Welcome to Steamforged Games Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ruffy

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

166 profile views

    I haven't tried the new format yet, but would it help if players didn't have to be deployed 3" away from opposing models, but instead just not engaging them and not engaged by them?
  2. Team setup in formations

    I use Locus in about 50% of my games recently and he works very well IMO. I haven't played with formations so far, but I don't think it invalidates him in any way. I prefer Pin Vice over Ballista and Hoist, Ratchet and Mother are my auto-picks. I very rarely pick Harry, so my flex slots go to Locus, Colossus, Compound or oVelocity depending on the opponent.
  3. That's still true if the player with the downed model goes first.
  4. That's a fair point, but KD is a really powerful tool at the moment and it's often what prevents players from declaring counter-attacks at all.
  5. By goal kick I meant the ball returning to play after a goal has been scored, not the actual shot on goal, sorry for the confusion. I still think the counter-attack change would work well, but it could also be that the good counter-results are on the wrong players, which is very frustrating for 1" melee players on the offensive. It would be a small boost for beater-teams which are not running the meta at the moment as far as I can tell. Players being less slippery means that bashing has more value.
  6. So, I'm not a veteran and it's possible similar topics have been discussed before, but I'd like to talk a little about things that could subjectively improve the game... or not. Number 1 is counter-attacks. I am aware of the tactics behind it, but I'm not too happy about players possibly being stranded after the first attack. I'd consider it a NPE, simply because it doesn't look like playbooks are used as a balancing factor in this aspect and also because it makes melee range a gigantic divider when it comes to efficiency, which is a point that has been made often already. Character Plays that grant dodges/pushes are also a little undervalued IMO. A possible solution to this possibly existing problem would be if counter-attacks would happen simultanously with the initial attack and the active player chose in which order to apply the results. So for example if the counter-attack comes up with a push-dodge, the other player can choose either a push or a dodge to re-establish engagement if the models were b2b and the active model has a 1" melee zone. I don't think this would require re-balancing all around. Number 2, I think that goal kicks are a little too inaccurate. Not a big problem, but I'd like to have more influence on where the ball lands, it feels to me like this is the wrong spot for huge randomness... purely subjective. Since there's not much happening on the forums at the moment, maybe people would like to discuss this.
  7. State of the game?

    Theme Forces? Blurgh!
  8. Subs

    Subs could be an interesting concept. Maybe it would work if players either returned as usual or were replaced by another player on the roster that comes in at icy sponge level hp, captains can't be subbed and a mascot can of course only be subbed out for another mascot. Also, there can only be one version of a character on the team that actually plays, so once an original version was on the pitch for example, no other version could be subbed in during that game. On first thought, I don't think this would be overpowered and it could bring more diversity to the game, but for sure it would require both players to consider a lot if options. I'd expect players that can push people off the pitch like Jac and Colossus to maybe be a problem.
  9. "Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women." - every Chicago player ever ;)
  10. Is scoring goals too easy.

    It's difficult to come up with something that doesn't hurt beater teams equally. Maybe scoring could get more difficult the more VP you already have or the more goals you have already scored, representing nerves becoming a factor or a team on the verge of defeat tightening the defense. Like, for example, scoring the first goal works as it does now, trying for a second or third goal has a -1 die modifier to it.
  11. Is scoring goals too easy.

    I think it would hurt strikers more than beaters, but giving it some more thought, it's probably a bad solution simply because of slow players being overly punished. There are other things one could consider like having goal shots cost more influence or momentum, making it more difficult for strikers to generate momentum themselves etc.
  12. Is scoring goals too easy.

    Would it help if taken-out players would always return from the back edge or if players returning could be allocated less influence? I think it doesn't help fighty teams that a striker that was just taken out is an immediate threat again after returning to the pitch.
  13. State of the game?

    I don't play X-Wing, but I really don't understand why the players are okay with this practice. I mean, why don't they just print out or copy upgrade cards and why aren't the cards sold seperately? The reason is obviously the money grab, but the community could solve that easily among themselves and I don't know why they don't do it. I think this is a good idea in principle, but goes a little too far. I'd prefer if guilds could be mixed in some formats, but you still bring a roster of 10 and a guild can only mix with certain affiliated guilds. This way, people would probably buy a few models from other guilds and some would see the incentive to buy the whole guild I guess. I doubt that this would boost sales dramatically, but it might help somewhat. The question would of course be how to introduce something like that and really get the format played competitively. Would it be balanced if it was standard and the system allowed either single guild + Union or two guilds without Union and models are just friendly and not friendly guild? People who are bothered by only being able to field one Union model could mix with Union who should work with anyone and "I don't want to see Vitriol on every team" wouldn't really be the case because Alchemists could probably only mix with one or two other guilds (that, and Vitriol is probably gonna get nerfed at some point). Related point: it would help Union sales if the other guilds weren't limited to certain players and having the whole range available isn't a balance concern IMO if Harry gets a little downgrade.
  14. So quiet here..

    I'm playing regularly, but as far as the forums go, I'm waiting for new things to discuss, preferably power errata.