I was forwarded this update on Betrayal at the House on Hill from my regular gaming buddy Rich, which I thought was pretty funny and would share with you all:
Re: House on the Hill of Betrayal
(or whatever it’s name is …)
So, I think we may have been on to something when we posited that, maybe, you know, perhaps, this game had not been sufficiently playtested. You know, or at all.
Avalon Hill has put up a FAQ.
It’s only about 15 pages long. OK, more like 20. And, apparently, only 30 of the 50 scenarios are broken.
Just as a sample, here’s the errata for the Haunt we wound up playing:
16) The Phantom’s Embrace
Q. Both the Survival and Traitor’s books mention the Phantom showing up in rooms with the event symbol, but then they show the omen symbol. Which is it?
A. The books should show an event symbol.
Q. The rules state heroes can win by escaping from the house. How do we escape?
A. The escape rules got left out of this Haunt. You can attempt a Knowledge roll (picking the lock) or a Might roll (breaking the lock) of 6+ to open the front door in the Entrance Hall. If you succeed, draw an event card and end your turn. On subsequent turns all explorers can move out the front door to escape.
Oops. The scary thing is that regarding question #1 above, when this came up in our game I had analyzed the situation and came to the the conclusion that it had to be the omen symbol, not the event, that triggered the Phantom – otherwise the Phantom player was totally screwed, as opposed to just being majorly screwed. Almost makes me want to try the game again to see … then again, maybe not.
It always impressive to me when a company with the resources and reputation of a Wizards of the Coast apparently takes so little professional pride in the quality of their product. Did they do any internal review or playtesting on this game? Or are there processes just incredibly screwed up? Or, most disturbingly of all, do they know that for their market, it just doesn’t matter?