Jump to content

attrition2

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About attrition2

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. attrition2

    Warhammer 40k style game

    They already published Dust Warfare. Since they sold it to Battlefront Miniatures, I assume that FFG decided that they didn't want to be in the company/army scale tabletop minis market. It seems like X-Wing and Armada are much more profitable for them. I wouldn't rule out a land-based Star Wars game, though Imperial Assault in its skirmish mode might be as close as FFG gets to doing so. If you want an army scale game, I'd recommend looking at other miniature game companies. There are plenty of great and relatively inexpensive games out there that have far more balanced rule-sets than anything GW ever published.
  2. attrition2

    Where to get this?

    I have a used copy in good condition that I'd be willing to sell/trade. EDIT: SOLD
  3. attrition2

    Alliances - thoughts

    The alliances on the alignment wheel are represented to some degree in 6th ed. 40K and, generally speaking, the wheel is well-arranged. However, there are still some issues with the alignment wheel from both a thematic perspective and a game-mechanics/design perspective: 1) It doesn't represent degrees of allegiance like the 40K allies matrix, so hypothetically you could end up in a meta where you see lots of DE/Chaos decks and, as they are classified as "desperate allies," this should really be reserved for corner case scenarios. 2) There are alliances that are not represented on the alignment wheel such as Tau/Orks and Space Marines/Eldar who are allies of convenience. Yet DE/Chaos make the cut? 3) The 6th ed. 40K allies matrix may be in line with the latest GW fluff, but a lot of us 40K players view it as a marketing scheme to get people to buy out of faction miniatures. I prefer my 40K with more paranoia and xenophobia. Factions that are battle brothers are OK occasionally and these and other alliances such as those mentioned above could be enabled by specific cards in Conquest. This last point is obviously more a matter of taste than an objective comparison between the alignment wheel and the allies matrix. In the grim darkness of the far future, I'd like to see less friendship. I realize that the alignment wheel will almost certainly remain in place if for no other reason than that the core set must include enough cards to construct playable 50 card decks. While this is an advantage for the core set, it may become a liability for the long-term health of the game. Combined, the pitfalls of the alignment wheel listed above could potentially lead to issues with deck diversity and corner case alliances that are now somehow commonplace. To offer one hypothetical, if Orks and IG prove to be highly synergistic, then suddenly you'd find yourself playing against lots of competitive Ork/Guard decks. I don't mind this combination sometimes (Blood Axes, mercenaries) but it would be a shame if all competitive Guard decks included Ork allies. That's just one hypothetical example but we all know that when decks are optimized for competitive card games, you tend to see similar archetypes over and over. The stultification of deck lists is both common and unfortunate in card games; look at Sith control in Star Wars where two or three objective sets have been dominate since release. It's even worse when it's some strange combination that may not be entirely unthematic but still shouldn't be commonplace (e.g. Orks/IG or DE/Chaos). The easiest way to address these issues is to do away with the alignment wheel altogether and embrace the distrust and xenophobia of pre-6th ed. 40K. Occasional alliances could be made possible through card text. If alliances are to play a large role in the game, I think the alignment wheel could at least be more flexible. A more elegant design solution would be to indicate potential ally factions on the warlord cards, e.g. a Blood Axe warlord could ally with Imperial Guard, whereas a Gahzghkull warlord card would not allow guard allies. This would also provide a design mechanism through which we could see other ally possibilities such as Chaos with corrupt Guard, Orks manipulated by Eldar, etc. This hypothetical change would not require re-balancing individual cards or an overhaul of the core rules. In practice, all that would be required is that warlord cards display the icon of the faction(s) with which they may ally and a number that indicates how many cards from other factions that hero's deck may include. If allies were specified on the warlord cards, it would even be possible to adjust the degree to which a particular warlord might be willing to accept allies. That is to say, a one warlord might be willing to accept 10 allied cards in the deck whereas another warlord might accept only 5. Abandoning the rigidity of the alignment wheel also opens up more interesting combinations such as a radical Inquisitor warlord that would allow for some daemon cards to be included in the deck, or a less xenophobic IG commander to take Tau allies. In cases where alliances might create powerful synergies, balance can be maintained by simply restricting the number of ally cards permitted. This just seems like a more flexible and modular system that would allow for more thematic, diverse, and customizable decks. There are plenty of ways this might be addressed and this is just one possible suggestion. I'd just like to see groundwork in place for a highly thematic and diverse meta for this promising game. EDIT: Added introductory paragraph and clarified incorrect terminology
  4. attrition2

    What theme to come next from FFG in the LCG format?

    Yeah, that's why I suggested Twilight Imperium on p.7. Also, since FFG already has licencing agreements with other companies like GW, it may be easier to extend and/or broaden existing agreements, which is why I also mentioned 40k. Though I really dislike the Terrinoth IP, I do agree with you that an in-house IP would be more flexible and might prove better for the long-term health of whatever FFG settles on for the next LCG.
  5. With the success of ​X-Wing, I hope FFG is considering ways to further develop and capitalize on this system. In particular, I'd love to see a fleet action game in which we see the formations and maneuvers of capital ships. As in X-Wing, cards would be used to upgrade ship captains and admirals, crews, and the ships themselves. The maneuver dials would need to be toned down to better simulate the ponderous movement of capital ships, but the movement system is fundamentally sound and easily adaptable. I'd guess that the supply issues with the X-Wing prepaints are the biggest impediment to the production and distribution of another miniatures game. However, if and when these supply issues are resolved, there are several potential IPs that would make for a great fleet action game: 1) Star Wars - We'd finally see star destroyers and mon calamari cruisers and tiny fighters could be controlled as squadrons. 2) Battlefleet Gothic - Since Games Workshop recently scuttled their specialist games ranges, there's a great opportunity for FFG to step in and rework this rules system and release prepainted plastic 40k fleets. 3) Twilight Imperium - This would be my first choice. There's so much room to innovate in terms of ship designs for the various starfaring races (20 from TI3). Optionally, fleet battles could even be tied to games of TI3. I love this IP and it would be great to see FFG further develop this universe.
  6. attrition2

    What theme to come next from FFG in the LCG format?

    With the recent success of the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, it seems like FFG may already be considering ways to produce a competing solo/cooperative game with a similar leveling mechanic as an LCG (as distinct from LotR which focuses much more on mechanical optimization). Were FFG to make a more engaging adventure card game, the question becomes, which IP would they go with? 1) Warhammer 40k would work well as there is plenty of variety in enemies and scenarios and the player could acquire relics, psychic powers, imperial and xenos technologies, etc. 2) Twilight Imperium would be another great option as there is so much we've yet to see in that universe at the scale of a small party of adventurers. That is to say, we've seen galactic politics and warfare, but there's lots of room to detail smaller ships, items, minor characters, etc. If FFG forgoes the solo/cooperative game route and instead opts for another duel/multiplayer game, the top choices for me would be: 1) Dune - Asymmetrical or multiple win conditions, and potential for multiplayer intrigue 2) Twilight Imperium - FFG's best original IP, and since it doesn't require licensing this could be infinitely expandable. This could be at multiple scales (like Star Wars) so you'd have politicians vying for power, fleets colonizing new systems, ground invasions, etc. much like in TI3.
×