Jump to content

pulsar3

Members
  • Content Count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by pulsar3

  1. I totally agree. I really hope they have time to change the miniature manufacturing. Changing from wooden pieces was bad enough... Maybe they can at least redesign the boring plastic ones to have a little more class? I guess we'll wait and see. I can't even find the full page I once viewed of this game to look at the pieces again, so dizzyingly differently directed as the links on this site always are.
  2. Agreed! Let us march as one toward the... what is that? Hearken to that sound, what comes now? In the News section... oh my gods... ohmygodsomygodohmyoHHHHHH NERDGASM!!!
  3. Dear Kind, Highly Talented, but Sometimes Polishing-Challenged Folk at FFG, As we the people do intensely desire a reprint of the Game of Thrones boardgame, And as many have commented on, yearned for, and wondered about fixes to the games slight imperfections, including the map, its exactness and beauty, its balance of ports; the balance between certain houses, their order in power; and the corrections provided by now virtually unavailable expansions that may be in essence included in such a reprint, And as FFG would do well, for all your talent in components and game design, to spend a few weeks on fine-tuning before release, as was obviously done with the recent Cosmic Encounter reprint and Sid Meyer's Civilization, playtested and even (gasp ) sufficiently edited for typos and ease of rule comprehension, And as the current HBO series managed over three million viewers upon airing of just its tenth episode, on a channel that is not only limited to cable viewers, but to premium cable viewers, And as we, including you, would love to see an improved, tightened, polished, and even more impressive version of the Game of Thrones board game, Do consider and honor our request that this game, this sweet gem in particular, potentially bound for greater glory and wider appeal than even Diplomacy accomplished, do receive the detail that it so deserveth, and would be so well spent, before its next release; and instead of an unrevised reprint; and in appreciation of the coming four, nay, probably at least six book-based seasons of epic television cross-marketing exposure; and with a view to its potential to raise FFG from its heights as a gaming dynasty to a cross-over hit machine, a mass-appeal noble house of the board game revolution, take the time and effort, to make a finer feeling, and even finer looking product, to test, fix, or otherwise ensure the seamless resolution of any and all imbalances, card-back mismatching, and forum-fuming niggles, to reconstruct, write, and, edit (by professional English editor) a rulebook which all may read, and dive into play, and love, with the world it introduces, and, yea, to lift the stain of careless-text-editing-and-conspicuous-failure-in-final-polishing-stages that has indeed been lightened in recent years, and almost cleansed away by FFG's recent well-scrubbed works; to make FFG a household name in non-gamer households, a three-letter acronym in homes that pride themselves on owning but a TTR variant, or SoC set; in short, to put this fine game—and the company behind it—where it belongs, everywhere. For we have waited this long (and not for silly Flying Frog-corny-style HBO-approved real-life images, so aberrant and unnecessary in a classic board game, already rich in theme and tasteful in visual presentation) And the potential to go from good to great is here, to be sifted patiently, in a sieve fine enough even perhaps to rid this gold of the pebbles of inconsistency, loosen the dust of its older design's clumsinesses, and perchance even let fall away an hour or so of down time, that we look to you on this matter, a legion of current and yet unmustered fans, with bated breath and well-thought-out suggestions, For thine is the Kingdom of Westeros, and the much-beloved-and-also-easily-cross-marketed Power of your similarly themed LCG and Battlelore games, which do reach truly separate sub-markets, so in no way should be considered cannibalizing competition, but on the contrary can only serve to relay customers to such a masterpiece as we here entreat, and as from such a polished gem typical boardgamers and even more mainstreams customers may be seduced to otherwise less card-based and miniature-warfare-like products, and the potential medieval Glory forever, Amen.
  4. Weird, that once you enter the forums... You can't get into forums for the two of the four FFG Collectible sets that I happen to be interested in Does anyone know of the Arkham horror figs work well in the new Mansions of Madness? And for that matter, is there any plan to get pre-painted minis for Mansions?
  5. I will have five players for every game of Mansions. What time can I expect, per scenario, or do they vary greatly in length?
  6. Quite honestly the game has yet to make our dime list, but it still one of our favorites. The scenarios help replayability, but it is a simple game, so I hope the expansion not only adds at least eight more well balanced and well thought out scenarios, but characters with differentiated stats (or optional cards for the great characters already in the game, so one can play them with differentiated stats.) The main reason I commented again though is to warn you about the free mini-expansions. They are terrible. Even if you have the patience to mount your own cards and deal with the border issues, the first mini-expansion has a nauseating demon worship theme, and the second introduces a gambling mechanic that I can only describe as retarded, and I hope the game's designer didn't have much to do with. I do hope they delete these atrocities and replace them with a real expansion, with a real underworld. The biggest Cadwe fan there is, Pulsar
  7. This is yet another FFG game I've heard has unclearly written rules that have to be gone over several times. Are there holes in the rules? I know there are typos in the game, but can some experienced players tell me if they've had to just judge and fudge for themselves?
  8. I've heard a lot about the rules of Descent. Is it true that there are a lot of holes in them?
  9. I only found the first file of Cosmic Stars from BGG, posted by The Warp, who there mentions there is another file, with another ten stars, but doesn't say where! I've looked and looked through the geeklinks and elsewhere. Where is File 2 of 2?
  10. I'm glad you guys warned about this. I wonder if FFG just changed over sizes and at least now there will be consistency. Did all your sleeves (of inconsistent sizes) come in the same order?) I really think FFG should address the fitting-in-the-box thing. I think I'll hold off on buying sleeves.
  11. Where can I post about Cadwallon Collector Series? And more generally, has anyone else heard that the reason there are bent bases and leaning figures is because they take the miniature out of the mold too early? Is this something FFG can make sure stops happening?
  12. I'm a fan of Cadwallon and was hoping someone could explain the new character trait of "political strength" in this game. I understand FFG's own rules aren't available yet, and I like the idea of further intrigue, so, is this game completely different from the play in Cadwallon: City of Thieves? Can someone briefly describe the political strength and bribing mechanics?
  13. This game gets a lot people's top ratings as a 2-player. I was wondering if someone could compare its 2-player to its other forms for me. Also, I read in the only other thread that the rules were tough to get through—is that because they are written unclearly, or only because it is a complex game?
  14. Yeah, I'm ranting generally too. As I keep perusing, Ad Astra seems to have the tightest rules in the whole catalog, but I think that's the designers' work solely. Even though they had to translate into English they did a better job than FFG does on its own stuff. Just look at the paragraph blip about As Astra in the catalog. There are two contradicting verb tenses in the first sentence. For the same verb too! This sort of thing shows what level of care people put into a product, and I just think it's really sad. It really seems no one is even reading what they just wrote. I guess FFG will just keep trying to sell decent games by dressing them up pretty with nice parts, or in Dust's case wrapping the box in mega-cleavage. Really shows their focus. Hey, did anyone notice their raffle was supposed to be announced on the last Friday in the news section and didn't get announced at all? I went to check the rules because my points were over the 200 mark and guess what? No rules. It says go here, customer service, to read the rules. You click the link, no rules. You click all the links on the page it takes you to, no rules. I don't wanna win a random game by these guys, so it doesn't matter to me in that respect, just that it shows how don't-give-a-**** they really are. It's really the details that tell you what you need to know about a company. They can't even get their parts manufacturers to let the plastic cool in the miniature mold long enough before yoinking them out all misshapen. I just hope they start opening their eyes about this, but we'll still have to wait for reprints, which will be fornever.
  15. Yeah it makes sense that you needn't be forced to reveal the great secret, right? And can I just applaud Bruno one more time for his forthright input
  16. pulsar3

    Ties?

    hear! hear! Mad props, Bruno. You may have just sold me on your game, just by showing up.
  17. This is really weird. JasonJ's and Just_a_Bill's comments have echoes what I've been trying to get address in most these FFG forums. A writer and editor myself, being a lover of games and their systems is almost a curse now that I've tried to get into FFG games, whose notoriety for badly written code made me ignore them for over a decade. Now that they have a hold of my favorite game, Cosmic, and have taken over distribution of my new favorite game, Cadwallon, I've been trying like a tasmanian devil to get involved and help push them toward what I saw was the obviously right direction: More re-reading of rulebook prototypes Test-reading by Newbies and Novice game-players (to see if they can then play the game correctly) Better writers who know how to teach, how to sequence, and even how to spoonfeed rules Better editing for the love of goddess please mary and joseph come ON! Ahem, so there aren't glaring contradictions out the gate I've owned every edition of Cosmic, so I didn't read the rules to the FFG, just dove in, and while I agree with Adam's comment that this game is wildly unbalanced—that's the strength of the game and why we all love it—any dedicated team could sit down and really analyze the system to put it into a shape that would amicably assemble all its disparate elements into a solid system. Then writers could arrange and spoonfeed that system through text. Then editors with sensitivity to the written word could maybe be hired. Then test reading, then more editing. This sounds like a lot, but it's what would make these games go mainstream. Catan did it (after a stuttering step, maybe two at most), and yet FFG keeps dressing up games—even those it didn't invent—in colors and components so dazzling we can't HELP but want to love. But alas, Jim is right. I even try to overlook certain things but the thought hovers in the air between me and the beautiful board I've laid out before me for its virgin play: "That card doesn't even make sense with itself!" or "Why do I have to decide between the number they listed here and the different one in the rulebook?" or "Wouldn't anyone who read this once have caught this misspelling?" We are regularly frustrated by the apparent complete lack of care for the nervous system of the game itself. It's getting painful. I tried to start this kind of thread with House Rules/Fixes next to it in their forums, and though a lot of people were interested within the first couple days (as apparently most people come to these forums to try to fix their broken rules), I was practically lambasted for the effort, accused of spamming, and even told by a quintessential rules-lawyer type that my successful effort to get clarification on a couple elements of Cadwallon I suspected were rushed (by confirming my suspicion with the game's designer himself) was just an attempt to justify my own house rules. So I gave up, realizing nobody was really getting the irony here, which I'll end with: Those of us who care enough to come on these forums do not in the slightest represent the mainstream game audience, and if FFG wants to reach the broader base I know it can with some of these classic and potential classic games, it's going to have to take the freaking time to write and edit better rules. Otherwise, please at least surrender custody of games you didn't create to more caring parents.
  18. Huh, yeah I've heard the battle system is innovative but "unsatisfying." I was worried about the rigidly determined units' strengths, but it seems others aren't as concerned about that. How unrealistic does the badass-unit-can't-beat-three-weak-spearsmen thing seem? (Does it jerk you out of the story/realism of the game sometimes? That's what I really hate.)
  19. Huh, Meinymoe's comments make me think the constant need for rules clarification's might be why dice tower called this the top disappointment of the year.
  20. What? Both clerks at the local game store told me it's cooperative. It's even sitting on the cooperative game shelf. Guess I'll go set them straight. Still, after reading so many time's this is FFG's flagship broken game it's hard to get excited about it, even if I can pretend I'm the tormented Deckard.
  21. Wow, you should be their ultimate go-to whenever they reprint. (After reading ColtsFan76's top-posted thread, it seems the rules could be rewritten several times and still be labyrinthine.) I get you, I just love my four-to-five-player, cooperative or not. You just proved to me that this game is complex enough stand side by side with computer games, if it's so rich on its own. I wonder if that's why I kept thinking of the first Myst game from fifteen years ago when I was perusing it. That's the only game that ever spellbound me into solo play, and that required a screen and (at the time) state-of-the-art graphics.
  22. Hellfury said: Arcana is a bit like dominion in that you win and construct a deck through the course of the game. Better than dominion in that it scales well with two players. A lot more portable, better art, adds an element of bluffing to the whole experience. Arcana fired Dominion in my collection. Cadwallon RPG is still available in some places if you do a bit of hunting. Never played it myself. But I have seen it quite a bit when hunting for other Rackham products. I don't really understand your first sentence, in that you "win and construct" a deck. It's not an LCG, so can you describe the deck-construction aspect a little for me. As you probably know I'm interested in the Cadwallon theme, and I'm looking for 2-player, gf-friendly portable games, but if this is basically Puzzle Strike with Cadwallon cards I'm not so interested. Could someone also explain to me how political strength aspect on the cards? I like the idea of intrigue worked in as a character strength (There's no counterpart in the board game.)
  23. When you say play them singly or all three, can they be combined into one game? And can you describe the play a little bit better?
  24. So if this game is good even with two players, is it play-with-your-gf good? And how good? Like, Lost Cities good, in that respect? Or Dominion good (works with two players but damned if most women want to play it... 'cept maybe Elektra.)
  25. I agree with Godfeather that the pastels do not appeal to me either. They actually turned me off to the game, though now I'm a tad more interested. Hey Hoosier, Why do you think Yspahan is superior to this and Oasis? (I'm talking to you ColtsFan.) (Go Colts.)
×
×
  • Create New...