Jump to content

Ebonsword

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ebonsword

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -
  1. Well, it's time for me and Dust Tactics to part ways. Therefore, my whole collection is up for sale over at ebay. My userid there is the same as it is here (ebonsword). I've got some fairly rare stuff, such as an original core set and the Zverograd versions of the Pounder and Steel Rain. As mentioned in the topic title, everything is the prepainted, premium version. Here's the complete list: Original Core Set Revised Core Set Revised Core Set Fledermaus III Fledermaus IV Impassable Terrain Laser-Jagdgrenadiere Jagdgrenadiere Jagdgrenadiere Wotan Heavy Kommandotrupp Axis Hero Pack Axis Zombies Axis Gorillas Heinrich Hermann Special Ops Grenadiers Special Ops Grenadiers Ludwig Tank Killers Kommandotruppe Lothar Lothar Lothar Recon Grenadiers Recon Grenadiers Laser Grenadiers Devil's Own Corps Officers Allies Hero Pack Tank Busters Grim Reapers Wildfire Honey Mickey Mickey Pounder - Zverograd Bot Hunter Bot Hunter Special Ops Rangers (OOP?) Special Ops Rangers (OOP?) Special Ops Rangers (OOP?) The Boss The Boss Steel Rain - Zverograd Steel Rain - Zverograd Steel Rain BBQ Squad Panzerprinz Sigrid Jagdluther Fury of Ivan Operation Cyclone (OOP?) Operation Cyclone (OOP?) Operation Seelowe Operation Cerebus
  2. fhaugh said: Check E-bay. There is always at least one auction for the heavy lasers parted out from a core set. Not the premium versions.
  3. Loophole Master said: Nah, that's Scout. Yeah, I'm not happy with that either. Using Assault on the first turn has the exact same effect as using Scout. But with Assault you can choose to save that boost for a later turn, to catch an enemy off guard. So efefctively the French Legion is simply better than the Brit Commandos. And that's just unacceptable. They are trying to compensate for giving the French those goofy looking hats. Seriously, the combination of those hats and power armor looks absolutely ridiculous.
  4. One thing that's a bit weird about the two Grenadiere units is that they are mounted on a single base. So, if they take, say, one point of damage, how do you indicate which soldier was killed? And can they still fire those huge guns if there is only a single figure left?
  5. Pete C said: Ebonsword said: I'm still hoping that FFG will surprise with optional co-op rules out of the box. What exactly do you mean...like a D&D automated encounter deck that circumvents the need for an overlord? Well, hopefully better than the way that the D&D games do it, but, yeah, something like that.
  6. I'm still hoping that FFG will surprise with optional co-op rules out of the box.
  7. Hellfury said: It shouldn't be a matter of redesigning every single aspect of the game from scratch. Most, if not all, of the components should be reusuable in a co-op version. It should just need some new rules and maybe new cards. Thats the point. It's not a matter of "just some new rules". Redesigning just isnt as simple as that. It's a matter of "entriely new rules and entirely new cards.". The components that have nothing to do with rules are of course reusable. It would be an entirely new game that uses the same bits and shares the same background, that's it. End of story. A tweak here and there to make it a co-op would just stink. To repeat myself, it would be a disservice to either design esthetic for reasons already stated. You dont have to agree with it, but you make it sound so simple to basically make an entirely new game so easy, when that expectation simply and factually is not. Hmm, I don't recall saying it would be simple. I *do* recall saying that most of the components (which contain most of the variable cost, as far as I am aware) wouldn't have to be redesigned. Which means that creating a co-op option shouldn't be financially prohibitive. I also don't recall saying to make a "tweak here and there". Of course, maybe that is all it would take. I don't know (and neither do you, for that matter) since neither of us has seen the revised rules. Finally, it's not like there isn't a precedent for FFG to release different versions of rules to appeal to different audiences (see Dust Tactics vs Dust Warfare). Hellfury said: Also, I hardly see what's wrong about consumers voicing their opinion about what they want game companies to produce. If you want every game to be adversarial, feel free to go to every forum and say so. It won't bother me in the slightest. Nothing wrong at all with people mewling for co-ops everytime a new game is made. I never attempted to say that they shouldnt. I am just pointing out the flaws in the logic in their pleas. Man, we sure need a "sarcastic eye roll smiley" on this forum... Just pretend that we *do* have one and I used it here. Hellfury said: It is also incomprehensible to me why you would not purchase the game if it has co-op *as well as* adversarial modes. If it has the method of play you enjoy, why care if it comes with an additional method? Its okay if you dont comprehend it. The reasons for why I have already stated. No need for more redundancy when simple reading comprehension will suffice. Why the hostility, dude? You would think that I had asked FFG to throw out the game's current setting and move it to the world of My Little Pony. And, I'm sorry, I just don't think you've made a very convincing case. I don't see where having co-op *and* adversarial rules automatically makes a game not worth playing.
  8. Scy800 said: Not to sound too harsh, but if you have a problem with the VS part, than Descent simply isn't the game for you. Buy Gears of War! Last time I checked, Gears of War wasn't a fantasy dungeon crawl.
  9. Hellfury said: Chu Wolf said: In the end it is a business decision by FFG. Actually, it is a design decision. Its an adversarial game that requires human intellect as an antagonist. Plenty of dungeon crawl games out there now that are co-op without having to make every last game on the planet a co-op. FFG just recently released one called Gears of War. Not that co-ops are bad, but there seems to be a resounding tenor amongst some consumers that every game needs to be able to be played solo/co-op. Find a game that fits the bill and play it. Expecting a clearly adversarial game to be played co-op is a fairly major design difference. Like night and day. A completely new design. Just as you wont likely buy it if it lacks co-op capability, I will likely not buy it if it does. The above isn't aimed directly at Chu Wolf (he is just quoted incidentally), but at the crowd in general that gathers at every single new game mewling for co-op rules for clearly non-cooperative games. It's akin to somebody going to the Pandemic game page on BGG and asking how a person can play the diseases against everyone else trying to thwart him. A booming sound of hands slapping their own foreheads can be heard as it clearly is not the sort of game where it is one against everyone else. Also, why would someone want to play the game if the co-op design was just an afterthought? Doesnt sound like a very fulfilling experience. I would rather play a co-op that was meant to be a co-op right from the beginning of the design process. Much as I would rather play an adversarial game that was meant to be such from the beginning. Designs from an afterthought generally stink. Kind of like movies made with 3d tech in mind and movies made into 3d during post production. One is clearly superior in what it does compared to the other. Why settle for the half measure? So including co-op rules for an adversarial game actually would hurt the game by inlcuding both. Because neither is getting the full attention that either design deserves and the game would suffer for it. It really is an "either or" situation here. I'm sorry, I just don't see it that way. It shouldn't be a matter of redesigning every single aspect of the game from scratch. Most, if not all, of the components should be reusuable in a co-op version. It should just need some new rules and maybe new cards. In other words, instead of it being like a "pure" 3D movie versus a "pseudo" 3D movie, I see it more like the 1931 film version of Dracula where the Spanish-language version was filmed using the same sets but with different different actors and director. Also, I hardly see what's wrong about consumers voicing their opinion about what they want game companies to produce. If you want every game to be adversarial, feel free to go to every forum and say so. It won't bother me in the slightest. It is also incomprehensible to me why you would not purchase the game if it has co-op *as well as* adversarial modes. If it has the method of play you enjoy, why care if it comes with an additional method?
  10. Hadoken said: i don't think it's a good idea. A co op rule means a totally different system. If you want GM less game,play the (very good) D&D Adventure system game,or Dungeon Run. Descent is more like a buffed up Warhammer Quest game. And that's the point. Um, you realize that one of the main features of Warhammer Quest was GM-less, co-op play, right? I guess I don't see how having official co-op rules in addition to the players vs GM rules could possibly hurt the game, and they would likely draw in the growing number of folks (like me) who prefer true co-op dungeon-delving.
  11. Since FFG appears to be completely revamping the game, now seems the perfect time to create an official set of GM-less, co-op rules for Descent. There are plenty of folks out there (myself included, obviously) that prefer true co-op to the "players vs GM" style of play. This is not a request to remove the "player vs GM" style of play from Descent--I would just like GM-less play to be an option. I would think that FFG would see quite a bit to be gained from doing this, as it would allow Descent to be more of a competitor to the D&D board games like Castle Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon.
  12. Peacekeeper_b said: But there are no Space Nazis in AT-43! You've obviously never seen the ONI minis--some of them look near identical to the Axis Laser Grenadiers.
  13. Major Mishap said: So, why can't heroes use cover when on their own? It doesn't make sense to me, there he is hiding behined a tank trap with his Grenadier buddies when finally all his buddies are taken out, all of the sudden he's in the open! Why? Is there a rules design reason, I can't figure it out. Yeah, it does seem a little silly that a hero can, say, hide all day long behind an object that blocks line of sight entirely, but he can't duck behind an ammo crate to avoid his head getting blown off. Of course, as it says in the Operation Cyclone campaign book, "if you don't like a rule, then change it".
  14. Ah, see what happens when you don't read the fine print? I thought that the same units could be *either* a sniper squad or an observer squad.
  15. So, while seeing what new Deluxe Edition goodies are available for sale, I noticed that FFG has added the Special Ops Rangers Expansion and the Special Ops Grenadiers Expansion to their product pages (although, both units are listed as "Not Available"). I was shocked to see, though, that the listed price for each of these units is $39.95. Is this accurate? If so, it seems more than a little ridiculous to charge the same price for *two* minis as they normally charge for *five*.
×
×
  • Create New...