Timewaster's Guide Archive
Games => Table-Top Games => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on September 01, 2005, 03:20:11 PM
-
reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1145
-
You that lame rare he said was the worst in the set? Nien Nunb? That's the one I got.
-
"Tthe huges do use a their own rarity distribution"
"This is different the how Giants of Legends was done"
"while it may be easier then the D&D minis set"
"way more normal sized rares and very rares then huge figures"
"We did get two Lukes this set though one is for the New Republic"
"(it's stats are close to the other ones in Rebel Storm just twice as much life)."
"(like the one in Jaba's palace)."
"His two commander effects are great one, making stealth very powerful"
He gave it 5 clocks? He seems to think that the set doesn't work well in tournaments, has annoying repeat figures, the "huges" don't have staying power . . .
Maybe the rating is relative to the rest of the game?
-
Do just want official mod access, JadeKnight? You could be our proofer.
-
I don't particularly "want" it, but if you want me to do the proofing myself, rather than posting it here to annoy you all, I would.
=Þ
-
it doesn't annoy me, it just seems like it would be more efficient. y'know, since you're doign it anyway.
-
Yeah, you have a point.
So if you want to, sure. Just tell me what to do.
-
I gave it five because it's a great set but has some problems like too many factions being covered and expensive/going to have lots of huge repeats. I don't know how it'll shape up in tournaments I'm just pointing out why it might turn bad.
When I review a expansion to a game the core rules of that game do make a huge difference in the score and SWM is a great game. There's nothing wrong with the game play of this set just more on the collecting and "who's in this set" side and while repeat bug me they don't lower the score too much especially when there are less then in the past set.