myrm

Members
  • Content count

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About myrm

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
  1. I have a foot or two of WEG material - essentially all 1st Ed modified by the companion etc. I did pick up a revised 2nd ed rulebook and dragged a few ideas over to 1st ed. Ran a short campaign most recently about 2 years ago. Have done several over time. One of my favourite systems and works well with the genre.
  2. An expansion, no, I doubt it - but a new Rogue 1 game using the basic rules concepts could work...
  3. If it is any help I bought one core set and used the default setup for four decks for a few test games before investing in a few more cards. Thus far I have bought 1 extra core set, one copy of Taking the Black and also the Wolves of the North. By splitting the House cards from the two core sets, giving each a set of the Neutral cards and plot cards as listed and making about 3-4swaps across the deck I found I was close to 8 legal decks. OK not tournament decks as each was light on cards had 4 copies of a House location and only 2 copies of Kingsroad/RoseRoad but not far off. As soon as I took out the 4th copy of the location and I added in the house cards from the Taking the Black and some of the house cards from Wolves of the North plus some extra neutrals I found I have 8 decks that met the rules and seem not completely unbalanced so far. I also have a stash of Stark cards that I think I can use to make a Fealty based Stark deck (most of the cards from Wolves of the North and maybe make a few swaps with the existing 'core-ish' Stark deck to turn it into something similar to the Direwolf deck suggested in the Wolves of the North. So 9 decks from those cards with some spare cards left over. The games so far have been melees with 4 or 5 players and have been fun to play. I intend to tweak decks as we play more and understand the deckbuilding side. However, 2 core decks while not meeting tournament rules would give you 8 occasional play single house decks and not many more cards has given me 9 casually playable decks. No, these will not be good decks by tournament standards, but they do get casual players to the table at my club. My situation will evolve as I get more cards.
  4. Doh just realised that as I logged in now and followed the path. Thanks for the answer, I'll head over to the right forum now and try to take the tatters of my internet dignity with me
  5. OH and there's another rule we have completely missed! *mutters*, better go fix it in the next game....
  6. So I've just dived into the game and had a couple of first games with the starter set preset decks. So far this is generating some questions and I thought I would put them in place here. The one that leapt out first that I thought I would start on is Robert Baratheon. He gains +1STR for each other kneeling character. The first query was we assumed this meant all characters, not merely others in the Baratheon players play area, so he gets stronger as people kneel to oppose or indeed to do or have done anything previously (powerful in a melee we assume). The second query is when do STR changes like this kick in especially during a challenge - is it at resolution or is it dynamic through play. We started only thinking about the added on STR at the end of challenges but a few cards came up that made it appear much more dynamic. In particular the timings in Kraken's Grasp that made us wonder. Firstly if anyone is knelt anywhere is it accurate that Kraken's grasp bounces off Robert Baratheon because as soon as someone kneels his STR goes to 6 making him invulnerable to the card - given he has to be defending and that generally means someone is knelt to attack pretty much stops it affecting him. Then we wondered about if the card is played and successfully takes him out after some putative card effect that stands everyone who might have initiated the challenge, would he stay out as his STR increases because the Kraken's Grasp has already has its effect, or would he come back in as the STR increase subsequently cancelled the effect - the second hypothetical option was more so we got our heads right for thinking of other combinations - we don't know the cards in the deck well and with expanding decks we imagined all sorts of effects so wanted to see we had timings right with wordings. Any comments welcome on that one and then Im sure other questions will pop up. Thanks all! [EDIT - now aware Im in the wrong place]
  7. Would images of the tokens used be helpful (Ion, Cloak, etc) in their sections. If I remember correctly the base cards have them and I can only ever remember the ones I am using.
  8. That could be mould release agents messing with the paint, since the surface is not meant to be painted they won't take it off. Give them a good scrub in detergent laden water, and let then dry and you might find a better binding. Or lightly sand the surface with T-cut or similar to let the paint bind, perhaps.
  9. I see little benefit from most forms of expansion compared to how some games can gain. I see more likelihood and benefit for producing other related games using the same mechanics - be that a Resistance vs First Order game, or maybe a reversed type of Sith vs Republic where the Sith are rebel-like in trying to run missions to topple the powerful Republic. Or something generic out in the OUter rims of Empire vs pirates, or even in a novel/different world setting - I could see a Chaos vs Old World Warhammer game on the same core concept for example. On the base game - a new card set, or expanded missions is perfectly possible - will it add much, don't know. New Units is a possible - be that swap ins or add ons. All perfectly possible but how much is it needed is what I am dubious on. FOr the effort to produce an expansion you might as well go the whole hog and do a new game.
  10. The same holds true for Structures which also have an auto-lose condition - be that thematically laid at the feet of point defence equipment, last few crewmen or booby traps etc. I suspect the reason for this is simply time. We have run some test battles with transports and structures and they near inevitably lose, but quite frequently do end up taking an inordinate amount of time to process a battle to conclusion - particularly true for structures with their heavy damage absorbance. Therefore I conclude that they did the same in playtesting and decided that cost/benefit of the rare event of the unarmed items winning a battle was simply not frequent enough justify expending the amount of time required to take every such fight to conclusion and introduced both these rules to cut the battles to a sharp conclusion. Nothing to stop you using a house rule for taking those rulings out if both sides want to but to be fair you need to decide in advance of any given game and then do it for every such fight whatever, and accept the time loss.
  11. Indeed and that's where I start out with this sort of thing. However, no matter how useful said aphorism is as a start place, I have been burned on doing just that in too many games only to find out there is a ruling going the other way for something due to some convoluted track. Also, the subtle differences between US and UK English mean there can always arise arguments over what the card says. Fortunately, this one has turned out simple in this case.
  12. Thanks, that's what I thought but I have been caught out in space games where the wording of increase shield rating required there to be one there already (and Zero covered both lowered and non-existent shields rather than separating) so I just wanted to check - the internal consistency seemed there but one bitten, twice shy....Thanks
  13. Just to check - you can slap this onto anything that takes modifications can't you? I just wanted to check whether it is or isn't limited to those with shields already, essentially? Cheers!
  14. Does the captured leader add to this mission? We thought initially and played 'no', as they are not opposing the mission and also the card doesn't actually target the leader - but wondered since it does directly involve them. Cheers all....
  15. Yeah, this unfortunately is in practical terms a direct contradiction in the rulebook - it requires open communication but then permits coded and hidden (whispered) non-open communication.