Jump to content

crimhead

Members
  • Content Count

    425
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About crimhead

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    HRM, nova scotia, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

1,375 profile views
  1. Any indications if this game is being shelved or just awaiting its next run? I know games constantly become temporarily unavailable all the time, but it seems there is a lot of downsizing in FFG these days, plus I hear Imperial Assault is being discontinued. Any news?
  2. I believe according to the rules (or FAQ), that order cannot be played.
  3. I don't think this question makes sense unless you stipulate the number of players. To that end, if you are using the Mother Of Dragons (and do not have eight players), We would need to know exactly which houses are in play - as well as the distribution of vassals states. Concepts like balance and opening strategy have become vastly more complicated since MoD...
  4. I think of FFG were planning to anything with this title they'd have announced something by now (I assume they would want to capitalise on the momentum of the HBO series which is coming to an end). I guess they'd rather churn out cards games and minis these days.
  5. This looks great! Do you have any other models available for the Mephisto characters? I'd also be interested in a Dragon King - especially if it fits on my 3rd edition Dragon Tower.
  6. As far as I know, GW is reprinting 4thR, with no announcements for a 5th ed. This means new expansions are definitely a possibility.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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!
  11. 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.
  12. So... Still no FAQ update. Was a time when this company excelled at product support.
  13. Hopefully the new movie will generate some more interest.
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...