Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Deguello

  1. I am going to agree with you on car wars... I am surprised.. It hasn't had a revival... Car wars is an excellent game but SJG (steve Jackson Games. Dropped support for it soon after the Hacker incident with the FBI DOH.... I any case I would love to have a revival of the at game.. But instead of the overly simple systm I think I'd like to see something with templates... Like Renegade Legion... You really got m thinking with that old game... and yes the comodore Apple II game was called Auto duel... Hard to believe with the prolific computer games no on has ever redone that game
  2. Huh??? There's a new edition of the SW game, see it here. Also the new starship book is here. Damon. Perhaps I mispoke, but in the 2 years prior to this release. They WOTC/Hasboro had a chance to release 4 products in the SW line instead opting to release miniatures.. Maybe it was because of this new edition in the pipe.. but probably because the miniature line sold better
  3. You're kidding, right? You don't think WotC has thought about this? WotC, especially under Hey-bro, runs as a business producing a product and not like gamers producing a game, which is one of the reasons "the product" has lost its charm. I can gaurantee you that the OGL and its effects were debated considerably in executive planning meetings before 4E even started taking shape. You are kidding right. The OGL is the reason for 4ed. They want to kill it.. They have attracted X number of players.. in 3.0 Changed the ogl in 3.5 mid stream Believe me if they didn't think about it the ogl publishers did. They moved writers who would be writing for OGL to producing products for an in house game system. The evil empire even redid thier mostly dead WFRPG. PCI did a new campaign but based it on an inhouse rule set. The premier publisher.. Green Ronin Press. While helping develop WFRPG, developed True 20, and M&M. You are now seeing a resurgance of competition in the RPG world. Weiss& Hickman produced thier own firefly and Battlestar Galactica ruleset.. Also of note is that wotc chose not produce starwars RPG products as competition was too tough, and chose instead to release more star wars miniature products. I believe what you will see with 4ed is more of a tie in with the D&D miniature products. It will be less roleplaying and more moving a token around the game board. 4ed has it's hooks.. Established game world, the full support of the RPGA (Which is just a sham non-profit organization) to promote WOTC products. Its not about Role-playing anymore. Its all about promotion. When they killed 3.0 they really had market share. and while 3.5 is done and 4.0 is comng out they still have market share.. but they are losing ground fast.. If 4ed doesn't maintain market share I would surmise.. that it will be the last roleplaying content they send out for a long time.
  4. Love those scarabs.... Excellent color scheme I have almost the same color scheme(I think mine are a littel more red) and I am creating a scarab overlay ....To airbrush over th top...
  5. Ah Rolemaster and Bl of the 23rd century.. Table after table after table... Definitely not my cup of tea..
  6. I had a real long diatribe over this but after I read it Iwas kind of embarassed to hav written it. It is a shame. he died. I am way over it now
  7. SW is the rpg I enjoy the most. I would be interested in a Taltos, campaign world. It won't happen officially I realize and while I have some writing skills I am too lazy to put it all together. I am also only interested in RotD for the minis... I will be playing SW wierd wars when it comes out. But I would be looking for establishing a local group to play that out. I have been playing SW evernight and Shaintar via Fantasy grounds II and while it isn't the end all be all. I still prefer f-t-f. it does fill a niche for me anyway. I don't have any interest in playing Warlord via SW rules...but I can duplicate nearly every thing in Warlord via SW. I find really funny, the only real difference point costs.
  8. Anytime the author says he is disappointed... That's bashing.. Not liking a product that you recieve residuals on. (Bashing) Essentially he is cutting his own profit. his statements are directly affecting his bottom line. (That he felt the need to say anything is some sort of warning) It is undeniably BAD. When Blockbuster throws it in the bargain bin within 1 week of its release. I am not a genius but that speaks volumes. Good product in a way... A WAY OFF.... Ugh.. I know people who love dragon lance who can' sit through the entire movie. Without ZZZZZ
  9. Heh even the author bashes it on Amazon. LOL So much for not screwing it up
  10. Is that Cav. Squinting in one eye? Better add some fibre to the diet... Actually very cool all of it. Is the Kikyu Airbrushed? Is the dictator looking for Crunchies to squash?
  11. I think I saw something on FutureWeapons where a shoulder-fired missile was being developed that was ejected from its canister by compressed air (I think), and then it's rocket motor ignited a safe distance away. If you meant the AT4-CS (confined space) that weapon actually uses a mass of salt water in the rear of the launcher that absorbs and distributes the backblast evenly and at much reduced velocity. No danger to the operator or allies in enclosed spaces. I wonder if they cut the arming distance down on those as well... It used to be ten meters... When we initially field tested them..
  12. Backblast is a #$%#$% I have been flattened one time running down the line when a law was fire... It pales in comparable to the AT4 and SR-7 and Dragon and Tow.... But it is done, but not from a gun port. Its definitely not SOP or practiced. Remember old tow missile systems in the 901 class are fired and usually the loader is top down in the back. When the hammerhead is up. Put gun ports are just that GUN ports.. nothing larger than small caliber fire are cabaple currently. However the smoke dischargers on the front of 113 class vehicles are 40mm I have seen them rigged with a mix of smoke and grenades.
  13. Aurora Maison de Cuisine Dining Room at the Hotel St. Germain L'Ancestral Restaurant Lavendou The Iron Cactus Abacus would be my choice, I used to work for the chef's there..The main chef is wonderful ... Texas is known for its very casual dining tradition... Just step up to the trough....
  14. the book is a bit drawn out but has a message... I have a man crush on wil smith..and he was good the story had nothing though.. Much like Dare I say.. Logan's run.... Book has a message .. Movie... Tries to capture on a genre.. and even with good actors couldn't
  15. Oh pleeze.. He had victim written on him from episode one.... He was good in 3:10 to Yuma...
  16. Airbrushing tips and tricks... would be high on my list..
  17. From a role playing sandpoint.. he's very Rippers esque If you follow Savage Worlds.. Or even Solomon Kane.
  18. Not all systems progress by levels... How mature is a mature elf anyway.. or dwarf for that matter... I like the variety.. and I can always find another mini as my guy progresses
  19. I can here that tinney Tat-tat-tat now....
  20. Rats going to have to miss that one then... That would put me back home after midnight...
  21. The owl con website has the tourny on the 11th Sunday.... I have to drive back and work the next day... Is it the tenth or eleventh?
  22. I've yet to find a game that allowed players to pick and choose their game pieces (IE games not like chess or checkers were both sides are identical) where one or two certain armies or builds didn't rise up to the top for tournament play. Its inevitable. Whenever you design a game where the pieces have varying attributes and some have special abilities that others don't, there's going to be a few that have a better synergy together than the others do. By their limited size and special circumstances, tournaments generally lend themsleves towards a slanted landscape. Open playing with your friends is an entirely different story though, and I don't understand why anyone would let one or two mechanics that they don't like stand in the way of an otherwise excellent - not to mention fun - gaming experience. You have just said it... CAV 2 is a poor game design. I can name several.. Card games tend to do it by offering a multitude of options and methods to win. Magic, Guardians, VTeS, Rage Other miniature games do it. Even if they have collectible in the rules.. DDM, SWM Warlord seems to be a lot more balanced. You see all factions in tourny play. privateer press with thier ugoigo and one trick ponies you see all factions represented. Confrontation has a bunch of factions and while you see one or two consistantly winning it is not impossible to overcome the tactics and make your army succeed.. if not win. Even the evil empire of GW start out balanced and then as new armies are added gets way out of whack. There is no reason Cav shouldn't suceed. with the criteria you have set for yourself. Fast play Limited use of tokens. Big stompy robots. Tactical. Small playfield Similar ruleset to Warlord. Multiple balanced factions. It is even mostly done. The most infuriating part? The see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil, that plagues the game Reaper is a miniatures company.. not a game company.. They have finite resources to expend on game rules. They have gotten Warlord scared away.. and are busy churning out the new miniatures for the game. People are happy The new line RotD is due out. People are working on the rules and miniatures. People are excited. The Cav line. Reaper has turned over the fluffy stuff to Mil-net who has been doing a good job keeping the game afloat with thier releases. However there is nothing new on the horizon for Cav as far as rules. People are disappointed. If no one plays the game dies. You just said I need to play one faction to win at tournements. So that means I have to spend extra money to compete on top of the money I already spent for the models I like. Cav 2 is a house of cards.. built on an unbalanced set of rules... I also see a strong wind coming....
  23. Yes, this would be the place where I ask you not to put words in my mouth. I'm totally fine with you quoting me, just include links to where I said it, rather than paraphrasing what I say out of context. This is the quote..(Your Quote) from this board. From Sargeant Crunchs thread about Close Combat. The way is forward. Close Combat isn't designed for vehicles. Its almost exclusively the realm of Infantry, a mechanic that allows them to pose a significant threat against CAVs and other vehicles. If you let them get close enough. As for your question about being in a CAV or Vehicle and in B2B with another model, the answer is you almost never want to engage in Close Combat. Vehicles, especially CAVs, are always better off shooting their weapons in a Ranged Attack. To which I responded CC covers a multitude of sins. I have alot more to say, but won't do it here. If you care to know How I feel. Please PM me.
  24. It is the dumbest rule set within the game... It defies logic and definitely makes infantry too powerful on the Cav battlefield Rach and Adon can be gross... Also there is a rule that allows: infantry to use a vehicles movement and then its own and then attack. It was explained to me that people wanted to make infantry more potent, but that's just crazy.. Mil-net is really no better in thier vision than Reaper.. They just put more stuff out. Especially when you wil notice that cavs have no rules for close combat. That was explained by someone at mil-net (Chrome) theat Cavs are just shooty vehicles..That's total crap too. They may or may not be designed as such but on the battlefield anything can and does happen. Also in regards to infantry you can equip them with vehicle esque weapons so they have some ranged capabilities.. Meanwhile cavs and vehicles have next to no Close combat capabilities. Are you recognizing a theme here. To totally top it off.. Transport vehicles have the highest armor values in the game. The game is not unplayable in its current form but you get more tactics out of a bag of green army men than you do in the game. The dimensions of the normal game board make infantry a very viable (And potent) force. Infantry in whatever form are way over powered.. As they are presented no faction would ever produce cavs or vehicles. As they are not cost effective on the battlefield and a drain of natural resourses that could go into making infantry more potent. As it stands either the game is cav centric or it is not.. Currently it is not. Also if you make a suggestion that makes sense you get someone to jump on you and say no that is not the way it is.. or that's what makes Cav Cav or some such nonsense... Things that have to be fixed before Cav can even be considered a tactical game. (These are just the baby steps) Infantry. You can see above.. Cav's have to be revalued. to reflect a close combat value and to make all cavs have a battlefield value Then faction abilities have to be balanced.. and made useful..for all factions... I am sure someone like Chrome will chime in here in a second.. but 8 months later.. there is no resolution... and time is money... .... I believe totally that this game will fail with out the above corrections. BTW Mi;l-Net cannot make changes to the game mechanics or rules they cna only introduce new material.. So my poking at Mil-net is probalably not as deserved as it might seem. Believe me they realize the issues but cannot do anything about it with thier current licence. You have heard about fruit rotting on the vine. Welcome to CAV Love the miniatures... Hate the rules.. I do mean HATE.. I am a Hater.... I am comfortable with that.. Because It is only minorly a tactical game
  • Create New...