Jump to content

Lord_Daxl

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lord_Daxl

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
  1. I agree that immobilize should be errated, for two reasons. #1 Simplicity. One of the selling points of 2nd edition was simplicity! Something along the lines of "You cannot spend movement points" is very intuitive and simple. It would be a lot easier to understand for all players, especially newer players. I still have a number of people in my regular playgroup that do not really understand how immoblize works. I'm an experienced player and I even often find myself having to do a double take to determine whether or not an ability or skill overrides immobilize. #2 Balance. I think the current wording makes the games extremely unbalanced from the perspective of hero and class choice. Movement is oftentimes so important for quest success, that non-move action movement ends up getting an excessively high premium. Quite honestly, I would like to be able to justify playing a scout other than Jain, Logan, or Silhouette against a skilled overlord. Furthermore, from a design perspective it seems completely arbitrary what wording they use. Given FFG's editorial track record, does anyone honestly believe that Jain Fairwood's heroic ability was worded the way it was for immoblize balance considerations? I think it's much more likely someone just happened to type it up that way as opposed to writing "you gain 2 movement actions and an attack acton".
  2. I was trying to figure out what the rationale was behind making the the lieutenants gray. We've gotten them mixed up with heros a few times during games and moved the wrong pieces. It seems a bit confusing that they are the same color as the heroes. Wouldn't it have made more sense to make them red like master monsters, or possibly some alternate color like orange?
  3. This is completely different from an expansion. An expansion is an add on to the base game, I still have a complete game if I choose not buy an expansion. However, in order to have a complete base game with all of the game pieces, I have to buy the miniatures. The original box did not advertise "46 of 54 miniatures you need included", it advertised 46 miniatures which I assumed was all you needed. I realize this is now the norm for most publishers when selling any sort of game, whether it be a box game or a video game. However, I've always held in high regard the ones that stuck to the model of selling a complete game, and trying to make money off of true additional content. It just shocks me that FFG has sunk to the level of Electronic Arts. Sunk? As pointed out before, they did this with D1 as well. We should have expected it! Have you ever played Pathfinder? You have to buy a book (and more then one book in time). And then dice. And then a mini for your character. They are not sold together for the sake of money for them and for verity for the player. I don't think this too much different aside from the fact that the LT are all the same. I am also under the strong assumption that they PLANED on making the LT minis only, but then heard an outcry from the form community. OL wanted a hero for themselves to buff instead of or with their current deck. So FFG said, let's give it to them with their minis! And so they did it, and they are proud to make their fans happy, and we all feel good about it. Or so we should. Has this become a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" kind of moment? I don't know what you're talking about as far as D1. I played D1 and it had every thing I needed to play the game (what miniatures was it missing???). As far as the comparison to RPGs. The only thing you need to play an RPG is dice and paper and pencil. Paper and pencil are a bit of a given that people are going to have, and they typically have a disclaimer on the book stating that dice aren't included and that certain other necessary books are needed to play. Say what you may, you're not going to convince me that this wasn't a cheap marketing ploy to sell more product. There's absolutely no reason not to include the necessary miniatures in the base game. Want to sell bonus little extra content cards to go with them? Fine, do it, but let them stand on their own merit. Don't force me to buy it, just so I have real miniatures to use for key characters when playing the base game.
  4. This is completely different from an expansion. An expansion is an add on to the base game, I still have a complete game if I choose not buy an expansion. However, in order to have a complete base game with all of the game pieces, I have to buy the miniatures. The original box did not advertise "46 of 54 miniatures you need included", it advertised 46 miniatures which I assumed was all you needed. I realize this is now the norm for most publishers when selling any sort of game, whether it be a box game or a video game. However, I've always held in high regard the ones that stuck to the model of selling a complete game, and trying to make money off of true additional content. It just shocks me that FFG has sunk to the level of Electronic Arts.
  5. I find it offensive that I have to shell out $40+ dollars to get figures that should have been included in the original game! I don't mind paying money for additional content. But this seems really gimicky. Package up additional content with a plastic figure, so people who just want the plastic figure don't feel totally ripped off. If they're going to force me to buy figures that should be included in the original game, they could have at least stuck with the premium pewter ones.
  6. 42! said: The recharge tokens are all about game balance and the possibilities to create new actions. If you limited actions to be "payed" only through stress and fatigue then you'd be left with a very limited range of possibilities, since you can't really come up with actions that cost more than 3 (and even that heavy a cost would make most players shy away from those actions) and it would also mean that the idea behind what gives stress and fatigue needs to be evaluated since it suddenly becomes the most precious "commodity" in the game. I actually wouldn't mind seeing fatigue/stress take a bigger role in the game. There are a lot of cards such as assess the situation that allow you manage your fatigue/stress very effectively. So far in all of my groups game sessions, the only player that has had to pay attention to fatigue at all is the dwarf soldier who is constantly in a reckless stance and gaining fatigue from the dice results. The other players have barely had to worry about it since they generally favor the cautious stance. Without reckless dice there seems to be many more opportunities for the players to use boons to recover stress/fatigue than for me to dish them out with banes. Unless you tend towards reckless, fatigue/stress seems like an almost not issue most of the time. (I honestly only recall one time when a player other than the dwarf became stressed or fatigued during any game session.) I think it would be interesting dynamic if the characters used a particularly powerful ability and had to make the strategic decision whether to catch their breath afterwards or push on.
  7. After playing WFRP for a couple months now, I've decided I love just about everything in the game with the exception of Recharge Tokens. So far they have been overly burdensome and annoying for my group. To start with why do they even exist in the first place when there are already 2 very effective means of resource management, fatigue and stress. If you're a spellcaster you have a third tool for resource management, spell power points. When you already have a number of means of limiting a players resources why was there even a need to add this additional cumbersome layer? Secondly, this seems to be one of the things that Warhammer borrowed from 4th edition and one of the things I dislike about 4th edition. Why exactly can I only take a particular action once an encounter or in WFRP's case once every so many turns? From a roleplaying standpoint, I would much sooner have the option of further exerting myself to try and perform a particular action, than to wait for some arbitray refresh time. Finally, from a pure game play and design standpoint, recharge points are a pain to keep track of. Wounds, fatigue, stress and power are relatively easy to keep track of. You don't ever have to remember to add or remove any. When use an ability or effect that requires you to spend some you spend them, and vice versa when you're the target of an effect that causes you to lose or gain some you apply it then. The need to adjust them is always triggered by some in game event. With recharge tokens, you're forced to try to remember to remove at the end of every turn. It seems easy enough, but without something triggering it, it's often easy to forget. In my experience, this is especially the case when the players really get into the game. The action and roleplaying starts flowing so well that it becomes difficult to pull yourself out of the flow of the game and perform the end of turn maintenance step. I don't think I've had a single session where players have not forgotten to adjust their recharge tokens a number of times. To finish my rant I have a plea for the designers to ditch recharge tokens altogether. I know this isn't going to happen, so I wonder if anyone has tinkered around and come up with some rules changes that get rid of them without compromising the game. (Additionally, I'm almost certain there had to be a play test version that did not involve them, so please tell us what the rules were devs!)
  8. The Asgardian said: Magic: Do the actions of casting Magic and Blessing have a default difficulty of 1 Challenge Die as the Melee and Ranged actions do? In addition to spell actions, what is the default difficulty for any non-opposed action card (e.g. guarded stance)?
  9. dvang said: ToM says that apprentice wizards get Channeling and Spellcraft for free. What page does it say this? A player of mine made an apprentice and we could not for the life of us find this anywhere.
  10. Do characters start with any skills at character creation beyond what they can choose with creation points? I found it odd that a wizard's apprentice could start out not knowing how to channel or cast spells.
  11. Beyond spellcasting there are a number of other actions that are not an opposed check that need clarification. For example the basic "Defensive Stance" action (not sure of the exact name). I used a default <P> for this as I assumed that any unopposed check defaulted to that the way melee and ranged attacks do.
×
×
  • Create New...