Talk:The Fury of Dracula

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Board and table games Low‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Still to come[edit]

I still need to add in something about the event cards and the combat system (old and new). Fivepast 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty of doing this for you. I've also found some remarks in the article regarding the various editions (normal and limited) and the original 5th hunter variants. As I have no idea about these homebrewed rules, would somebody be willing to complete this section? Oni no Akuma 10:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The commented-out remarks (Draft for Editions) were mine, as I meant to finish it but haven't yet got around to it. I wonder if it might be worthwhile to combine the "differences" draft with the "editions" draft... They seem like they would go well together. JordanSealy 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be the clearest way of doing it, although the draft headings I've got for differences would have to be trimmed down a bit. Oni no Akuma 06:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user 208.42.95.211 has added a number of second edition variations to the end of the appropriate sections. Since I think it would be rude to simply remove their contribution wholesale, I've left their edits where they were and added a differences section covering the last few outstanding points. Oni no Akuma 16:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland Yard[edit]

Fury of Dracula is, as I remember it, basically a variant of Scotland Yard. The relationship should be made clear in the article, but I don't have enough reference information at hand on Fury of Dracula to do it. - Stellmach 14:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it but I know virtually nothing about Scotland Yard. Fivepast 11:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from your (Stellmach) linked article to Scotland Yard, the search and evasion aspect is similar. However in Fury of Dracula, both Dracula (himself or his minions) and the Hunters can try to eliminate each other from the game. It'd be the equivalent in Scotland Yard of Mr X being able to leave remotely detonated car bombs behind in locations, plus both sides are armed with guns and a shoot out occurs whenever a detective and Mr X land on the same location. ^_^ Oni no Akuma 18:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Chance[edit]

I've increased the "Random Chance" entry to Medium after being severely tempted to put it up to "High". The combat system is PURE chance, with many games being resolved by who wins a certain combat - all based on dice. How can this be considered Low Random Chance? --Stenun 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combat may well be somewhat random, but combat is only one aspect of the game. Surely the entry should refer to the game as a whole? Fivepast 11:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The random aspect of the combat (dice rolls) can be minimized in large part by the strategic choice of which items or actions are used during combat rounds, as well as the strategic use of event cards. In advanced play one observes minimal effects of random chance, but Medium is probably the most appropriate.Cdurian 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?[edit]

Someone's added a tag asking for sources. The source is the game itself. Adding something noting that "this information comes from the game" seems a little redundant to me, so I'll remove the tag shortly. Fivepast 11:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem redundant but sources are important to wikipedia. without one specified we don't know if the writer is working from memory, has the box in front of them or took the information from BoardGameGeek.GraemeLeggett 12:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could the references be best described? Just to the manual, by page number, or by manual section number? Oni no Akuma 07:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly fine, though the best source would be a review or other article written about the game by a reliable source. I've got a couple somewhere. I'll try to add them in later. -Chunky Rice 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little odd to me - using a secondary source when a primary source is available. I suppose it would be useful to see the game from a different point of view, but aren't Wikipedia articles intended to be written from a neutral point of view? Oni no Akuma 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between 1987 and 2006 versions?[edit]

Would it be worthwhile to add a section comparing these two releases? There are significant differences between the two. Thoughts?JordanSealy 19:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even realise the game had been re-released until I read this article. ^_^; I've added the combat and the victory conditions to the gameplay section based off the old game. I'll dig out the manual this weekend and check whether my memory is correct. Oni no Akuma 07:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Re-released, re-worked, and they added Mina Harker (although some gamers created a custom Mina character with modified rule set for use with the original version well before the new version was released). Drac doesn't hide behind a screen anymore; instead he uses cards placed face-down on the board. We've got the original version, but we're thinking about getting the new one to see if the gameplay has improved. The graphics on the cards sure look good, though. :) JordanSealy 06:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the choice of the Mina Harker as a new character was probably a marketing choice so they'd have a token female on the side. It'd be especially dubious if the Jonathan Harker event card is still in there - why would his wife go vampire hunting and not him? At least they should be able to fix some of the errors in the original game - I've been wondering for years why on earth the Wild Horses event card was a Hunter card until I read somewhere that it had been misprinted and was actually a Dracula card... Oni no Akuma 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been digging around and this might be useful in comparing the differences: New Version Rulebook. You're right, the art does look very pretty and a lot of things have been changed - the characters now all have special abilities, and how Dracula moves has completely changed. I find it amusing that the Van Helsing artwork seems to owe a lot to Hugh Jackman's portrayal of him. ^_^

I've found my copy of the game, but I appear to have mislaid the manual for it - I'll see what I can piece together and what comparison I can make with the new version. Oni no Akuma 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub removal[edit]

I've removed the stub tag as thanks to our efforts, I don't think it's much of a stub anymore. ^_^ Oni no Akuma 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]