Crying shame, that. Such things are easy to avoid by a disclaimer at the Home page or some such, having people sign away their claims to any material put on the site. A little legal boiler-plate goes a long way.

Refusing to even admit that the player base might be right smacks of two attitudes: 1) A lazy lawyer whose single response to almost any question is "Nope, can't do it, we might be sued," and/or 2) "How dare those upstart players act like our work is anything but perfect!!!" (The Games Workshop attitude.)

Now THIS is realistic game combat:

http://www.theonion.com/video/ultrarealistic-modern-warfare-game-features-awaiti,14382/

 Read Mine field counter measures on Pg. 69, only artillery can shoot it and they only get 1 roll per attempt.

Wisek said:

Too expensive, especially if you want EPIC.

I'd say one rune should buy two or even three triangle units.  Cirlce/Rectangle 1 for 1, hex units 2 runes for 1.

Better still, discard a rune to recruit from one of your three dials for free.  This would be in addition to whatever order card you played, of course.

Hey Westerosians!

Round 2 was completed on Tuesday night, with a few new emerging powers staking their claim for the Iron Throne. Nathan Morgans MIGHTY Baratheons sorted everyboby out twice, winning both rounds he played in, making the late great Robert a very happy King. Tash and her Targarean deck finished second in front of Kierens sleazy Lannisters who cam ein third. Last weeks leaders, Aaran and Nathan R, both scored, but lost ground to the field. Table is below

Nathan R 6 6 1 0 6 0 19
Aaron 6 6 1 3 3 0 19
Tash 0 3 1 10 3 0 17
Nathan M 6 10 1 17
Kieren 0 0 1 6 6 0 13
Jason 3 3 1 3 0 0 10
Shane 3 0 1 0 0 0 4
Daniel 0 0 1 1


We're on against next Tuesday night, 2 rounds, 1 at 6.30pm, 1 at 8pm. Cruise on in and have fun fighting your way to power!

Honest

By reviewing the Replacement Effects ruling in the FAQ (section 2.10 v2.1), I may have answered this myself.

Basically, Expendable Muscle is changed into an attachment to circumvent the action's normal effect (in this case, being wounded).  However, this is happening after the action is executed, otherwise it wouldn't be a replacement effect (and we know that it is due to the word "instead" in Expendable Muscle's passive ability).  Right?  Err, right.  Man, this is complicated stuff.

I must agree with Magnus Arcanis here that, however appropriate, it seems counter-intuitive to use the term "resolved" in Step 1b as it's not actually resolving until after Step 3.  That just confuses me...

Black_Kestrel said:

Same here.  It's the inclusion of "Adventures" in books that really are more obviously meant for players to have.  They just aren't that useful unless you, as GM, are the only one with any rulebooks.  Published adventures?  Your players might shy from buying.  But books with huge character options?  Like First Founding - full of essential character creation stuff for many potential players?  An adventure is wasted, because a player or more will likely want and have the book.

 If you are the GM, what the warrant says is up to you. Warrants have and can be revoked.

Sausageman said:

That depends on your perspective.  From what I can tell in 2e, there's only one major source of progression for heroes, namely, the class cards they can buy with XP.  On the surface that would seem to be less than skill cards, power dice, fatigue and health from the 1e campaign.

On the other hand, 1e progression for all it's "options" was very one dimensional.  Most heroes had only one attack trait that was worthwhile advancing, even those few heroes who could choose between two or all three traits would generally be best advised to pick one and go whole hog into that trait.  Health and fatigue were very restricted (three options to choose one OR the other throughout the campaign.)  That left only skills as a serious progression with any kind of choice involved.  At least the campaign made skill collection non-random, otherwise there would've been no serious progression choices to make.

2e has only the class deck (that we've seen so far), but that class deck appears to be composed of several "small skills" if you will, that allow the hero to focus on one of several combo paths.  Knights (already a class choice made) can apparently focus on protecting friends versus dealing damage, or presumably mixing and matching the two paths to find a middle road of your own.  I also wouldn't be at all surprised if there were a handful of class cards in the mix that do nothing more than provide a raw boost to this attribute or that, effectively making a parallel for the purchase of power dice.

Just because all the character advancement options come from one deck of cards doesn't necessarily mean the options are limited.  And depending on how many such cards a hero can expect to purchase over the course of the campaign, it may well be possible to continue advancing the hero above and beyond that game.  Even if the campaign in the box is relatively short, I have little doubt that there will be expansions and fan-made campaigns to keep going with.

I was ZP's Shadows opponent in Game 2. And I'd just like to say he was a terrific guy to play against. At one point, we had a tricky little rules question that neither of us was sure how to handle and he insisted we get it right even though it was to his detriment. I've been raving about him to my friends ever since I got home.

Congrats on the win. You deserved it.

is there a larger copy of this map?

 Would anyone else be interested in setting up a thread purely to fantasize about what this game could be like, assuming it uses an entirely new gameplay setup? That sounds like something that could amuse me for some significant length of time.

jareddm said:

I wouldn't get your hopes up for W40K ROG events at GenCon - right now there is only 1 Dark Heresy, 1 Rogue Trader and 1 Black Crusade game scheduled.  There will be more events posted at the last minute, but it doesn't look good...

Cheers,

Ken

Coming from someone who doesn't understand the rules on the same level as the two of you (Penfold and Magnus Arcanis), when I first read what Damon wrote me, I didn't understand the conclusion.  Hopefully you guys can help me out.

My confusion stems from Step 1b:

"Check play restrictions, including verification and designation of applicable targets or cards to be effected. This is where Expendable Muscle's Passive is resolved on the wounding effect."

The word "resolved" is the part giving me trouble.

If Expendable Muscle's passive ability is resolved before Step 3: Action is Executed, then why isn't he turned into an attachment and attached to another character, thereby giving that character +1 toughness and saving it from the dynamite (i.e. wound)?

Is it because the resolution of Expendable Muscle's passive ability waits to be completed until Step 4: Passive Abilities are Executed?

To be clear, I'm not challenging Damon's ruling.  I just want to understand how a passive ability can be resolved but then wait to be applied until after the action it's altering is completed.

Thanks for your help!

 What kind of target are minefields when you are eolling to clear them by shooting?  And does the density matter?  There doesn't seem to be an answer in the rules.

Here's the BGG discussion. The last post is the link to the resource of custom TI3 stuff. In there you'll find the PDF of neutral/independent forces.

boardgamegeek.com/article/7940824#7940824

 So Gimp, if you don't like the game, why do you keep posting on these forums?  I do not like Candyland very much, but I don't really feel inspired to write huge posts on their forums about how the lollipop slide isn't fun.

Also, you've stated that you want Dust Warfare to succeed, but you are undermining that position by crapping on the game so much here.  FFG isn't going to change a game they just released because there's a loud guy on their forums.  There's some obvious editorial issues in the book, but the core mechanics of the game are really fun for most people.  

You have a lot of opinions on what would make a great miniature game.  Go get funded on kickstarter and make it! 

 I'd like to hear an answer too. I can only afford one major con a year and Origins is more enjoyable then GenCon for me.

 I paint the whole mini anyhow. It's a primer. It could be black for all I care I'm going to paint over it. And since I don't apply paint like I'm adding mustard to a hotdog, I don't think I'm losing any noticeable details. 

Psykostevo said:

The shot guns can ignore cover because of the grenades.  You can't do CC in the same attack as non-CC weapons.

Today I made up a versus mode of my own that follows the rules of the Gow Warzone versus mode, the 4-on-4 match. These are my rules:

Gears of War
The Board Game
Versus Mode

Description: A versus variation game type for two to eight players split into two teams evenly (COGs and Locust).
Objective: Kill opposing players in order to score the number of points decided by the players at the beginning of the game.
Set -Up:
Shuffle the Order card deck and place it in the playing area. Then shuffle the three grenade weapon cards into the Random Weapons deck and place it in the playing area.
All players then organize themselves into two teams and choose their character. The COG players individually choose one of the four figures (all characters are identical in ability because no character card abilities or weapon load-outs are used). Then each Locust player chooses a different Locust figure in order to designate who is who. Players then take the COG or Locust character card to match their figure.
Note: Cards are used solely for identification purposes, no abilities, weapons, or traits stated on the cards effect the game in any way.
Then give each character one pistol, and one assault rifle or Gnasher Shotgun. One character may be forced to use the shotgun if eight people are playing. The COGs are dealt the Lancer Assault Rifle or Gnasher Shotgun, and the Snub Pistol. The Locust are dealt the Gorgon Pistol, and the Hammerburst Assault Rifle.
Optional: Players may choose their own load-out. To do so, all players roll a six-sided die to decide choosing order. They are then dealt two ammo tokens per weapon.
Then divide the map cards into two separate decks, A and B, according to their map letter. All players then decide whether the map will be day or night (A being day and B, night) either collectively or by coin toss. Shuffle the chosen deck, draw five map cards, and place the map tiles in the order drawn. One team then places their figures on the entrance of the map and the other team places their figures on the exit of the final tile.
Optional: For a more balanced board play tile 17 first with the side up based on the map deck chosen and then drawn only four more map cards. Play tile 17 as the third map tile then continue as normal.
Flip a coin to decide which team goes first, then in each team a six-sided die is rolled to determine the order in which the players will take their turns within their own team.
All players then draw three order cards. Players may hold up to four Order cards.
The order of play follows as such: player one of the first team takes his turn followed by player one of team two. Then player two of team one and so forth.

On your turn:
Follow game rules as normal except that players only draw one card on their turn.
Map Equipment Areas:
When a character activates an area with an Equipment icon, he draws one Random Weapon card. The player then either claims the weapon with two ammo tokens (if the Bolo Grenade is drawn, the player receives a grenade token and places it on his player card and the grenade card is placed at the bottom of the weapons deck) or places the card face down next to the map tile. If the player chooses not to claim the weapon, the next player to activate the Equipment icon picks up the weapon card from the tile instead of drawing from the deck.
Defense, Wounds, and Bleeding Out:
All characters have a base defense of one die. Normal cover rules apply and Dodge abilities may be used. Characters are dealt wounds as per normal rules. If a character runs out of cards, he is bleeding out.
A bleeding out character can be executed if attacked by an opponent in the same area as him. Neither player rolls for an execution however; an ally may play a Guard reaction ability card on the attacker.
Winning the Game:
When a single team reaches the decided score limit that team has won the match. If there is a tie then whichever team scores next wins.
If subsequent matches are played in a best-out-of-three manner, the teams swap starting locations.
For fun, keep a record of kills, downs, and deaths!

Tested it for 1v1 and it works like a charm.

Hey, now. We tried to be professional!

We kept the cof-Vrill-cof until after the recorder was off . . .   

Thanks for the kind words, guys. It was great fun, and awesome to see Mack enjoying the fruits of his labor!

~Craig

Loophole Master said:

We must have a MOLE on the site!!!

 The shot guns won't ignore cover without the flamer. The CC attacks will go after the shooting, CC always ignores cover regardless of grenades. 

Penfold said:

2) I definatley don't understand them as well I would like.

3) Game terms has become a challenge for this game (and increasingly so for me), and I'm trying my best to understand them as written. Which over the years, the intent has not always been accurately shown.

4) Actually I have adjusted. I had a bit of that Ah-ha moment with Damon's latest answer. Now I fully see how they saw it. All I'm doing at this point was pointing out that some of they're intent is not intuitively shown by some of the game terms used to decribe their intent. Granted, I am gonna apologize here in that I had originally meant to come off more constructive than defiant than I did in my last post. It was hastly typed and under extreme exhaustion. I blamed the 'bad' wording as the primary cause of why FFG and I seem to disgaree on this subject. Bad may not of been the best choice of words to descibe my meaning either, but lets face it. In the case of 'resloved' currently not having consistant meanings is.... bad? Slightly off? A slip of the tongue? Confusing?

I am more than capable of addmitting when I'm wrong. However, for that most part... I don't think that I am in that case. I'm not gonna apologize for continueing to provide evidence of my intreptation of the rules as written. And I'm not gonna apologize for taking anyone's ruling at face value (nor would I be if anyone did not take my word at face value). Not that I'm gonna immediately defy them, but before accepting it I prefer to come to my own conclusion. If my conclusion and the rulers' conclusion happen to be the same then great. Easy. That actually happens more often than you'd might think.

So, no. I'm not purposely trying to be difficult. However, I'm not gonna just roll over just because someone said so as long as I have solid ground to stand on (obvioulsy without solid ground I would already be at the conclusion that was I wrong). Most of this was an exercise in improving my knowledge of how this game is now to be ruled. Not to just to disagree. And I've learned a lot and believe that we're bascially down to semantics and subtle word choice at this point.

I can get more into how I'm getting to my newest conclusions, but I'll have to save that for another day. But I don't like the answer because I think it is wrong under the written rules and thus suggested a change so their intent is shown.

I encourage anyone who cares to really study, and I mean really study, the wording used and form their own opinion. Obviously we have Damon's ruling and we all should follow it until otherwise noted. Still, FFG can be wrong, can change its mind, and can be convinced. Just like everyone else (including me). I did take that long look at the wording used in both the cards and the faq and came to my own conclusion that I still don't think is incorrect. Everything lines up for me, and seeing Damon's latest explanation, to me, actually supports many of my claims. Again, I encourage anyone to do the same and hopefully together we can create a better FAQ for everyone.

If anything I'm trying to help the game by shooting for accuracy (again, apologizing for not being a bit more constructive in my disagreements, questions, and suggestions). This may be a little idealist, but inconsistant wording in this game's history is a problem on some very subtle levels and I hope to either help right the boat or at least gain an understanding how a rule is actually supposed to work.

As for my local play group. I encourage them to make their own decisions. If they ask me for a ruling, I give the most official one I can. If they ask for my explanation of it, and if it happens to be one I disagree with or simply can't explain how FFG came to this conclusion... I tell them that I don't know, and its just how it is ruled. And of course... we all follow the most current offical rulings and still manage to have a ton of fun and bring in new players! Side note, have a roster of ~8 players now. With possibly more on the way and I play at the epicenter of the '08 attack. Which speaks volumes in my opinion. ;)

With the exception of Damon (and those relaying his message) no one has offered any evidence to disprove my opinions other than... "Damon said it works <this> way and on some level it makes sense."

To end this on a positive note. Damon has done a lot for this game. True, I don't believe he's fixed everything, but I never expected him to. I, right here, and right now, rather give him credit and props for the improvements he has made for this game. As much as people (including me), complain, disagree, challenge, etc... Damon on certain subjects I'm quite certain that we all can agree that things, overall, have improved since he was placed in charge. Sure hes had help and what not, but when its all said and done the buck (i imagine) usually stops with him for many decisions. For me its always about improvement and thats what we've gotten.

Buhallin said:

I like the idea of factions, partly because I like when a card set has some obvious deck directions for me to try out, but this is a concerning point.

I think it would be a very Netrunner-esque solution if the identity cards were hidden at the start of the game, to be revealed when necessary (e.g., before playing a card restricted to that faction.)  It would make sense that the Corp wouldn't know what kind of Runner they're facing at the start....it's stranger for the runner not to know who they're attacking, but there have been plenty of stories that started with someone stumbling upon a heavily-secured secret without knowing the ultimate owner, so I don't think it would be too out-of-theme for the runner's first hint that they've crossed Haas-Bioroid to be the polite knock of the robot hitmen (or whatever).

I have always been tempted to buy that from Quarter-Kit. Its does look great !!!

I just want to say, I appreciate all of the responses. Obviously I haven't given up on the game entirely since I came back here, although part of that is that I just don't like to 'drop bombs' in a message board and leave. :)

I should say that no, I have never played Netrunner before. I remember it from back in the day, but I was too busy playing Shadowrun back then.

booored said:

Technically I don't think it's a bad thing, per se. I just think it's limiting. It you like it, that's great. I would just prefer to see more.

To also quote Treguard:

[quote]To echo what dboeren is saying, the corp vs runner aspect isn't  a limiting restriction- it's a fundamental aspect of the game. I'd hardly fault the game for being designed in this fashion. It'd be like faulting Android in that you are "limited" to only playing as homicide investigators... Given the whole premise of a hacker (runner) stealing data that exposes a corporations shady agendas, I don't know what can be gained from breaking this mould.[/quote]

It's a fundamental aspect of the game that limits it. It focuses the game solely and exclusively on one small aspect of the universe (Runner vs Corp), while ignoring all the other potential conflicts (Corp vs. Corp espionage, Runner vs. Runner battles).

I don't think at the end of the day your comparison to the Android board game really fits as the limitations of Android has more to do with it being a board game than anything else. One of the points of LCG/CCG is that it offers the chance to approach the game how want to, to make a deck that fits your play style. Mandating that my deck choices are limited to the opposite of whatever my opponent is playing is a far more limiting factor on the format than being forced to choose one of the pre-made characters in a board game.

Now if you like the focus that this limitation gives the game, that's great. For you it might even make it a better game than it otherwise might be. But you can't reasonably suggest that it is not a limitation. At the end of the day that limitation is going to be an issue for some people. That's really all I'm saying. I'm not even saying that this limitation/focus makes Netrunner a bad game, it just makes it a game that doesn't capture my interest.

Alright my PC's have a Warrant of Renown, they keep telling me that there warrant gives all the power they wish. If they want to Orbital Bombard a planet, then they are well within their right, if they want to kill someone in cold blood and in broad day light with hundreds of witnesses and that the Arbites or local law enforcement can't do anything to stop them cause they have a Warrant of Renown.

Is this true???

Because i am losing control of my PC's, does anyone have an example of what is on an actual Warrant. Please assist people or i am going to go all nurgle on their asses and go back to reading the novals..

 I would really like to get the two heroes from the original set.  Do you still have them?