Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Aoniken · 01-26-2015, 02:15 AM

linked scenarios wold be great... but what about a survivors vs survivors escenario?
Could be for three players (one zombie, two groups of heroes) and each team could have diferent objetives

soundguy · 01-26-2015, 02:46 PM

Seems like survivor vs survivor during a zed apoc might be a poor idea?

ForestRunner · (This post was last modified: 01-26-2015 11:53 PM by ForestRunner.)

For me... LNOE has a "feel" and a "spirit" to it. I believe survivor vs survivor pretty much alter both of those things to a different game entirely. My considerations in the comment are based on the both Zombie and Player cards, and the degree of interaction with Heroes... and some of the core rules of the game.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the idea... and why it would come about. I just don't think it fits with the existing core rules and cards/content.

StayPuft · 01-29-2015, 08:57 PM

I do prefer this game the way it is. In other words, all heroes on one team, all zombies on the other.

However, I wouldn't necessarily be against one or two scenarios the include heroes vs. heroes vs. zombies. I think you could adapt it fairly easily. Sure, a lot of the hero cards specifically reference the zombies, but you could easily just have a rule that they can be used in whatever way makes sense (but still fits the card) against opposing heroes.

Hell, it is very rare that there is a zombie movie/book/comic/whatever where there are not any heroes or teams of heroes that wind up fighting against the others. It's human nature. You'd think in such a horrible event, we'd band together and try to survive together. Sure, a lot of people would do just that. But, there are plenty of scumbags in this world, so plenty of people would think being heartless and ruthless would be the only way to survive. So, thematically it could work.

As I said, though, I wouldn't necessarily want to see that become a regular game mechanic. I'd more see that as just a set of special rules in one or two scenarios.

ForestRunner · (This post was last modified: 01-29-2015 11:15 PM by ForestRunner.)

I think for it to work effectively - again, consideration to core rules and existing cards/content... would potentially be a Player vs Player boxed set expansion?? (small box expansion).

Tell you what though... sometimes the players find it tough to survive when it's co-op. This concept would ad a radically different dynamic to survival chances.

soundguy · 01-30-2015, 03:31 AM

Might be easier to simply make the win goal achievable by less than the total number of heros. Is escape in the vehicle with gas.. Whoever has the gas and gets there first goes. Anyone nit there is left!

Aoniken · (This post was last modified: 02-21-2015 02:42 AM by Aoniken.)

Another way of doing it might be for 2 players: each one controls a pack of heroes AND a pack of zombies, so the cards may still have sense, and the zombie hunger rule applies for every one. One group of heroes play one escenario, the other plays a diferent one. It might be a little caotic, but nothing you cant fix with a couple of house rules...

jeffd1830 · 05-02-2015, 06:15 PM

I think there is potential within the core rules and decks for there to be a competitive hero vs. hero scenario in the sense of a race to accomplish goals, without allowing things like heroes attacking each other, or playing cards directly on each other.

soundguy · 05-04-2015, 12:19 PM

Hmm, essential 2 games going on one city tile, different objectives, heros would /could compete for resources.. Hmm kinda realistic.. Watchmen02

ImtheTimelord · (This post was last modified: 06-02-2015 04:57 PM by ImtheTimelord.)

(01-29-2015 08:57 PM)StayPuft Wrote: I do prefer this game the way it is. In other words, all heroes on one team, all zombies on the other.

However, I wouldn't necessarily be against one or two scenarios the include heroes vs. heroes vs. zombies. I think you could adapt it fairly easily. Sure, a lot of the hero cards specifically reference the zombies, but you could easily just have a rule that they can be used in whatever way makes sense (but still fits the card) against opposing heroes.

Hell, it is very rare that there is a zombie movie/book/comic/whatever where there are not any heroes or teams of heroes that wind up fighting against the others. It's human nature. You'd think in such a horrible event, we'd band together and try to survive together. Sure, a lot of people would do just that. But, there are plenty of scumbags in this world, so plenty of people would think being heartless and ruthless would be the only way to survive. So, thematically it could work.

As I said, though, I wouldn't necessarily want to see that become a regular game mechanic. I'd more see that as just a set of special rules in one or two scenarios.

I definitely think this could work for a new scenario. The best example I can think of would be something like "The Walking Dead". Sure the survivors have to deal with the zombie/walkers (extremely dangerous), but the real danger to they survival will always be other survivors.

(01-30-2015 03:31 AM)soundguy Wrote: Might be easier to simply make the win goal achievable by less than the total number of heros. Is escape in the vehicle with gas.. Whoever has the gas and gets there first goes. Anyone nit there is left!

Maybe have this be a two hero team game, with each hero team controlling two heroes respectively.
If someone from one team is killed by a hero, any event cards would be lost, but item cards would transfer to the hero that killed them (keeping in mind card limits).
If hero is killed by a zombie then cards are discarded as normal.
If one team had the keys and the other team had the gasoline it would get very interesting very quickly Watchmen02