Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About darkdeal

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Terre Haute, Indiana, United States
  1. Why not just thwart them with a non-combat threat or something that can easily avoid the shots? Have an opponent with that energy shield that likes to lob grenades. Have an enemy that sneaks up on them. Have an enemy sniper sunder the weapon. Set traps. I prefer non-combat really. If you have a heavily combat oriented group, who are trigger happy, put the in front of the nemesis in a very crowded public setting where firing their weapons would be certain death. If the player still pushes too much, kill them off and make them reroll another character. That would also drive the point that pc's are not beyond dying.
  2. Marauder has several lethal blows talents that would do well with a superior vibro-sword with an edge. That makes the weapon auto crit every time.
  3. I am looking through career skills and it says you can buy into another specialization. It says "each specialization has career skills. These skills now count as career skills..." p93. My question is, do you only gain the 4 bonus career skills or do you also gain the 8 career skills, assuming you are buying an out of career specialization?
  4. I wasn't meaning I wanted to be in the front lines of a fight. I just don't want to stand and take it if someone attacks. I think I will just pick up a point or two of light ranged for a blaster. Stunning someone could be useful if I need to interrogate.
  5. Or they could faint from stress or anxiety. Just too much to handle.
  6. Ever seen the last samurai? There is a scene where a guard stops them and the translator goes off yelling about how the guard doesn't want to be the one that disobeyed the order of the emperor. The guard is sufficiently scared by the lying tirade to let them pass.
  7. We have a mechanic. I like the politico. Now I just need a good back story. Maybe an ex-envoy. Caught swindling, cheating, or stealing? Maybe exiled for manipulating a higher up official?
  8. I am about to start playing in a campaign and we are pretty overloaded with combat oriented players. The GM mentioned wanting a "face" character. I am a minmaxer and don't typically do the greatest with social characters but want to accommodate the team and fill the gaps. I need help coming up with a suitable character. I prefer deception and intimidation over the friendlier alternatives. I feel I do need to be able to defend myself a bit. Somewhat like Han Solo but more political. Maybe a trader that takes advantage of people. A hustler. Any thoughts? Name: Kain Rohana Human Colonist- politico Motivation (ambition: power): Kain wants to be a political puppet master. Pulling strings from behind the curtain. Not wanting to be known but gaining power and influence. Obligation (betrayal): Caught manipulating a high level member of some government official on some planet. Charged with treason. Fled prior to execution. No bounty, but exiled from planet for fear of execution. (Important planet so obligation is not pointless) Any possible help on the back story would be cool. Maybe obligation could be tweaked.
  9. Curator, I think you may be reading my responses with an aggressive tone that I am not using. I actually thought this was a constructive debate with some good points. Also, the second part of my post wasn't responding so much to you as it is to everyone in general. I have heard the lack of support argument a lot and just wanted to acknowledge it. About the profitability. The company already changed from the 1x to a 3x format that actually makes them less money theoretically. The long term thought here is though, that if it is easier to invest, you will draw more customers in. In my example of something they could do, the preconstructed decks, it would be the same theory. The company would possibly make less money from any given individual currently playing, but could open up a whole new player base. There are also the completists like myself that have no pet race that would want to buy all of the decks, making the profit for FFG far greater. I also didn't think W:I was selling "all that well" comparatively speaking. I am pretty sure there are a lot of other card games that sell more, but maybe that is just the nature of the LCG format when I come from a CCG world.
  10. Curator said: darkdeal said: I don't think it would be hard to support more factions if they had chosen to do it that way. Instead of releasing the major expansions as they have, releasing 2 new factions with or without boards, they could have released preconstructed decks that were solo faction every 6 months and then have the BP's give a little support to each. So if they made a lord of the rings war based card game you would want the southern tribes to have capital boards even though they only join as allies by sending a few troops and the elephants. The war was focused on key capitals. Helmsdeep and White City for good and Isengard and Mordor for evil. The allies pose such a little threat as a whole in the warhammer war effort for both sides. Why would chaos waste resources on wood elves that they could be spending of the focus against empire? On the flip side why wood the wood elves try to draw attention like that to home realm? In my opinion keeping certain armies as just allies is better. I never said to release every race in Warhammer as a standalone. But if they are releasing a major expansion as pushing Lizardmen and Undead, then they probably should have had a capital board. Skaven as well should have had their own as that would have solved a lot of the overpoweredness of them in the beginning. (You should also stay away from analogies. If your argument isn't strong enough to not use an analogy, then there is a problem with your argument. Warhammer is not Lord of the Rings.) The argument that if there were say 10 capital boards instead of the current 6 that the races would not get enough support is a bit off. Most don't get support as it is. If every 6 months they released a box with 10 starter decks, each a different solo race deck with 17-25 new cards, and maybe some reprints of old cards that didn't get a full 3x originally, each race would get more support than they do now. On top of that, it would allow those players that play only their pet race an opportunity to save a lot of money, or new players a perfect entry point into the game.
  11. I don't think it would be hard to support more factions if they had chosen to do it that way. Instead of releasing the major expansions as they have, releasing 2 new factions with or without boards, they could have released preconstructed decks that were solo faction every 6 months and then have the BP's give a little support to each.
  12. Clamatius said: Alright, I finally figured out a plan for Dwarves to beat Thrower that doesn't involve playing a pile of horrendously dead cards. It isn't an auto-win or anything, but at least it gives you a chance. Recurring Demolitions with Order in Chaos to kill off Treasure Vaults and Contested Stronghold will buy you enough time to beat them up, in summary. I do think it makes the deck significantly weaker against Skaven but maybe MRoS is enough. I'll have to do more testing on that. I think Order in Chaos is just as good against Skaven decks in recurring Master Rune of Smite or Master Rune of Valaya. 2x Order in Chaos and a Master Rune of Valaya + drawing 2+ cards a turn is able to cast Master Rune of Valaya every turn for the rest of the game. That configuration works with any card. I think Order in Chaos is strong enough to warrant an errata. Add the text 'remove this card from the game after use'. I am not even sure we have any precedent for a removed from game pile in W:I yet.
  13. I think introducing sideboards would be a better option than banning. I think banning/errata should be the final answer to a problem.
  14. I knew that Burn It Down was good enough, but others disagreed. It seems that the amount of support/development hate in your deck let you win 3 straight in the top 8 against Bolt Thrower.
  15. swingjunkie said: The thing is, if those decks place in more slow-building stuff (like Grimgore), they're going to lost to Rush (like admittedly they were already). It would be healthier if there was a way to make most decks fairly viable against one another and play is the deciding factor. Now, let it be stated that I applaud the amount of decision-making and the effect of play in the game already, I just get frustrated when I sit down at a table, look across and just see a capital board and go "****." That was the point in my argument. If rush loses to enough decks in the field, then it will be safer to play decks that lose to rush as there will be fewer rush decks. Also, play skill will never be the sole deciding factor as card games rely on luck to a great extent, not that that is a bad thing. The luck factor is what makes it so the same people do not win every single tournament. Sometimes, the best player just gets some bad beats.
  • Create New...