Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Azazelx wrote:
Don't lecture me on how to read fething English, Ellinas filos mou.

Perhaps you need some lessons on how ellipses and hyphens are often used? Especially in light of your comment about commas.

Furthermore, the other section after the hyphen changes nothing of the message to me. I haven't seen an update of any kind from Mike in what seems like it must be close to a year now.

My disappointment in SW goes well beyond the sub=par products that were shipped, and the hyperbolic lies about it's quality as part of the campaign, but to the way that Mike personally chose to deal with pretty much everything on his end as well. Obviously CMON and "China" had a significant hand in the poor quality as well, but Mike seemed to fail in every aspect as well.

close

I understand your frustration when I said a trainwreak I meant in its entirety, beyond terrain which surprisingly I had no issue with misglued turrets I have nothing good to say about it, I really wonder if this is salvageable and if his reputation is recoverable.

I like my stuff but I got most of my money back on just the bonus models and KS Exclusives so I think for 4 boxes and a slew of Exclusives I'm only out like $80 which is great for the number of bases and models I wound up with. And the model quality (outside of Hexen & River) is quite good. And it's no more difficult to work with than many other companies products in the same material.

That said I can see people's anger and frustration. My only real beef is with the size of the THI suits. That did kinda piss me off....

TBH, the best way to run a KS is to be on forums like this one, chatting to backers wherever backers are chatting.

That tends to generate a little goodwill that makes people be a little more accepting of any delays or issues (see Dreamforge and Secret Weapon for good examples of this).

yeah,
I have a biohazard complete set.
Plus 1 of every add on character.

PM me offers or goes on eBay soon.

Panic...

I'm trying to sell my biohazard set too! Free to a good home if you pay me $100 for shipping

Transparent vanguard in there, by chance? Looking for some of those.

yeah,
Sorry I just picked up one of each extra character.
no lights out stuff...

Panic...

baritowned wrote:
So just curious, KS drama aside, how fun/interesting is the game? I watched the video on the kickstarter and it seemed kind of... simple to say the least...

I mean, $35 on amazon down from $90 is a damn good deal, but if it's so simple, I don't know if I should even bother

So... Can anyone convince me to buy this?

If you patch together the PDFs fixing the game, which I really wish SMV would incorporate into their main rulebook as a single document, the game is enjoyable- the problem is, along with the KS drama, its first rule set was patchy and its second was rushed in response to complaints about the first. I feel like the game is already around edition 2.5, but if you can get past that it's a sound skirmish game.

 Panic wrote:
yeah,
Sorry I just picked up one of each extra character.
no lights out stuff...

Panic...

Shame. You're not the first to tell me so. Made that mistake myself, as well.
...Still kicking myself at not getting those awesome TO markers.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:


If you patch together the PDFs fixing the game, which I really wish SMV would incorporate into their main rulebook as a single document, the game is enjoyable- the problem is, along with the KS drama, its first rule set was patchy and its second was rushed in response to complaints about the first. I feel like the game is already around edition 2.5, but if you can get past that it's a sound skirmish game.

I'm going to go a little further and say that as it stands it is indeed a good game. Speaking only as a casual gamer, I've enjoyed myself every time I've painted the miniatures or played the game, though I do think the patchwork rules set is a deterrent to me playing more often. The delays and lack of updates have just made it even harder to build up enough enthusiasm about it to wade through that problem though.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

If you patch together the PDFs fixing the game, which I really wish SMV would incorporate into their main rulebook as a single document, the game is enjoyable- the problem is, along with the KS drama, its first rule set was patchy and its second was rushed in response to complaints about the first. I feel like the game is already around edition 2.5, but if you can get past that it's a sound skirmish game.

Do you know offhand what the major problems were with the original rules? Like a top 5/10 bullet points of brokeness?

I'm curious about that as well. And something about a change in miniature scale?

From the vague rumblings I heard about the rules:

- They were laid out extremely poorly, and contained several areas of ambiguity.
- They were far too fiddly for the amount of enjoyment reaped.
- There were certain game-breaking rules (like Nano clouds being used to insta-kill Vanguard characters)

But I'd certainly appreciate more detail - we don't often hear about the why!

The scale issues were as simple as 1) McVey not securing sculpting contracts far enough in advance with the original/preferred sculptors, leading to a different look/style for the Kickstarter exclusive miniatures, and 2) a bad choice in material leading to a high degreee of shrinkage. As in, you could compare resin and plastic versions side by side and the latter was substantially smaller.

This was especially bad because the exclusive stuff was either people in (now much less impressive) big powered suits, or relatively unarmored and looking a bit twiggy. I still think most of them were good models, but people were expecting top-end stuff (given the existing Sedition Wars line at the time) and didn't feel they got anything like it.

I just want to say that Kev White's "walking guy with gun" pose was a lot more exciting 4 years ago than it was by the time we got 20 something dudes in that pose. Also, the "Hawkeye Initiative" poses for the women did not help the game to age well.

 Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
Do you know offhand what the major problems were with the original rules? Like a top 5/10 bullet points of brokeness?

It's been a while, but...

-There were 40k-caliber ambiguities without standardized game terms (base to base and adjacent were used interchangeably), the board was never really defined
-Some of the scenarios were highly skewed
-Spamming was usually the best way of playing


"2nd" edition:
-the rush to fix made the ambiguities just as bad
-the scenarios weren't changed to compensate for changed rules, making some of them impossible to win
-spamming wasn't solved
-the rules seemed way overcompensated in the other direction, meaning it just changed from one set of pieces being overpowered to another being overpowered

"2.5" edition:
-ambiguities were sorted out. Still feel like the board isn't in great shape but at least it has a real definition
-the scenarios were properly updated, and then further rebalanced for at least decent chances of either side winning
-there are recommended armies for scenarios, which is loads more fun than spamming, and generally makes for an exciting game.



I might be biased (I was very active testing while what I've been calling 2.5 was being developed) but I feel like the game is fun and balanced and well-written, and was mostly just hurt by the campaign's failings. My only gripes now are the material (I don't like restic, and think they should have gone with lower quantities of nicer models, since the game breaks down at large battles anyway) and that they haven't consolidated the updates into one book.

 scarletsquig wrote:
I'm super-happy with my SW stuff, but then I'm using it for Deadzone, not SW.

Heh. Must be the Daily Double, because like Sedition Wars I ain't ever buyin' a thing from Mantic after their KS either. If you can't even get the base contents of your game ready by the time you ship, you shouldn't be in the Kickstarting business, especially when you intend to start a new KS when people from your last few KS's still haven't got their stuff.

HBMC y you such a Dakka Ruiner?

Happy with my stuff. Would be interested in getting my hands on the '2.5' rules though, Spiraling.

I know right? Having reasonable expectations of companies selling your products is the worst!

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
Do you know offhand what the major problems were with the original rules? Like a top 5/10 bullet points of brokeness?

It's been a while, but...

-There were 40k-caliber ambiguities without standardized game terms (base to base and adjacent were used interchangeably), the board was never really defined
-Some of the scenarios were highly skewed
-Spamming was usually the best way of playing


"2nd" edition:
-the rush to fix made the ambiguities just as bad
-the scenarios weren't changed to compensate for changed rules, making some of them impossible to win
-spamming wasn't solved
-the rules seemed way overcompensated in the other direction, meaning it just changed from one set of pieces being overpowered to another being overpowered

"2.5" edition:
-ambiguities were sorted out. Still feel like the board isn't in great shape but at least it has a real definition
-the scenarios were properly updated, and then further rebalanced for at least decent chances of either side winning
-there are recommended armies for scenarios, which is loads more fun than spamming, and generally makes for an exciting game.



I might be biased (I was very active testing while what I've been calling 2.5 was being developed) but I feel like the game is fun and balanced and well-written, and was mostly just hurt by the campaign's failings. My only gripes now are the material (I don't like restic, and think they should have gone with lower quantities of nicer models, since the game breaks down at large battles anyway) and that they haven't consolidated the updates into one book.

 gunslingerpro wrote:
Happy with my stuff. Would be interested in getting my hands on the '2.5' rules though, Spiraling.

Yah, me too. Except a step missed above, between 2.0 and 2.5 is Print Book and Update PDF for the Last Time. What this means is 2.5 exists only as a collection of FAQ and Errata to both cards and the rule book, not making it very easy to have a copy of 2.5. The decision to not update at least the PDF and label it with some type of versioning and date is asinine.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
especially when you intend to start a new KS when people from your last few KS's still haven't got their stuff.

I also believe that game designers, artists, graphic designers, and sculptors should all do nothing while a factory is in production or a warehouse is packaging.

 judgedoug wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
especially when you intend to start a new KS when people from your last few KS's still haven't got their stuff.

I also believe that game designers, artists, graphic designers, and sculptors should all do nothing while a factory is in production or a warehouse is packaging.

That is not what he said. Despite what certain companies seem to believe, it is possible to do development work before you put things up for pre-order.

 CptJake wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

Yah, me too. Except a step missed above, between 2.0 and 2.5 is Print Book and Update PDF for the Last Time. What this means is 2.5 exists only as a collection of FAQ and Errata to both cards and the rule book, not making it very easy to have a copy of 2.5. The decision to not update at least the PDF and label it with some type of versioning and date is asinine.

I know the design guy(s?) was/were busy with the Firebrand beta release for Ravage/the PDF for a while, don't know what's up currently. I wouldn't call it dumb, so much as poorly paced, since everyone knows it should happen...

I'll stick with dumb/asinine. Either Mike or one of the other guys stated out right they were not going to update the PDF. That is not a pacing issue, that is a deliberate decision which makes the game less accessible. Asinine fits that decision well.

I had a heck of alot of high hopes for this one.


Disappointed, yet again.

 CptJake wrote:
I'll stick with dumb/asinine. Either Mike or one of the other guys stated out right they were not going to update the PDF. That is not a pacing issue, that is a deliberate decision which makes the game less accessible. Asinine fits that decision well.

Wait, what? They have seriously decided that they are not going to make the changes in their rules accessible?

That's... That goes beyond stupid and starts to push into the realm of the pathological. Short of spite, what could possibly motivate a company to make such a decision?

Penny wise would be my guess...

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I'll stick with dumb/asinine. Either Mike or one of the other guys stated out right they were not going to update the PDF. That is not a pacing issue, that is a deliberate decision which makes the game less accessible. Asinine fits that decision well.

Wait, what? They have seriously decided that they are not going to make the changes in their rules accessible?

That's... That goes beyond stupid and starts to push into the realm of the pathological. Short of spite, what could possibly motivate a company to make such a decision?

They provide a FAQ and errata. Those are 'living documents' and players can always grab the most recent version. They seem to feel that is good enough. Perhaps my wording was poor. The changes are accessible via the FAQ and errata, just less accessible than a single 'changes included and up to date' rule book.

And by nature, I am a lazy SOB. I hate having to consolidate crap from different sources and like having it done for me. So it may be much more of an issue for folks like me and much less of an issue for others.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I'll stick with dumb/asinine. Either Mike or one of the other guys stated out right they were not going to update the PDF. That is not a pacing issue, that is a deliberate decision which makes the game less accessible. Asinine fits that decision well.

Wait, what? They have seriously decided that they are not going to make the changes in their rules accessible?

That's... That goes beyond stupid and starts to push into the realm of the pathological. Short of spite, what could possibly motivate a company to make such a decision?

As far as I've ever heard, they haven't made that decision, and the FAQ and changes for "2.5" quickly got large enough that it became obvious to everyone (communicating on the testing forum including staff) that the rulebook would need to be updated, and that the separate PDFs were a stop-gap until that could happen so that the changes could be released as they were finished. I believe the only question was if the revised rulebook w/ changes incorporated would only be released as a PDF or if a print option were viable.

I may not have all the information, but I'd like CptJake to cite where that was said, because I consider myself pretty knowledgable regarding SMV and am very surprised to hear that since I've never heard anything like it.

edit: clarity

yeah,
They probably don't want to commit to updating/print again purely because it will be the third version of the rulebook in just over a year?
It was foolish to print the second edition with no playtesting.. dickheads.

No wonder people have no appetite for this game.

Panic...