Can you feel the fear?

We all want it to be great, this is like Decent version 5 or 6 by this point, FFG has no excuse if they fuck this up. They haven't released a big box full of shit in years so hopes are high, we post on a site dedicated, originally, to old trashy games and yet.... the big reviewer on site says it's shit.

Were you tempted to defend it without even having played it? Just because... you know... it should be good? Tom Vassel likes it. Were you tempted because, well, you know... the models look so fucking filler. Have you seen the AT-ST? Have you?

I could hear my brain making excuses: "Barnes doesn't like this kind of game anyway, especially not from these guys." ... "I have a different goal for what I want to get out of this" ... and, uh...

I want it to be an awesome game, I really, really do. It looks very cool and it's the perfect game world in some ways. The production makes it look like a big giant toy...

who doesn't like toys? Isn't that a big part of what being a nerd is all about?

I mean, have you seen the AT-ST ... have you? Go look right now, I'll wait...

I've felt this before, with other games, where the cognitive disconnect between what I'm hearing and what I want cause me to act irrationally, cause me to start expounding positively on game design principles and attributes I generally don't much care for.

I wanted a team game, I really did... not a one vs. many but you know... who even cares about team games anymore? At least it's not fucking co-op.

I'm still tempted by it, although I'm nervous now... I just wasted a hundred and some bucks on fucking D&D attack wing do I really need this big box of endless expansions (and isn't that part of the appeal? The simple fact that a single purchase can lead you down a road of researching and buying toys for years to come... that capitalist urge... it's part of the joy. Admit it), is there even any room in my goddamn house at this point?

But have you seen the AT-ST? Have you? It's fucking killer.

God damnit I keep forgetting to log out! lol

You can probably get a toy AT-ST for less than the street price of IA. And it will be like five times bigger, more detailed and articulated. May even come with an AT-ST pilot figure.

To be clear- IA isn't a crap game. It's just completely uninspired, lazy, workmanlike and not very SW at all. People are cutting this game WAY too much slack either because of the license or because they like Descent. It is a definite improvement over the old Descent and it's a pretty decent, pedestrian dungeoncrawl. The campaign system is interesting if you want to commit to it. But virtually all of the SW is, like I said, in paragraphs, fluff text and card titles.

Is Descent going to be FFG's Munchkin??? That's what I'm afraid of.

Well, I'm not serious. I may still be tempted by it... but not nearly as much as that post may lead you to believe... and I am not that impressed with the AT-ST... this is intended as a satire of my thought process as it slowly dawns on me that not only do I not need any more games but I've probably played this exact game before... or at least so close that it doesn't really matter.

Which is what I should have told myself when I was buying D&D attack wing as well... but there was a little bird telling me that the elevation dials and the difference between ground and air troops made it different enough that I could justify it.

I find the way our brain's play with us and create demands (or give in to them) truly fascinating.

Look, as a game, it rocks. So long as you don't get super-tactical and being anal about theme-mechanism relationship.

I tested 2 full campaigns with it. And guess what? It's Star Wars. I don't know how. It just works. On a tactical level, it's not Star Wars-y. On campaign level? It's very difficult to say it's not.

I've thrown in against different people. Descent die hards. Star Wars fan. It works.

And that's without the plastics.

Michael Barnes wrote: You can probably get a toy AT-ST for less than the street price of IA. And it will be like five times bigger, more detailed and articulated. May even come with an AT-ST pilot figure.

To be clear- IA isn't a crap game. It's just completely uninspired, lazy, workmanlike and not very SW at all. People are cutting this game WAY too much slack either because of the license or because they like Descent. It is a definite improvement over the old Descent and it's a pretty decent, pedestrian dungeoncrawl. The campaign system is interesting if you want to commit to it. But virtually all of the SW is, like I said, in paragraphs, fluff text and card titles.

Is Descent going to be FFG's Munchkin??? That's what I'm afraid of.

One thing I don't understand though is why you (and most other people on F:AT) like Epic Duels so much when that doesn't feel like Star Wars at all? It is an expectations thing? I've played Epic Duels twice and don't like it one bit. It's not serious enough for me (yes, I know that sounds ridiculous when we're playing with little Star Wars toys) and feels more like Episode I than Episode IV.

Easy. With so little rules, you have more room for imagination supporting your game. The detail of the mechanics doesn't matter. You move Vader up, make an attack, roll dice.

When it gets competitive and detailed, it's easy to see the tiles turn to just grids, and characters on the table just become number. It's like when playing Talisman I can get lost in my character, while when playing Mage Knight I think of numbers, not adventure.

For me Descent 2E (and in the same vein IA) strikes the sweet spot between total imagination-sustained play and exercise of efficiency.

Michael Barnes wrote: Is Descent going to be FFG's Munchkin??? That's what I'm afraid of.

Munchkin makes a LOT of money.

Epic Duels is only fun if you think like a kid and make blaster noises on your turn. I played a buddy of mine and he hated it because I battered him with Darth Vader. He complained about balance. Not sure what he expected going up against a Lord of the Dark Side.

S.

Sevej wrote: Easy. With so little rules, you have more room for imagination supporting your game. The detail of the mechanics doesn't matter. You move Vader up, make an attack, roll dice.

But how does imagining Yoda beat down Mace Windu feel like Star Wars?

Also, how come XWing gets a pass and gets to feel like "Star Wars" when it is a system inspired (loose use of the term) from a WW1/2 dogfighting game and has been transferred to the D&D fantasy setting and the Star Trek universe. To me it feels like I'm playing a game with highly agile remote controlled boats.

VonTush wrote: Also, how come XWing gets a pass and gets to feel like "Star Wars" when it is a system inspired (loose use of the term) from a WW1/2 dogfighting game and has been transferred to the D&D fantasy setting and the Star Trek universe. To me it feels like I'm playing a game with highly agile remote controlled boats.

Well, SW space battles are WW1/2 dogfights.

Although with no elevation it does kind of feel like super agile RC boats.

JonJacob wrote:

VonTush wrote: Also, how come XWing gets a pass and gets to feel like "Star Wars" when it is a system inspired (loose use of the term) from a WW1/2 dogfighting game and has been transferred to the D&D fantasy setting and the Star Trek universe. To me it feels like I'm playing a game with highly agile remote controlled boats.

Well, SW space battles are WW1/2 dogfights.

Although with no elevation it does kind of feel like super agile RC boats.

That is true that SW battles are WWW1/2 dogfights, but XWing is not a WW1/2 dogfight. It's a capital ship combat game, it's a fantasy dragons and wizards combat game, it's playing as a which flying around on the broom, it's driving around in a post-apocalyptic world in tricked out cars.

Point being, XWing gets a pass...Why?

D&D:AW uses largely the same mechanics, but it would never be confused with a WW1/2 dogfight. Same with Star Trek.

JonJacob wrote:

VonTush wrote: Also, how come XWing gets a pass and gets to feel like "Star Wars" when it is a system inspired (loose use of the term) from a WW1/2 dogfighting game and has been transferred to the D&D fantasy setting and the Star Trek universe. To me it feels like I'm playing a game with highly agile remote controlled boats.

Well, SW space battles are WW1/2 dogfights.

Although with no elevation it does kind of feel like super agile RC boats.

I think they missed a chance to make the movement more interesting. Then again, X-Wing really isn't about movement very much so I suppose it doesn't matter.

You can play with the core set, no scenario, just two TIEs and an X-Wing dragons squirreling around and by jingo it feels like Star Wars Dungeons & Dragons. The way it moves, the way it resolves. The mechanics feel like Star Wars Dungeons & Dragons.

You can play with the core set, no scenario, just two TIEs and an X-Wing an Enterprise D and Vor'Cha squirreling around and by jingo it feels like Star Wars Star Trek. The way it moves, the way it resolves. The mechanics feel like Star Wars Star Trek.

Serioisly, play Descent 2nd XWing/Star Trek/D&D edition and just say Star Wars XWing/Star Trek/D&D names instead of Terrinoth XWing/Star Trek/D&D ones and it'll be about the same thing.

The problem is I'm arguing against people who are set that their view of what Star Wars should be trumps any other opinion.