Jump to content

Rumar

Members
  • Content Count

    520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rumar


  1. Space opera is opera and so is Star Wars. Great music, great stage design, cheesy actors and a ridiculous libretto. Lucas can't write (but he can steal) and he can't direct (Harrison Ford is a very good actor, but not in Star Wars), but he had people that designed for him the X-Wing, the Stormtroopers and Yoda. Now there are others who just copy his formula: a mixture of samurai flick, Battle for Midway, Leni Riefenstahl and youtube kitten video.


  2. 4 hours ago, lologrelol said:

    Honestly, I don't know who was the final authority on this game; but, there is a lot of imbalance in Legion that should never have gotten through in the first place.

    Maybe its because I've played minis games for a long time, or am an amateur games designer, but some things I noticed straight off the bat were:

    • Heavies were extremely over-costed, mostly because some objectives couldn't be taken by them and they couldn't dish out quite enough to make back their points.
    • Heavy weapons were too expensive on squads, making it easier for people to min max their activations by taking minimum squad sizes.
    • Strike teams were a silly choice due to their efficiency (but I can see a case for them being there).
    • Refresh weapons, and refresh abilities, were too inefficient, because units like to get every action they can get. Most players saw that only refresh things that auto-refreshed some how, were good.
    • Action economy was king, so units that were able to benefit from this would do very well.
    • Units with high speed were really good only if they were also melee units, or could take objectives.
    • Vehicles and creatures were gimped from half the objectives. Why? A tank crew can get out of a vehicle and activate something. It just really makes people wary of going with lots of these units. Players should not feel hindered in list building like this.
    • Lots of the characters were way too expensive for what they did.
    • Bounty was unreliable, and secret mission was way stronger than it.
    • Line of sight and cover felt weird. You should have to measure range and LOS from each model in a unit, not just range from the leader. Cover to the center of the model is often too hard to get. It makes people set up their models in these weird formations to chain cover on simply immersion breaking angles. Also, seeing the unit leaders of units stand way out from cover is also immersion breaking.
    • Rules felt too clustered/disorganized/spread out, in the RRG. I would have preferred something more concise.
    • All models should have been treated as volumes, rather than looking model to model. It saves so many arguments.
    • Forests and other types of area terrain should be unified into a single consistent type, that provides both cover and difficult ground. Having some types of area that do not just automatically do both can be confusing to the tournament player, making it hard to prepare for that type of terrain, and practice for it.

    There's probably other things, and I could go into more depth. But most of the above my friends and I figured out after only a few games of each relevant rule upon its release.

    I liked Alex as a designer, sad to see him go. I still had the above critiques though.

    This. Very concise and well argumented list.


  3. 11 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

    Fully half of the objectives in the game can be interacted with by vehicles. Breakthrough, Key Positions, Bombing Run, and Payload all (at least partially) check for just unit leader, and all vehicles have a unit leader, even if the unit size is 1.

    Still an argument not to take vehicles. And you can influence the choice of objectives.


  4. Vehicles still are generally a bad option. They can't take objectives. They don't have enough firepower to justify shooting at them. If you just shoot the infantry, the enemy firepower goes down with every trooper. So bringing antitank equipment is a bad option, too. There is so much of fake choice. Lots of options, but only a small fraction are viable. The problem with the AT-ST is not, that the sabre tank is better. Being a vehicle is the problem.


  5. I love this game. It is colourful, epic and engrossing. But it is a big investment and with that much interaction between players, the game above the table tends to be more important than the game on the table. Beware of kingmaking and with veteran players, be prepared to see this game devolve into some kind of SciFi "Diplomacy" (the game).


  6. On 5/10/2020 at 2:47 AM, Herowannabe said:

    Cad Bane was one of the cooler parts of the show. 

    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."


  7. 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.


  8. 17 hours ago, Andreu said:

    Same! When you say RTT you mean ITT right? I agree that a model is in order but I hope they base it on the live action version.
    The transport in the las Mandalorian episode has a more functional/serious looking front part without the funny shapes of the version in the Rebels animated show or the ball-turrets in the front part... so please let it be based on the one we just saw if it ever happens 🙏

    mandalorian-ITT.jpg

    Who in his right mind would design a weapons cupola with such huge blind spots? Wouldn't have happened under Lucas.


  9. 19 minutes ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

     

    Considering the fact that the mandalorian just knocked Stranger Things off its throne, I think you mught hold the minority opinion.

    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.


  10. 1 hour ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

    Oh please.  Seven samurai is one of the most referenced plotlines in fiction.  Magnificent seven, bugs life, episodes of MacGyver and the A-team.  Don't try to pretend that it's suddenly untouchable.

    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.


  11. On 11/30/2019 at 3:28 AM, TauntaunScout said:

    Great homage to both The Seven Samurai and, curiously, Ewoks: The Battle for Endor. Proving you don't have to be repetitive even if you don't make it all from scratch.

    There's just so much in this show that I hate the idea of, but love in execution. The battle plan makes no sense if you think about it, but, the scene still worked.

    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.


  12. 6 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

    I guess I'm biased. I think I've only had my AT-ST destroyed in 2 games. And both times it was due to an anti-armor weapon (Luke the first time and AT-RT laser cannon the second). Most games my opponent either scatters before it or foolishly pours blaster fire into it doing very little damage.

    I think the Armor keyword is satisfying in that it provides the 'feel' of imperviousness while still giving any unit a chance to have an effect.

    As far as the big heroes go, you actually do need to play them pretty smart or they will die quick. Even Vader or the Emperor or Luke. You need to be aware of activation order (your favorite! I know) and use melee to your advantage. Any of the non-jedi are very vulnerable to pierce and so you need to be even more careful.

    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.


  13. 5 hours ago, Darth evil said:

    the problem is that some upgrades where poorly handled. the DLT-19 should never have had Impact as a keyword, it's basically a light lmg used for engaging infantry which should never be great at attacking armored vehicles. Had the designers not given it Impact and the stupid crits hurt armor rule hadn't been implemented then maybe more vehicles would be on the field.

    Spot on. The antitank capabilities of antiinfantry weapons make specialised antitank weapons obsolete.


  14. 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...