|
Dr. Video Games 0029 posted:Okay, here's the scenario: It's right after an edge battle, and I've won. I have a Twi'lek Loyalist as attacker, and I elect to use his Focus strike to put a focus token on one of my opponent's defenders. When a unit strikes it resolves all of its strikes before the next unit gets its chance to strike. And yes, a unit cannot strike in combat if it has a focus token, so winning the edge is very important if Tactics icons are involved. Palpatine is a nightmare if he gets to strike first. Free Gratis fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Aug 9, 2013 |
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:06 |
|
|
PaybackJack posted:I will probably order a second set. han/chewie/falcon is where you want to start off with the light side. Then you can either go lando/echo caverns, or luke/c3p0. There is another very strong LS deck that uses blockade runner, sleuth scouts, and han/col serra for their swindldes. Basically the goal of that deck is to get a lot of unopposed strikes in. if i'm starting off playing for the first time I problaby do the following as a great starting point: Jedi Affiliation Lukex2 C3POx2 Hanx2 Chewiex2 Falconx2
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:I ended up keeping Asteroid Sanctuary. I replaced Trust Me and Opening Moves with Wookie Life Debt, then swtiched to Jedi affiliation and added in A Journey to Dagobah. Blockade runner is a nightmare to deal with, especially for someone just starting off. As for overrating direct objective damage and the Secret Informers, pretty much if your opponent runs a basic sith deck (with 2 cores) that should be a strong enough lesson. Vader force choking out 2 informants with one card isn't nice. Or an on-point twist of fate. Or blowing everything to kill one objective, then having nothing left to defend with. Although here's the thing-Smugglers stuff is so strong that having one pod with a couple bad cards won't do much when you're not playing really good decks. It's almost comical how strong Smugglers stuff is compared to Scum (and really the rest of LS). You could make an argument that 5 of the top 10 pods are all Smugglers (I'd throw in the guardian pod, emperor, vader, luke, and...ok maybe 6 of the top 10). They just get so many good cards, and have few real duds. I think the pod system is one of the things that really adds some complexity to deck building (in theory, at least) since it causes so many tradeoffs. There are a lot of pods I'd like to try, but they just have a couple dud cards that make including them just not worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Rules question: Focus token. If you have a focus token you can do anything, attack/defend/commit to the force/use action or reaction on the card UNLESS that action requires you to put a focus token on it. Correct? I'm not sure I understand your question. Actions which require a focus token to be played say something like 'Action: Focus this to...' If the card is not currently focused, you can place a focus token to use that action in any action window. You commit to the force only in YOUR force phase, and units which are not currently exhausted are the only ones which count towards the force struggle [with the exception of a few cards which specifically change that rule]. I think I'm not understanding your question though, so this might not answer you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0029 posted:I hate Netrunner. Will I like Star Wars? I did not like Netrunner. I thought the mechanics were cool, but I had no empathy for the cards. I love Star Wars, and now with Edge of Darkness out, the card pool is getting very interesting. There are only 2 more packs in this cycle [12ish more objectives] and there does seem to be a lot of interesting deck types out there for various play styles. I think SW is a very very fun game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
tijag posted:I did not like Netrunner. I thought the mechanics were cool, but I had no empathy for the cards. To add on this, I think Netrunner cards are awesome (the art/flavor just on the cards is 50% of why I started playing). I find the mechanics of the game interesting from an abstract level, but I find much of the playing and deckbuilding tedious and dull. Playing corp in netrunner is like playing the world's worst tower defense game. Playing runner is like playing dominion/thunderstone/ascension in reverse-you're not adding cards from a tableau to create a deck engine, you're taking cards from a deck to create your tableau engine. Star Wars though, I think has a lot of fun gameplay, as well as the growing cardpool starting to finally allow more deck variety. It's very interactive, although I'm personally not a fan of the victory conditions (in that I think it's way too advantageous for DS to just turtle up, and LS has really only the one way to win)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
alansmithee posted:Star Wars though, I think has a lot of fun gameplay, as well as the growing cardpool starting to finally allow more deck variety. It's very interactive, although I'm personally not a fan of the victory conditions (in that I think it's way too advantageous for DS to just turtle up, and LS has really only the one way to win) This depends on how you're playing, because the tournament rules make it so purely defensive DS decks have a very hard time winning due to the tiebreaker rules. This doesn't really help in a kitchen table situation, but there are still plenty of way for the LS to take and keep the force with the expanded card pool, extending your clock significantly. The game is pretty balanced, except that smugglers are borderline broken post-EoD. edit: I also think you're completely wrong about Netrunner but I'm in a situation where I play in a big community where everyone has all the cards and spends a lot of time thinking about the metagame. That probably colors my perception of both games. If you're playing, for example, Star Wars with just one core set it's a total crapshoot who wins any given game except the sith are really good. long-ass nips Diane fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Aug 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:This depends on how you're playing, because the tournament rules make it so purely defensive DS decks have a very hard time winning due to the tiebreaker rules. Our meta has found a solution to the blockade runner/sleuth scout deck. Last night in a local tournament with a league kit that LS deck was stalled out long enough to seal the game. Also, I would say that the asymmetrical win conditions would be a problem ONLY if you consider a game instead of a match. When you play this game you should always be playing a 'match' and then DS playstyle is irrelevant, as is LS being overpowered, since you'll have an opportunity to play both sides, it doesn't matter which one currently has the upper hand. With the LCG format the ebb and flow of which side has the upper hand will shift frequently I think. Right now it just tipped slightly towards the LS, which is fine because I think for a long time DS decks were easier to play and VERY strong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:This depends on how you're playing, because the tournament rules make it so purely defensive DS decks have a very hard time winning due to the tiebreaker rules. The tiebreaker is a good point, but I think that's more a failing of the tourney system than anything. I actually like they incentivized more aggressive DS, but I still think they're largely unstable (also as an aside, they've really done nothing to help the fighter subtype, which kinda sucks since a lot of attention was given to capital ships and tropers). And even then, I think it's better to have a deck with a higher chance of winning (which more control style decks in general do), than to attempt to play assuming you'll lose your LS match and need a riskier, more aggro DS. And the LS is always the aggressor, simply due to the fact that if the DS gets a 12th turn, they autowin. There's no real "control" LS, there's pure aggro and more tempo-based aggro. I do agree with you though about balance-I think LS needed a little boost but Smugglers are a bit over the top. It's cool if you're a big SW fan you can play Han/Chewy/Falcon/Lando and have a deck that's gonna curbstomp most people, but it's maybe not the best from a balance perspective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
The thing slowing down my Sleuth Scout/Blockade Runner deck the most right now has been those 0 deploy Jawas from S&V.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Any idea when we should expect The Battle of Hoth pack?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
Friday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Thank ya kindly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Looking forward to these new cards. Smugglers are running all over me. I taught a new guy to play tonight and he destroyed me both games with them. I may have to take the dark side cards back from my friend and sit down and figure out how best to counter them. Han, Blockade Runner, and Chewie are just brutal drops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
So has anyone pointed out the incorrectness of the title? The Rancor only kills non-Vehicles!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
zokie posted:So has anyone pointed out the incorrectness of the title? The Rancor only kills non-Vehicles! It can still destroy an x-wing with the character damage the card has during an engagement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
If anyone is on the fence, I have a full playset up to EoD that I want to get rid of for cheap. Comes with the Regional divider cards. Hit me up with a PM or screen name at.gee mail dot com
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Manifest posted:It can still destroy an x-wing with the character damage the card has during an engagement. I extrapolate this as the Empire loading a Rancor into a large escape pod and launching into a Rebel base and it happened to rampage in the hangar. I'm sad that this game hasn't caught on in my local scene. I'll still buy all the cards because I like the game and I'm a sucker for owning complete sets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Bosushi! posted:I'm sad that this game hasn't caught on in my local scene. I'll still buy all the cards because I like the game and I'm a sucker for owning complete sets. I feel the same way. I'm enjoying this a lot more than Netrunner at the moment, I feel like the game is a lot more balanced. I'm really looking forward to picking up Battle of Hoth and making some Hoth based objective sets. I love how quick the game starts too, right from turn 1 there's pretty intense action all the way till the end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
The game is really developing nicely. I feel like Netrunner is so popular because of how many people remember it fondly, and because the original design was by Garfield which carries a lot of weight with MtG players, or really game players in general. I personally did not enjoy the game enough to keep it. No empathy for the cards, and it really ended up just feeling like a frustrating puzzle that I wasn't enjoying trying to solve. Meanwhile I play SW LCG and AGOT LCG, both of which I find very enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
tijag posted:The game is really developing nicely. I feel like Netrunner is so popular because of how many people remember it fondly, and because the original design was by Garfield which carries a lot of weight with MtG players, or really game players in general. At least one guy in my local scene refuses to even acknowledge its existence because "I played the Decipher version." Some of the other critiques are just really misguided, such as "All the Darkside has to do is wait so many turns and win." Every critique involves a player that hasn't even given it a try.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Bosushi! posted:At least one guy in my local scene refuses to even acknowledge its existence because "I played the Decipher version." Yeah a lot of people are kinda lazy about it. I do think it's catching on some though, and may get a bump when the new movie comes out (even though to my knowledge they're not allowed to use anything from the new ones). And I actually prefer this quite a bit to the Decipher version-I liked a lot of the ideas of that game but I think the cards themselves ended up lacking. And their way of patching every mistake with silver bullet cards, and bonus decks, and anti-bonus-deck bonus decks, and silver-bullet silver-bullets, and anti-bonus deck silver bullet bonus decks, etc. Netrunner has issues indeed, and I have to admit I'm not exactly enthralled with the game currently, but I've yet to get rid of my stuff for it (besides, keeping up with this, netrunner, and AGoT is still cheaper than playing Magic would be)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
I loved the old Decipher game, but the first thing I did when I rebuilt my collection of it was to work on writing up "scenarios" that attempted to take two decks and balance them using a set of victory conditions and points. I took a look at the player committee stuff and it was all just trying to keep the same cycle of meta going with the old game. That's fine if you're developing the game for the hardcore players but I knew having to explain virtual cards and all that to anyone new I wanted to teach the game to was going to be completely overwhelmed. Then along comes the SW LCG here and takes everything I was attempting to do with the old game and adds in simpler rules. Specifically I'd been looking to: - Get players into the meat of the game by having them start with more resources and even some units on the board from turn 1. - Shorten the length of the game for new players by having goals that would show players the game would end in y-x number of turns. - Simplify deck building by allowing players to change out X number of slots in a deck, but not total freedom. - Make tracking less of an issue. I find it hilarious that they printed cards that made your opponent shuffle his deck to get around this. Destiny, to me, should always have been about a mix of deck building and randomness, not just memorizing where a card was in your deck and learning to count cards to get back to it. The new Edge battle thing is a perfect solution, each card is 0-4, most being 1-2, with twist of fates for that bluff. - Eliminate the "force drain" as a primary win mechanic of the game. Seemed like a good idea in theory, but losing some of your best mains because you took a couple hits early can be brutal. The nature of the Light side being able to recover cards and the Dark side being able to drain more wasn't entirely balanced in my mind. - Give more purpose to having a deck that's full of not rare cards. You never used cards like Stormtroopers or generic soldiers because they always had crappy forfeit values and terrible destiny. When I first saw the game I thought it would have been perfect if stuff like storm troopers and tie fighters had good destiny values so that you'd want to include them to offset the main characters usually having 1 destiny. So in short, the LCG gives me everything I wanted to change about the old game to make it friendly for new players at the expense of very little. It's awesome, I hope I can get some more people into it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
I still use the old Decipher game as a perfect case study in bad card design.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:I still use the old Decipher game as a perfect case study in bad card design. Do you mean graphically? Because the original L5R cards were pretty ugly. I think my only real complaints with the Star Wars Decipher design were the obscene amount of text they crammed on to just about every card, and the location/size of the cost and forfeit value. Card games were still pretty young in those days but I think we knew enough to know that things that are important like that should be large, bold, and color/icon coded if possible. Mechanically it was not pretty either but I do have fond memories of looking at cards and seeing things like "Immune to 'I have you now.' and 'It's Worse!" but drat that was a mess of a game. From a design/thematic view, I loved how if you had Jabba, in the Audience Chamber, with a captive of ability greater than 3, you'd have some bonus to something. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
I mean in every way possible. I knew it was over when they started referring to cards, by title, in immense chains. And then they didn't learn from it in their following games. Decipher died for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Do you mean graphically? Because the original L5R cards were pretty ugly. I actually think the original L5R cards look nice. It wasn't the cleanest design, but I think it had a lot of style. I thought the template they went to afterwards is too plain and dull, especially for the setting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
alansmithee posted:I actually think the original L5R cards look nice. It wasn't the cleanest design, but I think it had a lot of style. I thought the template they went to afterwards is too plain and dull, especially for the setting. Definitely agree about the style, I liked the bordering a lot thought it was distracting. My biggest problem was the font they used for the numbers. It made it really hard to view your opponents numbers at a quick glance. I wasn't a huge fan of the design after that but at least it cleaned up the cards so they were easier to read. The new design is quite nice, I think they found a nice balance between form and function.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:I mean in every way possible. I knew it was over when they started referring to cards, by title, in immense chains. And then they didn't learn from it in their following games. Unfortunately, agreed. I loved playing the Decipher games in high school, but looking back it was atrocious design. Imagine a player wanting to get in on the game around Jabba's Palace release. There are tons of rules the core set never addresses, far too many objective decks you won't see until you run headlong into, and piles of silver bullets everywhere. The strength of the license at the time kept it going for as long as it did, and I cannot concieve how those guys keep playing with that fan community.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Feeple posted:Unfortunately, agreed. I loved playing the Decipher games in high school, but looking back it was atrocious design. Imagine a player wanting to get in on the game around Jabba's Palace release. There are tons of rules the core set never addresses, far too many objective decks you won't see until you run headlong into, and piles of silver bullets everywhere. The strength of the license at the time kept it going for as long as it did, and I cannot concieve how those guys keep playing with that fan community. A few people I know are still pretty big into the game, and one tried to teach me once and every time I tried to do something it seemed like he'd tell me about some hidden rule (that apparently wasn't even in rulebooks!) or some weird card interactions or just bizarre things. Granted, his decks weren't set up for necessarily teaching the game, but it was just so ridiculously convoluted. Although that being said, I don't think I would have minded something that differentiated between scale, if not unit type. Like anything smaller does max 1 damage, or something (to get past situations like those mentioned in the thread title).
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Honestly the combat math can already get complex enough that I'd really hate it if I also had to worry about "Well, Vader is character type while a speeder is vehicle type so the vehicle negates two of his unit damage icons..." I guess it's less thematic or whatever but I like the balance they've struck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
New Han Solo and  Toryn Farr in the next pack. The new Han Solo is a tutor, pretty shweet.http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4338
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
On Attack Pattern Delta, cam you use the ability, find a eligible vehicle, and not put it into play? For example, being a second copy of a unique or to surprise your opponent on their turn?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:On Attack Pattern Delta, cam you use the ability, find a eligible vehicle, and not put it into play? For example, being a second copy of a unique or to surprise your opponent on their turn? No, there's no kind of optional effect. If the vehicle can be put into play, you have to put it into play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:No, there's no kind of optional effect. If the vehicle can be put into play, you have to put it into play. Okay, so there's no MtG-esque Fail To Find when looking at hidden information? Got it, thank ya kindly!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:Okay, so there's no MtG-esque Fail To Find when looking at hidden information? Got it, thank ya kindly! I went ahead and found the official ruling so you don't have to take my word for it: quote:Rule Question:
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
I believed you, but big thanks for pulling up the ruling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Looks like they are moving to blisters. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4358 Ataru Training looks awesome. And Kyle Katarn! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Did you not see IG-88 in the fan?!  
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:06 |
|
|
I'm glad they finally announced the next cycle, I was getting worried it was slipping to 2014, if they didn't lose the license altogether.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 21:48
|
|