Jump to content

player1877240

Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About player1877240

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Hampshire, United Kingdom
  1. To me this expansion sort of resembles the City Expansion as it was in Talisman 2nd edition, which gave players the opportunity to give their characters new jobs (High Mage, Master Thief etc). I'm guessing it's not a replacement for the middle area but a side board upon which you can take an alternative route to powering up your character and acquiring relics. I'm glad that it is coming out as extra areas to explore and new paths to victory is really what makes Talisman fun and it should do a lot to increase the playability of Relic.
  2. Yeah; this game looks great doesn't it? Oh wait, the original poster doesn't like the idea of a Star Wars themed Descent re-skin? Crazzzyyy. Yeah I'll be buying this for sure. Regarding the fact that some people would rather have had a tactical tabletop miniatures skirmish game set in the Star Wars universe. I would imagine that FFG are planning such a product as I type, while rubbing their hands at the thought of the money that this license if going to net them. And I can't blame them for that.
  3. Nope; it doesn't. Hense the debate "reminds me a little bit" of the Xbox One release controversy. It is on the issues of fuctionality and usability - as well as the attitudes of those who are for and against the innovative features - that I make the parallels.
  4. I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, so please don't take this the wrong way; but almost everything doesn't require the internet nowadays. Very little does in fact. The internet is a very handy tool for all kinds of activities (including conversations about boardgames with complete strangers) but looking around the room I am sat in now I can't think of anything that requires internet access. In my house there is nothing that requires internet access. The debate here actually reminds me a little bit of the mixed opinions people had when Microsoft originally announced their Xbox One console last year, and some of the "interesting" fuctionality and useage options and restrictions they originally intended to introduce with it. On the one hand you had people saying that the requirement for a constant internet connection were too restrictive on freedom of use, and on the other hand there were a bunch of people accusing the other side of being luddites (basically). Please note that I'm not trying to equate FFG with Microsoft. That would surely be uncalled for
  5. It has nothing to do with you not buying it, but you and others complaining that the app shouldn't be mandatory--you're demanding they change the design because you don't have the technology. I make no demands. I express an opinion; as has everyone else involved in this thread. I actually hope that this game is a success. I like FFG; I own many of their other products and think that they are an innovative company with great customer service (they once sent me a free replacement Runebound board from the states to where I live in the UK and didn't even charge me postage) and who make many titles that appeal to me. They basically resurrected Warhammer 40k roleplay after Games Workshop dropped it, and have done some great things with it which I am really rather happy about. I have no desire to influence them in any decisions they make regarding the X-Com title; and I'm not self important to think that my opinion would anyhow. But simply put; from what I know about how this game works at the moment (and to be fair we haven't been given a great deal of information thus far) I know that it is not for me. If the use of the app became optional then this would change my opinion. I am aware that it may be the case that this is not an option that FFG can countenance at this point in the development process.
  6. @ Inksplat: Um. How am I ruining the experience for you. Seriously? Just because I choose not to buy it if it does require the app to play, how does that effect whether you can enjoy it. I really can't fathom it.
  7. @ Inksplat: I guess this deserves an answer. The point is that the game, as it stands, is incomplete. It requires the purchase of an a tablet, smart phone or laptop to be played. Likely more than 90% of the potential buyers have access to all of this in some form or another. I personally do have a smartphone. However; it's a fairly old model Sony Xperia. I use it for phoning, texting and a bit of internet access. It is a relatively small screened device and I don't think it's the best type of electronic item to use for the purpose of presenting infomation to a group. I do own a laptop which I am currently typing this on. I don't want to be carting my laptop down to the pub where I play boardgames every Monday. An ipad would be nice to use for this game. I don't have one, nor the desire to own one. Now this means that as it stands, for me to get best use of this game, I have to purchase another electronic peripheral. One that I would have no other reason for buying. I am fully aware that many other people are more tech savvy than me; and would not have a problem with this as they would probably already own such an item. But for me, it is a problem.
  8. To be honest, the idea of the game mechanic relying on the app to work really killed my buzz too. Essentially I went from "Woah. an X-Com boardgame! That's gotta be the best thing I have heard about in at least a fortnight!" to... "Oh wait; I can't play this game out of the box and will absolutely need my phone available with a decent amount of charge. Yeah that seems really restrictive. I'm not sure I like the idea of that. I mean; it could be a lot of fun but surely this would be better as an optional rule rather than a mandatory thing." Shame man, real shame. Maybe FFG will read this, and a few other threads like this and maybe make some developmental changes in the rules. Of course this is dependent on how far they have gone in the development process of the game.
  9. Not played the Classic game; but by all accounts it's a bit like the Standard game... but somewhat stripped down. Or perhaps I should say that the Standard game is like the Classic game... but somewhat bulked out. I love MoV but it's not a game that I can bring to the table that often as it's always going to stretch to the four hour mark and beyond. I think that maybe FFG should have considered optional rules to allow all players to complete one phase of a round, then all go on to the next etc; as this would vastly reduce downtime. Admittedly I haven't found that the game lags too much; but as it stands I think that many players I know would be put off taking part in a 5 or 6 player game even if an expansion offered the option of one due to having to wait so long for their turns.
  10. It's perfectly possible to run an Ork, Kroot or Dark Eldar game with Rogue Trader and the relevent expansions. I could see any of these games being a lot of fun if approached with the right mindset. I have been a little disappointed with the lack of non imperium options being offered by FFGs WH40k RPG range this far, but I don't know what the stipulations attached to the GW deal are regarding this. Maybe GW won't allow them to make a non human character based WH40k RPG (admittedly I can't really see why that would be the case) or they just don't see a market for it.
  11. With you on the requirement for more credit tokens. Oh and more pilots is a given, since only four of the races are covered. I love MoV; but it's a time sink and the idea of an epic length game is quite frankly scary
  12. If they were going to make another supplement (which I agree is unlikely) I wouldn't want another race. I think that five players is probably as many as this game would comfortably accomodate and aside from (maybe) Chaos Dwarves I can't really see another race that would be particularly appropriate as a faction. And even they are dicey because I can't really see them doing the whole infiltration thing. What you could do - and I'm hoping that someone in development at FFG might read this and think it a good idea - is give every faction the option of bringing out a specific chaos champion. The champion could be brought into play through an upgrade card and moved during the summoning phase. Champions could move a certain distance on the board (varied on champion) for no power, but could only move once a turn and have to travel from one adjacent region to the next (no summoning them across the board). In most ways champions would be considered models, with a power and toughness, but they would also have unique abilities (a Khorne champion might allow battle dice rerolls in a battle he is involved in for example, or a Tzeentch champion might provide extra power points). If a champion was "killed" he would be wounded instead, and be unable to move in the next summoning phase. Also, champions could receive two or three reward cards through fulfilling certain game criteria (being involved in battles where enemy models are killed or spreading a certain amount of corruptions depending on patron power). Maybe they could have their own area specific quests. Just an idea, but I think it would add some extra depth to the game for those who want it.
  13. When I bought Chaos in the Old World, I purchased the Horned Rat expansion at the same time, and have never in fact used the original power or upgrade cards; instead going straight for the cards included with the expansion pack. In my experience - which is probably playing about thirty or so games (I certainly feel that I have got my money's worth with CitOW) - I have found no particular power to be under or overpowered. All do require a very specific strategy to play well of course. I think that it is fair to say that Nurgle is not going to win by dial advancement; but then I see very few games won that way anyhow, and when they are it's nearly always by Khorne. What Nurgle can do is spread corruption tokens all across the board very quickly, and get involved in the ruination of areas all over the map. And that means VPs a plenty. If I was playing Nurgle I wouldn't expect to be able to win any other way really. The ability to turn other player's corruption tokens into your own should probably not be overlooked either. I'm really not sure where this problem with Nurgle being weak comes from. Perhaps it is because he plays differently in the basic game without the Horned Rat?
  14. Looks to be the expansion that everyone has been waiting for. The merchant guild alternative ending looks interesting; and something to do with that huge amount of gold you can easily accumulate.
  15. borithan said: vandimar77 said: Granted, it's no Runebound in the fantasy adventure with a sort of psuedo-RPG twist division (Runebound pretty much supplanted Talisman as my favourite game of this kind), but it's great fun with the right group of players. Wait… is Runebound the one that is essentially "Grinding: The Board Game"? Um… nope. Wouldn't that be skateboard related?
×
×
  • Create New...