|
|
Post by writersblock on Jul 18, 2014 9:28:11 GMT
I just watched a game play example on You Tube...shot at a con...
I don't think I would be interested in it.
I can't put my finger on it. There is something about the mechanic...the way the results are determined and such (the way ties are resolved, etc)...the values assigned...the whole "command points" mechanic....
It is not one particular thing, but I don't like it and don't think I will be playing it even if it does come around whole hog.
Just my opinion.
Am I the only one who gets this sense, or is it something about the way I am looking at it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaymz on Jul 18, 2014 11:06:01 GMT
No you aren't alone. Until I get the final published rules I'm reserving judgement. Worst case I use the minis with another system or for btech.
|
|
|
|
Post by MacrossMike on Jul 18, 2014 20:41:10 GMT
... yep, not surprised.
That it would be awkward and clunky is not at all unexpected... both because it's Palladium, and because Palladium is new to tabletop games. If this game had a chance of surviving to see an expansion, it MIGHT get better. Of course, it doesn't, so it won't.
Hell, Games Workshop's had seven editions of WH40K and eight or nine of WHFB and they STILL haven't got it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by writersblock on Jul 18, 2014 21:57:09 GMT
Yeah, it's no one thing I can put my finger on. There was just something about the overall game play, done by Aten and the video maker, that did not turn my crank. It was NOT any one thing, but instead was a whole bunch of little stuff, and something else I still cannot put my finger on...it just FELT wrong...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaymz on Jul 19, 2014 1:37:00 GMT
Well for me, the demo I played felt like a cross between wh40k, btech, and heavy gear.
|
|
|
|
Post by MacrossMike on Jul 19, 2014 17:39:17 GMT
Well for me, the demo I played felt like a cross between wh40k, btech, and heavy gear. The video I watched, and the summations I've read of play, make it sound like the game is taking a lot of pointers from Privateer Press's game Warmachine. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing... but it gets real clunky the larger you make the game, whereas WH40K gets clunky as the scale of the game gets smaller. (Warmachine is designed around a battle of about 12-18 minis a side, while wH40K is more like 50-100 on each side). |
|
|
|
Post by writersblock on Sept 22, 2014 1:42:16 GMT
Yeah.
I have thought about it more, and I think I know what the problem is:
The minis version of play takes all the energetic, anime style, epicness out of RT combat. It turns an exciting, visual thing into a game of chess.
|
|
|
|
Post by MacrossMike on Sept 22, 2014 3:13:14 GMT
The minis version of play takes all the energetic, anime style, epicness out of RT combat. It turns an exciting, visual thing into a game of chess. To be entirely fair, that same "anime flair" is also entirely absent from the RPG. It's not something that American authors have an easy time capturing in general (look at faux-manga like Tommy Yune's work, or the Dirty Pair comics by Adam Warren), but it's especially hard to carry off in something with fixed "fair" rules like a RPG or tabletop game. |
|
|
|
Post by writersblock on Sept 28, 2014 22:51:23 GMT
Actually, I did not find the RPG book took away the "anime flair" if it was played and run well.
Heck, we used to use plane models and transformer jets to depict the type of moves we were trying to pull, as well as to "see" the field of battle even if it was in the air...
|
|
