Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rumar

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

891 profile views
  1. Which says exactly nothing. There is one bit that stands: One Droid to another:"Ever killed a Jedi? Me neither". Booooooooooooooring. And let's not talk about the godawful animation. I have a kid that made me watch everything, for my sins. "But the next one might be cool. It's Star Wars."
  2. Who needs a goofy cowboy clown in a science fiction?
  3. The president as a platoon commander. And while you are at it, why not the Bathrobe Admiral?
  4. All the problems you had with Armada you will have with Legion in spades. Armada is a good deal faster than Legion. Positioning a ship is quicker and easier than positioning a squad. The complexity of Legion will rise considerably, as more and more units and upgrade cards are released. It was the same with X-Wing and Armada, and Legion is at the beginning of that trajectory. X-Wing collapsed under its upgrades and had to be rebooted. FFG might get there with Legion. All these games are fine, but they are neither quick nor wysiwyg and even flying casual will never make them casual games. You have to run around the table to study upgrade cards or accept it as fog of war.
  5. Who in his right mind would design a weapons cupola with such huge blind spots? Wouldn't have happened under Lucas.
  6. We'll see. There are so many hard core Star Wars fans out there that it takes more than one crappy episode to derail the whole series.
  7. It is not untouchable. But you have to have the touch, which the makers of The Mandalorian obviously don't have. Magnificent Seven - mediocre copy. Bug's life, MacGyver or the A-Team don't take themselves as seriously as The Mandalorian embarrassingly does.
  8. It is not a "homage", it is a particularly cheap Disney copy of one of the greatest film ever made. Even Lucas was stealing more artfully. Kurosawa must be spinning in his grave.
  9. Part of the problem is the scarcity of terrain, especially in tournament settings.
  10. This is beside the point. The AT-ST is extra impervious because shooting at it is dumb. With the point cost you need to take down an AT-ST, you can kill infantry amounting to a lot more firepower than an AT-ST. Giving any infantry unit a chance to kill a tank is silly. Never mind unrealistic or not in tune with the movies, but you take away the rock, paper, scissors mechanic, which is a bad thing in my book.
  11. Spot on. The antitank capabilities of antiinfantry weapons make specialised antitank weapons obsolete.
  12. You are letting FFg off the hook too easily. If there is a "meta", going against it is a tactical advantage per se, as you will wrongfoot many opponents simply because they are not used to your army. To wipe unit types consistently off competitive lists, you have to make bad balancing mistakes. And please spare me the comparisons with GW crap. GW has never bothered with either math or playtesting and uses its rules simply as a marketing tool to push their newest minis. Last codex wins. We should hold FFG to a higher standard. They can do it and they listen. So vehicles are not useless, but too weak, and that makes specialised antitank weaponry useless. Fix it, FFG. Changing the whole points system is awkward to do, so changing the rules for vehicles could be a way, e. g. such as the suggested power to deny objectives. Or change the rules for infantry. Making suppression more meaningful might do the trick.
  • Create New...