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.

Snagged an early bird that freed up. Models look great, prepainted sounds great. Alessio Cavatore delivers 100% fun games, so in for now.

So the game piece minis are more expensive than the fully articulated 8" toys? I guess I'll stick with the old toys and the old Heroclix minis.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So the game piece minis are more expensive than the fully articulated 8" toys? I guess I'll stick with the old toys and the old Heroclix minis.

Careful, you're on the verge of making a Kings of War army with a bag of dollar-store army men and McFarlane toys, then gak posting on TMP about how "back in my day you could get a bushel of tin flats for 99p!"

Was at a toy soldier show recently and it's crazy what people charge for those hideous dime store soldiers from back in the day.

I still think this one doesn't have the value yet to make it worth backing, outside of an early bird that at least gets you an extra jaeger.

Unless there's more swag included I can't see myself keeping it. It'll be cheaper at retail.

 judgedoug wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So the game piece minis are more expensive than the fully articulated 8" toys? I guess I'll stick with the old toys and the old Heroclix minis.

Careful, you're on the verge of making a Kings of War army with a bag of dollar-store army men and McFarlane toys, then gak posting on TMP about how "back in my day you could get a bushel of tin flats for 99p!"

I made three KoW armies from clearanced Arcane Legions boxes...

Anyway, I have a different approach than you do; instead of the game itself, I am drawn to the minis, and they have competition that the game might not have.

Also keep in mind that the "free figure" is just an alternate of one in the base set, you're still getting all the rules and play as the early backers, just with 200% less chainswords. (50% less if you get the expansions)

Yeah, this just isn't really resonating with me. I really liked the first movie. The trailer for the new one is REALLY bad, so I am not as pumped for it, but I will probably check it out. It makes total sense that the new Jaegers would feature in this game, but, I find them rather bland, and a bit too similar to each other. The First movie had much more interesting Jaegers, and kaiju, but again, to be fair, haven't seen the new one yet, so it may be better than I think.

The prepainted makes sense if you consider that there is probably a large group of casual players who will want this, but the base box should really have EVERYTHING from the movie in it from the get go. I trust that Alessio and his team will make a good game, but that alone can't make me buy it. I'm wondering if there are issues with them using the first movies characters?

Oh, and since I hadn't seen it posted on here yet, here's a link to the actual project.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1428582690/pacific-rim-extinction?ref=project_share

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So the game piece minis are more expensive than the fully articulated 8" toys? I guess I'll stick with the old toys and the old Heroclix minis.

I just sold off most of my old demo figures so I could buy the new Bandai Tamashii Nations Pacific Rim Uprising figures and use them instead. If you haven't seen them, you should check them out. They are so much better than the NECA figures.

The first jaeger from the first film has been added to the campaign, being gipsy danger herself. This has been added to all £65 level pledges for FREE.

I think they have heard peoples desire for the stuff from the first film, i expect to see some more as the next set of stretch goals.

Liked the first movie, second looks bland (hate sequels which change the main characters). Glad they listened to our comments, made the pledge more of a value, and gave us the gypsy danger. Good to see a company listen and adjust.

My other suggestion is the stretch goals... spaced apart just to unlock add ons? Doesn't look like there will be too many free minis in this one... which is fine if the pledge gives a value above waiting for diacounted retail. Otherwise why not just wait for retail and not take any risk.

They should throw out more add on sets (like a set of the mechs from the first film and another of the monster things from the first film). That would definitely raise some cash and unlock goals, which could be price reductions of the add ons or free cards.

As of now, the first film is more popular and lucrative, as folks know little about the new one.

I dropped my pledge. The product doesn't excite me enough to spend now on something that I will need to wait months to get, if at all. The early bird pledge is also just terrible and it's especially terrible that River Horse locked early bird pledges after Day One without telling anyone that this would be the case.

 Manchu wrote:
I dropped my pledge. The product doesn't excite me enough to spend now on something that I will need to wait months to get, if at all. The early bird pledge is also just terrible and it's especially terrible that River Horse locked early bird pledges after Day One without telling anyone that this would be the case.

Don't suppose you can elaborate on why the early bird pledge is terrible? I'm planning on running a KS for my game soonish (end of April, Tzeentch-willing), and I'd dearly love to not repeat the mistakes of others.

I dropped my pledge after I saw the stretch goals. Anything that adds a model makes you spend more money. I hate kick-starters that have optional buys locked in stretch goals.

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I dropped my pledge. The product doesn't excite me enough to spend now on something that I will need to wait months to get, if at all. The early bird pledge is also just terrible and it's especially terrible that River Horse locked early bird pledges after Day One without telling anyone that this would be the case.

Don't suppose you can elaborate on why the early bird pledge is terrible? I'm planning on running a KS for my game soonish (end of April, Tzeentch-willing), and I'd dearly love to not repeat the mistakes of others.

Some feel that if they get a worse deal that others (ie they miss the early bird) they've been cheated so won't back the game especially if the early bird is a mini/card etc instead of just a bit of a discount

While quite vocal I tend to think they're in the minority and if you're not a major KS company with an inbuilt following early birds offering a small discount (either for 24 hours or enough to fund the project both of which are 'fair') are a decent idea as long as you're clear about it from the start

 Nurglitch wrote:
Don't suppose you can elaborate on why the early bird pledge is terrible?

Of course, no problem. To begin with, the fundamental nature of KS is convincing people to give you money now for a practically unenforceable promise to give them something later. The inherent risk means KS creators have to offer backers something over and above the eventual fair market value of the KS rewards. Initially, this added value was conceived of as the chance to help bring something to market that otherwise would not exist. And some projects still trade on that kind of value. But in the tabletop gaming world, KS creators have used tactics like KS exclusive items or prices. And of course the early bird pledge concept is also a tactic. But it has more particular goals than simply encouraging backers. The early bird pledge level is about controlling how backers behave during the funding period. More specifically, it is usually deployed in order to (a) fund on Day 1 and/or (b) discourage backers from dropping pledges until the end of the funding period.

OK so what's my objection? Problem No. 1 is, the early bird tactic effectively incentivizes desirable backer behavior ... but only to the extent of the "early bird" terms. So if backers can only back at an early bird pledge level on Day 1, you are only incentivizing backers who pledge on Day 1. Or if there are only X available early bird pledges, you are only incentivizing X backers. Problem No. 2 is, the early bird pledge level can be a DISincentive for every potential backer who cannot choose an early bird pledge. Keep in mind the fundamental nature of KS: exchanging actual money for hypothetical value. By creating a limited value tier as part of the structure of your KS you are devaluing the unlimited value tiers.

Turning to this particular project, River Horse faces a very special problem. So let's keep in mind that this company published the Terminator miniatures game, which is a really great licensed game that got sunk by a contemporaneous box office bomb. With the Pacific Rim license, RH is back in that potential situation. So how do they hedge their risk. Step one is to offload risk onto KS backers. If RH brought this project to market in November 2018, months after the movie potentially flopped, sales would be a disaster. You have to get customers to buy the game before the movie comes out. But there is a timing issue: Pacific Rim Uprising is coming out before the KS project ends.

Enter the early bird pledge tactic. I think RH calculated that they needed X number of pledges at Y GBP to fund at the end of 23 days given that this movie might flop 10 days before the end of that period. It wasn't so much about funding on Day 1, although that is nice to brag about. The real issue here was discouraging people who might have pledged hastily from dropping their pledges. I think this is especially clear considering River Horse had locked the early bird pledges at the end of Day 2 without any prior notice. I don't think they ever needed (or indeed ever wanted) 1000 backers at the early bird level. I think they probably wanted 600-700 early bird backers and anything over that, whether early bird or not, was (so long as it was not a huge amount of people) just icing on the cake. And I think River Horse used that 1000 person early bird cap, before there was any time limit imposed, because they did not want many more than 1000 backers over all.

And TBH who (other than a Pacific Rim super fan) would really want to back the project without being an early bird backer in this case? You'd have missed out on a 20 GBP value, which is a pretty significant loss. It really makes the unlimited pledge levels feel like a rip off. The problem they faced, however, is that many early bird backers still felt they would be paying too much for what they were getting. To address this, RH did two things: it covertly locked the early bird pledge level (which has nonetheless lost 82 backers as of this writing) and it announced a free Gipsy Danger model with all 65 GBP pledges. I can't emphasize enough how BOTH of these tactics are aimed primarily at early bird pledge level backers. Again, RH's main goal seems to be to protect the bedrock funding represented by that class of pledges - and everyone else is incidental. Everyone else is clearly incidental because we're talking about a value that is over 30% of the pledge level cost.

Here, it is probably within the interests of RH to avoid gaining too many backers or promising more than a certain amount of product development given the special precarious circumstances of the Pacific Rim license. But setting up your KS in such a way that discourages backers is not what every KS creator is aiming for. The early bird pledge can create a lot of incentive for Day 1 pledging but the cost can be putting a real drag on every subsequent day of funding.

 Manchu wrote:
The early bird pledge can create a lot of incentive for Day 1 pledging but the cost can be putting a real drag on every subsequent day of funding.

Personally I prefer pledge in the first 24 Hour get bonus vs Early Bird Pledges. There is nothing more disappointing than knowing about Early Birds, going within a second of the announcement only to see the small amount of EBs have already been gone. At least with proper advertising 24 hours gives enough time for a good portion to jump on early enough to at least get an incentive for backing sooner than later.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The early bird pledge can create a lot of incentive for Day 1 pledging but the cost can be putting a real drag on every subsequent day of funding.

Personally I prefer pledge in the first 24 Hour get bonus vs Early Bird Pledges. There is nothing more disappointing than knowing about Early Birds, going within a second of the announcement only to see the small amount of EBs have already been gone. At least with proper advertising 24 hours gives enough time for a good portion to jump on early enough to at least get an incentive for backing sooner than later.

I came here to say the same thing. Elder Dice is doing a great job of incentivizing early pledges by offering an extra d20 (I think from their established product) for folks that pledge within the first 24 hours. They're a small scale, boutique kickstarter launch that is engaging in tons of prelaunch marketing.

Alternatively, I love Reaper's clockwork madness of making pledges shipping waves. That really encourages people to pledge early at no real cost to the company. Though I think you have to expect a ton of fulfillment for that to be meaningful.

Personally, I lost interest when the 'stretch' goals here are ALL just opportunities to buy more product. That's fine to some extent, but there should be some large goals that just add to the base pledge value.

Ideally I'd like to avoid stretch goals entirely, but I can see how having extra cash would let me push the per-unit cost down. The tricky part, I think, would be cramming more stuff in the box. Not really sure about the whole 'First!' pledges getting more. Thanks Manchu!

No problem, Nurglitch, it was fun writing up my thoughts. I stress these are my own opinions with no basis except as a KS backer over the last six years or so, having experienced a few good projects and a lot of frustrating ones. The best advice for someone thinking of launching a KS project is probably to ... read whatever actual experts have to say!

For example, maybe there is some statistical correlation between successful projects and Day 1 funding that drives some of these tactics/gimmicks and maybe somebody has been able to show it's more than just correlation. I don't know.

For the record I have a ton of respect for Alessio Cavatore as a designer and I understand where he might be coming from here as a business owner who has had some bad experiences working with licenses. The truth is, for me at least, that the early bird tactic - especially in this egregious case (again over 30% of the pledge cost) - really demotivates me.

OTOH anybody who really wants this game might consider it's future at retail (or rather lack thereof) considering the sequal may fail at the box office. By way of example, I wish there was a future for the Terminator miniatures game but that seems unlikely.

Manchu wrote:I dropped my pledge. The product doesn't excite me enough to spend now on something that I will need to wait months to get, if at all. The early bird pledge is also just terrible and it's especially terrible that River Horse locked early bird pledges after Day One without telling anyone that this would be the case.

100BostonFan wrote:I dropped my pledge after I saw the stretch goals. Anything that adds a model makes you spend more money. I hate kick-starters that have optional buys locked in stretch goals.

I echo these thoughts as well. These are huge drawback of other KS's that should not be mimicked, yet they are here.

I am genetically predisposed to buy into this game, as somebody else mentioned we need more decent kaiju romper room arena games. My love for daikaiju runs deep.

But the way the KS is being handled isn't my main concern and criticism. The design itself appears to be not very compelling. If you only have a single model go toe-to-toe with another model, then those single models need a lot of design granularity to make one model fighting another compelling enough to not dismiss.

The retail version contains two models. This is worth repeating. The retail package contains two models.

How compelling will the combat be with just two models? Nothing that's being shown of the game design is giving me any confidence that this will be worth the time or money to consider. In other games where each player controls only a single character, it is very common knowledge that these games are only good with 3 players minimum, or each player controlling more than a single character. Gorechosen is a very good contemporary example here.

Yet here we are expected to believe that a retail game of two single models is a good game...

So, poor KS or not, the game looks like a stinker.

And if we are considering their past game designs as a precedent for this, then where are they? I don't see anyone extolling the virtues of dark crystal or labyrinth, for example.

Until I see more solid examples of why one model fighting another is a good idea, this will be a hard pass, sadly.

 Hellfury wrote:
The design itself appears to be not very compelling. If you only have a single model go toe-to-toe with another model, then those single models need a lot of design granularity to make one model fighting another compelling enough to not dismiss.

The retail version contains two models. This is worth repeating. The retail package contains two models.

How compelling will the combat be with just two models? Nothing that's being shown of the game design is giving me any confidence that this will be worth the time or money to consider. In other games where each player controls only a single character, it is very common knowledge that these games are only good with 3 players minimum, or each player controlling more than a single character. Gorechosen is a very good contemporary example here.

Until I see more solid examples of why one model fighting another is a good idea, this will be a hard pass, sadly.

This is my concern as well. As someone who has designed a kaiju game and been demoing that game (in its various editions) for almost 20 years, one vs one combat can get very stale very fast if you don't have reasons for the combatants to want to maneuver around and accomplish other objectives. To often, players just want to duke it out and wind up either sitting in the middle of the table rolling dice or the aggressive player winds up chasing the other player all game. That is why I really want to see the rules and some gameplay videos before I decide whether or not the game is worth owning.

In positive news, Slattern from film 1 is up as the next stretch goal, with Guardian Bravo and Raijin from film 2 unlocked.

 Visceral_Mass wrote:

 Hellfury wrote:
The design itself appears to be not very compelling. If you only have a single model go toe-to-toe with another model, then those single models need a lot of design granularity to make one model fighting another compelling enough to not dismiss.

The retail version contains two models. This is worth repeating. The retail package contains two models.

How compelling will the combat be with just two models? Nothing that's being shown of the game design is giving me any confidence that this will be worth the time or money to consider. In other games where each player controls only a single character, it is very common knowledge that these games are only good with 3 players minimum, or each player controlling more than a single character. Gorechosen is a very good contemporary example here.

Until I see more solid examples of why one model fighting another is a good idea, this will be a hard pass, sadly.

This is my concern as well. As someone who has designed a kaiju game and been demoing that game (in its various editions) for almost 20 years, one vs one combat can get very stale very fast if you don't have reasons for the combatants to want to maneuver around and accomplish other objectives. To often, players just want to duke it out and wind up either sitting in the middle of the table rolling dice or the aggressive player winds up chasing the other player all game. That is why I really want to see the rules and some gameplay videos before I decide whether or not the game is worth owning.

Raises a question: What are you looking for in a game play video for this game?

I'd imagine the Kaiju hidden agenda thing is intended for stopping the mid-field boxing match. For myself I always get annoyed by the sort of hidden information, as either the opposing player can guess it from the set of possibilities, or they get caught out and get discouraged from playing again.

 Hellfury wrote:
How compelling will the combat be with just two models? Nothing that's being shown of the game design is giving me any confidence that this will be worth the time or money to consider. In other games where each player controls only a single character, it is very common knowledge that these games are only good with 3 players minimum, or each player controlling more than a single character. Gorechosen is a very good contemporary example here.

The base game has 2 models, but the game itself you can use more. A lot of it is implied, but it does look like building multiple Kaiju/Jaeger teams will be the norm. Specifically in 'Flanking', it says 'the worst place to be is sandwiched between two enemies'.

Base games being very small compared to what you will usually play is the norm in this hobby, especially in a game about building lists. Don't take the 2 models in the box as the standard of play.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Hellfury wrote:
How compelling will the combat be with just two models? Nothing that's being shown of the game design is giving me any confidence that this will be worth the time or money to consider. In other games where each player controls only a single character, it is very common knowledge that these games are only good with 3 players minimum, or each player controlling more than a single character. Gorechosen is a very good contemporary example here.

The base game has 2 models, but the game itself you can use more. A lot of it is implied, but it does look like building multiple Kaiju/Jaeger teams will be the norm. Specifically in 'Flanking', it says 'the worst place to be is sandwiched between two enemies'.

Base games being very small compared to what you will usually play is the norm in this hobby, especially in a game about building lists. Don't take the 2 models in the box as the standard of play.

Implication or not, thats a poor product unless a game between merely two models is actually compelling. The verdict is still out as I dont know much about the game, like most other people.

But I do a lot of design work myself, and I know two models duking out between each other lacks and semblance of strategy, there is no tactical considerations and choices are null.
But maybe they figured out a way to make it outstanding. Im willing to give the benefit of the doubt because its entirely possible. I have yet to see it dont, but it could happen. But I'm not so open to the possibility that I would back the project. Show me.

So it remains a poor product. They are talking up a retail package that contains two models but implies it needs more to even be considered an actual game? That, right there, is a flag so red that Khorne is jealous of its crimson hue. It is fundamentally poor. Meaning, from the ground up, its badly thought out and horribly implemented.

This isn't just "A base game that is very small" and nor is such a product as this the norm in the hobby. The norm in this hobby is enough to illustrate that you can build more if you so chose, but is capable of showing what the game can do with just whats inside. This is half witted until they can prove that two models can illustrate the tactics involved.

Otherwise, its just the gladiator arena scene from Life of Brian. Where the loser is the person who gave up first because they got sick of the game.




I wont be explaining my position further on this, as I find discussing any criticism with those who back kickstarters and their sunk cost fallacies intermingling with confirmation bias, to be tedious at best.

Have you ever played a game of x-wing with just the starter box. One x-wing vs two ties is not great and far from the "normal" experience of playing the game.

I'd say in wargames it's very rare to have a starter set that works well as a stand alone game, they are after all designed to get you started, and buying more product, not act as a be all and end all of the game.

The campaign seems to have gotten over the stall caused by early bird pledge drops, and has been ticking along nicely the last couple of days.

Only 22 backers for the starter-only set, so, yep, plenty of others agree that the 2-figure starter set is a dumb idea. However, for retail, I imagine it's easier for a non-hobby gamer to buy a $50 game than a $90 one.

Looks like there's some replayability because of the card upgrades. Dunno.

 Tamereth wrote:
Have you ever played a game of x-wing with just the starter box. One x-wing vs two ties is not great and far from the "normal" experience of playing the game.

I'd say in wargames it's very rare to have a starter set that works well as a stand alone game, they are after all designed to get you started, and buying more product, not act as a be all and end all of the game.

The campaign seems to have gotten over the stall caused by early bird pledge drops, and has been ticking along nicely the last couple of days.

That is absolutely true. On the other hand, the X Wing Starter set is between 20 and 30 dollars at retail- this sucker is 50 bucks at kickstarter rates.

I'm ok with spending 20-30 on basically a demo game experience- that's also the price point for DnD 5e's starter box, or a Pokemon starter set with 2 30 card decks.

I'm less ok at 50. Battletech is doing a pair of starters later this year- one also has only a pair of models (although it also includes cardboard standee mechs) , but again that is at 20. For the bigger one they have 8 models in a 60 dollar game.

I think their price point is too high for an impulse purchase demo, and their content is insufficient for a full game starter, unless a one kaiju vs one robot game is much more complicated than it seems.

Don't get me wrong, the game itself looks interesting- after I've played it, or watched some playthroughs I might consider purchasing it. The models are to their credit, gorgeous. As others have said though, for a kickstarter the value and wow factor just isn't there for me. If it is for you, wonderful!

Those goalposts have great wheels.

You know what miniature would get me to pledge.