Jump to content

player769046

Members
  • Content Count

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by player769046

  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.
  15. yes, this frontoviki-card shows how the bot hunter card should have been done. Interestingly no-one at FFG seem to recognize the mistake (I am not sure if they proofread the unit cards of their mini boxes and the unit card pack…), but a total newbie, a friend of mine, detected the mistake even before his first game, just right after the rules explanation. Crazy, I am sure surely a lot of people out there play the bot-hunters with 5x bazookas, like their unit card (incorrectly) implies.
  16. thanks. So this is a card misprint. Is there already an errata for the bot hunter unit card out?
  17. Sorry if this is asked before, but I could not find it in the forum. I would like to ask if the Bot Hunters do have 2x Bazookas like in the picture of the unit card, or if they have 5x Bazookas like in the description of the 2nd weapon line of the unit card? Thanks alot for your info.
  18. I would limit airdrop to infantry and light walkers or other vehicles up to an armor rating of 3.
  19. Algesan said: Major Mishap said: Panzer soldier said: Flavor is one thing, an unbalanced tactical advantage is another. As far as ground scale is concerned, I am sure we can work fixed wing aircraft in to Dust Tactics. As far as Dust Warfare goes, the system does not have anything to do with realistic ground scale. So I don't see the issue here either. I've had an ME262 buzzing my battlefields for months, no problem at all with the rules. That is the issue, "buzzing". By the time a fast mover like the 262 shows up and pulls the trigger to strafe/bomb, it is gone. A four tile wide battle would be 12 movement squares wide. At about 50m per movement square (pretty much the maximum scale, this gets worse if they are less than 50m per) that would be 600m. which would be 2-3 seconds of flight time to cross. Remember that slowing down much made this relatively delicate aircraft much more vulnerable to fire. Something "slow" like a P-47 would take 3-4 seconds to fly across the board the long way. "Real" aircraft, be they prop or jet tend to act more like off board artillery that at the scale of Dust. Real life military range and scale considerations are totally irrelevant for DT rules as long as the rules are full of action and fun. DT is just a tactical game with military flavor and great minis, nothing more. If I would like to have a military simulation I would play … (insert any of those cumbersome WW2 tabletop rulesets out there).
  20. How about close combat attacks (C attack) into diamond squares (which represents LOS blocking areas like smoke etc.)?
  21. King Jareth said: To be fair Gimp is active over on the Dust Tactics forums and I can understand people will probably have asked him for an opinion on Warfare, however I do think it would have been more usefull after playing the game where maybe some of the basic rules hickups he made could have been ironed out. I think playing the game once or twice before writing such a glowing negative review should be "a requirement" and not just "useful."
  22. superklaus said: So this whole discussion is because the OP didnt even testplay DW once and nonetheless felt competent enough to give a negative review of it? Thats arrogant and respectless from his side and the community should ask itself if such a poor behaviour should be tolerated.
  23. So this whole discussion is because the OP didnt even testplay DW once and nonetheless felt competent enough to give a negative review of it? Thats arrogant and respectless from his side and the community should ask themselves if such a poor behaviour should be tolerated.
×
×
  • Create New...