Jump to content

JJ48

Members
  • Content Count

    4,736
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About JJ48

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/20/1986

Recent Profile Visitors

2,136 profile views
  1. I'm skeptical. Yes, they're larger than any Large ships we currently have, but they're much, much smaller than the one Huge ship. Even with a sliding scale, I think they'd probably look better Large. Personally, I hope FFG allows the SSD to just stay a unique oddity.
  2. Just to help everyone get into a Prequels mood:
  3. Don't be too quick in dismissing wooden boats! They could withstand cannon reasonably well (e.g. USS Constitution), and even when a cannonball gets through, it's unlikely to sink the ship unless it's below the waterline or it sets off the powder. On a different note, since Squadrons wouldn't make much sense in the age of sail, how about a boarding mechanism?
  4. Maybe make specific Dynasty characters who are clan-specific, but can join certain other clans for some cost, or perhaps dual-clan characters?
  5. Personally, I'd like to see more trade-offs. Too many abilities are triggered every time they can be, as there's no reason to ever not trigger them. It would be nice to see more "get a bonus but also take a penalty" or "get a bonus only if you also give a nearby opponent a bonus" abilities to promote more tactical decisions during gameplay. 2E already does this more than 1E, but I think we can push it further. Far be it from me to call Palob well-designed, but I think his main problem is just that he does too much too easily, and not his basic premise of targeting specific, common tokens. As I see it, an ability that works on most pilots in 5/7 factions--and which still works on a decent number of pilots in the remaining 2/7 factions--is quite different from an ability that only works at all on 1/7 factions.
  6. You explicitly said this would allow you to build a list specifically to oppose someone else's list. What would you call that? I'm not really sure I see the point of this argument. Anything that is not broken or mandatory is automatically justified? If I, for whatever reason, might enjoy having an eighth faction that consisted of nothing but relatively weak I0 generics that cost 100 points each, FFG should make it simply because it's not game-breaking and others can ignore it if they don't like it? I guess it depends on what we're discussing. If we're discussing some homebrew cards, then sure, you can make whatever you want and if I don't like it I just don't download and print out the pdf or whatever. But if we're talking hypothetical, official products, they should have some merit beyond just, "A handful of people might like some of them." Keep in mind that even card packs don't have infinite capacity, and every card included may mean some other card is excluded. That being the case, I'm just not convinced that cards using this sort of design space would be able to be balanced properly consistently while still contributing enough to the game to be worth the hassle.
  7. Agreed. But when something actually is bad game design (such as rock-paper-scissors counters in a game like this) it's perfectly justified. To me, this is actually a very strong reason not to do something like this. Who wants to play a game where the opponent has built his list specifically to counter yours? You may argue that both players could do the same thing, but in a case where one person collects multiple factions and his friend only collects one, it sounds like an awfully one-sided sort of fun to me. Doesn't this hold true of any pilot, though? I don't really see how this is an argument for this particular design.
  8. No, I'm saying that a pilot should always have a purpose. A pilot who only has a purpose 1/7 of the time is horrible design.
  9. The problem is, if the bonus is really as minor as you say, why not just use a different Ace who is more well-rounded? And if instead the bonus is good enough to justify taking him over other options, how can you say it's not a hard counter? I don't play MtG, but given the fact that most of the conversations I overhear about it are discussing things like decks that can win on the first turn with the proper draw or how great Control decks are, I personally want it as far from debelopers' minds as possible when they're designing games I play.
  10. I do like the idea of more trade-offs, but what I think of the last bit depends on what you mean. If you mean that people should consider how their list deals with swarms, aces, etc. then I agree. If you mean that people should build lists specifically to counter the lists of others in their game group, I absolutely disagree. Matches shouldn't be decided in listbuilding. Win, lose, or draw; agood game should be close. Fixed.
  11. I'm afraid I don't know. I had it as a gift from people in Michigan.
  12. Would Sloane help? All those defense tokens don't help much if they get burned off quickly.
  13. B. Nektar's Episode 13 Mead is quite good, and Star Wars inspired!
  14. But at 100 points, I'd have to drop my 19 Z-95s down to 14! X-Wing needed a 2nd Edition because fundamental, core rules and components needed changing. I guess I don't know what you have in mind, specifically, but as far as I can see, Armada could probably just get away with a rules update, and not have to reprint/convert all the components. I do hope that the renewed focus on Armada with the Prequel stuff brings a comprehensive, continuously-updated Rules Reference like X-Wing has, though.
×
×
  • Create New...