Jump to content

-Istaril

Members
  • Content Count

    1,074
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About -Istaril

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 12/21/1986

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    aphynes

Profile Information

  • Location
    St John's, Newfoundland, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I was able to pester CS and eventually get an answer from someone that wasn't a stock answer. They no longer print the misprint replacement packs, but provided some documentation and they are shipping out the relevant chapter packs to replace mine. They also said if they don't have them in stock, they'll provide me with credit (I hope not, international shipping and customs on the store credit makes that close to worthless).
  2. I was wondering whether anyone has had any success, since ANA's February move to require you to obtain replacements for defective components from your local retailer (*in the US, which I am not), in obtaining the misprints card pack to make Return to the Dunwich Legacy compatible with Dunwich Legacy (if you have an older print run). I have been in a back and forth with ANA customer service on this for two weeks and seem to be making no headway, with stock answers that do not seem to consider the particulars of this situation at all. This is unlike any previous interaction with FFG customer service, which had always been stellar... What makes it worse is that I actually purchased my Return to Product from FFG's US web store - so *they* are the retailer I am supposed to get in touch with. I think it is entirely fair to say that the Return-to product is the defective one, as it is intended to be compatible with my otherwise completely functional Dunwich Legacy cards. So... any alternate avenues I can try? Anyone succeeded where I have failed to date?
  3. A second question; I understand different products have different life cycles that can be profitable and good for the consumer. Some are short-lived, boom-and-bust with explosive launches, but a natural tailing off of interest - and having the next 'exciting new thing' ready to recapture those players, while others maintain a slow but steady presence (e.g. Lotr LCG?). What I'm curious about is whether games are designed with those life cycles in mind, whether it's possible to predict (or at least, look back and indentify) factors that tend to lead to a game having more staying power, or be easier/more profitable to maintain on a smaller scale.
  4. LCGs were a fantastic innovation, but it seems that several of them are running up against the limitations of the format; larger barriers to entry, slow (or non-existent, so far) card tunover to rotate out old design, high number of SKUs for stores to stock, etc etc. They still seem like an ideal distribution format for the co-ops, but in need of rethinking for the competitive games. Any thoughts on how to iterate on the success of the LCG format to shore up some of its apparent shortcomings?
  5. I'm sure it's intentional, giving Grievous's reputation for running away.
  6. Yeah, Game Balance. In a game about maneuvering, setting up static killzones or fortresses is problematic.
  7. I` am definitely with theBitterFig on this one. That's a pretty steep price to convert, and since you need to pick up a new core anyway (for the cards, the damage deck, etc), that extra money spent on two conversion kits could net you 4+ brand new ships and plenty of second edition content. I'd go with borrowing from friends/meta-mates, buying the cardboard from someone else's conversion kit, or some other solution. For wholly casual, just proxy the cardboard entirely. 12$ a conversion is just... not a good idea. Really not. And when you add in that 5 of those aren't actual conversions but just "similar ships", I just can't recommend the kits as a first go-to.
  8. As one of those new players (well, I had played some 1.0 at the kitchen table, so I'm returning - but new to the idea of trying to playing at the FLGS), I am definitely on the side of thinking I'd be far more comfortable with 2nd edition being the default format. Easier for the store to stock what would sell, easier to grasp the card/pilot/meta complexity, easier to sell a new player on the percieved buy-in. Like the OP, I feel like FFG not emphasizing that mode - it should be the default in the app, the suggested for all events until Wave 2 comes out, etc, is a missed opportunity.
  9. Is that line about cannot apply range bonuses to prevent the Grand Inquisitor from using force to cheat in bonuses? If so, drat, I just thought of that today...
  10. I would have liked to see Shield Dials (Armada style). Just to prevent token clutters a little, it`'s so elegant to have that all on the base. Larger bases could justify two different shield values (maybe) if you wanted that, mechanically, but despite the "all power to forward deflectors" line, I wouldn't mess with it for fighters. I can also see the pros for generic ship-based cardboard rather than pilot specific cardboard, as mentioned above. There's a case to be made for different dice colours for different weapons, but it also is reasonably represented by weapon-specific cards, so OK. Not allowing ships to obstruct other ships (and actually add an evade die) seems like a shame, given the way we saw the fighters act to screen others in the trench run.
  11. I've heard similar rumblings in Canada, but this seems par for the course given the "new" distributor, Asmodee Canada.
  12. You clearly don't have the same aversion to errata some of us share - and, for basically all FFG games, we often see the whole spectrum of erratum support/aversion in players. "None ever!" "Typos only" "A functional erratum is OK (to make it actually work)" "An erratum to rebalance a card is OK" "An erratum to balance a card is good". Bad Idea Comics and myself clearly lie a lot further to the left of that spectrum than you do! My personal experience in the LCGs is that players, especially new players, dislike having cards not do what they think they do. They'll complain about it with signature words like "unintuitive". Having them not do what they actually *say* they do is even moreso. There's also an increasingly large burden of card-text memorization/knowledge that just accumulates as balance errata accumulate. I played Thrones 1.0 for years, and look at this list of errata (p4-6). When I looked into returning to X-Wing about a year ago (prior to 2.0 announcement), it was browsing the FAQ and seeing all the errata that sealed the deal, and convinced me not to return. Having printed components be innacurate really increases the barrier of entry (and re-entry). While the other argument is that restriction/banning/points changes are *also* changes not visible on the printed components, the decision to favour these approaches is generally because it's easier to check a list's legality, and a list is generally built in an environment with ready reference to all information (and no time constraints). In the case of X-wing, where points changes are directly built into the app, anyone building a list will automatically have their list's legality checked as they build, and that information, unlike card errata, doesn't need to be referenced on the fly. One last, argument here is that a card like Luke Gunner might capture exactly what the devs/designers wanted a Luke Gunner to feel like. Maybe it makes for a great quick-build, an exciting falcon vs 4 ties scenario from the movies, etc. The card *can* be designed for something other than competitive play, and be priced out of the latter while still being a useful piece of cardboard to have.
  13. I mean, it`s not like they can never reprint another Luke card (or even another Luke Gunner) differentiated by a subtitle. There's already an iconic Luke as Red 5. As I said earlier, my views are a little extreme, but IF this luke proves to be a points-unbalancable problem, then I favour pricing him out of competitive play and printing other Lukes and/or other cards that fulfil the game design function he was intended to.
  14. I agree there's plenty that point adjustments can't fix and errata can. So do the developers/designers, apparently, as they've already used errata or iterated on printed cards (e.g. FCS Wave 14). I don't see any controversy there. In my experience, especially over FFG's LCGs, errata is bad. Very bad. There's a reason they've favoured restricted lists and most-wanted lists where possible; most of these will affect list building, but will not make a list/deck you build work differently than you expected based on the card/cardboard as written. I despise balance errata, and am in the camp that I'd rather see something become illegal/funtionally illegal then re-printed as something fixed than suffer a balance erratum that changes how it works, because I think the printed materials you bring to the table should be accurate. It's an issue of accessibility to newer players, references for returning ones, etc. Now that the devs have given themselves the tools to manipulate what constitutes a legal (or efficient) list - in theory, far simpler to use and better integrated than any restricted list in any LCG, they should be able to reduce the number of balance-related errata. Hopefully to none. And given how the app is intended to be used by new players and veterans alike, and be able to check list legality, I think they *should* use points tweaks over balance errata. Many here seem to agree, whether it simply be ```to try point tweaks as a first attempt, or to go so far as my own, admitedly extreme position where I```` would be happier with a 30 point FCS and a later reprint of the re-balanced ability on a different card.
  15. I`'m somewhat wary of having too many variable costs, or costs based on too many additional factors. So I'd be hesitant to introduce initiative as a factor (at least initially), since it hasn't yet been used to scale costs. I also don't think it's the purpose of every ability to be viable on all potential takers.
×
×
  • Create New...