Jump to content

Viper Jr.

Members
  • Content Count

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Viper Jr.

  1. I did try close to max one time (I think I had 10, but this was before wave 2 and therefore max was only 100p worth of fighters). Sure, they're not bombers, and something needs to activate them. Bu they did rather good by dishing out 10 blue dice against ships 4 rounds of the game. Granted, it was a very casual game, and my opponent did not bring any squadrons.
  2. That's a fun idea to keep the base game interesting until other scenarios hit the stores. Here's a few just from the top of my head: Complete the campaign without using experience Complete the campaign using only cards from one class (though I'm not sure there are enough cards in the core box for that) Then there's always the grindier ones, like "get every Resolution on every difficulty" and similar ones. EDIT: Didn't see CastorJo's reply. That's a nice list!
  3. You are right, it is ridiculously silly. I can't understand at all why some people have such an incredibly hard time understanding that people might want to play their own game, in their own house, in their own way, without hurting anyone else or forcing their own way of playing onto other people. It is truly a strange thing.
  4. Just for references, I've played about half of every scenario available for LoTR (excluding Saga-expansions), and the first two scenarios for Arkham. Also, remember that this is just my personal opinion. I'm sure some people disagree with me. Like previously state, you do not have to worry about the willpower-counting in Arkham (or anything similar, at least not yet). However, I'm not sure that I agree that Arkham is less cluttered and that the "gameboard" is more streamlined (although the game itself is definitely less complex right now, but that's not a fair comparison, IMHO. Also, even though they are both coop LCGs, they are very different games). In my opinion, the second scenario of Arkham was more cluttered and harder to get a overview of that any of the LoTR-scenarios I've played so far (although not saying that it was hard per se), since it includes quite a few different locations, where each one could have several different cards on it. Additionally, you always need to considered which locations are connected to which, which also adds a layer of convolutedness (?) to the game board. I would say that it depends on the scenario. The first scenario of Arkham is a little bit like want you want, with a few rooms that are more or less "finished" after you've visited them. However, the second scenario are much more like a map on a board game, where you do need to consider the entire "map" (ie. every location) and how they are connected, which does add to the more cluttered/messy feel of the game compared to LoTR. Lastly, Arkham seem to vary quite a lot in amount of space needed to play (due to how they use locations, which is very different from LoTR). The first scenario was less than a average LoTR-scenario, while the second scenario definitely needed more than an average LoTR-scenario
  5. To continue the necro, here's an awesome website which does exactly what everybody wants (automatically sets the correct tokens, can be adjusted manually, multiple draws). It also got the advantage of being a ordinary website (not an app), and is therefore universally cross-platform! http://lotr-lcg-quest-companion.com/all_chaosbags.php?idselected=AHCS_tg
  6. I often play in this. Does that count..?
  7. Well, maybe not thematically, but I personally believe it makes perfect sense if considering the differences in the card text. Well, I guess, but the first email was answered before even Tractor Beams or Konstatine was even in the game. It also didn't specifically address this issue. So I personally don't have conflicted feelings about it. But how knows, maybe they change it in a FAQ.
  8. Phylon Q7 Tractor Beam vs. Admiral Konstatine in regards to damage card Thruster Fissure: Q: "Hello! I have a question regarding the damage card "Thruster Fissure", specifically when the Speed of the affected ship is being targeted by other players upgrade cards. Thruster Fissure says that you take one damage when "you" change your speed. The Phylon Q7 Tractor Beams specifically says that you force your opponent to change their Speed, which would then result in a damage from Thruster Fissure. However, Admiral Konstatine does not force the opponent to change their speed, since the card says that "you" (ie. the owner of Kostantine) changes a opponents speed directly. Does the affected player still get a additional damage from Thruster Fissure, even though Admiral Konstatine is very specific about that fact that the owner of Kostantine changes the Speed directly. In other words, do Thruster Fissure always trigger on a "Speed dial - change", even though different upgrade cards are very specific about who is actually changing the speed?" A: "Your interpretation of “you” is correct. The ship with Admiral Konstantine equipped chooses whether to increase or decrease the speed of the ship with Thruster Fissure, so that ship does not suffer 1 damage." Engine Tech and damage card Thrust Control Malfunction interaction: Q: "I have a question regarding the damage card "Thrust Control Malfunction" in combination with the upgrade card "Engine Tech". I interpreted it as the extra speed-1 movement from the "Engine Tech" card is affected by the damage card, regardless of what your speed dial is set at, since you are in fact doing a maneuver at speed 1. However, there are some that think that the extra movement from the "Engine Tech" card is only affected by the damage card IF you speed dial is set to 1 (since the damage card says "Current speed"). I'm looking forward to your reply!" A: "Thrust Control Malfunction only affects maneuvers executed at the ship’s current speed. If the ship in question has its dial at speed 1, all maneuvers that it resolves at speed 1 are affected."
  9. New email clarification! The rules are indeed as written on the card, meaning that Phylon Tractor beam can be used to damage an enemy ship with Thruster fissure, while Admiral Konstatine cannot be used to damage an enemy ship with Thruster Fissure. This is because with Konstatine, you (ie. not the enemy) changes their speed, while the Phylon Tractor beam forces the enemy to change their speed. Q: "Hello! I have a question regarding the damage card "Thruster Fissure", specifically when the Speed of the affected ship is being targeted by other players upgrade cards. Thruster Fissure says that you take one damage when "you" change your speed. The Phylon Q7 Tractor Beams specifically says that you force your opponent to change their Speed, which would then result in a damage from Thruster Fissure. However, Admiral Konstatine does not force the opponent to change their speed, since the card says that "you" (ie. the owner of Kostantine) changes a opponents speed directly. Does the affected player still get a additional damage from Thruster Fissure, even though Admiral Konstatine is very specific about that fact that the owner of Kostantine changes the Speed directly. In other words, do Thruster Fissure always trigger on a "Speed dial - change", even though different upgrade cards are very specific about who is actually changing the speed?" A: "Your interpretation of “you” is correct. The ship with Admiral Konstantine equipped chooses whether to increase or decrease the speed of the ship with Thruster Fissure, so that ship does not suffer 1 damage."
  10. huh? You do understand that it is a "Temporary Reduction" right? This means it follows any and all rules prescribed under that. To temporarily reduce speed you go 1 less on the Maneuver tool from what your dial states. You dont change the dial. Huh? Why would you ask "you do understand that is a a 'Temporary Reduction'"? If you really actually read my post, I clearly stated that the fact that I know the word "temporary" is used. I just asked if it is explicitly stated in the RRG that the word "temporary" in regard to speed effects means "do not lower the speed dial", rather than "change it, but then change it back". I ask since the only time "temporarily" (or any form of it) is used is under overlapping, where it is explicitly stated that the speed change should be done without changing the dial. Lastly, your post did not add backup, rules quote, dev-quote, or anything at all to actually answer me humble thought (unlike Drasnitgha who had already answered my question, with backup from Gencon).
  11. Do you trust an Interview with a games designer? Because Alex Davey stated that it was designed to work on Engine Techs. The only way it works on Engine Techs, is if it is changing the Speed of the Maneuver, and not the Speed of the Ship. Because the Speed of the Ship is irrelevant to Engine Techs. I do, however, I'm not familiar with this interview (like I said in a earlier post, although not specifically direct towards you). Is there a way to actually watch it, since plenty of discussions right now are referring to it it?
  12. Just a question though: Do we know that G-8 does not change the speed dial? I know it says "temporary", but does that intrinsically mean that the the dial is not changed (and then changed back)? I'm just thinking out loud here, since the overlapping rule explicitly tell us to not change the dial, while G-8 does not explicitly tell us that.
  13. That's not really what the mail says though, is it? It doesn't clarify anything about the speed wording mess. All it says is that speed changes are tracked on the dial at a time when the only occasion where it wasn't was actually written in the rules, and the gencon G8 intent comment is in direct contradiction of the statement "speed is determined by the Speed Dial". I'm not sure what this Gencon interview is, but another mail stated that "Speed = speed dial". Not sure whether that is relevant to your statement though, since I appear to have missed the famous Gencon-speed-G8-Intent-Thingy.
  14. Isn't that what I said? I'm sorry, I thought you said the other way around. I blame my non-native englishness!
  15. You're right about the FAQ. I'm definitely sending them a email later today to basically ask the same question, now that the question is more relevant. If not anything else, maybe it pushes them into adding in to the FAQ. I really feel like it is needed there, since the upgrade cards are differently worded. However, an overlap with a ship would not trigger a additional damage from Thruster Fissure. The email says that the actual speed dial needs to be changed in order for Thruster Fissure to be triggered, and you do not change the speed dial when overlapping ships. From the RRG (I added the bold): "If a ship executes a maneuver and its final position would overlap another ship, it cannot finish its maneuver normally. Instead, temporarily reduce its speed by one (without changing the speed dial)"
  16. Backup advice, eh. Its an OLD one, but I've got it... This was before Phyloms were a thing - but note I thought ahead and asked about a critical card that specifically states your opponent changes your speed.... Hello, Paul, Thank you for your patience. In response to your question: Rules Question: In regards to the critical card "Thruster Fissure", what is a speed change? Is it only when the Speed Dial itself is changed, or are things like Rams included? What about the critical Card 'comms noise' when your enemy reduces your speed?. . The critical card will do damage whenever the speed dial is changed for any reason as that is how speed changes are tracked on a ship. Thanks for playing! James Kniffen Game Designer Fantasy Flight Games jkniffen@fantasyflightgames.com Interesting! I'm a little bit surprised that isn't part of the official FAQ, since we now have several Speed-altering effects (of which at least two of them refers to different people changing the speed). It would also be interesting to see if they might have changed their mind about this (which we all know they have done in the past), especially since it was written before the Phylon Tractor beam (and therefore also before every other offensive speed-changing upgrade). It just feels a little bit strange that this ruling was the intention, when they word the two cards (Tractor beam and Konstantine) so differently.
  17. I always place various tokens and the Command dials on the cards, while the Speed dials are placed adjacent to their corresponding ship model. I do this since I would like to have all different effects on the same place (commands, upgrades, ship cards, etc.), but at the same time I like to be able to quickly glance at the battlefield and get a rough estimation of where my ships can end up. In my local scene, virtually every player have a different way of placing tokens in every combination possible. I don't mind what so ever, and I've never heard anyone complain about it either. I've been at 4 or 5 tournaments, and the same thing have applied there. Everyone does how they feel suits them best, and no one have complained or asked specific placements to be enforced. Frankly, I personally don't see why anyone would complain, as long as it's clear to both players what's going on.
  18. Not quite. The Opponent makes you do the change. Because the opponent does not get to touch your Ship, or your Dial, or your Tokens Are you sure that it works that way with Admiral Konstantine? I agree with the Phylon Q7 Tractor Beams, as it reads (I added the bold): "When you activate, you may exhaust this card to choose 1 enemy ship of your size class or smaller at distance 1-5. That ship must spend a *NAV* token or reduce its speed by 1 to a minimum of 1." To me, this reads as the Tractor-player makes the other player chance his speed (as in "you" have been forced to change your speed, as you mentioned). However, Admiral Konstantine reads (I added the bold): "At the start of each Status Phase, for each enemy ship at distance 1-5 of at least 2 friendly medium or large ships, you may increase or decrease that enemy ship's speed by 1 to a minimum of speed 1." Here, it's worded as the Konstantine-player gets to change the speed, and not force the other player to change their speed. I'm not convinced it's one way of the other, but if you have some backup for either scenario, I would like to hear it
  19. Here's the exact same art from FFG's LCG, if you want a (slightly) larger picture of it: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/uploads/sw/ffg_SWC17_149-5.png
  20. Unless "facedown" is specificed by the app, it is always faceup. Same thing applies to Horror.
  21. From what information we have been given, it is NOT a co-op game. There are 2 sides and the campaign will be 2 teams of players competing against each other. A cooperative game is one in which ALL of the players are working together against an AI embodied in the mechanics of the game. Yes, I'm aware of the definition av a co-op board game Thanks for the information! EDIT: I didn't realize at first that an entire discussion about the word "co-op" sprung from my question. For what it's worth though, I fully agree that in board games (and for that matter, digital games as well), "co-op" means "everyone against the AI/game/something-not-controlled-by-a-player).
  22. Are there any reliable information whether it is a co-op campaign or not? Some seem to refer to it as purely coop, while other claims it's played with two teams going against each other (with 1-3 players per team). Also, are there any confirmation that the objectives are for "ordinary" competitive play?
  23. I get a steady number of 2-3 games per month, which is very nice. The only downside is that I regularly only play against two other people, so our meta are sometimes quite... stagnant.
  24. Nice to see it fixed so quickly! Well, the wording is the same as the previous Tournament rules-document, and we still have the email from FFG saying that a finger is allowed, so I would say it's perfectly fine until they say anything else.
  25. Oh, that's one good looking VSD! Nice job. Which red is that? Here is my take on the VSD's (although I plainly stole the idea from PenguinBonaparte in another thread). Nothing fancy, but I like it a lot! It also makes them feel like their own ship, and not just a smaller version on the ISD. I've also dry-brushed the back on the ship, trying to simulate "engine glow". Here's my second Firespray, piloted by the one and only Boba Fett. The green is GW's Waaagh! Flesh, red is Vallejo's Burnt cad.red, and the grey is GW's Dawnstone. Cockpit is glossed, and the canons are GW's Evil Sunz Scarlet, with a dot of GW's Fire Dragon Bright in the middle.
×
×
  • Create New...