crimhead

Members
  • Content count

    419
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About crimhead

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    HRM, nova scotia, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

574 profile views
  1. I really liked Rogue 1, but the "single reactor ignition" was wholly lame. Basically they wanted to show off the Death Star but not break continuity, so they invented this lame partial attack. If they really wanted to test the DS, you'd think they'd have actually tested it! It felt rather contrived That said, it would be a cool mission in the game. Powerful though, so be careful.
  2. Yeah, I certainly talk to enough Axis & Allies players who want the rules to crack down on unconventional and ahistoric strategies. I enjoy those myself.
  3. I quoted you directly - how can that possibly not reflect anything you said? You certainly stated a motivation (whether personal or otherwise) to remove prequel systems in favour of more recent prequel systems (R1). I do not understand this as a motive for an overlay expansion. It is wholly trivial. This is a perfectly reasonable reaction to your text I quoted last page. I actually agree with you - many people would prefer to see the planets from recent and popular movies over planets from the less popular Lucas Film prequels. I just happen to think this is a poor reason to shoe-horn in an expansion. This is a fair point. Yes, I realise you proposed subtle changes such as altered adjacencies and production icons. These ideas are presented not as their own end, but as play-based justification for the inclusion of R1 planets. Such inclusion (intentionally or not) comes across as the primary motive for such an expansion. Maybe it wasn't? If you had expressed that altering space lanes and production icons was actually your main desire, and that overlaying new planets was simply a convenient solution for this, I would have responded differently. I'd have suggested these will at best have a low impact on game play - especially considering we chose our set up to play around the planetary lay-out. At worst they could disrupt balance - personally I suspect it took a lot of testing to get the adjacencies and production "just right". Just because I took issues with a particular point, it doesn't follow that I don't understand the broader context. As for being here 1st, I don't consider you to be "intruding". This is a public forum. Just saying that calling me out on allegedly barging in is incorrect. It's also irrelevant. I like to think we can discuss this game without having to justify our presence. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot.
  4. Not sure if you are talking about me... Just because I disagree that planetary overlays would make an interesting or worth while expansion, that doesn't mean I have no interest in "the broader conversation". Isn't that what this thread is about - whether or not we feel Rogue One will/should prompt a related expansion? Also, I joined this conversation over 3 weeks before you, so I don't see how that constitutes "barging in". Modern politics indeed!
  5. Do "prequel-filler systems" not count as "planets seen in the movies"? It sounds like you want this game to represent planets seen in movies that you liked but not the movies you didn't like! How many movies/comics/series is Disney going to sanction? Are people going to want planets added/replaced/renamed every time there is new story published? Sorry, no. I don't understand this even a little bit.
  6. So... Still no FAQ update. Was a time when this company excelled at product support.
  7. Hopefully the new movie will generate some more interest.
  8. The thing is if you want to capture territory, you have to engage in pvp combat and win an intrigue contest! Barf! Can you imagine the disincentive if the attacker didn't have an edge? Disclaimer - I have only played this once. It was a 2 player unfinished learning game, and this was years ago when the game was new. We haven't played since. Not because we disliked the game - I just have so many games on my shelf, and so few opponents who are into empire building games. Hopefully as hype builds for the movie I can drum up some interest and get some sessions happening. But the one thing I really disliked was this strenuous process of pvp conquest. It seemed like the design was intentionally discouraging pvp aggression. It felt like the game was awkwardly pushing to be a friendlier, "Euro" style game. We didn't finish the 2nd era, plus there were only 2 of us. Maybe in a full game by the 3rd turn the board is so crowded that play becomes very aggressive regardless?
  9. For those who are interested, another motivation to play with Tides Of Battle is to punish "throw away" attacks intended to cycle house cards. This is common between players who are working together in alliance. They arrange a battle that will have no effect (or no significant effect) just to burn their less useful cards. I Some people think this tactic is a little too "gamey". Tides Of Battle puts a potential price on this move because either (or both) players could easily lose units.
  10. I actually want a 2nd and 3rd set! This way each player has their own set plus a couple extras in case a die is on the floor, camouflaged against the board, or otherwise not at our finger-tips.
  11. See page 9 of the Rules Reference:
  12. - LUCK DECIDES BATTLES THEN, AND NOT CAREFUL PLANNING AND EXECUTION. Luck is part of reality. It's not realistic for a close battle to be 100% predictable. - LUCK CAUSES YOU TO THINK TWICE IF OVERKIILLING AN ATTACK BY 2 IS ENOUGH. It's called risk analysis. And a healthy safety margin =/= overkill. That's part of the challenge. - LUCK TO BEAT THE GOOD PLAYERS. Gives us a challenge. It's more fun beating weak players if they have a chance. - LUCK DECIDES WETHER YOUR WELL DESIGNED PLANS FAIL. It already does when the Westros cards go bad. I've had plenty of "well designed plans" go to pot because of an excessively long wait to adjust supply. Luck doesn't necessarily make a game worse or easier to play well. Having to hedge one's bets requires strategy, and a different kind of thinking. Do you think poker is all luck too? On occasion, to add variety -LUCK. Variety in that opening strategy will be different because good players will adapt and re-evaluate. These are valid motivations. -AND SO IS TO JUST FLIP A COIN. Straw-man much? -OR ROLL A D6 AND ADD THAT TO THE STRENGTH OF THE SIDES OF THE BATTTLE. True, but a D6 is far more extreme. D6 adds 1-6 per side, with a mean of +3.5. ToB add 1-3 per side, with a mean of +0.917. If you are not willing to distinguishing between a lot of randomness vs a little randomness, this game is already a no-skill crap-shoot because of the Westros deck! The skulls icons are a cool mechanic too, IMO. Do you find it intimidating when you are called out. Really? You don't need to be this sensitive - I'm just disagreeing with your claims. Nothing personal, mate! I'm "calling you out" (disagreeing with you) because you are claiming to speak for "true war-gamers" (whatever that is supposed to mean). And you are some how implying that anybody not part of this elite group (aka, those who want ToB) should go play something else. Why shouldn't they just play AGoT with ToB if that's what they want? If you were to write something meaningful about why you think AGoT mechanics would clash with randomness in battles (explaining why this works in other games but not this one), that might be a good read and it might help people leaning toward ToB find a game they like even more. Simply telling these people they are not true war-gamers; I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish by that. As for insulting you, please quote the passage where I've personally attacked you (hint, it doesn't exist). You've called me a troll and a SJW ( I'm not sure how any of this even relates to political ideology). Who is insulting whom? Just relax and play some games, friend.
  13. I'm not looking for FFG to reuse anything actually copy-written by Hasbro. But I'm not sure the relationships either. FFG might need direct approval from Disney for each and every new product - and it's possible Disney doesn't want FFG and Hasbro stepping on each other's feet. Hard to imagine they are prohibited from making another board game of some kind, though. Would their licence even distinguish between board gaames and miniatures? I have to admit the distinction is a bit vague.
  14. I've just discovered that Valley Games has gone belly up. While this is sad new, it might be a blessing in disguise if FFG can secure the rights and give us a swanky new edition! Titan also has great potential for expansions. New characters, new battle boards, and an expanded master board are all possibilities (and have had extensive community testing). Obviously Titan is perfect and needs no expansions. But they'd be good for the occasional mix-up, and I think most Titan fans would be happy to own official add-ons. This classic deserves the FFG treatment - please summon an Angel and make it happen!
  15. Ever since Avalon Hill produced Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit I've been wanting a similar game which depicts the final battle of Return Of The Jedi. Fifteen years later Hasbro finally releases this, but from what I've read the game was rushed and is dismally flawed (to the point that both players should ignore the Death Star and Forest Moon entirely - focusing 100% on the space battle). Lucky for us Hasbro does not have a monopoly in Star Wars board games! Could FFG possibly step up do this theme a little more justice? I'm not sure if FFG intends to make more Star Wars board games (please, please) or would rather simply keep churning out RPGs, card games, and miniatures. But if there is any inclination to do another board game this should go over very well considering what a trophy/grail game Queen's Gambit is (and fun too). Star Wars: Rebellion is pretty much perfect, so as much as I like expansions a new Star Wars board game would be even better!