Jump to content

Cail

Members
  • Content Count

    401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cail

  1. Hi. I've recently moved to Antwerp (Wilrijk) and I'd be really interested in this. please PM me the details if it's still going on. I'm also very happy to GM if needed, however I'm a native English speaker with a limited knowledge of Dutch, so I don't know if that will be a problem.
  2. You don't need to take it so personally. I am confused though. On the one hand you defend them not producing a completion set because it would hurt sales of core sets, and then in the same breath you explain how a completion set would be pointless because people would just buy a second core anyway. That seems to be contradictory to me, and I still think that the player base should have the option. Also, you're kind of twisting the issue. I'm not talking about being dissatisfied with the core set (I'm not, its a great product) I'm talking about people being dissatisfied with the lack of options to complete it. How many of those people who happily advocate a second core set would do so if the option for a completion set was available? Obviously we can only speculate, but the current way people are reacting to what is available doesn't tell you how they would if further options presented themselves, a fact you seem to acknowledge when you talk about harming sales. I think the game is great. I'm trying to point out ways it could be better. All I have actually said is 1) The coreset does not contain complete playsets 2) It would be cost effective to produce a completion pack at a profitable mark up 3) I do not find the current state of affairs to be very customer friendly
  3. Its not inherently perverse. I have already provided examples of a company that has done just that as part of its marketing strategy to great success. Corvus Belli make all the rules and army lists for their miniatures game downloadable for free, despite selling physical copies of the rulebook for £30. This encourages people to spend more money on the miniatures themselves by lowering the buy in price to start using the product. This analogy would work for FFGs LCGs as well. More people playing is more expansions sold. The total profit from the expansions will be higher than the coreset multi purchases (based on price to product ratio). That is your driver for further product. Your example is repeat sales of a product the customer already bought, which is quite obviously harbouring a level of resentment that is stopping people from getting involved in the game based on the number of times this thing comes up. Stating 'It's a business' is just an expression of apathy disguised as enlightenment. Most of the people I know who would have gone in full tilt to the game are just making proxy cards instead. Thats lost sales however you look at it.
  4. That depends. Like I said in another thread, the biggest hurdle I have getting new players into the game is the lack of complete playsets in the (already expensive) coreset. These are all adults with full time jobs and I know that if they liked the game they would be completionist and buy all the expansions cos they're just those kinds of people. FFG is in this example choosing to take the extra money of an additional coreset sale from a customer who is already invested in exchange for the potential earnings of someone buying all the other products in the range which require the coreset to use. More importantly, its a **** move in the name of a marginal amount of money. Like I said before, I'm sure they could release the 77 cards needed at the price of the 160 card deluxe sets and the profit margin would remain the same as selling another coreset. The real profit from their perspective is people buying the third core for the few extra 1x card, which I'm pretty sure makes those last cards more expensive than gold by volume on that purchase.
  5. Name: Cyber-Ninja World: Hive World Background: Adeptus Mechanicus Role: Assassin Concept: Prisoner turned into ongoing weapon experiment. Name: Spyrer World: High Born Background: Adeptus Administratum Role: Desperado Concept: Hive noble trying to earn a place in father's inheritance via service to the Inquisition. Administratum background represents high born learning and access to family funds and retainers.
  6. Yeah, basically this. There are only 77 cards needed to bring the coreset up to a full playset for everything. FFG could easily price that at the same price as one of the deluxe expansions (£25 approx - not doing the conversion to silly U.S monopoly money, sorry) and people would pay it, the profit margin is huge. I'm not swayed by the whole 'They're a company, just accept it' thing. Corvus Belli is a much smaller company and they make all their rulebooks downloadable for free from their website, despite also selling physical copies of the book for those that want them. Its not something that we should just be shrugging off, its very much a mean spirited move on the part of the company to capitalise on a captive audience.
  7. Well, it should certainly be possible. The one in the film was destroyed by a single kamikaze A-wing once its deflector shields went down. I know it was under orders not to fire, but that's to do with its ability to destroy things before they kill it. Its actual damage soak doesn't seem impossibly high from the films, meaning that it could realistically be portrayed as a giant glass cannon of sorts.
  8. I give my extra IDs to friends who are new to the game so they can try new tactics and mix things up before they invest to heavily.
  9. The muties aren't the Eldar. They're the humans that couldn't get out from the Eter-Vigila crash (a human ship) so they have the same rough origins as the diggas from memory.
  10. To me, this is the core of the matter. However its also false. People's expectations of what to expect from something titled a 'core set' depend on their level of experience with this distribution model and with the concept of an LCG. My expectation going in was very much that Netrunner would contain a complete packaged experience that allowed for optional expansion. Discovering that in order to play "competitively" (and please people, stop talking about 'casual' players, it sounds really patronising, the word has a undergone a dirty semantic shift for a lot of people over the last few years. Its often used synonymously with "incompetent") I would be required to buy another one or possibly two core sets was quite disheartening because I had misunderstood the model. Here in lies the catch 22 of the situation: The biggest hurdle I have found with getting my friends to pick up the game is the need for additional core sets. The biggest hurdle for me being able to play in a "casual" (single core set) environment is getting my friends into the game. I actually think that the core box does not make this clear enough (probably intentionally). If I had realised that I would require another coreset or two for netrunner I may not have made the initial purchase (despite absolutely loving the game now I have it). Finding out this was a 3 core start up has sealed it firmly in the 'no' column for me. Now, I am not arguing that the distribution model change, but there is a certain level of hostility when this subject comes up that I've noticed. Just try to understand that in a lot of cases people are making assumptions about how much the purchaser understood about the game and its model prior to purchase. The only thing you should be assuming is at some point someone picked up a box and said 'oh, this looks fun'. On an unrelated note, I have noticed with Nertrunner that a lot of the core set cards that are often maligned for being too powerful are also the ones which are limited to being 1x in the coreset. As 1x cards they're actually balanced by their unlikeness to be drawn, but this can be offset by the purchase of multiple cores. The cards only become unbalanced when fielded this way., Just food for thought.
  11. No, the problem is that your assuming I'm making these changes to discourage a kind of behaviour instead of to try and create a particular kind of game or mood, as if you can't conceive as to why I would add lethality if it wasn't to reign in behaviour. Your then extrapolating it into a passive aggressive personal attack. You have no idea what circumstances I am alluding to, and your rash conclusions are ignorant and offensive. As it happens I am not referencing one incident or player, just a general...boredom that I now feel towards that kind of gaming after something like 17 years of Gming. There's a difference between making changes to kick someone out, and making changes based on past experiences and saying 'I don't care if that means X or Y doesn't play, because they can join another of the 5 or 6 groups at our gaming centre and play that way with other people, but I know that A, B, C , D ,E, and F will love this, because they told me they would like to see it' I use these rules because its more immersive, to encourage the purchase of a wide variety of skills and most importantly to speed up combat so that it can be resolved in around 4 turns and if it can't that it keeps flowing at an exciting pace instead of grinding games to halt. You never even considered that perhaps I have a large group of players who find grinding combat boring, or who want something that doesn't break narrative flow as much?
  12. It's basically an amalgamation of things I liked from various stages of the games development, and discussions on these boards and with my group. Its still very much a living document but I have the rough guidelines in a word document I can PM you, but you need a copy of WHFRP1s critical hits pdf supplement to use it as intended.
  13. I let them play as the guys they hire if they want to, but not everyone likes switching characters, so its a matter of taste. And I do. Acting in a stealthy manner means that most combat encounters can be avoided, cults don't set up ambushes, and they can infiltrate stuff more easily. The example of hiring the gangers is a good one for this, I had a group hire a gang to assault the front door while they snuck in the back. They still got exciting combat out of it but felt like they had overcome harsh odds by manipulation and playing smart. Its also works to encourage people to take charm, deceive, forgery (when that was a thing). Everyone can be involved in the process of making something like a heist work well. I reward roleplaying, not just how you spent your xp. While I respect your opinion on this is different from mine, I am actually not looking for GM advice. The system I've used has worked to great effect and was developed with feedback from my players. Combat being lethal doesn't stop combats from happening, it discourages needless combat because the power gamer lost his patience with all this 'talking in character' stuff. If that means that kind of player don't want in on my games, all the better, because frankly they're nothing but a headache anyway.
  14. My reason for using my high lethality combat rules has nothing to do with punishing exciting game play mechanics. Its quite simply because it makes the PCs think a lot more carefully about when and with whom they want to get into a fight. Once PCs reach a certain level in almost any system I've played there is usually a mentality where people start to realise they can just push NPCs around, or worse start acting with reckless abandon in situations that don't warrant it because they know the odds are in their favour. An average npc being able to deal serious damage if the PCs go around picking fights with everything usually works to encourage people to avoid the 'the gun is my skill' mentality. It also fits well in a game like DH. There is no reason the acolytes have to do the grunt work themselves. They can hire street gangs to attack somewhere or break into a house to get them information (as an example). In general it makes the whole 'covert ops' thing come to the fore. Granted with might not be want you want from the game and this style wouldn't fit you, but its certainly more the universe I signed up for.
  15. Again, most of those people only ship to the U.S, like I said in my original post.
  16. No, I completely understand why Jinteki.com was taken down. I was just sad it was removed without a replacement program being in place from the license holders. That's all.
  17. Just a quick thing. Is there any chance of seeing replacement token sheets identical to the ones from the coreset published at anytime. Following a recent tournament I found myself short half of my generic markers and brain damage tokens. I know there are some really nice plastic ones available, but the cost of ordering a usable set seems a bit prohibitive to me at the time, and most of the ones available on ebay only ship to the U.S. It would be really great if FFG would release the tokens as something that could be ordered (print on demand like) for those of us who require replacements.
  18. Slightly off topic but I was very sad to see Jinteki.com go down, and would like it if FFG could make a similar client. I work in a country where opponents are scarce (China) for a year at a time between taking breaks to come back to the UK. I was very excited by Jinteki.com because it would allow me to play the game over the internet with my friends while I'm over there. Personally I do not have a problem with what is happening on netrunnerdb. Its sad for the individuals involved, but I never really used the site anyway, and the legal justification seems solid.
  19. The problem from a fluff perspective is only a problem is you assume the characters are all part of the same squad, which isn't necessary at all and in fact actually creates problems in a number of regiment builds, like a tank company where you have more than 5 players (most OW war games I have played have had 8-9 PCs btw) and not everyone wants to crew the tank/wants to have their own role. Its a really easy fix just to assume they are all part of the same regiment, or alternatively that the regiment is understrength and standard squad composition has gone. There are loads of perfectly valid fluff reasons to include these characters, and I personally wouldn't play in an OW game with a GM who told a large group we had to 'double up' on classes. Having said that there are loads of fluff reasons not to allow certain abhuman strains if that's how you want to roll with it, however... From a balance POV, I have personally made a Heavy Weapons Specialist that was nearly as strong, tough and hard to kill as an ogryn (swap to brawler on the second advance tier for specialisation, its not hard) who was able to RAW flip a tank with his bare hands, and withstood being shot by a Valkyrie Missle barrage without going into criticals ( Actual Scene: GM "The Valkyrie aims at you", Me: "I give the pilot the finger and smile"). All that without the inherent drawbacks that come from actually being an Ogryn.
  20. Know is possibly the wrong word, but It was in one of the early advertisements for it back in 2006 when they announced the original core 3 systems (DH, RT and DW) where they boasted about the intention for cross-compatibility (and I should have used cross compatible in my last post, not interchangable, sorry). I doubt I will be able to find it to prove myself now though. There is circumstantial evidence for it given the designers are largely the same as those who worked on whfrp2, which worked on that model. It featured a corebook, but then had 'splat' books for playing Chaos, Skaven, Bretonians etc. There's also the fact that GW last "rpg", Inquisitor, had featured a cross scaling system where space marines were easily included as part of an Inquisitorial retinue, and DH1 takes the bits it doesn't from WHFRP2 from Inquisitor.
  21. Actually, the original BI intention was for all the gamelines to be interchangable. I don't think FFG shared that vision so much, or it got screwed up somewhere along the way - its fairly easy to see the retroactive changes they tried to implement to DH1 after the purchase, and how RT was a test bed for the way they wanted to do things moving forward (for example, DH1 is the only game line to use actual money).
  22. I, like a few people in the Beta forums, could actually see the decoupling of the older system working but only if FFG were prepared to launch a single 'core' book for all systems with 'splat' books for the different styles of play. I understand why they didn't though, this was the model followed by Whitewolf when they relaunched WoD, and despite personally loving the approach that system took it is an undeniable commercial failure. It would also deny them the money from us buying multiple corebooks/sourcebooks, but maybe I'm just being cynical there. Either way, as has been pointed out. This IS a business. We as consumers may not agree with the decisions the company makes, but I (and I'm sure many others) can understand their reasons.
  23. The nuclear apocalypse one would be great, but it would have to be more in line with something like 'Fallout', otherwise it just turns into 'when the wind blows' or 'threads'. Spoiler alert, everyone dies of radiation sickness...
×
×
  • Create New...