As well as launching the Second Edition rules in Beta, we have also launched this new forum, which is also running as a Beta and is subject to changes :)
Second Edition BETA is here! -

Thoughts on first game

Hi All,

Played first game of 2.0 just now. Played 750 straight kill each other, warrior nation v union.

A lot of rules mistakes, and playing the faction wrong but still had a good time.

I only played a handful of 1.0 but always felt something was a bit off about it. like it didnt know if it wanted to be skirmish or a wargame. 2.0 seems like its more solid on what it wants to be. Having units, making things more survivable makes the game feel a lot better to me.

Positives -
Action card system. Seems fine, there was randomness but never felt that i couldnt do what i wanted with models.

Adventure cards. Simple ways to grab VP or get small bonuses. Seemed ok, but could maybe be a bit more adventurous with the objectives?

Taking hands in units. Really liked this. Made gameplay smother, and with the rules changes hands actually felt like they were worth taking.

Fortune. The change from influence to fortune seems great. not having to pre-use the token is a huge plus for me.

Only thing that felt off a bit was that everything seemed really accurate. Maybe we were both rolling hot, but it seemed that most models that shot, hit. Anybody else had the same experience?

All in all i enjoyed playing and am looking forward to testing the rules more.


  • edited May 2017
    You really do need to maximise that cover as it's cumulative. That's what scuppered shooting my last game.

    "Oh you can trust me, I like it here. There's a certain satisfaction to be gained from knowing you work behind the curtain of your enemy's moral superiority. Can you imagine the look on Nikolai's face if he ever found out what you were up to?" Doctor Jean-Antoine Saule

  • "Fortune. The change from influence to fortune seems great. not having to pre-use the token is a huge plus for me."

    Personally, I'm on the flip side of that. I prefer the pre-allocate method as I think it gave the game mechanic more of a 'gambler' feel and fit in quite well with the mythos of the American West. IE gunfights and gambling. It also caused the player to think twice before spending fortune / influence. Using it to re-roll after the fact is just bland in my opinion.

    I also prefer the hit points vs the "fail save and remove" method. Too much reliance on a single lucky / unlucky (depending on which side you're on) die roll. Although it's a method used by most miniature games, it's not very cinematic for games like this that lead to a great narrative play.

    I also liked v1 "activate 1 - 3 miniatures" aspect and action points. Not crazy about the card method of APs. Adventure / guts cards are a nice add, although I think they should be drawn after deployment and not every turn. Too much 'changing the goalposts' as one poster put it.

    I do like the clean-up of the special rules / skills / etc. This makes things much easier to digest.

    So far, I think I'll stick with v1 as the mechanics of it are what sold me on the game in the first place to the tune of backing both KSs. Time will tell though, but so far, v1 still has my vote.

Sign In or Register to comment.