Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
35 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Alien vs Predator: The Hunt Begins» Forums » General

Subject: Is AVP a good game? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Fabian Bohlmann
Germany
Hamburg
Deutschland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This is the question I want to discuss. I've got the KS version as a backer in Essen at last together with some of the already available add-ons. Lots of stuff I pledged for is still missing but the game as it is with its basic components and scenarios is already playable.

I was able to give AVP a try two times now. And every time me and my fellow players discovered more rule inconsistencies, gaps and problems.

I am now nearly sure that the game has not been play tested thoroughly. Maybe the wargame has been (the whole campaign looked like the board game was just of secondary interest and the wargame the main focus, nevertheless Prodos named it AVP: The hunt begins Board game), but this doesn't interest me as much as the board game and was the reason why I (and many others) backed it in the first place.

After I have spend so much money on a game of which I am still waiting for many more parts (add-ons) I am concerned about the possibility that I might have put everything on a lame horse.

The game supports 1+ players. Because I often haven game groups with more than four players attending I appreciated the option to play it with an open amount of players (every player gets one model, one group or one race faction to play with against the others). But to be honest AVP is a three player game at it's core and will make it difficult to start a session with four or more players. Okay you could bring in a second Alien tribe, Predator Berzerkers or Young Bloods, or WY Commandos. But everything seemed made to be played by three or less people. The Predators for example always start at the Predator pod. A second Predator player would have to get his own entry point especially if he wants to fight the other Predator models too.

Furthermore the strategy cards of each faction are limited and some are just once in the card stack. Who gets what card to keep the distribution fair if more than one group of that particular race takes part in the game?

Let's get to the game play and the rules. The rules are badly written and look like somebody hasn't taken part in the board game business since some years. You find many abbreviations for skills that don't come handy, there are many charts with values in them to comprehend and check. One chart is especially awkward. There is a weapons hit modification chart in which the weapon strength is shown in relation to its targets armor value. The stronger the weapon the weaker the armor. That is okay so far. You have to know that a weapon strength of 10 is neutral where a strength of 9 and less shows a modifier which you have to subtract from your save roll skill and a strength of 11 and higher adds a modifier to your save skill roll...confused now? You get used to it...the chart and the confusion. And that is just one example of awkwardness regarding the rules. There is also no page where all skills and rules have been printed in an orderly manner so you have to skip back to them and flip through the rule book all the time as long as you haven't saved them in your longtime memory.

Many things in the game are not clear how or when they should be handled. Strategy cards are a special problem here. You are allowed to play a maximum of two cards per round. But when can you play them? The rules show that you first have to play cards and after that you can go on with the activation of your models. But many cards show "use at once" or seem to have only an effect after something else has happened (i. e. an attack of another model). So if I can play cards between the time a model moves and acts where exactly can I see this on the card?

This goes on and on. Many of these issues have been filled other threads here. I hope that much will be better after some more people got the game and can throw in their two cents. The more experience with this game you have the more easier it will be to understand. But as I mentioned before I am concerned that the game has been made in a hurry and the only thing that could help is to rewrite the rules completely.
When I buy a game I don't want to have to make house rules to be able to play it properly. House rules for me are only an option if you want to expand a game rules wise when the publisher doesn't provide anything for specific situations. The specific situations in AVP are manifold. Or not? I really wanted and still want to love this game. Actually I can only love its models and the design of the board tiles. What is your opinion.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Harmer-Barnes
United Kingdom
Rainham
Kent
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like it fine. I'd certainly like to keep playing it. It plays like Alien/Predator Heroclix, to me. Only with a better rulebook. Seriously, if you think AVP's rulebook sucks, trying playing Heroclix. I like models, I like the board, and I'm interested to see what they do next with the series.

Quote:
The game supports 1+ players. Because I often haven game groups with more than four players attending I appreciated the option to play it with an open amount of players (every player gets one model, one group or one race faction to play with against the others). But to be honest AVP is a three player game at it's core and will make it difficult to start a session with four or more players. Okay you could bring in a second Alien tribe, Predator Berzerkers or Young Bloods, or WY Commandos. But everything seamed made to be played by three or less people. The Predators for example always start at the Predator pod. A second Predator player would have to get his own entry point especially if he wants to fight the other Predator models too.

Furthermore the strategy cards of each faction are limited and some are just once in the card stack. Who gets what card to keep the distribution fair if more than one group of that particular race takes part in the game?


It's a three player game. You could probably double-up with six players, but otherwise, it's a three player game. If you have more or fewer players, play something else instead. You wouldn't try and squeeze a third player onto Chess, so why would you squeeze more than three onto AVP?

Quote:
Let's get to the game play and the rules. The rules are badly written and look like somebody hasn't taken part in the board game business since some years. You find many abbreviations for skills that don't come handy, there are many charts with values in them to comprehend and check. One chart is especially awkward. There is a weapons hit modification chart in which the weapon strength is shown in relation to its targets armor value. The stronger the weapon the weaker the armor. That is okay so far. You have to know that a weapon strength of 10 is neutral where a strength of 9 and less shows a modifier which you have to subtract from your save roll skill and a strength of 11 and higher adds a modifier to your save skill roll...confused now? You get used to it...the chart and the confusion. And that is just one example of awkwardness regarding the rules. There is also no page where all skills and rules have been printed in an orderly manner so you have to skip back to them and flip through the rule book all the time as long as you haven't saved them in your longtime memory.


Oh, the rulebook is a complete ballache. It took me three reads and three plays before I felt confident and could run a game at a reasonable speed. I will say that it plays better than it reads, though. What it needs for referencing is either a better case-number system, or a half-decent index. I can try and knock up an index if that's something people would be interested in having?

Quote:
One chart is especially awkward. There is a weapons hit modification chart in which the weapon strength is shown in relation to its targets armor value. The stronger the weapon the weaker the armor. That is okay so far. You have to know that a weapon strength of 10 is neutral where a strength of 9 and less shows a modifier which you have to subtract from your save roll skill and a strength of 11 and higher adds a modifier to your save skill roll...confused now?


No, I'm not confused in the slightest. This is one of the easier parts of the game.

Quote:
Many things in the game are not clear how or when they should be handled. Strategy cards are a special problem here. You are allowed to play a maximum of two cards per round. But when can you play them? The rules show that you first have to play cards and after that you can go on with the activation of your models. But many cards show "use at once" or seem to have only an effect after something else has happened (i. e. an attack of another model). So if I can play cards between the time a model moves and acts where exactly can I see this on the card?


As I already answered you on this thread, page nine of the rulebook states "Strategy Cards can only be played between individual Model activations of any player, unless specified otherwise, on the Card.". Again, I don't understand why this is confusing.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fabian Bohlmann
Germany
Hamburg
Deutschland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Brad,

thanks for your reply and your opinion. I can remember that the game was promoted in its KS campaign for 1+ players. There was also an example how to play with more players, even more than three.
I am aware that this is a three-faction-game so more than three players is not very likely. I guess you have to handle it like the first Stronghold edition that was also playable with 2 to 4 players.

Confusing maybe wasn't the correct word I used to describe the charts and rules. But awkward is a very good fitting word I think. I am sure somebody who really liked the topic and has more experience in writing board game rules would have been a better choice to create them in the first place. At least this is true for the German rules of AVP. The translator surely was not experienced in any way. He made bad errors on nearly every page and I heard on almost all game cards. I am lucky that I've got the English version of the game, nevertheless I wanted to get the German one in the first place.

Yes, I think I have to play the game a little bit more often to get a grip. It's mechanics and rules ain't that difficult to keep in your mind. Many things are just not written comprehensively enough.

And to play a strategy card in advance before you know if it will make any sense at all is not very useful. There are many cards that take effect at once but have no repercussions if the enemy model hasn't done it's movement or combat action before.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Harmer-Barnes
United Kingdom
Rainham
Kent
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have heard the translated editions suck, yeah. :/

The main problem is the rulebook is too much of a compromise. It needs to either be a case-system wargames rulebook; or a conversational style Ameritrash rulebook. This attempt to do both just makes it messy.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
gary gee
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BradH wrote:
I have heard the translated editions suck, yeah. :/

The main problem is the rulebook is too much of a compromise. It needs to either be a case-system wargames rulebook; or a conversational style Ameritrash rulebook. This attempt to do both just makes it messy.

I agree with that Brad,i think it tries well was designed as a crossover between a boardgame and a tabletop game.
but I found with a little tweaking and common sense the game plays well and can be very challenging but I do think as more addons get released including tilesets etc that more rules can be added to smooth things out.
but all in all a good game
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S. B.
Spain
flag msg tools
Judging by what I've seen until now, Prodos Games is a newcomer company in the world of board games and wargames. Thus, even though it's composed by geeks, the company as a whole doesn't have much experience in making tabletop games, nor making rules. They do seem to have quite a lot of experience in 3D modelling, but that's a different story, and certainly not necessarily related to wargaming.

It's not like Games Workshop, who's been present on the market for more than 30 years now. Despite that they're making many stupid decisions lately (allowing companies like Mantic and Prodos to appear), they write quite comprehensive rules for their games. However, even they have to issue erratas and FAQs. Even they.

My point is, if it's a new company that hasn't been around too long, it's not surprising that they make mistakes typical for rookies.

As for me, the printed rules aren't confusing. I've seen several video reviews of the game, and that allowed me to get a grasp of the rules quite quickly; it's not that complicated. There are, however, situations that aren't covered by the rules. But that's why we're writing in this forum, right?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Felix Wagner
Germany
Hamburg
Hamburg
flag msg tools
mb
BradH wrote:
I like it fine. I'd certainly like to keep playing it. It plays like Alien/Predator Heroclix, to me. Only with a better rulebook. Seriously, if you think AVP's rulebook sucks, trying playing Heroclix. I like models, I like the board, and I'm interested to see what they do next with the series.

Quote:
The game supports 1+ players. Because I often haven game groups with more than four players attending I appreciated the option to play it with an open amount of players (every player gets one model, one group or one race faction to play with against the others). But to be honest AVP is a three player game at it's core and will make it difficult to start a session with four or more players. Okay you could bring in a second Alien tribe, Predator Berzerkers or Young Bloods, or WY Commandos. But everything seamed made to be played by three or less people. The Predators for example always start at the Predator pod. A second Predator player would have to get his own entry point especially if he wants to fight the other Predator models too.

Furthermore the strategy cards of each faction are limited and some are just once in the card stack. Who gets what card to keep the distribution fair if more than one group of that particular race takes part in the game?


It's a three player game. You could probably double-up with six players, but otherwise, it's a three player game. If you have more or fewer players, play something else instead. You wouldn't try and squeeze a third player onto Chess, so why would you squeeze more than three onto AVP?


The main problem here is advertisement. The box says "one or more players" not "up to 3 players". It's completely fine to make a three-player-game but don't label it like it could be more than that. soblue

BradH wrote:

Quote:
Many things in the game are not clear how or when they should be handled. Strategy cards are a special problem here. You are allowed to play a maximum of two cards per round. But when can you play them? The rules show that you first have to play cards and after that you can go on with the activation of your models. But many cards show "use at once" or seem to have only an effect after something else has happened (i. e. an attack of another model). So if I can play cards between the time a model moves and acts where exactly can I see this on the card?


As I already answered you on this thread, page nine of the rulebook states "Strategy Cards can only be played between individual Model activations of any player, unless specified otherwise, on the Card.". Again, I don't understand why this is confusing.

I'd already answered in that thread and would very much like your opinion on this:

Armag3ddon wrote:

BradH wrote:
My answers are all how I play at present. Some of these things may be house ruled or revised as we play more.

Quote:
When can strategy cards be played exactly? Do you have to play them in advance before you start your actions with you models or can you use them on the fly relatively to the circumstances?


Page nine of the rulebook states "Strategy Cards can only be played between individual Model activations of any player, unless specified otherwise, on the Card.".

That rule is fine as it reads and we mainly did play it like that.
The main problem is that "unless specified otherwise" isn't that crystal clear because of the card texts. There are cards that say "after a model received a wound" or "before an armour roll is made" and so on. Those are fine. There are a lot of cards that do not explicitly say that but aren't of much use if played as a surprise. Iirc the alien player has some card to strengthen armour rolls of one model. If you have to play that before activation, you have to play that before you know whether or not your opponent will fire at that alien. It's practically useless unless played as a surprise.
The marines got those "add a sentry token to a not deactivated model". The card text says "Instantly put a sentry token..." - what does 'instantly' mean? Can I surprise my enemy during his actions? When he just stepped into sight? Or is it just a way to effectively get another action point.

There were more of those cards, sounding like a surprise attack but being less effective if played according to the general rule.


The real issue is not the phrasing of the rulebook but of the cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
No conclusion?!? No one answering to the question, if it is a good game or not?!? Just some personal statements, that some people like the game?!? ^^
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
gary gee
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
my conclusion:...
I got the game at launch..played it lots since and still loving it!... once you get used to the rules .which aren't the mess some rules are nowadays.just need a bit of common sense at times.and the beauty is..the whole game including the rules are a sandbox so easy to make your own scenarios and change the rules as well!!
as more addons are released it opens the game up even more!..we just need some more tilesets now..especially the temple set from the AvP movie
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Davies
msg tools
Well it's going to be subjective isn't it.

For my two penneth, I bought this as I wanted to introduce an asymmetrical combat game to our boardgame group. And my brother bought a copy as we're both avid wargammers.

As everyone else says the rules are badly put together, and don't really work IMO.

As a boardgame? It's a terrible. The rules don't flow, and weren't picked up easily by the non-wargammers, tactics are pretty much "which faction are you?". But worst of all is that it's advertised as up to 4 players and it ain't a 4 player game (it might be with expansions, but then that's a 3 player game with a 4 player expansion, anyway, I digress). The stats and rule book allude to parts of the game which aren't usable (leadership??, unreleased models) and is therefore written with bits taken out, which you'll have to buy expansions to use, I guess, which as a "boardgame" I find irritating. I'd expect it from a wargame, so maybe we just misunderstood what we were buying as a group.

As a wargame? It's terrible. Apart from the rules being bad (as already mentioned) The factions are dull, which is a crime given the source material. The tiles are all repeated so it looks naff laid out (thankfully my brother loves making scenery, and we have a wealth of better home made corridors - SpaceHulk tiles are better too). And the tactical options you get are too basic (too boardgamey perhaps?) Honestly if you took away the awesome minis (something they did right - they are really nice) this game isn't a good boardgame or wargame.

My opinion anyway. So disappointed.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Felix Wagner
Germany
Hamburg
Hamburg
flag msg tools
mb
phuqster wrote:
The stats and rule book allude to parts of the game which aren't usable (leadership??, unreleased models) and is therefore written with bits taken out, which you'll have to buy expansions to use, I guess, which as a "boardgame" I find irritating. I'd expect it from a wargame, so maybe we just misunderstood what we were buying as a group.

I don't think so. The game was clearly advertised as being a boardgame as well as a wargame and they really stressed on the boardgame part. I guess to target a broader audience.

I don't know where it's advertised as a 4-player-game though. All I know is what's written on the box (one or more players) which should be "1 to 3 players" imho. Otherwise it looks like they're trying to trick people into thinking that this is playable with more than 3 players. Which, out of the box, it isn't.

Not knowing anything about the wargame, I agree with you on the boardgame part. The rules are bad.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Larouche
Canada
Longueuil
Quebec
flag msg tools
Melting souls with cuteness since 2007
badge
Lovin' N-16
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BradH wrote:
I have heard the translated editions suck, yeah. :/

The main problem is the rulebook is too much of a compromise. It needs to either be a case-system wargames rulebook; or a conversational style Ameritrash rulebook. This attempt to do both just makes it messy.


Have you ever read the rulebooks for Space Hulk 1st edition with it's expansions?
You'll find AvP VERY similar.

Tons of rules for models not included, system to make custom maps that is not explained at all, but that is mentionned casually, not-fully fleshed out campaigning system... it's all the same really.

Ultimately Space Hulk 1 was a system to customize your own games, yet you could play it more straight-forward as a regular boardgame. The extra stuff was mostly included for when you were done with the basic scenarios. This was especially obvious wih the Genestealer expansion, mwhich gave you TONS of new stuff to play with... with only 2 scenarios included for that new stuff. After that, you had all the tools required to make your own however.

I see avp as the same. Play it as a straight boardgame, and you'll easilly ignore half the rulebook. The so-called "advanced" game is just there once you've "spent" the basic scenarios... which all have a lot of replay value.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin Groom
msg tools
This game seems to divide everyone.
I for one love this game. Yes the rules needed better explanations but they are easily worked out with a bit of patience. I love the whole alien/predator concept so naturally love this game. The minis, although fiddly to put together IMO, look great, the tiles give a claustrophobic feel and the factions I think are well thought through. In my group we've each played as alien/predator/marine and like how you have to play differently with them as you would expect. If you've played Forbidden Stars for example I find that a bit samey. AvP is different each time we play. So I love it! Just my opinion. Perhaps the feel for this game would have been more positive if the KickStarter had been smoother. That definitely sucked.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Holttum
United Kingdom
Southend on Sea
Essex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Max321 wrote:
Perhaps the feel for this game would have been more positive if the KickStarter had been smoother. That definitely sucked.


True. Sadly I am still unable to answer the OPs question because despite having shelled out over $350 I still have received nothing. cry
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shirley T
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
To be brutally honest,
"Slick", "well thought out", "unique", "simple", "boardgame" ... none of these terms describe this game.

"Ham-fisted", "odd creative choices", "gets the job done", "Complicated", "Wargame" ... are more appropriate.

AVP: The Hunt Begins is not a boardgame, and fails to be a compelling boardgame experience at every opportunity. First: the rules were modified from a wargame and weren't properly tested/themed for the current license. Second: The boargame lacks a genuine narrative flavor and feels generic. Third: "Expansions" are merely unit additions to the base game. They include nothing to enhance the boardgame experience (new missions, new tiles, new rules... all absent).

AVP is clearly attempting to capitalize on the success of Imperial Assault and similar games to boost its appeal. It fails. It fails because Prodos has no idea what they are doing in the boardgame arena (among other things), and have made creative decisions that will ensure that this will never be a real boardgame. This is a miniatures wargame akin to Warhammer that is parading around as a "boardgame". As long as you as the consumer are okay with this, then most of what I've said is inconsequential and you may be happy with what you receive from Prodos once they release the "real" wargame rules.

This is what divides the community on whether this is a good game or not. There are gamers that have a background in wargames (Warhammer, etc) and they seem to like the game. Your average boardgamer is not as forgiving, and the above explanation is why.

TL/DR:
As a boardgame: No, it's an overcomplicated mess of rules that don't fit the source material.
As a wargame: It has potential, and may yet shine (once the "real" rules are released).
As fan service: It's hit and miss, models are near-perfect, rules compromise/ignore the source material in places.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Larouche
Canada
Longueuil
Quebec
flag msg tools
Melting souls with cuteness since 2007
badge
Lovin' N-16
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dougisitosan wrote:
To be brutally honest,
"Slick", "well thought out", "unique", "simple", "boardgame" ... none of these terms describe this game.

"Ham-fisted", "odd creative choices", "gets the job done", "Complicated", "Wargame" ... are more appropriate.

AVP: The Hunt Begins is not a boardgame, and fails to be a compelling boardgame experience at every opportunity. First: the rules were modified from a wargame and weren't properly tested/themed for the current license. Second: The boargame lacks a genuine narrative flavor and feels generic. Third: "Expansions" are merely unit additions to the base game. They include nothing to enhance the boardgame experience (new missions, new tiles, new rules... all absent).

AVP is clearly attempting to capitalize on the success of Imperial Assault and similar games to boost its appeal. It fails. It fails because Prodos has no idea what they are doing in the boardgame arena (among other things), and have made creative decisions that will ensure that this will never be a real boardgame. This is a miniatures wargame akin to Warhammer that is parading around as a "boardgame". As long as you as the consumer are okay with this, then most of what I've said is inconsequential and you may be happy with what you receive from Prodos once they release the "real" wargame rules.

This is what divides the community on whether this is a good game or not. There are gamers that have a background in wargames (Warhammer, etc) and they seem to like the game. Your average boardgamer is not as forgiving, and the above explanation is why.

TL/DR:
As a boardgame: No, it's an overcomplicated mess of rules that don't fit the source material.
As a wargame: It has potential, and may yet shine (once the "real" rules are released).
As fan service: It's hit and miss, models are near-perfect, rules compromise/ignore the source material in places.


Funny. I played it as a boardgame and it definitely felt like a boardgame.

I think the only real problem of this game is that expansions rules are included in the "base" box.
If they were not, and only the base game rules were included, with the extra rules for the additional minis included with the extra minis themselves, you'd have thought it was a complete boardgame and the expansions would have been as such.

Having played many games were rules for separate units, weapons and abilities are spread in several expansion books, i'm kind of glad all the rules are included in a single book.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shirley T
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As always, opinion is going to be split... Don't misunderstand me, my gripe isn't the inclusion of "all" the rules... it's the lack of boardgame tiles/additional missions/additional cards (basically anything) that would accompany a fully supported boardgame add-on (Look at competing offerings in this type of game from FFG).

Or look at it like this: the Predalien unit comes with a Ping! token that is 40mm. No other alien unit is 40mm (since the warriors are now supposedly 30mm??). So how obvious is your predalien ping! token to other players during deployment? The Pred hounds are 30mm... Same issue I suppose. A powerloader is 50mm, right? It's just a strange contrivance in the mechanics of the game that screams "we just tacked this onto an existing ruleset". Solo play is the same way: technically included, therefore check in the box for Prodos.

Does it work? Yeah it kind of does. Is it sexy? No. Not even a little.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Larouche
Canada
Longueuil
Quebec
flag msg tools
Melting souls with cuteness since 2007
badge
Lovin' N-16
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dougisitosan wrote:
As always, opinion is going to be split... Don't misunderstand me, my gripe isn't the inclusion of "all" the rules... it's the lack of boardgame tiles/additional missions/additional cards (basically anything) that would accompany a fully supported boardgame add-on (Look at competing offerings in this type of game from FFG).


You mean like the expansions for Dust Tactics (from FFG)?
Most expansion boxes contained either a squad of 5 minis or a single vehicule with only their stat cards included, rules for new abilities were not included in them.

Or what about FFG's Anima Tactics?

... or FFG's Tannhauser's miniature expansions?

And about the "obviousness" of Ping tokens. Seems fairly reasonable that an Alien Queen is more easily detected by noise than a simple drone... Even if there's only 1 unit of a faction for it's size now doesn't mean there won't be in the future with a possible wave 2 or 3...

And if you want a list of games with tacked-on single player? So many people create variants to play these kind of games solo... look at Descent and Imperial Assault, which both have tons of discussions on how best to do a solo mode.
But when a company tries to do one itself... it's not good enough? Would you have been happier if the rule just wasn't there?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Rose
United States
Aiken
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
deedob wrote:

But when a company tries to do one itself... it's not good enough? Would you have been happier if the rule just wasn't there?


I would be happier if it was as good as they promised it would be during the KS, and not some shitty after thought which clearly didn't get thoroughly play tested.

Of course I would also be happier if they delivered what I paid for during the KS.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Larouche
Canada
Longueuil
Quebec
flag msg tools
Melting souls with cuteness since 2007
badge
Lovin' N-16
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jakecarol wrote:
deedob wrote:

But when a company tries to do one itself... it's not good enough? Would you have been happier if the rule just wasn't there?


I would be happier if it was as good as they promised it would be during the KS, and not some shitty after thought which clearly didn't get thoroughly play tested.

Of course I would also be happier if they delivered what I paid for during the KS.


And as I said in the other thread, this is why I don't do kickstarters.

Although it would be great if not every single thread about this game did not revolve around kickstarter as this have little bearings on whether or not the game itself is good or not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Holttum
United Kingdom
Southend on Sea
Essex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
deedob wrote:
.....it would be great if not every single thread about this game did not revolve around kickstarter as this have little bearings on whether or not the game itself is good or not.


I don't think they do. Just some questions, like the OP in this thread, just lend themselves to a grousing.

Frankly, given the way Prodos have handled themselves and their backers, I think it's a good thing that prospective buyers searching the geek get a handle on just how dire it has been. Companies that ignore customer service should see their reputation tank.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Rose
United States
Aiken
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
deedob wrote:
jakecarol wrote:
deedob wrote:

But when a company tries to do one itself... it's not good enough? Would you have been happier if the rule just wasn't there?


I would be happier if it was as good as they promised it would be during the KS, and not some shitty after thought which clearly didn't get thoroughly play tested.

Of course I would also be happier if they delivered what I paid for during the KS.


And as I said in the other thread, this is why I don't do kickstarters.

Although it would be great if not every single thread about this game did not revolve around kickstarter as this have little bearings on whether or not the game itself is good or not.


Regardless of your desire for the KS backers to be happy and/or quiet, my criticism of the shitty attempt at solo rules stands.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Larouche
Canada
Longueuil
Quebec
flag msg tools
Melting souls with cuteness since 2007
badge
Lovin' N-16
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To be clear, i understand your frustration about kickstarter things, and i fully support complaints made about that... But i just think thee's a place for everything and burying the forums with that single topic is annouing to me.

A couple of threads, ok. No problems.

Just wish we could talk about something else for a change.

I just don't have a problem with the game as it is... Maybe better formatting of text on the cards but that's it really. The rules are straightforward to me. They could be clearer, but then half the games on bgg have people complaining about rulebooks so meh...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
gary gee
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
deedob wrote:
To be clear, i understand your frustration about kickstarter things, and i fully support complaints made about that... But i just think thee's a place for everything and burying the forums with that single topic is annouing to me.

A couple of threads, ok. No problems.

Just wish we could talk about something else for a change.

I just don't have a problem with the game as it is... Maybe better formatting of text on the cards but that's it really. The rules are straightforward to me. They could be clearer, but then half the games on bgg have people complaining about rulebooks so meh...

Hi,Martin I agree.. its a shame the way prodos has treat some of the backers of the game.and it does take away from what is a good game the rules aren't perfect but I got my head around them pretty quick.but the whole negativity on the forum about the woeful distribution to backers has taken away from what a very good game this is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jake Rose
United States
Aiken
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I again find it interesting you claim it is a 'very good game' but have advocated using other rule sets with it or heavily modifying the existing rules. To do so seems to detract from the 'very good game' claim.

Often you seem to be saying you got 'very good components' with which you can put together a game you consider good.

Maybe I am off base, but when I look at all your posts, that is the impression I get.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.