Story Card Draft Deck

Content removed as per request by FFG.

... Supercool.

Sujet à épingler!

Great job !

We need to try it soon !

Colorcrayons a écrit:Here is a link to a story card draft deck that I have been working on for the past few months. After a fair amount of playtesting and tweaking of some cards, I think it is finally ready to share with the public at large.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/6249312#6249312

Very nice deck. I wait the next coupons.

Hi,
Very interesting, Do you think upload it to artscow?,I am interested.

But I am not agree with Tools of the Trade, The Calling of the Outer Gods and other history with "Only characters with ? icons may commit". Some factions have no icons of Investigation or Terror... they can not opposition.

What do you think about "Active player only can commit characters with ? icons..."??

.

Those stories are great !

Is it possible to download them all at once ? (with a zip file or something)

Mmmmmh, nos champions du monde du marketing, aka FFG, ont demandé à Colorcrayons de retirer les liens vers les images du deck spécial d'histoire sur le BoardGameGeek... moi qui voulait les passer en revue avant le tournoi de ce vendredi soir afin d'un peu orienter mon deckbuilding...
D'ici peu, ils tomberont sur le DeckBuilder et lui chercheront des noises, si ça continue.
Ces gars ont le marketing le plus pourrave que je connaisse...

Sorry about that, Fred.

In FFG's defense though, I was using copyrighted material and they didn't mind me making the cards. Their problem was Artscow making money from printing the cards.

So I am sure that the deckbuilder programs and websites such as http://www.cardgamedb.com/ and http://cthulhu.dbler.com/ are safe simply due to the provisions of fair use law for review purposes.

I understood the point, but really, how much money do they think Artscow would be going to do with your deck, whatever its quality is? Almost the complete belgian Cthulhu LCG community is concentrated in Liège, and we have acquired 1 deck...

FredhoT a écrit:Almost the complete belgian Cthulhu LCG community is concentrated in Liège, and we have acquired 1 deck...

I can't help laughing while I read you
Indeed, you're right. Moreover the "loss" of benefit due to the illegal exploitation of the brand may be regarded as a free promotion of the game for them.

Je pense aussi que ça peut créer une confusion avec les cartes d'histoire originales de FFG. On pourrait croire que c'est FFG qui les ont faites ou du moins que c'est approuvé par FFG. Par exemple, pour le pack d'histoire du cénacle qu'on devrait un jour finir et imprimer, on avait eu l'accord de FFG par ce que :
1 - le dessin du gabarit des cartes n'était pas celui des cartes d'histoire de FFG (donc aucune confusion possible), c'était un dessin original de Tribe.
2 - les illustrations, n'étaient pas des recadrages d'images copyrightés de FFG.

Bref idéalement pour le pack d'histoire de Colorcrayon, il faudrait que le gabarit des cartes soit un gabarit original et à défaut d'illustrations originales, ne pas mettre de dessins.

Et puis avec le print à la demande que lance FFG, je me demande si ils n'ont pas l'idée derrière la tête de commercialiser par eux mêmes des histoires originales sous cette forme

dadajef a écrit:Et puis avec le print à la demande que lance FFG, je me demande si ils n'ont pas l'idée derrière la tête de commercialiser par eux mêmes des histoires originales sous cette forme

D'abord ils n'ont pas compté l'économie de design que Colorcrayons ne leur a pas facturé, ni les frais de production qu'Artscow prend en charge (ok, après ils se font une marge)...

Pour le "print à la demande", c'est toujours pas clair si c'est un système à la GMT (P500 --> on n'imprime ou réimprime que lorsque le seuil mini nécessaire de rentabilité est atteint en précommande, et c'est souvent 500 précoms pour la première édition, et 250 pour les rééditions) ou bien réellement du print à la demande "client par client"?!

Dans le monde du jeu, la créativité, on s'en cogne si elle n'émane pas de la sacrosainte Source.
Say nul.

@ Dadajef:
The issue (as noted to me by Jeremy Stromberg at FFG) is that it is a matter of copyright and who is making the money from printing the cards and not possible confusion of their authenticity. In this case it was Artscow making money from them so Jeremy alerted me that they were going to contact Artscow to have the files removed.
But afterwords, Jeremy mentioned that Damon Stone (an associate designer for CoC) was interested in them. Damon Stone requested the files to look over and I sent him a PDF.

@ Fred:
It is indeed odd how this came about at the same time that Print on Demand was announced.
I am hoping that by allowing Damon Stone and the rest of FFG access to the files, that such a service for this could be done in the future. Of course, in order for that to happen they would have to tweak not only the art but perhaps some of the effects in some stories so that that can be satisfied with the result. I do know that they have some unpaid interns who do graphic design work for them, so it may be possible for such a thing to be made with little to no capital expenditure by FFG.

Sorry for not replying in French. While I understand the language quite well, it is difficult for me to coherently communicate in it.

@Colorcrayons:
Question about "Learned the Aklo for the Sabaoth" story card:
"Search your deck for 1 Tome and/or 1 Sorceror..."

In the dabbler website, I indeed find 6 cards listed with this Subtype, 4 from Secrets of Arkham and 3 from Murmur of Evils.

However in the Deckbuilder, I cannot find this Subtype, only Sorcerer is mentionned. And when I filter these cards, among others I find the 6 which are wrongly noted as Sorceror in the dabbler website. Actually, these 6 cards have the Sorcerer subtype printed on them, not the Sorceror.

--> I guess the "Learned for Aklo for the Sabaoth" story card refers to Sorcerer subtype, which means 22 cards instead of 6!

NB: I was not able to find Sorceror in the Harraps dictionary...

Oops! Sorry about that. It should indeed be "Sorcerer".
Ahh well. Since there are no cards with the subtype of "Sorceror", then it should be apparent the intent of the effect.

Just an honest oversight in the spelling.

Good catch. You are the first to ever mention that.

FredhoT a écrit:@Colorcrayons:
Question about "Learned the Aklo for the Sabaoth" story card:
"Search your deck for 1 Tome and/or 1 Sorceror..."

In the dabbler website, I indeed find 6 cards listed with this Subtype, 4 from Secrets of Arkham and 3 from Murmur of Evils.

However in the Deckbuilder, I cannot find this Subtype, only Sorcerer is mentionned. And when I filter these cards, among others I find the 6 which are wrongly noted as Sorceror in the dabbler website. Actually, these 6 cards have the Sorcerer subtype printed on them, not the Sorceror.

--> I guess the "Learned for Aklo for the Sabaoth" story card refers to Sorcerer subtype, which means 22 cards instead of 6!

NB: I was not able to find Sorceror in the Harraps dictionary...

Orthographe alternative. Je n'ai pas l'Oxford English Dictionnary sous la main, mais historiquement, les suffixes -or et -er se mélangent parfois un peu, surtout pour ces mots empruntés au français.

On a déjà dans les variantes anciennes en -our: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED41623&egs=all&egdisplay=open

@mzi: oui que ce soit ou non une orthographe alternative, ce qui compte, c'est qu'on identifie bien le Subtype Sorcerer. Ce qui m'a troublé, c'est la même erreur sur le cthulhu dabbler...

FredhoT a écrit:@mzi: oui que ce soit ou non une orthographe alternative, ce qui compte, c'est qu'on identifie bien le Subtype Sorcerer. Ce qui m'a troublé, c'est la même erreur sur le cthulhu dabbler...

Les designers font eux-mêmes la même erreur fréquemment (les bêta testeurs corrigent en général)

FredhoT a écrit:@mzi: oui que ce soit ou non une orthographe alternative, ce qui compte, c'est qu'on identifie bien le Subtype Sorcerer. Ce qui m'a troublé, c'est la même erreur sur le cthulhu dabbler...

If you submit corrections to the Dabbler, the corrections are usually quickly implemented.

I think it is a pretty common spelling error, which is why it was present on 6 of the 22 sorcerer cards in that database. If you haven't already done so, I will submit corrections to the Dabbler so as to avoid further confusion. Already taken care of it seems.

Colorcrayons a écrit:

FredhoT a écrit:@mzi: oui que ce soit ou non une orthographe alternative, ce qui compte, c'est qu'on identifie bien le Subtype Sorcerer. Ce qui m'a troublé, c'est la même erreur sur le cthulhu dabbler...

If you submit corrections to the Dabbler, the corrections are usually quickly implemented.

I think it is a pretty common spelling error, which is why it was present on 6 of the 22 sorcerer cards in that database. If you haven't already done so, I will submit corrections to the Dabbler so as to avoid further confusion. Already taken care of it seems.

I did for one of the 6 (cannot remember which one... ). I do not see it already corrected on the dabbler. The 6 cards have still the Sorceror subtype...

Are you the guy behind dabbler?

FredhoT a écrit:I do not see it already corrected on the dabbler. The 6 cards have still the Sorceror subtype...

Are you the guy behind dabbler?

Yes, they still have the subtype. What I meant was that the corrections had been submitted. He is quick but not that quick.

Nope that's not me. Some other guy.

Colorcrayons a écrit:

FredhoT a écrit:I do not see it already corrected on the dabbler. The 6 cards have still the Sorceror subtype...

Are you the guy behind dabbler?

Yes, they still have the subtype. What I meant was that the corrections had been submitted. He is quick but not that quick.

Nope that's not me. Some other guy.

Hence my question: where do you see that a correction has been submitted on the Cthulhu Dabbler?

[edit: btw, now the 6 cards have been corrected and do show the Sorcerer subtype]

I really liked the deck. And I've been able to print by Artscow before he retired.
My sincerest condolences. Your work was very good

We used the deck in a small 9-player tournament yesterday. Combining it with regular stories, we were able to make a nice draft. It was really refreshing. Thank you again for this awesome work!

mzi a écrit:We used the deck in a small 9-player tournament yesterday. Combining it with regular stories, we were able to make a nice draft. It was really refreshing. Thank you again for this awesome work!

You are more than welcome. I am glad to hear they were enjoyable.

• Did you think the print quality was good?
  
• How many more stories did you add to it in order for it to work with nine players?
  
• Did you use stories from the CCG?
  
• If you did use CCG stories, did you use either of the promotional stories? (Nameless City & Challenge from Beyond)
  
• How many cards were dealt to each player?
  
• Were there any confusion about the draft rules?
  
• Was it one large multiplayer game, or several smaller games?
  
• If it was multiplayer, which multiplayer rules were used?

Sorry for all the questions, but getting even a minimal amount of feedback from other players experience with these story cards is rather difficult and I am eager to hear other player's thoughts/criticisms/etc. about them in order to learn from any mistakes or oversights I may have made. ( ...thinks about sorcerer misspelling... )

I'd like to see those cards.. It seams link was remove because some person earn some money , but if i want to print for my own?

kriss a écrit:I'd like to see those cards.. It seams link was remove because some person earn some money , but if i want to print for my own?

Yes, an evil money maker, I heard it too! i'm sure he has evil eyes and kills kittens of the neighbourhood!