for Xykon reached 160 when we ran out of cards.

    Elan was facing an attack of 98.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    The simple solution is multple places on this board. "I forgot they could do that", a Screw This! card, can be used to get rid of the Assist ability and drop his Attack back to a normal range. Or the hard route--just get enough Loot to give to everyone and boost your attack that high.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Giant in the Playground Administrator
     
    The Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    I think you did something wrong.

    The battle size for Xykon cannot possibly be higher than 4 (the floor number for Xykon's Lair) + 1 (for Leader) + 24 (total number of goblins in the deck) + 12 (total number of undead in the deck) + 10 (total number of demon roaches in the deck), for a total of 51. And even then, that's only if every single goblin, undead, and demon roach was played on Xykon's level at the same time, which is unlikely.

    Note that demon roaches do NOT count as two Support for Xykon! They count as one Support each, as if they were either Undead or Goblins.

    So yeah, I can't see how you could have gotten a Battle Size of 160 by the rules.

    Now, having said that, yes, Xykon can get pretty unmanageable if players feed Xykon early. The smartest thing for players to do is to NOT play a goblin or undead on Xykon during the first round. If you can get through the first 5 Monsters without any goblins or undead (and you wisely took care of all the monsters on the same floor before wandering off to find Xykon), then Xykon will end up nice and tame without much problem. If not, then there's always Screw This! cards and/or giving all of your Loot away.
    Rich Burlew



    The Holiday Ornament and new t-shirts (top) are from CafePress, while the new OOTS book and the new OOTS calendar (bottom) are available for pre-order at Ookoodook.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    The problem was that someone played redcloak as the third hord member, and then the goblin necromancer as the fourth. They both increase the battle size everytime a goblin was played so one goblin meant 3 more cards.

    We thought we were being clever at the time because Elan was going to win, so we thought we could make a hard fight for him so we played goblins and undead to start with. We also ended up with fiends and ogers and orcs also increasing the battle size due to other reinforcements cards. By the time we realized whet was happening we were playing our whole hands, and couldn't stop it.

    There was also a stack of about 15 (mostly undead) cards supporting the zombie hord in another room in Xykon's lair.
    Last edited by Sendal; 2006-12-06 at 10:23 AM. Reason: spelling

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    Aye, as Sendal pointed out, the stack can go exponential if other hordeing characters are played. In a game I played last night, we found Redcloak, and the battle size ended up to being something like 30 or 40 due to him, a goblin necromancer, and someone that horded off kobolds. We kinda said "screw this" and found Xykon, at which point we played the *other* Redcloak, and Orc Summoner and Demon Roach King (meaning +4 battle size for every demon roach on the floor), and we eventually ran out of monsters from the deck. Xykon's room was ~40 or so (lost count), and we technically needed to play another 30-40, but all that was left were "Screw This!" cards.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    The_Cowinator's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere I shouldn't be...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanthos View Post
    We technically needed to play another 30-40, but all that was left were "Screw This!" cards.
    I had that happen once. We had played through the whole game and ended up having Haley give out all her loot for a +128 just to be able to finish the game.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Spoiler
    Show




    Spoiler
    Show



    Quote Originally Posted by The Vanishing Hitchhiker View Post
    Dumbledore - the new Elvis!


    "not nale, not-nale. thog help nail not-nale, not nale. and thog knot not-nale while nale nail not-nale. nale, not not-nale, now nail not-nale by leaving not-nale, not nale, in jail."


    Avatar by Gorbash Kazdar




  7. - Top - End - #7
    APE Games in the Playground
     
    apegamer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanthos View Post
    at which point we played the *other* Redcloak
    You probabaly know this, but when you find the second Redcloak, the first one goes away, at which point it should be a much simpler matter to eliminate whatever monsters were in that pile.
    Owner of APE Games.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ottawa,Ontario
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    Sounds like we need some sort of rule to say that a monster can only increase the Support: Horde ability of one monster in any given battle stack. That way each Demon Roach doesn't drastically add to the battle size and people like RedCloak and Goblin Necromancer don't get out of control when placed under Xykon. But if you put Redcloak down first and fill him with goblins, that would still increase Xykon if he pops up later because he is in a different battle stack.

    Alternatively, everyone playing needs to make sure they realize all of this before they start exploring Xykon's lair. Don't go down there if you have a pile of goblins and undead in your hand. Don't go down there if all the other players are sitting with 1 or 2 cards in their Battle Hand and are going to be forced to play support characters. And if someone does go down there, don't get so focused on screwing them over that you get yourself into the invincible Xykon stage.
    Arcade

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    But that doesn't solve the problem of exponential growth of the monster stack. As I said, when we ran out of monser cards ie they were all in Xykon's lair or our experience piles, we added up the battle size we should have had and got 160.

    This causes other problems byond Xykon being realy hard. If people go searching the dungeon for more loot to trade in, there are no monsters left to fight, so no more loot can be found.

    I've been wondering, based on the Giant's post, whether the horde ability of the monsters doesn't occour until you meet them in battle. so Xykon might cause say 15 monsters to appear under his own power, several of which may have the horde ability. You ignore this for now. Then a player beats Xykon and the next monster is Redcloak. (Just for now, I'll forget the fact that they all runaway now to illustrate the point) you then add more monsters to the bottom of the stack from his hord ability if you choose to fight him.

    Is that how the rules were intended, and if its not, is it not a good idea?
    Last edited by Sendal; 2006-12-07 at 10:25 AM. Reason: spelling

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    Quote Originally Posted by apegamer View Post
    You probabaly know this, but when you find the second Redcloak, the first one goes away, at which point it should be a much simpler matter to eliminate whatever monsters were in that pile.
    Aye, we remembered this, but since it was late, and all of us had full hands of Screw This! cards, we simply "forgot" he could be assisted and had haley Get Angry 3 or 4 times to kill him. Of course, Roy ended up winning, anyway :P

    (Although, the previous game, Roy came in very dead last. By a lot)

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ottawa,Ontario
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    Quote Originally Posted by Sendal View Post
    I've been wondering, based on the Giant's post, whether the horde ability of the monsters doesn't occour until you meet them in battle. so Xykon might cause say 15 monsters to appear under his own power, several of which may have the horde ability. You ignore this for now. Then a player beats Xykon and the next monster is Redcloak. (Just for now, I'll forget the fact that they all runaway now to illustrate the point) you then add more monsters to the bottom of the stack from his hord ability if you choose to fight him.

    Is that how the rules were intended, and if its not, is it not a good idea?
    I'm pretty sure that's not the intent of the rules. There have been various places mentioned on these forums that the battle size is only determined when the monsters first appear and are not changed at a later date.

    I don't know if I like the idea of adding monsters after they've already been laid. It's nice to handle that event once and then leave it alone and not have to revisit it again. Functionally, it does slow down the monster stack, but it also prevents other synergies in the game (like putting a creature with support: horde underneath a creature with a different support ability but using the same support creature).

    If you go with my previous suggestion to limit the support horde ability to only add 1 monster per battle stack for every supporting creature, it stops the exponential growth but still lets all of the horde abilities play out. It means that Redcloak can have a huge stack of goblins and a few other monsters under him, not a huge stack of goblins and a free dragon/kobold/zombie pet for each goblin because he brought the necromancer along.
    Arcade

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    That might be a less drastic fix. It would still allow pretty large stacks, but not as big as the one we made

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Giant in the Playground Administrator
     
    The Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    Hmmmmm. I will have to consult with Kevin and Craig, but I believe having multiple monsters supported with Horde from the same single monster was not the rule intent. It seems like its one of those things that didn't come up in playtesting because we all knew it worked that way but forgot to spell it out in the rules. The intent was that Horde allowed monsters of a certain type to be "invisible" to the Battle Size, so that it increased by the same number of goblins that were able to be played, not that it increased exponentially if two or more Hordes were in play.

    Whether it becomes an official ruling or not, my feeling is that it's an entirely valid house rule that any given monster can only increase the Battle Size once, no matter how many Hordes he Supports. In the same way that a demon roach only increases Xykon's battle size once despite counting as either an Undead or a Goblin.
    Rich Burlew



    The Holiday Ornament and new t-shirts (top) are from CafePress, while the new OOTS book and the new OOTS calendar (bottom) are available for pre-order at Ookoodook.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    Hmmmmm. I will have to consult with Kevin and Craig, but I believe having multiple monsters supported with Horde from the same single monster was not the rule intent. It seems like its one of those things that didn't come up in playtesting because we all knew it worked that way but forgot to spell it out in the rules. The intent was that Horde allowed monsters of a certain type to be "invisible" to the Battle Size, so that it increased by the same number of goblins that were able to be played, not that it increased exponentially if two or more Hordes were in play.

    Whether it becomes an official ruling or not, my feeling is that it's an entirely valid house rule that any given monster can only increase the Battle Size once, no matter how many Hordes he Supports. In the same way that a demon roach only increases Xykon's battle size once despite counting as either an Undead or a Goblin.
    Well, even if we go with this rule, Xykon's battle stack can be larger than you originally stated because of various Leader monsters and monsters that horde off other types (kobolds, demons, orc, bandits, etc.)

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Giant in the Playground Administrator
     
    The Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    True, I didn't think of that, but those other types don't add anything to Xykon, and they will never be encountered individually because all of the monsters vanish when Xykon is beaten. If Xykon has 40 kobolds, demons, and orcs beneath him, he doesn't get any bonuses and thus isn't any harder to beat than if he DIDN'T have them there. They're essentially dead weight. The maximum bonuses he can get is +102 to Attack and Defense.
    Rich Burlew



    The Holiday Ornament and new t-shirts (top) are from CafePress, while the new OOTS book and the new OOTS calendar (bottom) are available for pre-order at Ookoodook.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    It does make it more likely that all, or most of the goblins and undead will get played though

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2006

    Default Re: Invincible Xykon

    It seems then that one possible way to write the Horde rule would be to say "[Monster Type] does not count towards the battle size" rather than "Battle size +1" - there would be a whole lot less ambiguity that way, and battle sizes wouldn't quite grow to the extremes some people have been seeing.
    Let's break all the rules and make instant pudding slowly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •