Jump to content

Solo Skywalker

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Solo Skywalker

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -solo_dragun@yahoo.com
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Alabama, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Exactly this. This is why I think that, especially for a play group that actually enjoys a little crunch and unique customizations, that limited ammo and ammo capacity for different firearms should be applied. Doesn't take a whole lot of work to figure out this information with a quick Google search. This is why I have decided, contrary to what is suggested in the book, that reloading should not be considered a maneuver, but rather a full action. You want your character to be able to reload faster? Level up and take a skill that is specific to that weapon platform to be able to reload as a maneuver and eventually even an incidental with focus on that skill with that specific weapon, as all weapon platforms are fairly unique in design and feel in one way or another. This lends more consideration for players, (especially in a post-apocalypse setting where reliably functioning firearms can be rather scarce,) as to whether or not they invest early in mastering a decent weapon they find, and/or wait for the "big" gun they might find later, and even if they do, how viable is it to switch over to that weapon platform once they have already familiarized themselves with maybe the same Caliber weapon, but maybe a slightly smaller magazine capacity or only single fire capability? Maybe this hones their weapon focus and helps with ammo conservation, making them more accurate? How much is the extra damage or crit chance of the larger caliber weapon worth? Gives more incentive for fun little crunchy things like various weapon modifications and upgrades to what may be otherwise considered an inferior weapon? Makes finding loot like ammo caches much more rewarding and gives more potential for variation in adventure hooks that might even revolve around ammo availability.
  2. All I know is that I have been anticipating this for awhile now. Glad the Runebound universe is getting more and more fleshed out. If Runewars does well, maybe FFG will finally make a go at their own RPG using an amalgamation of this and Decent with a Runebound campaign setting. That would be super sweet.
  3. Awesome to have an official announcement on this. I called this one a mile away already though, but yea this is great newsin the way of longevity for the lcg, Imperial Assault and X-wing. Pumped for this movie and can't wait to see what all may be in store for us soon in the future.
  4. Right, I mean I like Conquest so far and I am semi familiar with the IP though I have never actually participated in a 40k game. I have been around hobby gaming stores since the early 90's so I have seen much of the product over the years and watched more than a few games played. I used to play C.P. 2020 quite a bit back in the day yet ironically missed the first iteration of Netrunner, however Android Netrunner ended up being my first foray into LCG territory and I loved it. I am all about theme and that game hits all the right spots in that regard. Since finally breaking the habit of another well known card game that I won't mention, I have the time and cash to invest in more than one game finally so I took the plunge here. Like I said, I am liking Conquest quite well, but I think Netrunner might just have me a bit spoiled in the theme/scope/scale dept.
  5. Right. Over the top I can deal with and greatly appreciate. The lone "Eager Recruit" on an empty battlefield, waving a banner over it and claiming victory and domination over the entire PLANET, long after the war is over though.... does not strike me so much as "over the top" as it does slapstick comedy.
  6. Nevermind, disregard that. RRG, p. 20, Action Windows answered that one for me lol. both players have the option to initiate an action starting with the player with initiative, alternating between both players until both players pass at which point the action window closes.
  7. Seriously though, Back to topic... kind of. I am a bit confused still on this whole ambusher thing again. I know you don't sacrifice your attack for using a combat action on a card you play, but shouldn't it be your "turn" to take a combat action to play one? That is to say, should you only be able to play a card with ambush when it is your turn to attack? You would then have to have at least 1 unit present after your opponents' attack in order to play a unit with ambush right? If such is true, an ambush unit could not be played at an "uncontested" 2+ planet as a surprise factor or when a player leaves a Warlord behind after a battle at a 2+ planet if you didn't have units there as the player with the only present Warlord would have combat initiative, proceed to attack, only never does because there is no unit to attack therefore never becoming "your" combat turn because they just won the battle. I guess that is the main difference in the way I interpret "RRG, p.22 3.2.10 If, at any time, a unit would attack but there are no enemy units in the battle, the battle ends with the player who controls the would be attacking unit winning the battle." Am I wrong here? The player with initiative does have to attack first before passing combat turn to his opponent right? Can players just go ham, throwing out combat action cards whenever during a battle?
  8. Yea I agree, I just think a game feels more intuitive when the theme permeates it more completely and there is a bit more "realism" or rationale that marries the theme. It is a bit of a cop out to say "realistic? it's (insert fictional IP here)" however. That is the ultimate argument ender for every difference of opinion on how things "should" work in every fictional world ever imagined. to say such arguments are invalid is to discredit our very existence or at least have everyone posting on this thread to seriously reconsider what we are doing with our lives.
  9. Also, how does this make sense? 1) 2+ planet, I am the only one with units present. I never get the opportunity to retreat forces who barely even had any base of operations established there if they came with my Warlord. They have "just barely" been committed. 2) 2+ planet, forces I commit become embroiled in conflict. My army digs in, fighting continues for god knows how long. Much infrastructure is established to continue the campaign to win the location. After much fighting over an entire planet... and the dust begins to settle and my forces are likely far removed from their forward base of operations, it is now somehow easier for them to pull up stakes and retreat, relocate, move along and or redeploy elsewhere?
  10. Yes I understand now just fine. I only mean to say that it could have been a bit more prominently occluded to I guess. My point regarding things like "ambushers" played after a retreat is this: Armed forces are sent to a location to take advantage or control of an area. Either they face opposition after arriving or they don't. Let us say the first is true; Battle over the strategic location ensues. The forces that manage to hold the position reap the benefits and rewards of said location until its resources are depleted or it no longer holds any strategic value, after which they retreat or redeploy to another location. Any forces that show up at this point are pretty much irrelevant. In the 2nd instance; Forces arrive, no opposition is met. The setting up of infrastructure to take advantage of the locations' resource or strategic value is all the more rapid and efficient. After everything is sucked dry and evacuated, your "Eager Recruit" shows up to do what? Contact Command to tell them he has single handedly captured strategically useless real estate and established an F.O.B. at said dust bowl? It is an arbitrary rule that doesn't do justice to the theme and legitimizes a ridiculous strategy. I mean with that line of thinking then I guess any military would have to maintain a constant presence everywhere they are sent indefinitely to be considered victorious in any campaign.
  11. This very thing happened to me the first time just a couple nights ago after about the 7th game I had played. We both thought we had a pretty good grasp of the rules at this point but the combat flow is a bit wack IMO. This needs some clarification badly. I am not sure I still understand it entirely or agree with any particular interpretation. So I guess I am wrong here too but I thought the opportunity to retreat units occurred after the first round of combat and every round after, post refresh step, before next round of fighting begins? Which would make sense: Army lays waste to the field of battle, surveys the field, no survivors, the battle is won, ok boys lets go home. Use of ambush in this situation breaks theme and immersion and is just plumb stupid. Battle is over for days, everyone has left... but wait, here comes private dumb azz, days later after the war is over to snag (lol, terrible, it wouldn't let me use the other word) victory from the jaws of defeat just by his mere presence upon this empty battlefield. Now that is abusing the rules and being stupid IMO. I guess there just needs to be a bold print clarification released by FFG stating exactly when a battle is considered WON and OVER. Anyway, yea my bro told me no go after I wiped out his army at a planet and then wanted to take my units back with me to HQ. I think this should be an optional thing. Refresh, leave them or retreat them, but I guess I can get on board with leaving the warlord there in case lieutenant late pants shows up, before the timing procedure checks game state to determine, "hey everyone is dead" or not, therefore determining the victor... even if I still think it's stupid.
  12. Exactly. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best! What emulates life better? It's a big ol' galaxy out there... anything can happen. Dice complainers have always bugged me more than a little for this reason. The random number generation of dice represent statistical likelihood of success or failure. I think as gamers we sometimes loose sight of this or our frustration causes us to forget it when our best laid plans are foiled by the luckiest rogue in the galaxy with all odds stacked against him. This is the thing we should remember most about dice and forgive them when they don't always come up in our favor. There is a story in every roll and sometimes it's epic (for good or ill.) We should all do better at times I'm sure to remember why we play games; to have fun! Let us try and not steal the thunder that just as easily could have been ours from those whom fortune seems to favor at that moment. Let us try instead when next we take that coupe de grace shot straight smack dab in the middle of the forehead from out of nowhere... let us look our opponent square in the eye when we say "Great shot kid, one in a million!"
  13. I feel where you guys are coming from as I have quite a bit of Wot stuff too though I never really played it much. I just buy them mainly as a collector and lover of the franchise. I thought too that eventually i would get around to being able to use some of them in an Edge of the Empire campaign. Alas finding time for that amidst Netrunner, X-Wing, Descent, working and raising a family is proving to be less than fruitful. Which leads me to this. My hopes actually are that they focus on the Descent style of play and less on the large scale skirmish stuff. I am an old school pen and paper guy that loves me some DnD and the like but finding time for campaign designs and prep work is next to impossible. I get alot of the same good out of Descent with almost 0 prep time. I would like to see a bit more roleplay elements and xp, character progression in this than Descent however. And as far as the painting goes, make all the pre painted stuff you want so long as I can still get it grey. Painting is one of the few prep jobs I actually enjoy. Cant wait for this. I hope it's as fantastic as I know it can be!!!
  14. Mine is similar. Vader and push the limits. Triple evades are sweet.
  15. All good points here, in the end though, if you love it, support it. Nothing is free. I have bought some craptastic new video games for 60 bucks plenty of times. I have spent somewhere in the range of 8,000-10,000 on mtg in 15 years of playing and collecting. I think the price point for X-Wing, no matter where you are buying it from, is pretty much right where it belongs.
×
×
  • Create New...