On 3/25/2017 at 0:44 AM, Willange said:

Dang, I guess I just got lucky then. I'd imagine that at least a few more will go up then soon before people are done selling adepticon stuff.

do as a favour and as soon as you get your copy scan us the rules book ( dont open the miniatures and get lost in the realm of Terrinoth )

1 minute ago, Felchawe said:

do as a favour and as soon as you get your copy scan us the rules book ( dont open the miniatures and get lost in the realm of Terrinoth )

It'll probably be a week or so till my copy arrives anyway, so hopefully the rules are posted online before I even get the chance!

i picked up my copy today but i dont have a scanner or good camera

if anyone has any questions id be glad to answer them

GL2814 if you are not another account for ft,

he has been trolling many other rw boards. I don't say it lightly, but it's getting old. And no I won't engage because that's what trolls want.

16 hours ago, flightmaster101 said:

Don't feed the trolls

I find it interesting that I would get called out for criticizing the work of a professional company but you will so readily throw around a personal insult like 'troll' and actually be thanked for it. I am not a troll, I do not post to get a rise out of people, I post to promote a two sided discussion. There is a lot of gushing support on this board, and credit should be given where it is due, but it is also our job as players and fans of this game to push back when necessary. When I see things are overly one sided in a discussion, I may take the opposite view point (which is often the unpopular view point) if I do BELIEVE in it to paint the picture in a different light. I think if you were a regular on the IA forum you would see I am far from a troll, but actually a valued member of that board that regularly elicits deep discussions about the complexities of the game and how it affects our personal interactions with the purpose of improving the skirmish experience and growing the global community. The two go hand in hand.

I like to ask questions, I always have and I always will. Could I be a little more supportive? Possibly, depending how you want to define the term. I own every component of IA (at least one), all of MoM 2nd, a good chunk of the LOTR LCG, most of Descent and have started wading into X-Wing (that is a very deep pool). I am solely responsible for founding and growing the IA skirmish community in my city including organizing multiple successful tournaments and what is becoming a regular play group. So I would say I do my fair share of supporting FFG where it counts, through my wallet and in the community. I believe this earns me the right to come on these boards and challenge them where I see fit. Being challenged is what allows us to achieve greatness, if everything was handed to us and nobody questioned it then we wouldn't be where we are today on the table top.

I think this game will be very popular once it gets the proper exposure and as it grows in popularity so will our little community on this board. There will be a lot more posters like me that come on here to challenge aspects of the game they think could be improved. There will be a lot of posters who are more aggressive than me and most likely less polite. I think it would do a lot of posters on this forum well to grow some thicker skin and realize that FFG can do wrong, and does do wrong, and challenging them on their faults and openly acknowledging and discussing those faults is what will help push this game forward. Take a gander over at the X-Wing forum if you want a look into our future. Great discussions with a lot of great contributors, but a very challenging community. Is it a coincidence that X-Wing is one of the most popular (if not the most popular?) FFG game?

1 hour ago, Willange said:

It'll probably be a week or so till my copy arrives anyway, so hopefully the rules are posted online before I even get the chance!

Good on ya! Post a link when you get that going. I can't wait to try and proxy a game.

2 hours ago, Klaxas said:

i picked up my copy today but i dont have a scanner or good camera

if anyone has any questions id be glad to answer them

@klaxas am intrested in the rules for terrains as am in the process of making some can you please share those of the book please

Ill post later today if he doesn't beat me to it.

@FrogTrigger

It's not the questions, it's how you ask them. It's not your opinions, it's how you express them. You now have a reputation as a being a horse's rear end, and you earned it fairly. So now if you were more polite, and learned to treat people with more respect, maybe you'll find less push back for your thoughts and feelings. Even if those feelings are poignant and well thought out, which generally they aren't. Good luck.

6 hours ago, Klaxas said:

i picked up my copy today but i dont have a scanner or good camera

if anyone has any questions id be glad to answer them

Right now I can think of two questions. The first is the Accuracy icon. In the learn to play book, the accuracy icon is mentioned that it allows 1 wound to go an upgrade. Is this true or does the rules reference say that a single accuracy result can lead to more than 1 wound?

My other question is about the special rules in the rules reference. Anything cool?

1 hour ago, Taki said:

@FrogTrigger

It's not the questions, it's how you ask them. It's not your opinions, it's how you express them. You now have a reputation as a being a horse's rear end, and you earned it fairly. So now if you were more polite, and learned to treat people with more respect, maybe you'll find less push back for your thoughts and feelings. Even if those feelings are poignant and well thought out, which generally they aren't. Good luck.

Hrmm fair enough, I guess I've got some work to do. Challenge accepted. Thanks for your insight. I actually thought my last post was well thought out.. but I suppose you have your reasons for thinking otherwise.

59 minutes ago, Kubernes said:

Right now I can think of two questions. The first is the Accuracy icon. In the learn to play book, the accuracy icon is mentioned that it allows 1 wound to go an upgrade. Is this true or does the rules reference say that a single accuracy result can lead to more than 1 wound?

My other question is about the special rules in the rules reference. Anything cool?

ok you assign accuracy hits to models (you can assign more than one to a model) for each one you can assign one wounds worth of damage to that figure figure ignoring normal wound distribution. if you kill the model you replace it with one from the back rank that could have been destroyed, or a tray if is a heavy upgrade (siege piece)

been glancing through that rules book. i do think its neat how the terrains work. i will make a separate post with that as it will probably be longer.

14 minutes ago, Klaxas said:

ok you assign accuracy hits to models (you can assign more than one to a model) for each one you can assign one wounds worth of damage to that figure figure ignoring normal wound distribution. if you kill the model you replace it with one from the back rank that could have been destroyed, or a tray if is a heavy upgrade (siege piece)

been glancing through that rules book. i do think its neat how the terrains work. i will make a separate post with that as it will probably be longer.

Ok, for a full health golem upgrade, you would need two accuracy?

4 minutes ago, Kubernes said:

Ok, for a full health golem upgrade, you would need two accuracy?

yes you would. each accuracy you assign is removed when you deal a wound to that model.

39 minutes ago, FrogTrigger said:

Hrmm fair enough, I guess I've got some work to do. Challenge accepted. Thanks for your insight. I actually thought my last post was well thought out.. but I suppose you have your reasons for thinking otherwise.

Your last post was a defense of your character and your value as a member of the forum, which came after a few very brutal comments vs Tall Tony After he apologized for his end of a misunderstanding, further you then went on you call a couple of paint jobs out on lack of quality, when the only pictures we have aren't that great and the models look fine. I'm sure that didn't come off as humble or well thought out.

I actually think your optimism for this game interesting, amid you heavy criticism for it, and its pricing structures. Certainly it meets my criteria for a good value as miniatures are concerned; in fact, the only things that I don't like is the cost of the heroes. If it were any other company, I wouldn't even consider buying them at $25. We'll see if I have buyer's remorse when they come out. But for every other unit? $3 per infantry is excellent, and 6 for infantry decent as well. So the push back is least needed in price I think.

Where the game has fallen flat for me so far is the lack of granularity in the infantry, the meaninglessness of armor on the models, and the lack of innovation on the objectives. But FFG has been excellent on giving us new scenarios with character packs (as we've seen in IA), and I'm sure they'll improve as they move forward (as IG-88 shows us).

PS the quoted response is excellent and gives me hope and faith that I've misjudged your character, we see its like too rarely and I applaud you for it.

1 hour ago, Klaxas said:

ok you assign accuracy hits to models (you can assign more than one to a model) for each one you can assign one wounds worth of damage to that figure figure ignoring normal wound distribution. if you kill the model you replace it with one from the back rank that could have been destroyed, or a tray if is a heavy upgrade (siege piece)

been glancing through that rules book. i do think its neat how the terrains work. i will make a separate post with that as it will probably be longer.

So, you can attack a Rune Golem upgrade in Spearmen directly instead of attacking the Spearmen as a whole then?

2 minutes ago, blkdymnd said:

So, you can attack a Rune Golem upgrade in Spearmen directly instead of attacking the Spearmen as a whole then?

as long as you roll accuracy results, yes. or have accuracy results you can add from your dial.

3 minutes ago, Klaxas said:

as long as you roll accuracy results, yes. or have accuracy results you can add from your dial.

Ok, missed that a bit, thanks! So if you don't have accuracy results, you can't single out heroes or heavy upgrades

1 minute ago, blkdymnd said:

Ok, missed that a bit, thanks! So if you don't have accuracy results, you can't single out heroes or heavy upgrades

exactly. the accuracy result doesnt actually deal damage. each one just allows you to assign one wound worth of damage to any figure, ignoring normal wound allocation.

1 hour ago, Klaxas said:

exactly. the accuracy result doesnt actually deal damage. each one just allows you to assign one wound worth of damage to any figure, ignoring normal wound allocation.

And just to clarify this, when you say "one wound's worth," it means that one accuracy lets you assign up to 4 hits damage to the Front Line Rune Golem figure because that is how much damage it takes to cause it to suffer a wound. So if you managed to get two accuracy results and 8 damage, you could take it out in one attack. Correct?

2 hours ago, Taki said:

Your last post was a defense of your character and your value as a member of the forum, which came after a few very brutal comments vs Tall Tony After he apologized for his end of a misunderstanding, further you then went on you call a couple of paint jobs out on lack of quality, when the only pictures we have aren't that great and the models look fine. I'm sure that didn't come off as humble or well thought out.

I actually think your optimism for this game interesting, amid you heavy criticism for it, and its pricing structures. Certainly it meets my criteria for a good value as miniatures are concerned; in fact, the only things that I don't like is the cost of the heroes. If it were any other company, I wouldn't even consider buying them at $25. We'll see if I have buyer's remorse when they come out. But for every other unit? $3 per infantry is excellent, and 6 for infantry decent as well. So the push back is least needed in price I think.

Where the game has fallen flat for me so far is the lack of granularity in the infantry, the meaninglessness of armor on the models, and the lack of innovation on the objectives. But FFG has been excellent on giving us new scenarios with character packs (as we've seen in IA), and I'm sure they'll improve as they move forward (as IG-88 shows us).

PS the quoted response is excellent and gives me hope and faith that I've misjudged your character, we see its like too rarely and I applaud you for it.

Ya it's a bit of tough love, as much as I am hard on the game I think it will do very well, it doesn't have the Star Wars appeal of X-Wing, but that's all that gets people interested, once they start playing it doesn't matter the name of who they are flying, it's the unique and innovative game system that keeps them coming back. The trick to cracking this nut is exposure. Adepticon seems to be a great start, at the very least it's offering cheap or early cores to the fans and hooking others who never planned to give it a second look.

It's no different than IA, I started a poll to try and guage where the skirmish interest was at among our community, I thought it valuable data so I emailed it to FFG and they gave me a kind thank you and sent me on my way. Maybe it had an impact, maybe they never even considered it. Either way I'm happy with my part by provoking a somewhat heated, but not one sided, discussion about the difficulties of bringing people into the skirmish.

I bring this up to round out my post and bring it all full circle: this game will have challenges, I'd like to try and nip as many of those challenges in the bud as we can. The pricing format of IA skirmish is what we (the collective IA community) have decided hampers its growth, this is why I challenged the pricing model of RuneWars. I don't want to see them price themselves out of the market before the game even releases. Now I'll admit that particular discussion got a little sideways on me pretty quick, I don't think I was as prepared as I would have liked to deal with over whelming support for the game. Combined with my lack of experience in the minis wargame market. But we've seen some concessions since then, FFG has said they don't plan to hide upgrade cards in opposite factions, this is a huge money sink for IA and X-Wing. They also decided to drop the price of those expansions by $5, a small move but still a worth while one that adds up after you start buying a few. So overall I like the trend we are seeing and I hope it continues.

1 hour ago, Budgernaut said:

And just to clarify this, when you say "one wound's worth," it means that one accuracy lets you assign up to 4 hits damage to the Front Line Rune Golem figure because that is how much damage it takes to cause it to suffer a wound. So if you managed to get two accuracy results and 8 damage, you could take it out in one attack. Correct?

Each Accuracy is effectively a Mortal Strike for the figure it's assigned to, i.e. a single wound that ignores all armour.

3 hours ago, FrogTrigger said:

Ya it's a bit of tough love, as much as I am hard on the game I think it will do very well, it doesn't have the Star Wars appeal of X-Wing, but that's all that gets people interested, once they start playing it doesn't matter the name of who they are flying, it's the unique and innovative game system that keeps them coming back. The trick to cracking this nut is exposure. Adepticon seems to be a great start, at the very least it's offering cheap or early cores to the fans and hooking others who never planned to give it a second look.

It's no different than IA, I started a poll to try and guage where the skirmish interest was at among our community, I thought it valuable data so I emailed it to FFG and they gave me a kind thank you and sent me on my way. Maybe it had an impact, maybe they never even considered it. Either way I'm happy with my part by provoking a somewhat heated, but not one sided, discussion about the difficulties of bringing people into the skirmish.

I bring this up to round out my post and bring it all full circle: this game will have challenges, I'd like to try and nip as many of those challenges in the bud as we can. The pricing format of IA skirmish is what we (the collective IA community) have decided hampers its growth, this is why I challenged the pricing model of RuneWars. I don't want to see them price themselves out of the market before the game even releases. Now I'll admit that particular discussion got a little sideways on me pretty quick, I don't think I was as prepared as I would have liked to deal with over whelming support for the game. Combined with my lack of experience in the minis wargame market. But we've seen some concessions since then, FFG has said they don't plan to hide upgrade cards in opposite factions, this is a huge money sink for IA and X-Wing. They also decided to drop the price of those expansions by $5, a small move but still a worth while one that adds up after you start buying a few. So overall I like the trend we are seeing and I hope it continues.

Adepticon Giveaway was an excellent start and great idea, many kudos to the person who came up with that.

I play IA as well, though I came to it late and there isn't a scene for it in my area so I just play with friends at home. I don't think it's pricing that made IA a tough sell. I would propose that it's the format in which it was released, that is to say that the skirmish game came as part of a dungeon crawler. I didn't give it any credit as a miniatures game when I first got it, and never bothered to play the skirmish game until very recently. I was really really pleasantly surprised by how well it played and captured the feel of a star wars skirmish from the shows or movies. The reason I never gave it a try was simply because in my mind it wasn't a mini's game. I didn't have to build terrain for it, or have a lot of space. It was simply a nice add on that FFG gave me for buying their Dungeon Crawler. I think they would have done very very well with it if they also had a skirmish starter instead of just needing to buy the base game to get the tiles and figures (as it's price point is high for a skirmish game, and it wasn't billed as such from the onset); maybe a box with a rebel leader and a squad of troopers vs stormies and a few imperial officers and a set of like eight to ten tiles from the base game and a basic mission. I certainly would have tried the skirmish game sooner if that was the case.

I also really love the work FFG is doing to make RW approachable, from lowering price points to getting the game into more hands from the start, to billing it as a wargame foremost in the discussion, this is all a great start. And as a collector of Armada, I really appreciate the promise of not hiding upgrades in factions. As to the minies wargame market, as a veteran minies gamers, I will readily echo the other folks here who can tell you that this whole game and all it's wave one expansions cost less than what I would pay for a single army in WHFB or 40K; this game is priced to be baby's first wargame for anyone is looking into the big games in the market. Hell, I regularly spend money on kickstarter for sculpts for small companies to add to my 9th Age armies, even though I don't need any more models for any of the armies I play, and this game is priced to compete with any of those (except the heroes).

What I would love to see is a way to make all of this tie into Descent, and give us a descent skirmish a la IA. If we could use models from both games (minus the heroes from Descent, they're far too small) that would give players from both games reason to invest in the other

2 hours ago, maxam said:

Each Accuracy is effectively a Mortal Strike for the figure it's assigned to, i.e. a single wound that ignores all armour.

This is not true. Each accuracy allows you to assign a single mortal strike, or enough hits to cause a single wound to a normally untargetable model.

1 hour ago, Taki said:

3 hours ago, maxam said:

Each Accuracy is effectively a Mortal Strike for the figure it's assigned to, i.e. a single wound that ignores all armour.

This is not true. Each accuracy allows you to assign a single mortal strike, or enough hits to cause a single wound to a normally untargetable model.

I struggled at first to see the difference between what you were saying and what I said...

I think you're making the distinction that it is to a normally untargetable model.

In that case I totally understand that - I didn't make it explicit because my explanation was a direct reply to Budgernaughts query regarding allocating accuracy tokens to a Rune Golem in a unit.