Jump to content

??!

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    513

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by ??!

  1. Posted

    Loophole Master said:

    Heavy Laser Grenadiers go very well with Lara, my Axis opponents does it all the time. But they are not that different from the Heavy Flaks, so if you're looking for variety, you might want to go with something more unique like the Zombies or Apes.

    I find the Heavy Command Squads to be a lot more fun to play with than the A2 Command Squads. Get them by all means.

    Light Panzer Walker is very useful as well. The Heinrich is a unique asset to the Axis, a cheap unit that constantly terrorizes infantry with its U range. It is a constant nuisance.

    These are great suggestions! While the Heavy Recons are cool, they really are quite similar to the Heavy Flaks plus you have only one hero (Lara) to join an Armor 3 squad. You should rather go for the Zombies plus the Axis Hero pack that offers two Zombie Heroes to join the Zombies and Stefan who can join the Surmpioniere from the Core Set. Heavy Kommandotrupp and Heinrich are great buys as well.

  3. Posted

    fhaugh said:

     My apologies, I just saw your force build list and I've realized the problem.  I enjoy playing the game to it full potential which means playing more than just "kill'em all" scenarios.

     I also enjoy the "spirit" of the game.  A fun simulation of real-world combat in an alternate history.  Your "strategy" has nothing to do with that and is purely a by-product of these particular rules.  Again, in no real world situation, even in an alternate history, would a bunch of observers hiding in the bushes trying not to get shot, allow you armor units to get in the first shot.  

    Chess has no real-world connection, so any comparison between the two is limited at best.  You chose to play the game to win.  I chose to play to have fun, and share that fun with my friends.  Playing agianst that kind of force is not what I, or my friends, would call fun.  We would call it annoying and boring.

    You also seem to focus a lot on if its legal.  How about if it's fun and at all realistic.  If I want to play a game that is all about strategy within the rules, I'll play chess.

    You seem to have forgotten (or were never taught),

    It's not whether or not you win, but how you play the game

    The funny thing about this "discussion" is that I don't own even a single observer and would never play the army that Panzer soldier suggested. Not because I complain about the strategy, mind you, but bcause I'd never spend 60+ Euros for all those observers. I was simply drawn into this topic because of the insults and accusations that were posted here - a thing that in my opinion should never occur between fellow gamers. Now I am the one being insulted just because i dared to have an opinion that differs from yours.

    But however, some of your "arguments" really make me chuckle. You refuse to play against opponents using successful strategies and even call them cheating, but claim to "enjoy playing the game to it full potential". You are doing the exact opposite. Your point about the strategy that is just "a by-product of these particular rules" doesn't get more valid by repeating it as strategies in particular games only work in a particular set of rules.

    As I said before I have never played the kind of army we are talking about here nor have I any intention to ever play it. But I'd certainly play against it and try to beat it, not calling it "annoying and boring" but a challenge. That is what games should be about, and this is what is fun and exciting about games - not insulting others, refusing to play or talking about cheating and blood doping when legal strategies are used. Your behavior is certainly not "how you play the game".

    Anyway, I'll join Panzer soldier in another topic.

  4. Posted

    fhaugh said:

     

     It is only the structure of the rules that allow this "strategy" to work at all.  If the rules were changed so that I activated all my units, then you used yours, and casualities were removed at the end of the round, your "strategy" would be a waste of points.  That is why it is a manipulation of the rules.  If the rules were changed it wouldn't work.  My balanced force has as chance regardless of how the rules are laid out

     

    I would chose to to play against your kind of force, not because I couldn't win, but because the game would not be a fun challenge.  If I wanted to play against rule lawyers, I'd go play Magic:the gathering.

    Sorry, but these are not valid points. "Your strategy only works because of the structure of the rules"? Of course, but that could be said about any strategy in any game just because the rules of certain games allow for certain strategies and forbid others. A good strategy for a game only has to work well in the given set of rules, and if these rules are changed, the stategies change as well. If the rules for chess were changed, a lot of successful existing chess strategies would certainly be worthless, but does this mean those strategies are cheap, useless or manipulation of rules? No. They are legal and successful in a given set of rules. What you call "manipulation of the rules" and "rules lawyering" is just using a strategy that fits the rules and playing according to the rules.

    Let me point this out: It's perfectly acceptable to dislike certain strategies and to tell everyone about it. It is even more acceptable to suggest using certain strategies only in a competitive environment and not against new and inexperienced players (In fact, I'd also suggest that in the given case). But in my opinion, it's simply to much to call a legal strategy "cheating", "manipulation" or "rules lawyering" just because you don't like it. Cheating or manipulation really are different things.

    I can even accept that you'd refuse to play against said kind of force, although I somewhat disagree with your reasoning behind it. I'd suggest a different approach: Play against it and win against it, thus showing your opponent that you can adapt to his strategy and your army or strategy is better.

  5. Posted

    fhaugh said:

     

     

     

    If my opponent were to field a force that had to win by manipulating the rules, I would chose not to play.

     

     

     

    So building a legal army and playing it according to the rules is "manipulating the rules"? What if your opponent would "manipulate the rules" by fielding only the units with the longest range, units that deal the most damage or units that roll the most dice? Would you also choose not to play?

  8. Posted

    I did it! I bought both of the Heavy Command Squads, and they are really great. The Medic's ability to inject stimulants once per game is something your opponent definitely has to consider when moving his units. My Axis Medic stimulated a Zombie squad that had Grenadier X attached, and it rushed forward to destroy two opposing squads and a hero. Okay, the Zombies were gunned down immediately after that, but they were dead anyway, so that's no problem.

    On top of having cool abilities, the miniatures just look cool. That is, all the miniatures except the Allied Mechanic whose head is positioned just the wrong way. He literally has eyes on his back. The Axis squad lacks a "Loaded" token for the Fliegerfaust, although I don't think that's a big point. Aside from that, the Squads are great.

  10. Posted

    I'd also like to see some new Shogunate characters, but I think there's some sense in announcing a new Union character. First point is, there have been no new releases for the Union and the Reich lately, only Shogunate and Matriarchy characters. Now it's the Union's (and I hope the Reich's) turn to get some support. On top of that, it is likely that a Union character is going to sell better than a Shogunate character because everyone who has bought the core game will be able to use a Union character, but only those who have already invested in the Shogunate will probably buy a new Shogunate character - unless of course it's so powerful that everyone just has to use it.

    So releasing a new Union character (probably followed by a new Reich character) is a logical move that will please many customers. And a new hero that is well-recieved will lead to the release of yet more product, so we should be fine with it.

  12. Posted

    Tom O' Bedlam said:

    Thanks for the input Moebius. If I can afford it next month I'm going to try and get everything except for the Shogunate stuff. So I'm looking at getting all the Union, Reich and Matriarchy minis, the three "Mercs": Wolf, Gorgei and Asteros, the Core Set, Operation: Novgorod, Daedalus Map Pack and the Equipment Cards all in one go. I'll get the Shogunate expansion and minis a little later, probably after my bank account has recovered.

    There's no need to get everything at once. I think you'd actually increase the fun and excitement if you start by getting only a few things, try them out, try different game modes and combinations and THEN buy some expansions. If you act like you suggested here, you'll buy a lot of stuff that you'll barely use.

  14. Posted

    Although I totally agree with the statement about the Novgorod pack being great, if you are always playing two player games I'd suggest developing the two factions from the Core game before getting a third one. So I'd suggest getting the following after the core game: Equipment cards, Hoss and Hoax, Trooper packs. After that, Novgorod or a map set (probably Daedalus).

  17. Posted

    Sound great and quite fits the character. His abilities could include:

    The squad he joined counts as having soft cover if they aren't having cover and it counts as having hard cover when they are in soft cover.

    The squad he joined may move one square before taking their normal actions.

    He can activate and maybe move one enemy unit. This is quite powerful so it should either require a die roll or be restricted to once per game.

  18. Posted

    On the other hand, FFG released several new TH sets in short order during last year's autumn and winter. It would be quite reasonable if they take a break now to promote other games and closely watch the sales their TH product actually generates.

    We should also take the announcement of the TH novels into consideration. If they are exciting and well-written, the books could increase interest in the game. Why should FFG even start a TH novel line if they already decided to stop releasing new game material?

  21. Posted

    I just finished playing the Victory Bridge campaign twice - one time with the Axis being the attacker, one time with the Allies attacking. I used only the units included in the RCS to try out the balance of those two forces. Surprise result: When attacking, the Axis clearly won the campaign with 5 wins in scenarios. When defending, the Axis lost to the Allies that won 4 scenarios. That's a bit strange because the Allies were supposed to be the defenders in Victory Bridge.

    On a side note, I think it would be better if the campaigns had an odd number of scenarios to avoid draws.

  23. Posted

    Galadhir said:

    Proxy a different figure, you can get bases for Dust no problem, doesn't have to be original figure as long as you have stats right.

    You are right of course! The stat cards even are included in the unit card upgrade pack. I completely forgot about that!

  24. Posted

    Just today I was thinking that it would be cool for new players like me to get Bazooka Joe and Sigrid. There could be either a new hero pack that included both new heroes and the same versions of Joe and Sigrid that were also found in the core set or there could be sets that included new versions of Joe and Sigrid together with the walkers they piloted. These versions of Joe and Sigrid would be able to pilot these walkers and have special pilot abilities of course.

×
×
  • Create New...