Jump to content

carolina_bryan

Members
  • Content Count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About carolina_bryan

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Knightdale, North Carolina, United States
  1. Although perhaps not direct causes, I'll also add: 1) There was at least some disappointment when this game was shifted during its development from a co-op to a competitive game. A lot of people were looking forward to the co-op, because, as inundated we are with Star Wars, a co-op/solo experience was not something we had. I don't think competitive release was a big enough of a home run to overcome the disappointment of those who had gotten excited about the co-op; 2) The first cycle just crushed any momentum the game had out of the gate. Not only did if face delays, but the Hoth theme never really came together and folks were playing essentially core set decks for a LONG time after release.
  2. Kinda a tangent, but wasn't it speculated for a while that Destiny boosters would be sold at big-box retailers? Whatever came of that? I might have gotten into the game if I could pick up a booster occasionally while checking out at Target.
  3. Hey look guys, in response to our complaints that the "new" Force Friday product was just a Destiny starter set and to our hopes that we might at least get some Force Friday news about other Star Wars games we got a new article. About. deck-building. in. Destiny. This is either comically tone-deaf or just straight up trolling. Worth a chuckle either way I suppose.
  4. I think Destiny is the <<insert reviled pop star here>> of FFG's games. Everyone claims not to like it, yet it continues to sell well.
  5. I'm happy for Destiny players if this is a product they find interesting (some seem disappointed that it is yet starter that purports to be two-player ready, but you will ultimately still need two copies). I understand that FFG was defining "new product" as a new SKU for an existing game. I just can't help but find the whole thing underwhelming, and wonder if I am the only non-Destiny player who thinks so. I think the attempt at hype has backfired on them. If they had just said "on Force Friday we will be releasing a new Destiny product" instead of of "on Force Friday we will be releasing an entirely new product", I'd be much less disappointed right now. I know they were trying to build anticipation, but I think it has backfired because that anticipation has only paid off for one sliver of the fan-base. ETA: Typed all this, and then Radioactivepanda said it better and more succinctly. Well played.
  6. You are not wrong, but it would also be nice to have a game that is a co-op from step one rather than bolted on afterwards.
  7. I honestly can't believe this is all it is.
  8. Yeah, it wasn't "new" at all, just more Destiny.
  9. Nowhere now, because the "new product" is not new. It would be nice if they would make just one of there Star Wars games a co-op instead of forcing destiny down our throats.
  10. We finished a co-op game of Runebound this weekend, and I am now wondering if we played something wrong. I'll get straight to my question: How does Nyssa's Nine Lives ability work during the players' final confrontation with Margath? Lyssa was defeated, and we let her exert to heal and stay in the final battle. Was that correct or should she have been eliminated from the game immediately after her defeat?
  11. Let me preface this by saying, I'm not trying to be combative or snarky. I know you help the community a lot, and it is recognized and appreciated. Only stating this because I don't post often, sarcasm or hostility can be implied on forums, especially between folks who don't interact often. Having said that, no, I didn't misunderstand. Your example of "all the information is there" includes numerous hypotheticals (if they went this way instead of that way, if they have dealt with the other cams by round five) that didn't occur in our playthrough. I was present at the table while they were talking strategy. They are good players, one of whom ran, and won, two campaigns as the Imperial side. It was clear from there discussions that the possibility of a hidden "gotcha" was making them overly cautious. I find this to be the rule, rather than the exception, for most first play throughs, and this skews the game toward the Imperials. I think this just highlights why the game, on first play throughs, can skew towards the Imperials, because these are traps that are hard to avoid even by experienced Rebel players. Although the Rebels certainly make some attempts to synergize, its often not immediately apparent on a first play through what will be synergistic and what will not. Likewise, what is a "marginal" upgrade versus a really "good" one is often not super obvious. Because our play time is relatively limited (we start at 6:30 and try to be done by 10:00 at the latest), there just isn't enough time for a mathematical analysis of all the abilities and upgrades. A lot of it, even with good players is "this sounds/looks cool." Most of the players I know, even good players, learn their character relatively well, but often say they would've have built them differently with the benefit of hindsight. This is even more so for cross-character synergy. I personally wish the game was a little more forgiving in this regard because a large part of why I like this game is theme. I don't care if its not optimal, if I am playing Daveth, I'm going to save up 3xp and buy his lightsaber so he has it for most of the campaign. I want my jedi to have a lightsaber because . . . lightsabers. I think pointing people to your PBF threads just assumes a level of analysis and attention to detail that doesn't I exist at most tables, certainly not ours. I think you are projecting your thorough knowledge of the game onto players, who, while they know the rules well, do not have player abilities or upgrade decks, and their respective synergies, memorized. Maybe I'll amend my conclusion to this: If you are in a play group with relatively limited play time (we play one scenario every two weeks, and don't spend any time between sessions talking strategy or otherwise analyzing the game) where everyone is playing a mission for the first time, my opinion is that the missions will generally tend to skew Imperial based on the hidden information and other traps rebel players can fall into.
  12. I won last night quite handily as Imperials (Imperial Black Ops) . The Rebels (Shyla/Davith/Loku/MHD-19, also, they lost mission one and did not have Lando) claimed two tokens (the two west of the starting point) on the first two turns. Neither was the blue, so they never got the opportunity to re-place doors. After the first two rounds went relatively well for them, they were unable to rescue another captive. I picked off the two who isolated themselves to get the first doors relatively easily (Shyla and Loku), while also creating bottlenecks at the other two doors. The last four rounds were basically an extended fire fight at door #3, and the Rebels were never able to eliminate all the Imperial figures within two spaces of the third token. I wounded the third player on round four and the fourth player on round five. In short, they lost before the doors or Bossk even became a factor.
  13. Thanks for the response. I don't find comments that a mission is "quite easy" and it was only hard because "maybe the rebels didn't think of that" extremely helpful because it assumes the Rebels have perfect knowledge, which they usually don't. While it is apparent to the Imperial player that "rush to the west door" is a viable strategy for which the Imperials have little defense, the rebels have no way of knowing that the first time they play the mission, and there are plenty of other missions where advancing that aggressively is asking for a TPK. I don't know I would classify it as a play mistake that the rebels failed to exploit an advantage they had no way of knowing they had. I am playing as the Imperials in Bespin, and the Rebels are a not particularly close 0-3. We are more or less equally experienced at IA, and its the first time for everyone through this campaign. While they still enjoy IA, this is easily their least favorite campaign. I think a lot of the talk about whether a particular mission is "balanced" assumes multiple plays. Our group has concluded that, when its everyone's first time on a mission, IA skews pretty heavily Imperial (especially on non-side missions, and ESPECIALLY in finales). That's just the nature of how important some of the hidden information is. Unfortunately, my game group is not particularly interested in revisiting older campaigns, yet, because we are still behind in playing all of the released campaigns, so I'm not sure if we will ever be able to appreciate some of the older missions in this manner.
  14. I know this is an older thread, but my play group is just getting around to this mini campaign. I am playing as Imperials for Bespin. We have played every campaign before this (Core, Twin Shadows, Return to Hoth) at least once (twice in the case of Core and Twin Shadows), and we have alternated the Imperial player during those playthroughs. To be fair, we've had a lot of missions come right down to the wire, and, without specifically checking, I'd guess the win-loss ratio is pretty close to 50/50. That notwithstanding, I think its fair to say that we really like this game, but whoever is currently playing the Rebels often gets frustrated at the "guessing game" of each mission. For example, sometimes rushing to objectives is great. Other times it leads you into a death trap. Sometimes splitting up is required. Other times it leads you into a death trap. Sometimes ignoring most Imperial figures is required. Other times it leads to you being completely overwhelmed. Although I've heard some say that the mission briefing provides context clues into strategies, I think it also sometimes sets up red herrings. Often, by the time the Rebels realize "the one strategy to rule them all" for a particular mission, its too late to pivot. We've concluded that these scenarios are generally NOT balanced the first time you play them, but might seem more fair on re-plays. One particular disappointment with our group is that, with the exception of both times we played Twin Shadows, all of the finales have gone in favor of the Imperials and none of them have been particularly close. However, although we did replay the core campaign and Twin Shadows, that was mostly because our game group shuffled around. Now that we have a set group, no one is really interested in revisiting a campaign just to see if the missions are more balanced when the ball isn't quite so hidden. All of this is one of the main reasons why our group really hopes the App isn't lost in limbo. We would GREATLY prefer this as a full co-op. But I digress. With regard to Bespin, the Rebels are 0-3 this campaign, and Freedom Fighters was the first time in over 60 plays I had a rebel player openly blurt out "that mission sucked." A lot of that was frustration after a loss, but its clear that my group feels like Bespin is the most poorly balanced campaign so far.
  15. Sorry for a bit of a necro here, but my group (I am Imperials) just played this mission last night and the way you phrase something here made me wonder if we have played the mini-campaign wrong. You state, definitively that "[t]he rebels have activation advantage due to Lando." However, unless I have missed something, its entirely possible to get to this mission in the campaign without having earned Lando, correct? The rebels I was playing against did not have the option of deploying him (or so we thought unless we have played something wrong).
×
×
  • Create New...