player33475

Members
  • Content count

    439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About player33475

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wellington, North Island, New Zealand
  1. Its almost definitely going to be Obi-wan and Yoda. The previous two covers have tended to use a colour that is similar to those of the characters, so I am guessing it will be an earthy green colour.
  2. Selling books before they are in stock is a bad idea, as I suspect that FFG don't have copies yet to sell. The Gencon copies are likely to advanced copies and the normal copies are winging their way through distribution channels.
  3. FFG and many publishers often arrange to expedite advanced copies of books to Gencon. I am not sure why that concept is ridiculous.
  4. I assume you can take large land vehicles instead of a ship. The AoR mentions playing an ATAT crew. I see no reason why Duty won't just work like Obligation, with a mixed group combining their scorses for a single roll and have which applies to a session determined just like it does for Obligation i.e. stacking all the Duty and Obligation by PC.
  5. Love the red. Seems the right shade for the Rebels as I remember it in the movies. It's a bold choice, stands out on the shelf, and is aesthetically pleasing to me.
  6. Ta. Sounds meaty. What about the other stuff?
  7. Can anyone give a detailed breakdown on the components? Number of books, page count, handouts, maps, cards, other stuff? Also, what (if any) new rules are in it?
  8. Matt McElroy of DTRPG confirmed that they are working through the 2e books in waves, much like they do with White Wolf books, to bring them all to POD. A good thing about this is that books that were previously softcover, like the Career Compendium, are now available in hardcover. Woot
  9. KjetilKverndokken said: They are supposed to be the same as combat on personal level, its the same basic rules - and its also abstracted, not as "wargame" heavy The two former iterations were. By two former iterations, I assume you include Star Wars WEG. If so, what was "wargame" heavy about that? My main concern about adopting the personal combat system for starship combat is that, though good in theory, it doesn't tend to work well in practise. PCs are often unable to contribute easily due to the logistics of starship combat. Pilots, gunners and engineers have clear roles, tech and actions they can take. I hope that some thought is given to making a range of tasks available that allow all PCs to participate meaningfully.
  10. I am a 2e fan, though I love me some 1e as well. This year I wrapped up two WFRP2e games. The first was Thousand Thrones which I ran and the second was Paths of the Damned/Doomstones which I played in. Both were very long, the first spanned 2 years and the second spanned 5 years. I am having some time away from WFRP at the moment, but I will return to 2e soon enough.
  11. Belirahc said: Thanks, Skywalker. Glad to see you are still around. You still active over at Cthulhutech as well? Yep. Just putting the finishing touches of my 4th Cthulhutech Demo scenario Its a Gundam Seed inspired story and as written uses two GMs.
  12. Belirahc said: Is there any update on this book going to PDF? There is no update. PDFs for Anima happen when they happen.
  13. I don't see it as a design flaw or annoying. The tactic is not without cost even as a base premise before you start throwing in cards.
  14. The Quest Guide isn't made available for free.
  15. Triu said: This is a competitive game, not co-op, and people look for any advantage (or they are just rules lawyers). I wouldn't play it that way, but the LM movement rules are written to explicitly allow that kind of movement. People have already been debating the effects of that in the game generally. The special rules for the encounter are not written to explicitly disallow it. It seems to me like poor word choice in the quest book. Languages, and people, are imperfect. Just read some of the postings in this forum, or the illiterate "business" e-mails I get at work. I agree that each side should play hard to win in a competitive game. But I don't agree that it means that its good thing for someone to try and squeeze a strict literal intepretation of a rule, when it is a blatant warping of the wording's natural meaning. That soon becomes a tedious and dull exercise which means everyone loses, even as competitors. In this case, the wording isn't poor as I believe the meaning is clear to almost anyone, even those who would argue the strict literal intepretation that you suggest. Competitive play does not preclude players being reasonable to one another and acting in a way that maximises the fun for everyone. I see too many people losing sight of this fundamental requirement of gameplaying.