Bomoo

Members
  • Content count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bomoo

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  1. So here's my problem with the minis as someone who's played the computer game: there is no model using the basic rifle (the assault uses a shotgun and the support uses a pistol), and the heavy sports the one-shot TOW launcher instead of their signature LMG. Suggestions for improvement that I would offer are the following. Screenshots are provided for in-game reference. 1) Put the heavy into an LMG firing stance from the games, and obviously firing an LMG instead of their launcher - I feel that's more characterful and a better representation of how they're played in the computer game. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=101991506 2) Put the support soldier into a stance representing either talking on a communicator, carrying a medkit, or using a proximity scanner or some such "supportive" action, or, alternatively, into a rifle firing pose (again, obviously changing their weapon to a rifle) from the games. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=102619153 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=102619089
  2. Yet the attack craft squadrons are bunched together, so that isn't entirely the case. Now, for X-Wing, this is absolutely true, but I don't see how they can avoid bunching multiple smaller ships into single units for a game the scale of Armada. I think the real difficulty would be in damage/shield tracking for a squadron of CR-90s, as they are clearly large enough to have shield values individually, yet showing one shield value for two or three of them, as with fighter craft, wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. The best solution, I think, in terms of the lore, would likely be to shrink the corvettes and include two of them in the starter set. But, as you suggested, they might be concerned with how far a model can be shrunk until it becomes visually insignificant on the tabletop, and the size of that CR-90 prototype we see in the reveal shots is possibly that lower limit for them.
  3. Corvette squadrons would be a good solution to the incorrect scale portrayal relative to the Nebulon B. I think the main reason they opted for single corvettes is to push a "star destroyer chasing single CR-90" cinematic scenario recalling the beginning of A New Hope. Irritating for SW buffs given that a Nebulon B is twice the length of a CR-90 (300m vs. 150m), but I can see why they might choose to do it. But in the end I would strongly prefer it was resized to be more reflective of the scale of the ships, though not necessarily as exactly as X-Wing's craft are.
  4. You mean is the board game softcore pornography like the video games? I sincerely doubt FFG would stoop to publishing it if that was what cd project pitched them.
  5. Einlanzer80 said: That jumped out at me too. You could maybe argue that the phrase is referring to possession so it should therefore have the apostrophes (i.e. the finder's item becomes the keeper's item). But, they seem to be mistaking literal possession with grammatical possession. The common sense interpretation of the phrase is merely labeling finders as keepers in general so the apostrophes are inappropriate. So, yeah, I'd agree that it's wrong, and jarringly so to be honest. Furthermore, the dictionary agrees. Oh yeah, believe me, I tried to look at it from every angle. It might be more appropriate if it wasn't such a common phrase? It almost kinda makes sense, but I can't quite bring myself to think it wasn't a mistake of the kind all of us make from time to time. But what I find disappointing is that not only did the original writer of this card not catch it but nobody who saw it thought to question the card title with "hey, are you sure you meant to put apostrophes here?" No errors spotted in Trollfens thus far, however! Here's hoping my uncontrollable grammar nazi OCD won't force me to throw out any cards the next time around.
  6. No, FFG, it's cool, keep on taking my money. I wasn't intending to eat anything but rice this year anyway.
  7. magicWALLIS said: BOOM! FFG editors strike again. The sad thing is that the game's already been printed and is now on the way here. If only they had revealed this card earlier, fans would've done the editors' jobs for them. Put up something like watermarked card and rulebook pdf proofs and get free grammar checking from FFG forums and BGG? Or hire someone with a better grasp of written Engrish, please.
  8. I doubt it. As I understand it, the conversion pack is intended for people who own all the 1st edition content, not people who retroactively want to add the 1st edition heroes and monsters to their 2nd edition games. Now, hopefully they will be adding some kind of hero/monster pack that includes all those 1st edition minis, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It might be a cool idea for a mini expansion to give all those old monsters and hero miniatures a facelift and package them all together in one box, but again, there are no indications they are ever going to do this, and that it's nothing more than a daydream for those of us who got into Descent in 2nd.
  9. Morthai said: It is grammatical completely correct since it is a phrase which means "Who finds it, may keep it." Yes, the phrase "Finders Keepers" means this; "Finder's Keeper's" is an example of incorrect apostrophe usage.
  10. Please tell me the title of this new card is some cunning play on words and not a basic grammatical error that somehow got past your expert editors. If the former, I would be grateful if someone could explain it for me as it's apparently flown right over my head. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/descent-second-ed/news/labyrinth-of-ruin/preview3/DJ04-card-class-35.png
  11. Hey, dudes. Found the Fantasy Flight clear CCG sleeves in stock here if any of you are still looking for them. Picked myself up a big pile. :3 Happy hunting to you all. http://www.coolstuffinc.com/p/144342
  12. MavericK96 said: In my experience with the FFG clear sleeves (I don't have any experience with UP sleeves, though) they are very consistent in sizing. I haven't noticed any out of the 10 packs I've bought that have been significantly different in any dimension. Very uniform. Only thing is they seem a bit longer than they need to be, but it doesn't affect usage (shuffling, etc.) Cool, thank you for the insight. Will have to pick up FFG sleeves at some point, then.
  13. Related question, but how would you guys compare the sizing inconsistency of UP vs. FFG? I bought a few packs of UP sleeves for Netrunner, and my issue with them is the length is very often inconsistent between packs. This inconsistency would be the primary reason I would want to be switching from one to the other, so I ask if the FFG sleeves have the same problem. Thanks for any insight anyone is able to provide.
  14. MavericK96 said: Just as an update for anyone interested: I contacted FFG and they believe they will have the grey-series clear sleeves available again within a month or two. I was interested, and thanks for the information.
  15. Toqtamish said: Bomoo said: This is the LCG expansion format I'd been wishing they would do in place of the, in my opinion, logistically clunky 60 card tuck boxes. Very pleased with this deluxe expansion idea and hoping this is only the first in a series. To be clear all of the LCGs had deluxe expansions in the past and still also had the monthly packs so this does not necessarily mean that Netrunner is changing to the newer distribution model used with Cthulhu and Warhammer Invasion. Those games are the least popular LCGs whereas Netrunner is right up there with A Game of Thrones. Oh, gotcha. Kind of new to this hobby so I wasn't aware of the other LCGs having deluxe expansions as well. Let me ask: do you think there's a chance of them bundling the entire genesis cycle into one retail set when they've all been released? Is there precedent for something like this with the other LCGs?