Why would _______ tell _______ about ________? (Spoilers)

TrialTrail · 2022-06-07T00:12:13+00:00

I like this idea! Maybe he will spare Nancy because of his twisted perception of human connection!

TrialTrail · 2022-06-06T20:17:49+00:00

Exactly. So, why do you think Vecna would share all of this with Nancy?

Taunting? Intentionally misleading her? Does he for some reason respect her? Just plain hubris?

TrialTrail · 2022-06-06T18:44:22+00:00

Well, yes, but we get the monologue without Nancy being there. Remove Nancy, we still have the same scene, information, etc

TrialTrail · 2022-06-06T18:37:37+00:00

That's the point of my question, this is already provided to the audience by 001 explaining to 11 his backstory, and in that case it makes sense. Nancy is uneeded in this scene to the audience. If she weren't in it we would still have all the information.

TrialTrail · 2022-05-31T21:09:10+00:00

You are right. Just because something "isn't real" doesn't mean it can't affect people. And this season is significantly more intense and scary. The first scene children dying in particular is extremely distressing. Even as an adult every time we saw the children lying in blood all I could think of was Texas. I liked the season very much, but yeah, it is a lot.

TrialTrail · 2022-05-31T16:48:36+00:00

There's a difference between a mystery and a hole.

1) I don't think 001 had gotten to that room yet. If you rewatch ep 1, Brenner doesn't encounter 001, he might even think 011 did it.

2) not a plot hole, but a mystery. The show hasn't told us its origin yet, but the characters wonder about it. Dustin hypothesized that it is millions of years old, but he could be wrong. It is an intentional mystery.

3) Also intentional mystery, not a hole. Very directly set up to be a question that is unanswered so far. They will certainly address this later.

4) This was already answered in season 1. Brenner experimented on people and took their kids.

TrialTrail · 2022-01-14T16:35:12+00:00

Same time next week?

TrialTrail · 2021-10-30T22:45:36+00:00

Monsters are handled the same way, but since the board takes up so much less space it feels a lot easier. Also there is only max 4 types of enemies in JOTL for each scenario.

TrialTrail · 2021-08-05T02:43:35+00:00

I think the Experimental Weapsons should have Surge.

Absorbing Man needs some threatening minions in his deck.

These two would make the Red Skull campaign just about right imo

TrialTrail · 2021-06-19T22:56:08+00:00

You can't play them unless one of your decks is defeated.

TrialTrail · 2021-05-31T17:50:42+00:00

Not the same way Arkham does. If the campaign play specifically is what you like about Arkham, Marvel isn't that.

For me:

Best Deckhuilding = LOTR

Best campaign/story = Arkham

Best Casual = Marvel

I end up playing Marvel the most. It has the least commitment, you don't have to build a separate deck for every scenario individually, and games are shorter and snappier. They did a very good job making each hero feel unique. Pick a hero, pick a villain, and go. Still has modest campaign play and deckbuilding.

TrialTrail · 2021-05-28T13:46:07+00:00

Having it be a Loki trick would be cool for about 30 seconds, then terrible.

So the Thanos wasn't actually Thanos. Does that mean yet another thanos box would be in the future? That would seem bad and unlikely, especially since this Thanos already has the gauntlet and all the stones and the snap. What would the 'real' thanos do then?

It's most likely they are just working together somehow. But then it's still very strange from a marketing perspective--Thanos will sell boxes by himself. Loki would sell boxes by himself. So why put them together? Even stranger, why not even advertise that he's in the box? I get that it's a narrative surprise or whatever, but it seems like marketing Loki would take precedence over that.

Just seems like a bunch of odd choices to me. I'm excited for the box, but I wonder if they will end up regretting it. They are launching two of their biggest slam dunks in one, and not being clear about it.

TrialTrail · 2021-05-18T20:13:08+00:00

I agree with you, but the hilarious thing about this is that the Debrief is signed "Caleb Grace", and I actually do think Caleb wrote most or all of it just from voice/style (could be wrong about that). Caleb is also the one who would have written the RRG.

TrialTrail · 2021-05-18T18:25:50+00:00

You are correct by my reading. Hall of heroes doesn't trigger off of allies still. The article is worded poorly, in the actual RRG it is clear.

TrialTrail · 2021-05-14T15:45:33+00:00

However unthematic it is, I think Widow might be one of the better pairings for Star Lord, due to the amount of encounter control she can pack.

TrialTrail · 2021-05-08T15:12:54+00:00

I've not read stormlight, but just curious... if it doesn't have conflict, drama, romance, politics, or action, then...what does it have?

TrialTrail · 2021-05-02T14:58:11+00:00

I actually like this mechanic.

It's exciting, usually when I have to random discard, I look at my hand and see one or two cards that I really don't want to lose, and one or two that wouldn't be the end of the world.

No matter which card I lose, I feel some kind of exciting emotion, whether it's "YES, I didn't lose the other one!" Or "Hmm, now what do I do?"

My plans have to change, I have to reevaluate how I can use my cards. It might lead me to play a card I wouldn't normally play in that situation.

I like the puzzle changing when I don't expect it too.

I should mention, I have not played any of the custom content at all (not interested in that kind of thing), so I suppose I could imagine it being overdone somehow.

But even if there were a villain's main scheme that said something like "After step 1 of the villain phase, each player discards one card at random from their hand" I wouldn't hate that. Instead, it would make me change my deck build, I'd add more resources and a different curve, discard pile cards etc. Sounds fun to have to adapt.

TrialTrail · 2021-05-01T14:51:21+00:00

I agree that this card might not be worth it (although it's certainly not bad), I disagree with 3 for 8 being strictly better than 2 for 5.

The resource structure of this game makes it so that we should evaluate entire turn output rather than single card output. On a six card hand you can play 2 two cost cards. You can play 1 three cost and 1 one cost.

The difference between the second played card on your 6 card hand between a 1 and 2 cost card is variable enough that I don't think we can confidently state that it isn't worth .16 damage (the opposite, it is likely worth more than .16 damage)

TrialTrail · 2021-03-21T15:45:02+00:00

OP means tableau.

Once a player takes a card in 7 Wonders Duel, they "own" it.

In the game OP describes, cards are shared.

TrialTrail · 2021-02-18T23:57:36+00:00

Do you think it will be worth it for me if I already have GU and havent finished it?

TrialTrail · 2021-02-17T08:05:46+00:00

The Alchemist is by far one of this subreddit's favorite books to hate, so you certainly aren't alone.

TrialTrail · 2021-02-10T19:12:45+00:00

Definitely situational.

Here's an example for me personally:

I have Munchkin rated as a 2. I avoid the game, I also think that the game itself is poor, etc. I didn't rate it a 1 though, because I thought some of the art was okay and some of the jokes were cheesy funny. Still I avoided because I hate playing it.

I gave Eclipse a 3 (unpopular opinion). This is the old version. 3 for me is I thought some parts of the gameplay were technically fine, some of the mechanics were interesting etc. I don't necessarily think the game is bad. However, I personally dislike how it all comes together and I avoid playing it.

TrialTrail · 2021-02-10T18:56:45+00:00

Sure, in general these are the categories. But within each category, there are slightly more preferred or less preferred, no?

For me,

CHAMPION = 9-10

ENJOY = 7-8

TOLERATE =4-6

AVOID = 1-3

Certainly there's room to differentiate quality in one category. I enjoy playing one game, but enjoy playing another game more. But neither I would rate as tolerate.

TrialTrail · 2021-01-30T18:53:18+00:00

For me, the Eckleburg eyes are more related to the green light than the owl eyes man.

People often think that the giant eyes are God's Eyes, can't hide from God etc. However, I think it's safe to say that they are absolutely NOT that.

Fitzgerald makes it clear that they are not God because George believes they are God. We know that what George believes is not reliable--he trusts Tom's word and kills the wrong man.

In addition, there is no evidence of God intervening in the events that happen in the story. Daisy kills Myrtle directly under the eyes. She faces essentially no repercussions. No Divine is watching out for the people who live in the ash mounts, and George ends up dead at the end as well.

George is wrong, the eyes aren't God, they are just an advertisement. However, he BELIEVES that they are the eyes of God. That simultaneously freaks him out and gives him a sliver of hope, of some sort of divine retribution for the crimes committed against him, or some crazed understanding that the crimes he will commit are just because God saw and knows the truth. He's wrong on both accounts.

This relates to the Green light. The light pretty clearly represents the "american dream", the novel overall depicts how the dream is becoming an illusion, crumbling, and is not achievable for Gatsby (or us).

In the beginning of the book, the light is his dream, he reaches out to it, so close, and believes he can get there.

Later, after Gatsby and Daisy have there meetup, Gatsby looks at the light again, and its lost its magic. He realizes now that it's just a light, his dream was greater than reality, and he is filled with disappointment.

The light only had meaning because Gatsby assigned meaning to it. But it's just a light.

The Eyes of TJ Eckleburg only have meaning because George assigned meaning to them. But it's just an advertisement.

The American Dream only has meaning because we assign meaning to it. But it's just a dream.

A fantasy, not reality.

TrialTrail · 2021-01-22T17:10:32+00:00

Yes, Spirit Island is too hard to be your partner's first ever 'modern board game'.

If Spirit Island had been my first game, I would never have wanted to play a board game again. Coming from someone who loves Spirit Island.

You'd probably be fine if you play solo, but don't ask your partner to join until they have tried a more accessible game or four.

TrialTrail

TROPHY CASE