Jump to content

Bitterman

Members
  • Content Count

    540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Bitterman

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/282009-imperial-assault-tools-list-builder-card-editor-more/
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Leics, United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I am continually baffled by the way "yeah, we're kinda done with this, never say never and you can probably still find somewhere to buy it, but, honestly, guys, we're done" keeps getting interpreted as "loads of new content coming next week!!!". It's over. It has been for, what, a year or more? And they've even been telling us it's over for months (after trying to avoid the subject for months before that). We can keep playing it and talking about it for sure, but new stuff? Not happening. Let it go.
  2. Interesting approach. Could you provide the Tournament Rules and rule/card changes as two separate documents? If I were to try to convince someone to try these rules with me, I want to give them one document and say "let's try this", preferably with as few changes as possible until trust is established. How you run your unofficial German Nationals is not relevant for that, so the first 11 pages (!) are just off-putting. More generally, to get people to try new rules, it needs to be as easy for them as possible. Ready-to-print images of the modified and new cards would be helpful. I appreciate the Designer's Commentary as it explains the thought process behind your changes (and a good chunk of it I agree with). Again though, top priority should be making it easy to use the rules - separating the commentary (into an appendix or another file) would let players focus on just the changes.
  3. I think you're missing the trick here. How come it also happens to be thematic in other sci-fi properties, like 40K? You even say yourself it's a problem in every tabletop game you play. Have you never wondered why they all make the same obvious "mistake"? Is it because all those games completely independently just happened to decide to make melee part of their theme for totally unrelated reasons to gameplay? Or was melee made part of their theme because it would enable them to include it in the games and help them avoid getting bogged down in static long ranged shooting? Even looking at Star Wars, to which Imperial Assault is beholden. By rights a universe of laser guns and starships should have no place for melee combat at all - it shouldn't be in the theme. So why is it? It's not like Star Wars was created to support a game, like 40K was! Well, how interesting would Star Wars have been if, say, the climactic face-off between Ben Kenobi and Darth Vader, at the end of the first movie, had been sniping at one another from opposite ends of a corridor instead of duelling with lightsabers? Movies benefit from dramatic melee battles, just as games do. Why does Indiana Jones keep getting in fistfights all the time? There's only one occasion where he shoots a guy instead of fighting him hand-to-hand, and (iconic though that scene was) they only did it that way because Harrison Ford was too ill to do the fight they had planned to film. Melee helps to make games dynamic and mobile. Melee helps to make movies (and stories generally) dramatic and character-driven. It doesn't matter that since at least the early twentieth century, effective guns have made melee combat obsolete as a tactic of choice (if occasionally useful as a desperate last resort, or for silent kills in special forces operations). "Real" warfare means very little for games or stories.
  4. Trouble is, games where ranged units sit still in cover taking potshots at other ranged units sitting still in cover, tend to be pretty boring, or at least are at risk of that. Melee units aren't supposed to be realistic. They introduce dynamism and mobility into a game where it might otherwise be lacking entirely. And, because it will be harder to get into melee than shoot from cover, they need to do higher damage to make the payoff worth the risk. That's not "OP", that's a necessary trade-off. We play games, not simulations.
  5. I did think for a while about extending the card designer for other factions such as Separatists, Republic, Resistance, and First Order; and maybe even make it completely customisable so if you wanted, you could make Imperial and Chaos cards and use it for a 40K version of the game, or whatever. But, there's a lot of work in making that happen and it just doesn't seem worth the payoff, so I decided not to do it. This was already true back when I was thinking about it, when this forum regularly saw some activity. It's even more the case now, with the game in a coma and the forum basically dead. I still hope to get round to finishing the work I've done on a mission editor at some point, because that's a really impressive and unique new feature available nowhere else. Smaller tweaks to existing apps don't seem worth the time. I'm not sure what you mean about the card backs, in the card designer? Most of the card decks have fixed and standard backs, and those that aren't, seem more suited to an art package than a simple designer like this one.
  6. I've adjusted how those labels are rendered. Download the latest version, try it and see what you think. Resistencia looks OK but Velocidad doesn't IMO, but it's probably about the best that can be done, it's just too long a word to fit in the space.
  7. Oh, sorry, I misunderstood, my mistake. If there's not room for the text, it can't show it... but I haven't checked exactly how much room there should be. Can you please let me know the words that don't fit, and on which card types? If I can squeeze in more room I'll try to do that, but I probably won't make it draw text outside the text area.
  8. Unfortunately the font used to draw the cards does not include every letter from every language. This isn't going to be fixed. Sorry.
  9. Time as an argument against swarms isn't valid, or shouldn't be. FFG deliberately made sure that no figure costs less than 2 points, putting a hard limit of 20 figures on an army (and I've almost-never seen that many in practice), for a reason - albeit that, it's true, you still rarely or never saw swarms, but at least in principle that could have been fixed. IACP unfortunately chose to arbitrarily mess with points costs in a way that nobody was asking for, which FFG had never set precedent for, and which broke this guideline (e.g. eSTs are 7 points, so rSTs would have to be less than 6 if the changes were followed to their logical conclusion; that's less than 2 points per figure). If rSTs were 4 points to match, you could easily get 25+ figures in an army. Time then becomes a much bigger problem. This is what happens when partial changes are made in isolation without holistically considering the consequences or following existing best practices; the response was to decide to just not change regular units, rather than confront that mistake. But, not only does this make/keep iconic hordes of Stormtroopers non-viable, but also means that cards like Assassinate (which are worthless against cheap and weak swarm figures) are deemed too powerful, necessitating further clunky changes, because cheap swarm figures are never seen, so the downsides/risks of taking Assassinate vanish. (Compare to Celebration for example - a good card, but might be useless if the opponent has no unique figures, so not an ever-present.) And on it goes - the decision (conscious or otherwise) to just not spend time thinking about swarms, caused knock-on effects elsewhere, so that time is spent on trying to "fix" Assassinate et al instead. tl;dr: the thread title is correct, but only a special case of the more general issue.
  10. Wouldn't get too excited just yet. It's a nerf, but a fairly gentle one.
  11. ....and they can't even be bothered to draw anyone's attention to it with a news article.
  12. OK, thanks. If you try again with the latest version (at the usual place) the Card Editor and Card Viewer should both hopefully work this time, including when text is entered into the Abilities box. Let me know if it does or not. If it does, a lot of people stuck on Windows 7 but who have wanted to use this might be quite happy. (Notwithstanding that it's hard not to recommend upgrading anyway).
  13. OK, so - it looks like Windows 7 and 8 can't understand the font used for some of the card text (no idea why not, it's a perfectly good font that works fine on Windows 10). As a workaround, I've told it to use Times New Roman for that text instead. This won't look quite right compared to the official cards, but it's better than nothing. Could someone with Windows 7/8 please try the latest version (from the usual place) and see if the Card Editor now works when you type something into the Abilities (Text box). The Card Viewer might or might not work, depending on the next paragraph... I have currently only set it to do this for the regular font, hoping that the bold and italic versions work. To check, could someone please enter the following text into the Abilities (Text box): Thanks.
  14. @Averross can you please select the whole text in that text box (starting "See the ends of this message..."), copy it, and send it to me in an email using "Report a Bug or Suggestion" from the Help menu? Thanks.
  15. Unfortunately that's a known issue with running on Windows 7 or 8. Try Windows 10 if you can. ...which is good advice anyway, by the way: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsforbusiness/end-of-windows-7-support In just over six months, MS will stop putting out security updates for Windows 7. It's mad to still be using it at this point. [edit] Although... that dialog box shows more information in the stack trace than has ever been seen before! This might be the clue I needed to fix it...?
×
×
  • Create New...