Jump to content

theboss2

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About theboss2

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , 0, United States
  1. The blockading rule is a little bit unclear as it applies to Barracks and although my search through the forums has shown that their seems to be unanymous agreement that when Barracks are blockade the player being blockaded looses his combat bonus for that building. However in the official rules its pretty specific about which items are in fact blockade and the combat barracks is omitted. It states quite clearly that blockes work against production, trade, culture, coins, or resources. Those are all very specific things with clear definition and do not describe the combat bonus. According to some information in my search apperantly there is a FAQ that clarifies it but looking at the official FAQ i didn't find any mention of it at all. Can anyone point me to the official source that clarifies this? Its kind of a sticky point in my group on which no one seems to be able to amicably agree on how the rule is. Some believe that you can't blockade a combat bonus because it represents a passive bonus that is given for building the building rather than a active bonus you get for controling it. They sight the example of getting a coin when you gain a great person or buy a technology. But it seems at least the community has accept the ruling for blockades to include Barracks combat bonus and Im just curious if this was an official ruling or if this was a matter of interpertation. Any help would be greatly appriciated.
  2. On page 9 of the Shattered Empire rule book it gives the changes to the starting game when using the Shattered Empire strategy cards. In short you get 2 political cards, but to my knowledge in every variant of the game and expansion you never start the game with action cards.
  3. Well the guides are sufficient to play the game, but they do not come with any components at all. Strictly speaking I have found that the core set doesn't actually have even enough components to go around for 3 players let alone 4. The issue is that aside from the base action cards for which you have three copies there is only one copy of all the other cards, so if two players want to take the same talent or action card your already have to share components. Since you randomly select classes you may end up with three melee characters for example who all want to take Improved Parry or some combat tactic. So far I have found that even in a three player game there is never enough components for everyone to have their own set, you always have to share. The good news is that there are some great only tools to make your own components and I personally didn't waste much time replicating the entire core set and making 4 copies of everything using stock cards. Once you start getting the vaults though this becomes less and less important as it becomes less and less likely that two players would take the same action cards or talents etc.. As for which way to go, components with the core set or the guides, perosnally I think without the components this game becomes a book keeping nightmare. Its very obviously developed from the ground with components in mind for tracking stuff so if you don't have those components you will find that you have to make shift some (poker ships etc..) because there is a lot more to track in this game than your typical RPG per player. Unless you have a disposable income the Core Set is the best and cheapest way to get into the game and while it doesn't actually give you everything you need to run a 3 player game as it claims, with a bit of creativity the core set gives you enough information to make your own stuff and its not that hard to get yourself to the point that you can accomidate 4 or 5 players. Thought picking up the guides is still a good idea, I find that players who have read the guide have a much deeper understanding of the game and that helps a lot. As a GM I can say that the GM guide is just awsome in terms of preping you for the game and picking up the monsters guide and vault is practically automatic if your a GM planning to create your own story's. The core set has some very warhammer iconic creatures and stuff in it but you outgrow it quickly.
  4. Treguard said: Something that was drummed into us though playing is that TI is a points-game, not a war-game. If you focus on warfare at the cost of completing objectives then you will lose. A war sun could be seen as a heavy investment when compared to meeting the requirements of a secret objective, say. Absolutly, the first sentence after I open the box as I educate new players is "I know this looks like a war game, but its not, its a game all about victory points" But that said, if a player is unprepared for war, how many victory points is irrelevant.
  5. apbevan said: I have not found war suns to be the end all tech. Yes they are powerful ships but you shouldn't be able to crush an opponent just because you have them. In my experience big space battles quite often come down to who had better action cards, not who had warsuns. In a long war whoever has the better production rate wins as a lot of battles can end in mutual destruction. Its strange to hear that everyone tries for warsuns as you really should be playing to your race and getting tech that augments the race. Example: SAAR, SOL and YSSARIL requires 5 techs to get Warsuns while MUAAT needs 0 and JOL-NAR only needs 2. Does this mean MUAAT and JOL-NAAR always wins vs the other races? So the problem is not with dreadnoughts or war suns its that the players are not trying different fleet compositions, tech strategies and harassment . By making dreadnoughts better you simply exacerbate the issues your having with warsuns and move it down to the dreadnought level. Space battles are great fun in TI but in 4+ player games you quickly learn you need to be more flexible and diplomatic. Space battles are inevitable but the bark of your fleet will win more games than the bite. Most of my games of TI are 3 player games but after playing more 4+ player games what I learned in them has made me a better player in 3 player as well. Its not really about crushing the opponent through war, I agree that its very rare that a war strategy actually works in the long term but it does allow you to hold key positions, as well as acting as a great deterant and that's usually the key in particular if you use things like Artifact planets, or draw some of the more war driven Shattered Empire public objectives. Generally the Warsun driven strategies are to force action as a distraction and to dwindle your opponents resources as he struggles to maintain enough defense to deal with Warsuns and thats hard to do if you don't have your own. Or alternatively with races like Jol-Nar for example allow you the comfort of turns rolling by untouched which with races like the Jol-Nar is its own reward. So no its not an "I Win Button", but strictly speaking winning without Warsuns in a game where your opponents have them puts you at enough of a disadvantage to force your hand and get your own, and thats typically the response we have at our table. It might not be entirely logical, but group dynamic is group dynamic. In terms of do Muaat and Jol-Nar tend to win more often because of their easier access to Warsuns, actually I would say thats quite true. They are considered to be two of the top races, not just because of their access to Warsuns of course but do the effects Warsuns have on the tactical and strategic situations in the game. For the Muaat they don't have to worry about getting the tech so they can focus on other strategies right out of the gate. For the Jol-Nar anyway you can stall and prolong peace is a big advantage for you as you gain techs. Yssaril aside who have a number of other major advantages that give them big enough benefits to overcome the delayed arrival of Warsuns, races like Saar and Sol tend to win considerably less often . Naturally their are a lot more factors involved here, TI3 is a very complex game so things like galaxy setup, which strategy cards you use, which races are in play and what other game variants you use will make Warsuns more or less advantages, but I don't think its unreasonable to say if you have Warsuns and no one else does your tactical options greatly increase. The B line strategy towards Warsuns for us at least kind of became the status que, which is why we created the houserule. I agree with you that their are plenty of other strategies (depending on so many variables one could probobly write a book on the subject) that work, but you simply can't beat the tactical advantages and threat factor of two Warsuns in key positions, as you said their bark is often enough of an advantage that you may never even need to use them. But when your facing even odds with everyone holding the same advantage, on the board the attrision of the tactical situation pushes players to seek alternative strategies to war. Its kind of like having nuclear weapons, you don't need to use them for them to have a significant effect on the overall strategy of the game. I agree that players who are just getting into Twilight should be wary of changing the rules before giving the game a good, long honest try. But if you are finding issues like we have, altering Dreadnoughts in this way has been very effective for us and I would recommend trying it.
  6. I agree that there is "on paper" nothing wrong with the Dreadnought, our house rule is designed more for the specific group of people we play with that result in certain predictable patterns after playing the game more times than I can even count. Another words our issues may not nescessarly be the same others have in their groups, though I have heard Dreadnoughts being brought up as an issue in a couple of my less frequented gaming groups. For us the Dreadnought "Aimed Shot" rule was to curve the Warsun effect that was ever present in our game. The thing that always happened is that no matter how we set up the game the result was always the same, EVERYONE made a B line for Warsuns and the players who got it first had a clear advantage because they would immediatly go to work to ensure no one else got it by force. It was a tactic that was kind of becoming repetative and really didn't have much of a work around unless you teamed up. In essence it just all became very predictable and we wanted to create something that would push the games into different directions. Since we implemented very effective counters to Warsuns, the dependency on Warsuns is considerably less significant and the games have become more interesting. Dreadnoughts themsleves have lots of uses and actually one thing we did a while back is remove the Warsun technology from the game all together, that in turn made the Dreadnought the best unit for waging war. Im not a big fan of making too many changes to the game either, more often than not you fix one thing and break two others so it can be a vicious cycle but we have come up with some interesting house rules often less so because we needed to balance the game and more so just to change the game and kind of push players to try out different strategies and pull the reliance on old habits. We play a lot of Twilight so .. ya little house rules like this I wouldn't say are nescessary but they can make the game more interesting if you play it a lot and find predictable patterns emerging.
  7. It will definitly change now that we have the expansion but out standard was Leadership Diplomacy II Assembly Trade II Production Warfare I Technology II Beuracracy I agree that the game is significantly faster when playing revealed objectives and Imperial II, it actually makes for a far more strategic game since you can form long term strategies but its also a lot less dynamic so you kind of end up with kind of "obvious best choice" approach to the game and it can become a bit predictable. But I do like it as well for the expediancy. With the new cards and expansion Im not sure where we will land, we are still in the try it out all phase I can say that I really like the new political system. With Shattered Empire the only card we kind of didn't like was Warfare II, I personally liked it but it usually gets vetoed for Warfare I. I think people prefer it for its flexibility. We sometimes do swaps just to change things up without any real ryhme or reason. For example we might use Diplomacy I instead of II or swap Trade I back in. I can't think of any reason we do this other than just for the sake of change.
  8. My group implemented the "Aimed Shot" rule for the Dreadnoughts to counter two issues we were having in the game. One that the dreadnought was too crappy for the cost and two the fact that the Warsuns where way too overwhelmingly good despite their high cost and the game kind of became a race for warsuns in which some races had a clear advantage. Though we have gone through a couple of renditions the final one we are using now is. Aimed Shot: When a Dreadnought shoots, the shooting player can spend a strategy allocation counter to turn a shot into an aimed shot, in which case he gets to pick the target of a dreangouht hit instead of the defender. All and all the effect has been good. Their is a nice healthy fear of dreads from Warsun dependend fleets and players have kind of been forced to diversify their fleets a great deal well as adding more momentum and functionality to command counters. We haven't tested it that thoroughly but last game Warsuns became part of the fleet, rather than "THE" fleet.
  9. I noticed no one had replied to you which ... urked me. I hate it when you ask for feedback and get none so I thought I would take a crack at it. You know the only thing that jumped out at me is that this is a very ... D&D approach to a campaign. Which there is nothing wrong with but I didn't really get a sense of "warhammer" in that story. Obviously Im not at the session so perhaps some elaboration might clear that up, but that was my first impression as I read it. One thing about An Eye for an Eye is that its a very warhammer driven adventure, everything about that adventures screams "this is how you run warhammer". There really is only one or two main combats in what is roughly a 2-3 session adventure and most of the adventure is all about character interaction and essentially role-playing. How the characters handle the situation because of their careers and story backgrounds is kind of the part that personally I find so intriguing. I mean you could run this adventure for the same group twice with different characters and get very different results. Im just curious what aspect of the adventure you didn't like, it actually caught my interest more than anything because personally this adventure is what sold me on the whole system. Coming out of 4th edition where everything is so combat driven it was so refreshing to see someone actually take the time to flesh out NPC's, give us personalities, imagry and motivations for every person in the story .. its just such a great and really fresh approach to role-playing games that I personally just fell in love with it. My suggestion when it comes to running warhammer fantasy is as a GM, don't worry about what the characters can do. Present them with the challenges and the story and let it unfold naturally. If its not challenging because they make wise decesions, so be it. Its better that the players have a sense of truth to the game, that, ya we are great in combat, or we are a great stealth team and let them apply it wherever they can rather than creating adventures that intentionally focus on exposing their weaknesses or catering to their strengths. Thats kind of why I personally prefer to run published adventures because it prevents me from being biast in my creation process and thinking about "how might these players/characters handle this situation". I rather be suprised, put them in the situation and let them unravel it anyway they see fit. Ya sometimes it means they easily overcome challenges and other times things will seem impossibel to them, but to me thats really part of the fun. Anyway, it sounds like you have a great group, definitly come back here and give us some more details, I love reading session reports and seeing how other player groups handle the game.
  10. Are there any good RPG resources for Warhammer Fantasy in particular for lore, history etc.. Im hesitant to loan out my books to the 4 players I have and even if I did, loaning it to each of them one at a time is going to take forever to get them all up to the speed on the game world. Im really mostly interested in good overviews of lore, history and just general knowledge about the world that a typical person in the old world would have so that they have a foundation of the game world.
  11. Yes I have to agree on the whole WFRPG light thing, really the game is clearly intended to be played with tokens, chits and bits. To remove them doesn't prevent you from having to do the booking keeping of the mechanics which make use of those things so you end up considerably increasing bookeeping(on paper) if you do not use the bits which ultimatly will slow you down because 3rd edition tracks considerably more than your typical RPG. I agree that some of the bits are a bit dark and small, so it can be tough on the eyes if you are playing in low light or on a small table, so ya its recommended to play this game in a well lit room on a nice big gaming table. One thing I have learned to expect from fantasy flight games of any sort is the requirement to have a large gaming table. As for the whole "board game argument", I have to admit that was my first impression before I read the rules and before I tried the combat. I think you can write off most of the board game arguments to people who talk about something that they have never actually tried. It was the same with 4th edition D&D, you had so many people that complained about the game and called it "World of Warcraft on paper", but it was obvious when the discussions took place that they hadn't even the feintess clue about the rules of the game in any detail because they had clearly never played the game. It was just people hating it because it was new, different and they simply decided in advance that they where not going to like the game and blasted their uninformed opinions all over the forum with little actual usable information other than there trademark catch phrases. "Its like a board game" is not an opinion, its a first impression that you gather by looking at the product without reading it, so anyone who says that you can immediatly write off as "hasn't read it". No one that reads this role-playing system will have that opinion afterwards, its a narrators system with less mechanics than the Storyteller systems of White Wolf. Everything about this game is intended to be "non-invasive" to the story, even combat is intentionally designed to ensure narration is part of it. I think the part of the game that people who claim its a board game is the character creation process in which you CAN use the rule of random career training selection but personally I think this is long over do in RPGs. The character creation process has become so overwhelming choice driven and the games mechanic driven (particularly combat) that people have forgotten how to be creative. The back story's I get for character these days is just pathetic attempts to justify optimal character design choices, as a GM that just urks me. I love the idea of a player getting a starting point. Pick a Race, Draw a career. Now tell me his story. Its great in particular for people who don't like running back story's or like to keep it light, the career choice and race choice already say a lot about a character and it isn't just the archtypical "Im a healer", "Im a rogue" stuff... so personally I think the career randomness is probobly one of the best features of the game and I will NEVER allow someone to select a career out of the stack as they please, it will always be done in this fashion.. thats how much I love it.
  12. I disagree. The tokens systems in particular for tracking events and progress creates a lot of great tension and excitment in the adventure and as a GM if you don't want the players to know what you are tracking you simply don't tell them, just let them see it which adds even more tension. You also don't have to show them how many links on the tracker either, you can simply add the links as the tracker moves up so they can only guess at how long the track is. It can be a bit meta gamy but hiding stuff behind the screen as a DM has always in my opinion had kind of an exluding effect on the group, aka, something exciting is being tracked behind a DM screen and the players don't get to see it which essentially means nothing to them and the result is that your tracking something exciting for no one but yourself (as the GM).. hence its kind of meaningless to the players and pointless to track. The tracker represents the something, but as you give player narrative ques and move the tracker up wether they have figuired out what the result of the tracker is or we that its for depends on them but having the tracker visible creates a lot of excitment and gets the players that much more involved. As for other things like stress, fatigue, conditions, wounds etc.. These things are fiddly but considerably more informative. The problem with writing stuff on a character sheet is that other players at the table including the GM have to constantly ask you.. how much health do you have? But in Warhammer that affect is made triple worse because in addition to health you have stress and fatigue as well as critical wounds and conditions. Without the cards and tokens this stuff is pretty well hidden because the only person that will really be able to see it is the players. As a GM you end up having to track all this stuff on paper yourself and that raises considerably the bar of maintenance. As for how do you track all the stuff after the game ends? Simple.. you take all the tokens, cards, conditions, everything associated with that character and put it all in one of the boxes that comes with the core set. Its that simple. The only time you really would have an issue is if you are running the game for more than one group, in which case ya you have to right a few things down when the session wraps up. Small price to pay for the convieniance of the whole thing. What I see a lot of GM's doing is running the smaller character sheets during the game and than using full character sheets for in-between game tracking so that players can take their character sheet home with them. Without the components I think much of the games charm and interesting mechanics have less impact on the game itself. The visual aids are a big part of what makes the game so much more fun to play and run.
  13. Well Im a fan of avoiding as much as possible at the table. I decided to go with challenge dice as this makes more sense than fortune dice, after all fortune dice are more of abstract, kind of external difficulties where as challenge is more along the lines of how hard something is to do. So for example stealth while wearing Plate Mail is next to impossible so that would 4 challnge dice, I would imagine that to be a appopriate, given that it would in fact be next to impossible in such heavy, metal outfit to try to be sneaky. But I have decided to create seperate cards for different skills because while for example stealth while wearing plate might be next to impossible to acomplish, things like Riding or Athletics are more fluid and probobly carry lesser penalties depending on the circumstances. As for making the deck, ya Im using the Location card type to create the "GM Rules Deck" using Strange EONs. I don't have so many cards yet, but really they kind of work like flash cards.. aka you use them two or three times after which you kind of memorize them and no longer need them.
  14. Ya I was thinking about riding would need some exceptions and some of the other skills might be affected but I was thinking that what I would do is use this as less a house rule more a guide, so that players know in advance that "Hey sneaking around in plate mail has 4 misfortune dice and than apply logic to the exceptions just so players have some form of basis for it. But ya I agree .. You have to understand Im coming off from 4th edition and that game was so "ruly" that I forgot what it actually means to GM (its been about 3-4 years since I played Vampire for example). But I was just trying to capture roughly the "amount" of misfortune dice.. for example 4 misfortune when sneaking using plate.. wether or not that was a reasonable number... Its kind of hard to gauge it for me right now since Im new to the system. Im sort of creating a custom deck of " GM rules" cards for myself so I can have them in my hand and when I need a ruling on something rather than being inconsistant and making it up each time it comes up I could kind of consult my own DM rules deck to get an idea of where I should be at. I do expect that this will still vary from situation to situation (as in the ride example I would probobly rule that if your class skill is riding instead of 4 misfortune dice maybe you just get one purple difficulty dice instead or perhaps base it on the manuver and equipment.. aka what kind of saddle it is. Ï guess what Im driving at is Im trying to kind of visualize it in kind of a realistic way while maintaing the sort of abstract charm of the game and to maintain some consistancy so that I dont give one player 4 misfortune dice today and 2 three weeks from now for a similiar situation because my players don't mind GM calls but they really ***** at inconsistancy and that I can understand being a player myself consistancy is very important.
  15. Does this seem about balance and appriopriate for a house rule for that? Wearing different types of armor or holding certain types of shields can affect a characters performance when using certain types of skills The following rules add misfortune dice to Agility and Strength based skill checks (Exception: Intimidate ) <m> Brigandine, Mail Shirt, Chainmail <m><m> Scale, Uthuan Scale <m><m><m> Breastplate, Chain <m><m><m><m> Full Plate <m> Round/Kite Shield <m><m> Tower Shield NOTE: The GM reserves the right to lower or raise the misfortune based on any given situation. <m> Stands for Misfortune dice.
×
×
  • Create New...