Jump to content

ellyssian

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ellyssian

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Marietta, Pennsylvania, United States
  1. Plageman said: The only problem you may have with the Frankenstahl is that the base won't fit the circles on the map. That's a feature, not a bug! I thought about that with a couple of not-so-minis I'd like to bring over to Tannhauser... I was planning on using the leading edge to determine the path for movement. If they changed direction, that edge would be the leading edge ~ i.e. it could give them a jump of a spot or two, not out of line with them being outsized. As for obstacles, if the base doesn't fit through doorways, they don't get through. This severely limits their movement in the castle (possibly preventing it outright, or maybe forcing them to use the front door instead of the back stair), and restricts it to some degree on the outdoor maps. In both cases, their stats would reflect their outsized nature, so they might not be so bad just sitting in a limited spot, guarding some objective.
  2. Wow, that gives a new meaning to the phrase "double quote", no?
  3. StormKnight said: Well, I'm the designated grouch here anyway, so I think the main reasons it gets complained at include: A poorly written rulebook. Games modes that are so thematically weak they take no advantage of the cool setting. 100+ tokens that have absolutely no game information on them. Having to look up said tokens on poorly designed reference sheets during play. Several near useless mechanics (bull rush and counterattack, I'm looking at you). Bad balance among character option packs. Bad balance between extra characters. A standard number of characters that doesn't work well with more than 2 players. Drastically overcomplicated dice mechanics. Bad map design that makes it unclear which circles are adjacent to each other. Bad pathfinding color choices that put very similar colors close together. I think that probably hits the main complaints. StormKnight said: Well, I'm the designated grouch here anyway, so I think the main reasons it gets complained at include: A poorly written rulebook. Games modes that are so thematically weak they take no advantage of the cool setting. 100+ tokens that have absolutely no game information on them. Having to look up said tokens on poorly designed reference sheets during play. Several near useless mechanics (bull rush and counterattack, I'm looking at you). Bad balance among character option packs. Bad balance between extra characters. A standard number of characters that doesn't work well with more than 2 players. Drastically overcomplicated dice mechanics. Bad map design that makes it unclear which circles are adjacent to each other. Bad pathfinding color choices that put very similar colors close together. I think that probably hits the main complaints. For my purposes: Rulebook was fine; however, included scenarios would have been fine Story mode with scenarios are so thematically strong it makes for a very immersive experience; other modes are fun for variety and when you just want a quick game Tons of tokens, with enough game information on them (what factions can use them; whether they are dropped when the character is killed; which item they are) that allow them to be usable Reference sheets that work fine; plenty of player-supplied reference sheets if the originals aren't to your taste Don't think we've ever used Bull Rush, but Counterattack has changed the course of more than one firefight in more than one game Most character packs work fine; we tweaked them on a few plays, but have since gone back to standard stuff We've had no problem swapping in extra characters, and it's even worked well with an additional character; we've also played scenarios with unbalanced sides, and had the underpowered, outnumbered side win through strategic play; in my opinion, when it comes to games about war or fighting, "unbalanced" and "broken" refer to the capabilities of the player, not the game ~ warfare tends to be asymmetric, so the games should be as well The game is designed for 2 players; however, there are ways to bring in more players if you want Dice cups and a dice tray (or box top) can easily handle rolling the number of dice needed to play; other than that you're just comparing the numbers being rolled to a target number, so that doesn't seem complex to me at all The map is a bit dark, but the circles that are adjacent are pretty easy to tell on account of being the same color (at least in part) and right next to each other The colors could have been brighter, and more distinct, but if they were much brighter it would detract more from the game play (it's not a DayGlo type of mood you want to encourage here!) ~ I am colorblind, and I've found that I only have trouble differentiating things once or twice a game, and even then only before we started to play with a brighter light; the light resolved any which-path-is-which issue and the former what-is-adjacent issue as well Of course, as this points out, these are (mostly) matters of taste. The only one which absolutely isn't a taste issue (it really is a 2 player game) can still be easily changed by dividing forces amongst additional players, so that, without changing the size of the factions, up to 10 could play.
  4. They did provide somewhat of an update ~ the date of expected arrival of Daedalus moved from Q4 2009 to Spring 2010, so that's progress!
  5. That would involve creating new maps for 2.0, and they've said 2.0 is going to be a rules change ~ all components will be identical to 1.0.
  6. Very cool! Two suggestions : Add a column for a reference (to the rule book, website, or wherever the info came from) Make it a Wiki so you're not the only one stuck updating it (of course, this opens up a number of issues, mainly where to host it and how to maintain it ~ maybe on BGG?)
  7. Wolfie6407 said: Someone attackes you, they roll dice = their combat value + bonuses (that apply for combat roll) and hits are rolled numbers over the defenders stamina value + bonuses (do bonuses for stamina exist?). Hits are counted. So then the defender does a shock roll in which they roll dice = their combat value + bonuses (that apply to shock roll) and shocks are rolled numbers over the attackers stamina value + bonuses. then for each shock cancles one hit and any remaining hits are wounds(is every remaining hit counted as a seperate wound? or only one?). Is this the process? The attacker rolls combat dice + combat bonuses against the defenders combat value. For each hit (we like to call it a "threat" at that point, to differentiate between hits that might hurt and hits that did hurt), you need to try to neutralize it with the shock roll of the defenders stamina dice + stamina bonuses against the defenders stamina value. Every threat that is canceled out is gone; any that didn't get prevented is an actual hit, and knocks the defending character down a notch. When four hits make it through, even a hero is dead. Three hits will take down a trooper. If you have multiple weapons, you have to choose one to use, you don't stack the bonuses. Grenades do not blast through walls ~ especially not in these settings. Maybe if you were playing in a tenement with paper-thin walls you might have to make allowances for this, but all the maps are using nice, Old World construction, mostly stone. If you wanted to get realistic about it, the grenade's blast would probably double back if it went off near a wall, focusing and thus increasing the damage to those unlucky enough to be standing there. The game's not that realistic a simulation though. I'll leave some questions for others to answer!
  8. Oops ~ the scenario does specify that you can't use the Mental Pack to cover that very case. Need to work on my reading comprehension skills.
  9. Earlier tonight, I played the "Work the Angle" scenario with my son ~ full session report on BGG under the same title as this post ~ and we had a blast. While I was looking at what equipment to provide for Eva, I realized that Infiltration ~ which I made good use of in my first game ~ would break this scenario. In the first turn, as the Reich has the initiative, and the deployment is set, Eva would be able to waltz in and out of the front door, winning the major victory for the Reich before the Union had a chance to deploy. Anyone else notice this?
  10. Doc Savage said: I think that in the fullness of time there may be more than one AT-43 based faction.... When I came across AT-43, my first thought was, "Hey, some of that might be useful in Tannhauser..."
  11. KarmakazeDK said: My first idea is to base a team on the danish restistance under WW2, and give em something from the Nordic mythology. I like the idea of building a Nordic team... get some good Viking (descendants) action going!
  12. I picked up Dust as a sort of gateway to wargaming and to FFG products ~ that, and I liked the theme ~ and we really enjoyed the first game we played, and look forward to bringing it to the table again. I noticed a few people mentioning the high price, and that's pretty ironic: part of my original selection was based on price; it was much more affordable than a lot of the other FFG games I was considering, so it became the first ( others have already followed! =)
  13. I don't know if expansions would be the right thing. You could add cards and/or unit types, so there is some room for it, but the game works great as is. I could definitely see it branching off into related games: squad tactics or an rpg or so forth. There's a lot of room for that sort of expansion.
×
×
  • Create New...