by SpoDaddy
Krunkova wrote:
Chris
The angle here is hope that there is something i've missed that would make the game interesting in some way. Since I didn't see it- logical thing tp do is talk to people.
Your remark about me mentioning d&d board games 10 times is blown out of proportion - but I do get that you don't think they have enough tactical depth to offer.
I disagree . I so want to like MD,as the minis are great for a board game. I love painting models, am a commission painter and a Golden Demon ginalist (2006) ...so MD got my hopes up.
Thanks for the feedback.
Cheers
The angle here is hope that there is something i've missed that would make the game interesting in some way. Since I didn't see it- logical thing tp do is talk to people.
Your remark about me mentioning d&d board games 10 times is blown out of proportion - but I do get that you don't think they have enough tactical depth to offer.
I disagree . I so want to like MD,as the minis are great for a board game. I love painting models, am a commission painter and a Golden Demon ginalist (2006) ...so MD got my hopes up.
Thanks for the feedback.
Cheers
I didn't say you brought up D&D 10 times. I don't think you're being fair or accurate in your critiques of the tactical depth of MD. I'm all for a discussion of MD's flaws, as it does have some big ones (horrible campaign mode, all rooms are effectively the same, and loot scaling are the 3 major ones). Calling it more shallow tactically than the D&D boardgames is just not accurate. It's a tier below Descent2e/Imperial Assault in tactical depth, and a tier above games like the D&D boardgames.