Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vertrucio

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , California, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I know the game officially doesn't support 5-6 players, but my group has 5 players, and potentially a 6th, that are interested in trying Arkham Horror LCG. I have more than enough cards to assemble all the decks we need to play, so that's not an issue. The main thing is choosing which campaign to play that won't have issues with the player count. From what I've heard, the scenarios will be easier due to the the higher player count, but I recall some scenarios do weird things when you're drawing 1-2 more encounter cards.
  2. They'd involve meat space more. The fluff of Android/Netrunner has a lot more than just Runners in it, even though runners are a major part.
  3. Since 10/10 is the announce date for whatever new product. I'm still thinking it's something that will be casual focused. So if it is a story campaign thing, it'll allow for PvE play, and a faster victory objective. I wouldn't be surprised if you could bring that new faster victory objective into the base game as a new format.
  4. I suspect they'll do a hard turn on L5R where there's an entire co-op or multiplayer set with cards restricted to that format. But not just cards, but entire objectives and play styles. If they can figure it out, a new faster playing format. After Netrunner, a game that was absolutely hurt by an inability to get new players, they'll want to have as many ways to play as possible. Intro decks is a good start, but they'll have to do more earlier for L5R since it's already a niche game within a niche market.
  5. I think how they'll do it is a larger game, with card sets or other decks that are only useful against one type of adversary. They can also play with multi-purpose cards in a base deck. Then a Systems Deck when dealing with hackers, and a meatspace deck for fighting other corps or mercenaries. But considering the time they're putting into L5R's multiplayer rules, and the need to provide more casual play options for whatever Netrunner successor they develop. And the existence of GoT introductory decks. All signs point toward them making more and better ways to ease players into whatever game picks up the mantle left by Netrunner.
  6. Some responses are getting overly pedantic. Suffice to say, I meant LCG, but that really should go without saying considering it's probably been an LCG longer than it was an active CCG. Netrunner is good, but always had issues, Just as Android Netrunner improved on the Netrunner CCG formula, a future Android "Runners" game could easily take everything they learned from A:N and A:N Revised and bring it forward into a new game. Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted anyway. Netrunner had already hit a point where it had difficulty bringing in new players due to its rules and card density. A new game could do a better job of onboarding.
  7. FFG poured a lot of money into the game, and just like Terrinoth, the Android setting has been fleshed out enough to start standing on its own. I suspect we'll see a new Android CCG in the very near future with as deep mechanics as Netrunner, and perhaps some new mechanics that will allow for things like multiplayer and cooperative. With all the money they've poured into this, it will continue in some form.
  8. I usually hate it when people say this... but maybe you're not using enough terrain? If you have to rely on straight white defense dice for rebels for most of a game, then you're doing terrain wrong. Try more terrain placed more like a WWII tabletop battle than what you see/expect for 40k, which has basically empty tables pock marked by unusable ridiculous structures. That's a trick that the 40k players have pulled on the entire industry.
  9. Agreed on this. I don't remember if there's height advantages in this game, and that hill isn't line of sight blocking unless you declare it so. So chop off at least half of that bunker's area as actual gameplay effecting terrain. The original poster should think of it this way. He describes the match as starting and ending as a one sided furball that benefited the Empire. Well of course it'll benefit the empire if you have a bunch of rebel troops that synergize well with being in cover no longer have cover to be in. What if you had placed more terrain, and that terrain was in a good flanking position to the side of the bunker, able to get angles on unis approaching the bunker. What if there was a rout completely out of Line of Sight to the enemy for one side, unless an enemy sent a unit even further to the side to get LoS around that blocker. Suddenly, you're forced away from a furball in the center. That unit parked in the cover to the flank can sit there in cover firing to suppress units. A rebel Z6 can fire at two different targets, all they need is one hit to suppress. Your opponent is going to have to send something its way to deal with it. Try a table packed with terrain, instead of what you consider 1/4, try a full 1/2 or 2/3 of the table covered in terrain. Play on it even if it seems like too much. Then adjust.
  10. Way too little terrain. You should definitely make use of area terrain as described in the rulebook. Look up tables made for games like Bolt Action, a WWII game, but since Star Wars was created with a WWII feel in mind, it works.
  11. On the other hand... I'm pretty sure people will make a 40k fan mod into Legion's rules. I like both settings for different (and similar) reasons. The scale of Legion is very close to older Rogue Trader days from what I've heard.
  12. FFG has done this before I think. And I suspect they wanted to do this, but there are some realities of production in China, and I think one of the recent Chinese holidays that last for a week may have derailed those plans.
  13. So, this got me thinking, it's certainly possible that we'll see new commanders as card upgrades to units. For example, we could certainly get an AT-ST with a command upgrade.
  14. Two cores, and I'll be printing out my own cards. But that won't stop me from buying a lot of this product. It's just that I will not put up with the same issues X-Wing and Armada had. Especially so since they're routinely breaking the game and the only route they use to fix it is upgrade cards.
  15. I'm going to say that it's currently accepted that you can play as such. But the rules are still weirdly written and I honestly think that at some point they didn't allow events and such to be played during Dynasty Phase, and just forgot to fully update the rules. Since there is no FFG FAQ and Errata, I honestly think the game is better if Dynasty did not allow events unless that event specifically says its allowed. Why? Because this kind of makes the Dynasty Phase a somewhat pointless of a phase other than just not letting you pull characters out of provinces in other phases. Dynasty is about the marshaling of forces with what's available from the provinces before sending them to fight. It has its own back and forth as you focus on examining what your opponent is bringing out and trying to outwit them at that. In the case of Way of the Crab, it turns a powerful card that can already be used to great value into yu gi oh style trap card where if your opponent just happens to play their Champion out on one action you slam them with that. It doesn't feel right to to the style of L5R, and much of the style of L5R are systems in place to curtail trap cards without cost. The counterplay here should be to keep a staple of cheaper troops to avoid that card and force out the assassination or other resources. I hate to be one of those guys, and I won't complain if opponents play this way, but I prefer the Dynasty phase without event cards, and until FFG releases an FAQ that says otherwise, will basically agree with friends not to.
  • Create New...