Jump to content

player769046

Members
  • Content Count

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About player769046

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  1. Donovan Morningfire said: newmarduk said: I'm disappointed that Fantasy Flight Gmes did not use Savage Worlds for their Star Wars RPG. As much as I like Savage Worlds (particularly Deadlands), I have to echo IG-58's sentiment and am glad FFG went with a brand new system rather than trying to wedge a pre-existing system into running Star Wars. Doing their own thing gives FFG a lot more freedom to tweak things as needed, and while it is 'fast, furious, and fun,' Savage Worlds can be a fairly nasty system in terms of player mortality, something you generally don't see with Star Wars. If you really believe this, then you didnt hear anything about the scaleable wound system of the new edition (SW deluxe). And even in former rule versions there always have been non-lethal wound systems in SW setting rules (like Slipstream) In truth the lethality in SW is perfectly scaleable. (in opposite to many other rpg systems which have not such options)
  2. newmarduk said: I'm disappointed that Fantasy Flight Gmes did not use Savage Worlds for their Star Wars RPG. I too. SW is a so much better system! Its easy to learn, flexible, fast paced and extremely cinematic. It would have been the perfect fit for the Star Wars setting.
  3. Thanks for the FAQ. Its ridicolous that FFG is not capable of delivering a more precise rulebook. I also knew a group which understood the rule in the above way and played it wrong. One should assume in the meantime FFG know how to formulate an important core rule in a way everybody can easily understand them. (a task other boardgame companies seem to achieve without problems)
  4. Yeah. I agree, Gethisburgh was a great (and one of the first - a granddaddy of our hobby) AH game. Regarding the complaint of the TO, well I hope that we never play in a one group. My taste what a good game should consist of is totally different than his. Descent 2nd edition has -better and deeper tactics, -plays faster and has -better components. Its vastly superior in every aspect to clunky and unbalanced 1st edition.
  5. to win with the elves is not very difficult. They have the influence superority and the combo archer - darnari warrior (archer turns the fortresses up and danari elminates enemy unit a few seconds later.) Addtional they can reach for cities and powerful monsters much sooner than other races. The newbie friendly Uthuk with their strong military are the second powerful in the game IMO. Then the undead with their slow buildup and the least powerful are the humans. (in fact I never saw a daquan win)
  6. I think the current relic minis are nice. Refreshing and different than another 30mm run of the mill adventurer.
  7. Very good work. Thanks for it. FFG should have such informative cards from the beginning on. Its a shame that a fan has to do the companies work.
  8. Steve-O said: Scy800 said: Looks very interesting. I am still bothered a bit that hero death seems so to be even more trivial than it was in 1e. Yeah I know it will slow down heroes, but I don't know. It seems more than a nuisance than something to really fear, which is what should be the case. If anything, "death" in 2e is harsher than it was in 1e. Don't be fooled by the less harmful sounding terminology of "knocked out." In first edition, when a hero died he was teleported back to town - a safe haven where the Overlord could not touch him - and given full health and fatigue, as well as having all lingering effects removed. Basically, he was restored to full power and transported to a position of safety which he could emerge from at his leisure. The only limitation was that he could only return to the map through one of a few specific spaces (namely activated glyphs), but that was rarely a huge inconvenience in my experience. In second edition, a hero who is "knocked out" is forced to remain in the space he was "knocked out" in (a space that most likely has monsters nearby.) He only regains a portion of his health and fatigue (as determined by die roll) when he stands up, rather than everything. Note that the rules state that a hero who is "defeated" (aka Ko'd) immediately loses all fatigue and all health (important if he was "defeated" by something other than losing his last hit point.) So it's not like there will ever be a situation where he's only down one or two fatigue and laughing off the die roll. The hero must also burn an entire turn standing up (or else one of his allies must burn a single action while standing adjacent to him.) And the Overlord gets a free card for having KO'd him, to boot. The only part of this sequence that is equal to first edition is the fact that conditions (aka "lingering effects") get discarded. Nothing about it is better for the heroes. The biggest hit in 2e's "death" rules is probably the action/turn required to stand up. We know from first edition that the greatest measure of hero power was the number of attacks they could bring to bear against the monsters, and the combat rules for second edition seem similar enough based on the rulebook that this is probably true in 2e as well. To get a hero back on his feet requires at least one action, possibly two (the KO'd hero's whole turn, or potentially an ally forced to use a Move and a Revive to get him up.) In first edition, getting back on your feet required no actions. Seriously, the only thing that's "more trivial" about 2e's death mechanics is the fluff terminology used to describe it. If you don't like heroes getting "knocked out" you can just start calling it "death" and the revival process becomes "resurrection." Fluff is grim and bloody again, mechanics are unchanged. How does a hero revive himself if he's thematically dead, you ask? Obviously, all serious heroes make a point of getting a magic amulet that allows them to revive themselves before setting out for glory and riches. The amulet takes time to heal your wounds, otherwise an ally can pour a res potion down your throat (heroes keep plenty of those in stock too, sadly they have no effect on people who aren't dead.) It's as realistic as heroes materializing in the temple back in town as soon as they die, perhaps moreso because there's no mysterious omnipresent teleportation of bodies going on. At the end of the day, it's a magical fantasy setting, after all. Steve-O said: Scy800 said: Looks very interesting. I am still bothered a bit that hero death seems so to be even more trivial than it was in 1e. Yeah I know it will slow down heroes, but I don't know. It seems more than a nuisance than something to really fear, which is what should be the case. If anything, "death" in 2e is harsher than it was in 1e. Don't be fooled by the less harmful sounding terminology of "knocked out." In first edition, when a hero died he was teleported back to town - a safe haven where the Overlord could not touch him - and given full health and fatigue, as well as having all lingering effects removed. Basically, he was restored to full power and transported to a position of safety which he could emerge from at his leisure. The only limitation was that he could only return to the map through one of a few specific spaces (namely activated glyphs), but that was rarely a huge inconvenience in my experience. In second edition, a hero who is "knocked out" is forced to remain in the space he was "knocked out" in (a space that most likely has monsters nearby.) He only regains a portion of his health and fatigue (as determined by die roll) when he stands up, rather than everything. Note that the rules state that a hero who is "defeated" (aka Ko'd) immediately loses all fatigue and all health (important if he was "defeated" by something other than losing his last hit point.) So it's not like there will ever be a situation where he's only down one or two fatigue and laughing off the die roll. The hero must also burn an entire turn standing up (or else one of his allies must burn a single action while standing adjacent to him.) And the Overlord gets a free card for having KO'd him, to boot. The only part of this sequence that is equal to first edition is the fact that conditions (aka "lingering effects") get discarded. Nothing about it is better for the heroes. The biggest hit in 2e's "death" rules is probably the action/turn required to stand up. We know from first edition that the greatest measure of hero power was the number of attacks they could bring to bear against the monsters, and the combat rules for second edition seem similar enough based on the rulebook that this is probably true in 2e as well. To get a hero back on his feet requires at least one action, possibly two (the KO'd hero's whole turn, or potentially an ally forced to use a Move and a Revive to get him up.) In first edition, getting back on your feet required no actions. Seriously, the only thing that's "more trivial" about 2e's death mechanics is the fluff terminology used to describe it. If you don't like heroes getting "knocked out" you can just start calling it "death" and the revival process becomes "resurrection." Fluff is grim and bloody again, mechanics are unchanged. How does a hero revive himself if he's thematically dead, you ask? Obviously, all serious heroes make a point of getting a magic amulet that allows them to revive themselves before setting out for glory and riches. The amulet takes time to heal your wounds, otherwise an ally can pour a res potion down your throat (heroes keep plenty of those in stock too, sadly they have no effect on people who aren't dead.) It's as realistic as heroes materializing in the temple back in town as soon as they die, perhaps moreso because there's no mysterious omnipresent teleportation of bodies going on. At the end of the day, it's a magical fantasy setting, after all. As it is now with the 2nd edition death rules, a hero can never really die, even if he was swallowed by a dragon. He just stands up next turn on the space (or nearby) where he was sliced to little pieces. I find that cheesy. Well maybe you are right, that 2nd ed. death rules are in every aspect except description harsher than 1st. But I still dont like them very much. For a narrative game and consistent gaming environment another rule solution would have been better. (eg. using one of the unused character sheets after dying, representing that a new hero is arriving at doors of the dungeon or at a certain teleportation point or such) The rest of the new streamlined rules, I really like. They are nice and easy to read.
  9. Fortress America was one of the MBs Gamemaster Series which I consider as the granddaddies of modern plastic mini wargames. All these games sported a myriard of plastic minis and more or less simple rules. (at least for wargames of the 80ties) Other games in the series have been Axis & Allies, Conquest of the Empire (great game with alot of legionary minis), Shogun (Feudal Japan) and Broadsides and Boarding Parties (a pirate game which is not well known)
  10. Spyderslicer said: This made me shed a tear for the gaming industry. And the OP of this thread just irked me. I swear a game that had a fresh feeling for it. FFG broke free of a mold long set with games, a mold where America is always the good guys. I mean why is perfectly fine for America to be breaking in China's door or Russia or the middle east in games, but the second America is the bad guy, people go up in arms, it makes me sad that they changed it. Now I haven't the slightest how much this game has made, I have no idea how much it wouldn't have made if it had have kept it's previous background. (Although those that wouldn't buy it because America is the bad guys aren't true gamers) I know they have to make money but I still get sad that they had to change it for the whiny (I'm assuming slightly racist or overly patriotic) minority. It annoys me that the OP would have had no problem buying the original game if it had have been Russia stirring crap up. But because the close minded individual can't break out of the stereotypes society has given him he can't see a true gem past because he couldn't see past 'America is the bad guy for once'. Well, maybe FFG as an US based company HAS to be patriotic to be successful in its main (the US) market. I dont think that the TO is alone in his irrational attitude. I am sure USA is full of such nationalistic blockheads. And FFG tries not to loose them as customers. Corp money first, then ethics. I would not wonder if the writer of the first (much more original) backstory has been fired now or had some serious problems with his FFG boss after publishing it on the net.
  11. very cool from where are the models? (tank turret of walker and armoured car?)
  12. I am sure everybody read the new combat preview. Sadly everyone only referred to the new strange LOS rules, but noone cared about the other rules the preview brought to us. -new dice, power surge rules -new "death" rules - or knock out rules I have to admit I dont like the death rules. It seems that no character ever can die but only be unconcious after getting bitten by a dragon (or "knocked out" as they call it). Thats carebear rule is so ridicolous and additonally lacks any narrative. I hated the lack of perma death in the first edition too. why not allowing death and have the player bring in a fresh character with some extra equipment? (eg with half of the equipment the dead character had?)
  13. Acid could be very dangerous, Anyone who saw the movie Aliens? No prob at all that it takes apart an futuristic APC with just acid blood in a few minutes. And nobody can deny that this is a VERY classical theme in SciFi. But generally I think its quite silly to argue about the capabilites of chemical substances in an alternate SciFi universe where zombies are running around in order to kill jumping tanks. Such arguing reminds me of a similar silly discussion about the question if Darth Vader really could stop a laser shot with his hands or not, so I will stop here
  14. I think most of the "concerns" of gimp are rather an exaggeration, except the Legendary Tactical ability which seem really be absurd if the hero is not worth at least 40 points or more. -6 Range of AA: thats absolutely no prob, especially if you consider that we are playing on a small mat, and the gunship of the SSU has only a range of 4! -Acid sprayer is too unrealistic? Come on, thats a game with Totenmeisters, armored apes and zombies. -team of 5 snipers? Only a prob for me if they are too cheap.
×
×
  • Create New...