Jump to content

Lizalfos

Members
  • Content Count

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lizalfos

  1. Curious to know what the new card back is for. I initially thought it would be some kind of Schizoid card from a deck of victory condition options, but the fact that they show a Morph in the picture seems to imply we're getting yet another means of obtaining cards. Any guesses?
  2. This game's combat system has been ready since 1979. I would hope none of their changes were so bad that they had to pull it from production.
  3. Zozimus said: Oh, man, that sounds amazing!! So much unpredictable fun!! Can't wait to see more about this, though I'm starting to get nervous that FFG won't have it out by Xmas. Where are all the updates? The release schedule was recently changed to First Quarter 2011. Unlike Rex, it is still listed as At the Printer, at least. Maybe we'll get our Rex and Wiz-War previews next month and the games in January... Here's hoping.
  4. NidoKing said: Announcement of Expansion #3 would sure be a sweet medicine for the pain from Rex being delayed Definitely. Like giving Tylenol to someone whose arm has been ripped off. It is unfair to tease us with that awesome box cover and then say nothing for months. I thought Conflict's aliens were great. Trickster and The Claw are low points for me, but it was otherwise great. I can't wait to find out what will be in the next expansion other than new aliens.
  5. The difference here is that Rex's status was changed and updated, whereas Nexus Ops has simply not been added yet. It doesn't always reflect current status, no, but I also don't expect them to arbitrarily update the status to something false. Considering the game was supposed to come out this month and they still haven't previewed it, I see no reason to doubt the new status.
  6. First they said Christmas at Gencon. Later a press release posted on BGG said November. Now the Upcoming page, which I'm told previously said the game was at the printer, says In Development with a release scheduled for "First Quarter 2012." Sounds bad. I hope FFG addresses this at some point. After Merchants of Venus, anything could have happened.
  7. "Start of Turn" is a phase. If you draw a new hand at start of turn and still don't have any encounter cards, it is still "Start of Turn." The rules say to draw a new hand if at "Start of Turn" phase you don't have an encounter card. It doesn't specify a limit, so I see no reason not to keep drawing new hands. At least, it sounds like a good explanation for what would be an awful scenario, so that's what I'd say in the unlikely event that it ever happens. Of course, there is one problem I never thought of: What if there are 8 or more cards left in the deck but no encounter cards? The Cosmic Quake is triggered by a lack of cards to draw, not by a lack of encounter cards. I wonder how the game would handle that. Quakes pretty much never happen, so it's just a curiosity. I'd probably just suggest doing a Quake anyway.
  8. Both this and Rex are supposed to come out by Christmas (November, specifically, according to a press release I read on BGG for FFG's release schedule), and for some reason we're getting preview after preview of the Mansions expansion (not that that doesn't look awesome) and complete silence on these two classics. Rex particularly is a marriage of two classic games, one FFG's own, which made me expect it would get much more fanfare. Dunno. Got both preordered and am not impatient, but I am confused. I could see if they just thought there wasn't much to say since they're remakes, but Game of Thrones has gotten front page attention, and I don't expect it is will be as different from first edition as these games will be.
  9. The past few years this is around the time when they announce a new Cosmic product. I would wait on that first. A FAQ update is more likely to come after a new expansion has been launched, as it will of course bring more questions with it.
  10. MasterDinadan said: Still a perfectly legitimate question since it IS possible to get two powers using the official Technology variant. I would say that the play is perfectly valid - some alien combos are very effective, but this would probably be compensated by other players rarely inviting the overpowered alien as an ally (knowing that he will easily close any gap during his encounters). Plus, the technology card that grants an extra power only is completed late in the game, if at all. If you are starting the game with two alien powers, do so "at your own risk" That's true, forgot about that. Really neat card, but it's baffling that they would include the ability to gain multiple powers without even addressing the fact that some aliens will not work together, and some will be pretty much unbeatable. I'm also not sure that they address how Cosmic Zap works (do you lose both powers if zapped, or just one? I'd guess one). The rules don't say, for instance, how Macron-Amoeba would work since their texts contradict each other. For this reason, I would say that you need to make your own rules for multi-power games and not just say, "Oh, it doesn't say there's a problem with this in the rules" and move on with the game, because the rules don't say anything.
  11. OldCavalryman said: Superflypimp said: I would be amenable to possibly meeting in Shreveport, but the timing would have to be right as my job kicks my ass occasionally. How many players would be interested then? I suggested Alexandria as it seemed more neutral to the possible player from MS. Let me know. Shreveport is just over three hours drive from where I live in cenTX. Have a friend near Dallas also possible. Email jlejeunelaw at yahoo If you ever have a game planned for Shreveport or Alexandria early on a Saturday, I'd be interested, but preferably Shreveport. I've played a couple games with the base set now. As you can tell by my late response, I don't check forums much and forgot about this thread. Feel free to email me next time you've got a game scheduled: adamxpaul @ gmail.
  12. javascript:void(0);/*1315757645201*/ Wiz-War and Rex are set for November release.
  13. I was hoping for a deluxe set that was mostly player cards for the same reason. I guess they need to expand the encounter sets just as badly though.
  14. The Fremen were partially immune to the storm in the optional rules, which is I believe is the source for that ability. It's a possibility though.
  15. I used the Force to insert my answer to your question in the italicized portion of the quote in your message. If you learn to use the Force as I have, you will find it. I didn't say that it's only conflict if another player is doing it but that sometimes it's nice to do away with inter-player conflict for just a moment. May the Force be with you.
  16. ^I meant in "ALL" PVP games. I am clearly not very good explaining myself, so sorry. All I meant in my first post in that line was that sometimes people enjoy a break from being in conflict with each other and prefer to work together as a group with everyone at the table. And I meant antagonism as in destroying/stealing things from your opponents, betrayals, playing "take that" cards, that sort of thing. Sometimes it is nice to have a change of pace. And being able to build decks for the game means I'll be able to replay it more than some other co-op's since I can try new things each time. Maybe that makes sense now, just trying to share my opinion.
  17. Oh you're right, there is no conflict between players in player vs. player games. My bad.
  18. PVP means conflict (unless it's something like Dominion). What would a PVP Star Wars be if not a battle or a struggle? All the good Star Wars games are battle-oriented. That is all I meant, clearly. I've heard of two-headed giant. That's a team game not a co-op game. We apparently define half the words of the English language differently, so maybe we aren't the best two candidates for a discussion of co-ops.
  19. The 80's version's main difference was that it had Sting on the cover. Other than that, same game. We don't know the rules to this one yet. FFG has kept a very tight lid on Rex for the past few years. The recent announcement says pretty clearly that they aren't making a carbon copy, though so far it sounds like a lot of the same but with different names. It even sounds as if the faction abilities will be similar if not the same. The game mechanics are supposed to be largely unchanged though, so if you get your hands on Dune (not that you'll get it any cheaper than Rex), you'll have a good enough idea. My guess is Rex will have a lot of new optional rules but a pretty similar base game aside from map layout and the deck consistency.
  20. PVP is by definition a conflict-based game. Like I said, you're reading that word some other kind of way. I don't know anyone who necessarily gets stressed from PVP, but co-op offers a break from the norm, and a customizable version ensures the game's longevity if you enjoy trying new decks even when you know an old one already works. I've never heard of co-op versions of Warhammer or Magic or any such game, so that's news to me. Seems like a bizarre concept to me, but if it works, then I'd certainly see your point. I'd still rather a professionally designed co-op than a fan made variant, personally.
  21. I was part of a team in Arkham Horror -- didn't make that clear. But my investigator had an integral part. And yea, we did play it wrong in one or two ways (not the #1 rulebook of all time), but nothing that made it easier. As for the PvP comment, I can handle PvP games just fine and do prefer them myself, but I like both. I love experimenting with new decks in either format. But many of the complaints so far about LotR have been something like, "I've already fine tuned a deck that can beat this quest consistently. When new packs come out, it only takes a few tries and then there's no challenge left." If you beat a quest with one deck, you have to try new decks or it isn't going to be fun. Some people enjoy tinkering for tinkering's sake, rather than experimenting just to make the best deck possible and then not playing anymore. For such people, being able to play against the same quest decks repeatedly offers a consistent means of testing a deck, and deck building with a friend is especially fun as you try to make decks that complement each other -- something that is not part of PvP. Also, I don't know what you mean by no need for antagonism or conflict. You're apparently going by some other definitions of the words because that is what PvP is about. I don't mean personally antagonizing someone, but you are playing AGAINST the other player and trying to BEAT them. That is conflict, and your opponent the antagonist. Some people like an occasional break from this. Clearly you don't. But for many, that's what co-op is for. The feeling of working together and puzzling things out is refreshing, and it's especially nice for playing with players of disparate skill level, for whom a PvP game just won't be half as fun.
  22. At Gencon they had the box on display with a little note about the game ending in "Christmas 2011." There was also a picture of the Federation ships that perform the bombardment, the only part of the actual game revealed so far.
  23. You do not need Twilight Imperium. This game is entirely separate. It is a standalone as of now, though I very much hope for expansions down the line if it is half as good as it looks. Yep, this is a reimagining of the old Dune game, the same game you heard about. Dune is a classic with a lot of interesting game mechanics: 1) The spice economy is pretty tight. You fight over random spice blows that appear on the surface of the planet each turn, and spend that spice to revive your lost troops faster, ship your troops to the planet (paying the Guild faction, now the Hacan), and purchase new combat cards (payable to the Emperor, or the Lazax faction). It seems that spice will now be called influence and may be gained in new ways, and perhaps used for other means, too. You can also bribe players with spice, one of my favorite parts of the game, at any time for any reason and even keep secret from others how much you gave or why. 2) The combat wheels. Each wheel has a dial of 0-20 which you use to secretly note how many troop tokens you're going to use in your battle. However many you use, that's your strength (plus your leader's value, also chosen secretly), but you also have to lose that many tokens whether you win or lose. The problem is, if you lose, you lose all your tokens anyway, so it's always a gamble. You can play weapons and defenses to try to kill and protect leaders, and in the beginning of the game you secretly obtain a traitor from among your opponent's leaders. If your traitor is revealed in combat against you, you win the battle automatically! Lots of intrigue and bluffing and second guessing makes each conflict rather nerve wracking. 3) Sometimes a giant sandworm would appear to devour all tokens at the previous spice blow unless the tokens belonged to the Fremen or their allies. It's unclear if there will be something similar in this game, but probably not. However, it was also at this time when you could forge alliances (for some reason... never really explained well thematically despite all the praise the theme gets), which is integral to both versions of the game, from what we've read so far. In an alliance you can use one facet of your ally's ability as printed in their faction text, and you could win together if you are still in an alliance when you've met victory conditions. 4) There is also a storm circling the board, destroying nearly everything in its path unless in protected areas. The Sol bombardment replaces this function in Rex. That's the gist of it. There are a lot of optional rules for the game, and the bribery rule allows for all kinds of intrigue and upsets. Most love the game so dearly though because of how well it represents the theme. If you've read the original Dune novel, one read of the faction abilities and you will be eager to play as the Harkonnen and betray each of your friends turn by turn. I personally appreciate the theme but love it mostly for the game mechanics, in which a lot of the strategy derives from the social aspect of the game (and seeing as you're a fan of the Game of Thrones board game, this may well appeal to you, too) rather than just going it alone the whole time and trying to play it like a no-frills war game. The game is from the makers of Cosmic Encounter and shares many little similarities while being overall more of a strategy game.
  24. If you only play to win, obvious PvP is better for you. A monthly pack that you will play a few times will be fun for awhile but too expensive to keep up with compared to the potential metagame of a PvP. But that is not the only way to play, and fans of co-op games are generally not this kind of player. If I can consistently beat a co-op game with one strategy (whether it be a standalone game or LotR LCG), I don't go to sleep and set my alarm for the next release -- I try something different. Experimenting with different decks in Lord of the Rings is a lot of fun, especially now that we're starting to get enough player cards to make more interesting design choices with our decks. I've only played Arkham Horror once, but I won fairly easily with one character. I could probably do it again that way, but I'd rather try another character and do something new, see what happens. Co-op will never please everyone, but it is not an inferior style of game by any means (not that anyone specifically said this, but I do get that impression from some posts). It's a great option for those who want to enjoy a game for the experience, who want a break from the tension and antagonism of a PvP conflict game, or who just want a card game they can play alone.
×
×
  • Create New...