Jump to content

Zychon

Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Zychon

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/19/1974

Recent Profile Visitors

290 profile views
  1. Glad to hear printed maps are sometimes used. That would also seem to open the door for simply printing out a one inch grid and penciling the tile in. It's unfortunate that the Twin Shadows reprint is still not available (though it's close!), when the store champoinships are at the beginning of the year. Again, I'm not saying theres anything nefarious going on, it's just bad timing.
  2. Whatever you managed to extract from reading my post that would cause you to post this as a response must have been some kind of mutilation. Perhaps you should hit the refresh button on your browser and take another stab at it.
  3. Yeah, not ranting here. I don't see this as a money grab or anything. They're just trying to rotate the maps in, but there are features unique to Imperial Assault (as opposed to X-Wing and Armada) that make that a little hairier than usual. Someone's got to have the map tiles. Where the other titles are "basic set plus whatever you like", this introduces a specific additional thing you must have. Price is also not an issue. Just accessibility. "Hey everyone, you must have a Mist Hunter to play in this X-Wing tournament" would not seem like a good idea either. My question though is would it be within a TO's power to say "Hey, were just using the other two maps today"? This would of course be fine for casual tournaments, but for a store champoinship it would potentially affect higher tier tournaments. It's a small detail, yes. But da rules is da rules. Also interesting is that the rules state that "Proxies of cards and figures cannot be used." and makes no mention of proxies for tiles. Are stand-in tiles verboten? What if you lose a tile piece? Buying an entire basic set or expansion again?
  4. Excerpts from the 2016 Tournament Rules v2.0.1 are as follows: "The TO determines what mission all players will use for the round. To do this, the TO draws a Mission card at random from the legal missions for the tournament (see “Legal Maps and Missions” on page 5) using the rules in the Imperial Assault Skirmish Guide. Once the TO selects a mission, he or she removes that Mission card so that the same mission cannot be chosen a second time during Swiss rounds of the tournament." "Players determine initiative using the rules from the Imperial Assault Skirmish Guide. The player with initiative is responsible for providing the components needed to set up the selected Skirmish Mission map." "Each player must bring all components needed for their army and games. This includes (but is not limited to) Deployment cards and corresponding figures, Command cards, dice, tokens and counters, and all map tiles and Mission cards for any legal skirmish missions. The TO is not expected to supply any game components to players." "Starting January 1st, the legal maps, and their accompanying missions, for the season are: Kuat Space Station, Training Ground, and Mos Eisley Cantina. All competitive and premier tournaments must use these maps and missions unless otherwise specified by Fantasy Flight Games." The problem with this is it effectively forces tourament players to have the Twin Shadows expansion in order to participate, or else risk forfeiting a round (possibly two or even more in a large tournament). Exacerbating the situation is the fact that this expansion is currently out of stock just about everywhere. My FLGS is looking to host IA tournaments, but the possibility of bringing in new players is severely diminished by this aspect of the rules. Possible work arounds/solutions are: -Allow the TO to host a tournament that doesnt include Mos Eisley Cantina and its corresponding missions. -Allow a proxy for the Twin Shadows tile pieces. -Play with a 40 point army and pray. Is it possible to get a rules clarification on this? Thanks.
  5. Knight-Level play would be the most logical place to start, but I get the feeling you are coming from a "starting level characters" framework. I've got very little experience GMing SWRP myself, but starting with a party full of characters that have 150xp worth of skills, talents, and force powers might be a little overwhelming for a new GM, and new players as well. Just a hunch. I guess it depends on the overall party make-up, how much you are willing to take on, and how forgiving you and the players are going to be with rules missteps and play stoppage. You may want to start out with the basic setup. As you all become more comfortable and the characters gain XP, it will naturally introduce a higher powered level of play. Obtaining a light saber and the right of passage that comes with it can make for a good story and give the player a goal to shoot for. Also, there is no particular "level" that a player must surpass in order to have one, so you can introduce it at any time you like. On the other hand, if everyone is easy-going and willing to be patient and flexible with the rules, and everyone is on board with the idea, you can use the knight-level play rules on page 104.
  6. Got it two days ago and got to give it a looking over last night. Design is terrific (as usual). Pre-Gens are good. Adventure is... not so good. Well, the adventure is kinda good, but it has some massive plot holes in it. In fact, you could go as far as to say it's "all hole". I can usually suspend disbelief for the sake of fun, but this gets a little out of hand. Unfortunately, this carries over into Operation Shadowpoint and anything else these particular PCs might be up to. The action and the tutorial aspect of the module -which pretty much follow the EotEBB formula- are fine. The plot just left me going "What the ...seriously?!" constantly, and I'm positive it will do the same with anyone I would sit down and play this with. In fact, the second they got an indication as to what was going on, the players would "rebel" against the plot and try to find their own solution. I can't stress enough that this isn't a slam on the writers. I've tried myself to think of a situation where all of these goals are fulfilled while meeting the requirements of difficulty, length, and price point; and I keep tripping on my own shoes too. It's like saying "I want an all-wheel drive diet football bat." I think it's recoverable, but I can't run this as-is without serious faceplam factor. I suppose you could run it if you prefaced it with "Look, this makes no sense but we are going to run it just to learn the rules and then forget about it". I don't have this option as my players are familiar enough with the rules (I was getting this mainly for the adventure and the completionist factor), but that is my problem. If you aren't in that boat, I suggest you take the "disposable tutorial" road. I think I've got a few ideas to patch it up to the point where it runs without rewriting whole chunks of the thing. I'll put that in another topic. TL:DR: I didn't like the adventure at all. Everything else was well enough.
  7. Good deal! I'm not really familiar with elder scrolls beyond knowing the basics. I'm a big computer gamer, just somehow have managed to avoid playing any of the series. I played daggerfall once on a friends PC. It's also been a very long time since I have been an active PnP RPG gamer. I've kind of just been hanging out on the periphery for the past two decades. I picked up Edge because: Star Wars, but I quickly became enamored with the core mechanics of the narrative dice, and thought "Christ! What a waste it would be to only use this for a single IP". I dunno - ...I know Robin Laws has developed a few really good narrative driven systems. Is there anything else out there that has the dynamic of SWRP? Wouldn't this core dice mechanic work with a lot of genres? Anyone more attuned than me to the RPG scene care to comment? Anyhow, even if I can't appreciate it as an Elder Scrolls fan could, I appreciate the effort and wish you luck. I really hope we see more of this kind of thing.
  8. I really can't give a reason, I just know that that was the first thing I thought of wanting to play when I sat down with the EotE beta rulebook. Maybe because most player races in RPGs tend to have traits that are about empowerment of one kind or another, and this sort of cuts against the grain. Maybe it's the scavenger/tinkerer thing. ...look, they're just awesome, and you should stop being a hater. In the past there were a lot of times when I found myself mentally rolling my eyes at people's character choices. "Blak Niffe" the drow, with his little spikey bits and his portable pharmacy of poisons. Now days, I just roll with it. People have different concepts in their heads and this is a collective endeavor. As long as one person doesn't hog the spotlight or have some special trait that must always be catered to, I say go for it. Often times, it's not as bad as what you imagined, and sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised at how it turns out. ...except for that Black Niffe dude. ...I mean seriously, what a shmoo! What kind of a moron claims to be a silent killer then carries around 75 pounds of clanking blades and gadgets? What's the matter, Ezio? Fail your sneak check again? Yeah, we'll take up your slack. I mean it's not like we don't already have to grind everything to a halt every five minutes while you decide which of your seven crossbows you want to-
  9. I based her off the 36m length. It looks like she should have one full deck with a partial deck above and below, which is what my first layout looked like. That version had berths for 17, but seemed to have far more cargo space than it should (estimated by comparing a few YT-1300 internals. I might do a pleasure cruiser version and add the top partial deck. I envisioned the two Y Wings docked longitudinally. The cockpit of the aft Y-Wing can fit between the fore Y-wing's engine nacelles, making them nice and compact, and the aft fighter's nacelles fit to either side of the center stabilizer. I've seen a deck plan with them side by side, but that layout was of a much larger ship, and probably disregarded the 36m length. All in all, you've got a craft that is sturdy and can hit fairly hard for its size, with a good passenger capacity. It can also store 2 fighters, is equipped with a tractor beam, and still gets 4 hard points. ..For 200k? That's a steal!
  10. The Citadel plans are up. Warning: These are kind of meh. I struggled to turn the Citadel's innards into something interesting. It's a small craft with a basic shape. I tried to gussy her up a bit with some externals, though. Anyhow, I hope you make some use of this in your sessions! http://digitaldysfunction.blogspot.com/2013/08/deck-plans-ilh-kk-citadel-class.html
  11. Yeah, I was kinda curious about that too. Some deep digging rendered this: http://holonet.swrpgnetwork.com/showthread.php?15655-Citadel-Cruiser-Question&p=186349#post186349 So there's the answer from the horses mouth! If only it was always this sanctioned. Neat how he thought of the starfighters being slung under the belly, but that's got to be one helluva ramp! I can imagine the conversation in the cockpit: "We're coming up on Mos Shuuta now." "They got an elevated gantry?" "Occupied." "What are we picking up again?" "30 crates of ore." ... "We've got to talk about my pay rate."
  12. Good point. I'm happy with the stock stuff for making the deck plans readily accessible. The art is fine, but you'll begin to see a bit of repetition, and hulls with features like wings won't look as good as those that are blocky. I suppose I'll make new symbols as needed, and rotate the old stuff out slowly. Revising older layouts also isn't as time consuming as it sounds, once you have the new symbols.
  13. I'm in the process of doing the Citadel cruiser. It's a pretty small ship and a basic design, so it's not too interesting on its own. BEcause of this, I'm creating a custom symbol set that has a more star wars look to it than the default symbols. Question One: Should I use the stock symbols, which would allow me to put deck plans out faster, or should I build a custom symbol set? Here is a sample of the stock set (from the Wayfarer map): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9cFgom2aSYHSXh1Q0NLYThEVUE/edit?usp=sharing With Option 1, every deck plan will look pretty much like that. And here are some custom symbols I've been putting together: Beds: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9cFgom2aSYHLXBaT2haQVcyTFU/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9cFgom2aSYHNzdXdDYtMEwzZWM/edit?usp=sharing Deck Plating: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9cFgom2aSYHMWcxZFJIUlkwUE0/edit?usp=sharinghttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9cFgom2aSYHMWcxZFJIUlkwUE0/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9cFgom2aSYHbTU0a0JEVl9CQ1k/edit?usp=sharing Seating: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9cFgom2aSYHdWFSYXlCZXRnSGc/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9cFgom2aSYHWkUyQmQ0Q24zejg/edit?usp=sharing As you can imagine, It wouldn't look so good mixing the two styles, and it will take more time to create all of the furnishings. Question 2: I published the first deck plans with a white background. I can put fancy crap in there, but I just figured I'd save everyone's ink/toner this way. Will that be fine? I will also try to do simplified B&W layout versions of the decks for those that prefer them. Thanks!
  14. Additional maps have been added with the retracted armature and a revised cargo module.
  15. I wouldn't combine them from the get-go in terms of skills, but sharing one big wound pool would certainly work.
×
×
  • Create New...