|
It's on Indie Go-Go, but Etch Master has an interesting product. Etched brass accessories, for things that are too thin for pewter or resin. I've used etched brass vegetation before, but not for things like sword blades and the like. Anyone have any experience with this?
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
I've seen stuff for super-detailing armor, or the Forge World brass, but I've never heard of using it to actually make weapons. Honestly, it would seem like a detailing nightmare to have to assemble a rifle in nine layers of .25mm brass. Personally, it looks like too much of the sheets are taken up with stuff I would never use. I'd rather buy "barbed wire" or "grates" or "access panels" than a mish-mash of stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
I posted about my Kickstarter when I first launched it, but I thought some of you might be happy to see a goon project succeed! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/herosheets/herosheets 2 days to go and almost 500% funded, all of my stretch goals unlocked, etc! Very excited!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
I don't have the reference, but Wrath of Kings said something about using a different type of plastic for fiddly swords and spears. The idea (I think) was that these parts required less detail and needed to stay unbent, so they used ideal materials for different tasks. It seemed like a really nice touch, and a much better idea than brass-etched swords and guns.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
What do you guys think of The Agents? I'm a sucker for the theme and art here, and it's pretty cheap, but how does it play?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Go RV! posted:What do you guys think of The Agents? I'm a sucker for the theme and art here, and it's pretty cheap, but how does it play? You start with a few agent cards and a couple of mission cards. Each player has two safehouse cards that are shared between themselves and an adjacent player (so one shared card per player pair). You have two actions each turn, which can consist of either playing a card (agent or mission), buying a card (agent or mission), or activating an agent that is already in play (using their special ability). Each agent card has a special ability at the bottom, and 1-2 black or white half-arrows at the top. Agent cards are played on a specific safehouse card, and a safehouse card with all the attached agent/mission cards is called a faction. You can play agent cards with the special ability text facing either yourself, or facing the player who shares the faction with you. The person who has the special ability text facing them has to do the action that's listed on the card. The safehouse cards all come with two black half-arrows and two white half-arrows on them (one of each on either side of the card). At the end of your turn, you tally up the number of completed arrows facing you and get points (IP); 1 point for each mismatched arrow (black/white halves) and 2 points for each matching arrow (all black or all white). IP is also the currency that is used to purchase agent or mission cards. Mission cards are special condition cards that you can attach to a faction, with rules like "there are two identical agents side-by-side." Mission cards have an IP value listed on them; as long as the condition is fulfilled, you get the IP listed on it at the end of each of your turns. The first person to get to 40 IP wins. As you can no doubt tell from this, the aim of the game is to play your cards intelligently so that you can both use the agent special abilities to your advantage and use them to take away the other players' advantages to screw them out of their points. Since they only get points at the end of their turn, each player is trying to rearrange the order/facing of the agents that are in play so that at the end of their turn they're the ones who get the most points. Since IP is both scoring and currency, there's also an element of judging when to spend your points to best effect, and how much to spend. The game isn't deeply strategic or anything like that, and a lot of it is going to be down to whether or not you draw an agent with a special ability you can actually use to your advantage at any given point, but it's definitely a fun little game to play in the span of 30-45mn that requires a comfortable amount of tactical thinking to win at.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
moths posted:I don't have the reference, but Wrath of Kings said something about using a different type of plastic for fiddly swords and spears. The idea (I think) was that these parts required less detail and needed to stay unbent, so they used ideal materials for different tasks. It seemed like a really nice touch, and a much better idea than brass-etched swords and guns. Yup! Different materials: in some of the early preview picks they are a different color, but the recent picks have them all in the same color plastic (or they didn't have those bits in the other style). This is good, as otherwise droopy weapon syndrome would be pretty prevalent. The Relic Knight models might be pretty bad...
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Just backed Good Cop Bad Cop because it's kind of cheap and I like the premise, it's already met its goal so hopefully we should have results.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Each agent card has a special ability at the bottom, and 1-2 black or white half-arrows at the top. Agent cards are played on a specific safehouse card, and a safehouse card with all the attached agent/mission cards is called a faction. You can play agent cards with the special ability text facing either yourself, or facing the player who shares the faction with you. The person who has the special ability text facing them has to do the action that's listed on the card. Actually with the new rules you can't force another player to do the action on an agent you play. Some people are asking there to be standard and advanced rulesets, where in the advanced you can force the other player to do the action.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:Actually with the new rules you can't force another player to do the action on an agent you play. That's... really stupid. The reason the rule exists is so you can try to play agents with bad rules text facing an opponent (like "kill an agent in your other faction") to force them to gently caress themselves over. Taking that away would remove some of the actual tactics required to play the game. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:That's... really stupid. The reason the rule exists is so you can try to play agents with bad rules text facing an opponent (like "kill an agent in your other faction") to force them to gently caress themselves over. Taking that away would remove some of the actual tactics required to play the game. And there's never a good reason to kill one of your agents? If so I guess I'll play with the classic rules since that does sound stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:And there's never a good reason to kill one of your agents? If so I guess I'll play with the classic rules since that does sound stupid. There are good reasons to kill agents in your own factions, like breaking a chain of three cards with completed IP arrows by killing the middle agent, or killing an agent so the other player who co-owns that faction can't use their special ability on their turn. Generally, though, you would benefit more from simply flipping that agent than killing them. Playing a "do something bad to your other faction" card against an opponent is just something that should stay in the game rules. One of the problems is that kill effects are more common than effects that can be used to heal an agent (you can only do so with the Medic agent or by "abducting" the killed agent, i.e. picking it back up) and factions are limited to a maximum of five agents each with dead agents counting against that limit, which can lead to endgame situations where you can no longer play an agent into one of your factions because they're both full and you have nothing you can use to fix that. On an unrelated note, since buying a single agent costs 1IP and one of your two actions per turn, you're sort of punished for playing all your cards (it leaves you with very few options, especially since there are some agent cards that are played as instants instead of being placed in factions). The game would probably benefit from a "draw an agent for free at the start of your turn unless you already have 5 in hand or 5 total across your factions" rule or something. Those are pretty much my only two complaints, though. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 09:18 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:There are good reasons to kill agents in your own factions, like breaking a chain of three cards with completed IP arrows by killing the middle agent, or killing an agent so the other player who co-owns that faction can't use their special ability on their turn. Generally, though, you would benefit more from simply flipping that agent than killing them. Playing a "do something bad to your other faction" card against an opponent is just something that should stay in the game rules. Can you think of cards that your opponent will never play its action on themselves if they have the choice? Because otherwise I think the new rule is good. Getting both a good effect on yourself plus a bad effect on an opponent would be the same thing as cards in Gloom that both give positive points and have a bad effect on your opponent. I'd rather have a game where you need to decide if the thing you'll get from a card is worth an opponent also getting something good from it, and where your best action is one where only you benefit.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:Can you think of cards that your opponent will never play its action on themselves if they have the choice? Like I just said, kill effects are something you don't want to perform on yourself 99% of the time. Extraction effects are also not normally something you want to play on yourself/your own faction.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Like I just said, kill effects are something you don't want to perform on yourself 99% of the time. Extraction effects are also not normally something you want to play on yourself/your own faction. That's not at all what you just said, but okay.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:That's not at all what you just said, but okay. Lemon Curdistan posted:Generally, though, you would benefit more from simply flipping that agent than killing them.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
Generally can be %60 of the time. You said before that that there are multiple good reasons to kill your agents.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
Okay. To be 100% clear, then: the only situations in which killing an agent that belongs to one of your factions is a good idea is if it's either the only way to stop the person who shares that faction with you from winning, or if you have a guaranteed way of un-killing the agent and your play 100% relies on no one being able to use the agent you killed (so turning it is out of the question unless you know no one has turn effects) and you couldn't have simply extracted the agent instead.
Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 09:54 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Okay. To be 100% clear, then: the only situations in which killing an agent that belongs to one of your factions is a good idea is if it's either the only way to stop the person who shares that faction with you from winning, or if you have a guaranteed way of un-killing the agent and your play 100% relies on no one being able to use the agent you killed (so turning it is out of the question unless you know no one has turn effects) and you couldn't have simply extracted the agent instead. Then I guess classic rules it'll be. Hell if I'm going to keep who knows how many actions almost forever un-used. And sorry for being so pedantic.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
I have never played the game, but it seems like it is short enough that you can try both rule sets and see which one works better. I assume there are reasons that they changed them. Has anyone played with any of the 'expansion' cards? I have always been tempted by just getting everything even if it raises the cost by 3x.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
I was a developer for I Say, Holmes!, a Sherlock Holmes case-solving card game for 3-8 players. We just put our Kickstarter live today, and we're well on our way but still need some help! The game is done, all our (original!) artwork is finalized and looking beautiful. I have a full copy of the game on my desk as we speak, so no vaporware here. The Kickstarter is to make sure we can afford the highest quality stock for printing. Please take a look, and consider donating! You can check out reviews of some of the other card games I developed, too: Trieste: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr86tZJi5LA Tenka: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Co5T4RfKAQ
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Ville Valo posted:I was a developer for I Say, Holmes! This looks pretty cool. Also, judging by the credits in the instructions, there's a 50% chance we once shared an office at a certain place in Irvine. Either way, I'll toss some money at this come payday.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:This looks pretty cool. Also, judging by the credits in the instructions, there's a 50% chance we once shared an office at a certain place in Irvine. I believe you are correct.  I'm now at a certain company that used to have an office above our place in Irvine.Thank you sir!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Ville Valo posted:I believe you are correct. Cool. I'm now... at a certain company that took over publishing the most recent game our place in Irvine made after the previous publisher folded. Yeah, okay, that's enough of that derail. Carry on.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:That's... really stupid. The reason the rule exists is so you can try to play agents with bad rules text facing an opponent (like "kill an agent in your other faction") to force them to gently caress themselves over. Taking that away would remove some of the actual tactics required to play the game. Yeah, I'm not a fan. That said, I can see where being able to play cards in ways that only benefit you and not the other player does somewhat contradict the spirit of the game where every play is meant to be a double-edged sword.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Can someone give me a read on Pocket Odyssey? It's lacking actual rules text, which is disappointing (or I'm blind), but the concept seems sound enough. My fear is that it's a bit too simple, given its microgameyness, and for being a microgame it seems pretty pricy, but I'd like a second opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
March of the Ants reached its funding goal with 25 days left on the Kickstarter. People are already voting for the mini-expansion, and unsurprisingly bees are winning.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:March of the Ants reached its funding goal with 25 days left on the Kickstarter. People are already voting for the mini-expansion, and unsurprisingly bees are winning. Thank you for this! I love eclipse and this looks right up my alley.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:March of the Ants reached its funding goal with 25 days left on the Kickstarter. People are already voting for the mini-expansion, and unsurprisingly bees are winning.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
A few hours to go on Dogs of War, and it looks like it'll hit its $65k stretch. I'm in because I like the look of it and I enjoy one of the designer's other games, I'm doubly in because CMON made an angel pledge to the last Shadowfist KS and didn't mention it anywhere.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
Minion has 60 hours left on the clock and is sitting at 31k. The KS to me didn't seem to be doing well for quite a while, and for a time I was pretty sure it won't succeed at all (I guess I was just so used to projects that break through their goal in like 10 days at most). As is I suspect they won't be able to unlock even the first expansion, which is too bad. They still managed to unlock a couple of SGs at least.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:Minion has 60 hours left on the clock and is sitting at 31k. The KS to me didn't seem to be doing well for quite a while, and for a time I was pretty sure it won't succeed at all (I guess I was just so used to projects that break through their goal in like 10 days at most). As is I suspect they won't be able to unlock even the first expansion, which is too bad. They still managed to unlock a couple of SGs at least.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
bowmore posted:I just picked up the last "Brobarian" early bird tier. You only need one base set for two players yeah? I think the game's for 2-4, one base set fits all.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:I think the game's for 2-4, one base set fits all.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Can someone give me a read on Pocket Odyssey? It's lacking actual rules text, which is disappointing (or I'm blind), but the concept seems sound enough. My fear is that it's a bit too simple, given its microgameyness, and for being a microgame it seems pretty pricy, but I'd like a second opinion. I feel like it's too limited, though. For instance, there are only 6 background cards and 9 backgrounds, and if everyone picks 2 backgrounds and 3 powers, you're probably going to see a lot of redundant character traits. Related point: why are there only 6 backgrounds? e: also it's not the "first micro-rpg ever" by a wide margin. Vast & Starlit is 660 words complete, and there are tons of short RPGs out there.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:e: also it's not the "first micro-rpg ever" by a wide margin. Vast & Starlit is 660 words complete, and there are tons of short RPGs out there. Melee was released in 1977 as part of the Microgames line, so yeah. TWERPS was released in 1987. It's a bizarre claim to make.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Melee was released in 1977 as part of the Microgames line, so yeah. TWERPS was released in 1987. Hell the first thing I thought of was trifold fudge from like 2000, and as far as RPGs go it was at least pretty well known. 1PG did a bunch of one sheet RPGs too for various genres/types.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
It looks interesting but $55 for everything + goals takes it way out of "micro" territory and seems self-defeating. That and it stops fitting in your pocket, which I think was the point in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Hell the first thing I thought of was trifold fudge from like 2000, and as far as RPGs go it was at least pretty well known. 1PG did a bunch of one sheet RPGs too for various genres/types. moths posted:It looks interesting but $55 for everything + goals takes it way out of "micro" territory and seems self-defeating. That and it stops fitting in your pocket, which I think was the point in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
Tower's creator Ben Haskett just sent me the links to fill out the shipping details for the game through Ship Naked. As for the game itself, he just sent the assets to the manufacturers.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 21:47
|
|