|
Dre2Dee2 posted:Yeah they are getting thrown together in a big ol' box with the necrons sometime next year™ Necrons and 'nids are also the only 2 factions that can't ally with (use cards from) any other factions. It'll be interesting to see how that works out and how long it'll take for them to have a big enough card pool to build competitive decks from.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
Lawen posted:Necrons and 'nids are also the only 2 factions that can't ally with (use cards from) any other factions. It'll be interesting to see how that works out and how long it'll take for them to have a big enough card pool to build competitive decks from. Actually, Necrons can use cards from ANY faction, and it's the Tyranids that can't. Should be fun!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Taran_Wanderer posted:Actually, Necrons can use cards from ANY faction, and it's the Tyranids that can't. Should be fun! Yep, my bad. Saw them by themselves in the middle of the ally wheel and misinterpreted it. That's thematic too since I think one of their things is possessing enemy units or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Any word whether Upper Deck has been C&D'd over the rerelease of Vs. with the LCG line?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Played Conquest today. The FFG demo dude was a prick, bit the game has some promise. I don't think it will dethrone Netrunner any time soon, but I think it is worth a look. I'm still salty about needing 3 cores. 2 would be perfectly reasonable, but 3 is such a kick in the dick. I wish I had a chance to see more of the factions to get an idea of their play styles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Just curious, how was dude a prick?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Chiming in to say that Conquest is loving awesome and I may build a Chaos/Dark Elder deck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:Played Conquest today. The FFG demo dude was a prick, bit the game has some promise. I don't think it will dethrone Netrunner any time soon, but I think it is worth a look. I'm still salty about needing 3 cores. 2 would be perfectly reasonable, but 3 is such a kick in the dick. I wish I had a chance to see more of the factions to get an idea of their play styles. Why do you need 3, exactly? Like, you need 3 for full playsets of everything or you think you'll need 3 core sets if you want to be able to play at all competitively?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
I wish all the LCGs worked like the Star Wars one in terms of Core Sets needed. Two core sets gets you a playset of every single objective set, and only a small handful of duplicates (They included multiple copies of a Limit 1 per Deck set so you could build all 4 decks from the core set at once.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Why do you need 3, exactly? Like, you need 3 for full playsets of everything or you think you'll need 3 core sets if you want to be able to play at all competitively? It seems like it could be hard to say. Judging by Netrunner getting those powerful cards that are only 1x can be a big deal in certain decks. Really though you're buying an extra core for SanSan City Grid, the others I think are far less reliant on getting a third particularly now that Corporate Troubleshooter is floating around as a promo. I would think that FFG took notice of this when designing Conquest and tried to make sure that all the 1x cards were really freaking good so this would be more of a factor but until the game hits retail and we start to see some local tournaments and what not it's hard to say. jivjov posted:I wish all the LCGs worked like the Star Wars one in terms of Core Sets needed. Two core sets gets you a playset of every single objective set, and only a small handful of duplicates (They included multiple copies of a Limit 1 per Deck set so you could build all 4 decks from the core set at once.) I think it's better than the Star Wars route which is requiring us to buy two of the core and deluxe expansions(Balance excluded) as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:I think it's better than the Star Wars route which is requiring us to buy two of the core and deluxe expansions(Balance excluded) as well. I'm perfectly fine with needed 2 cores (helps them keep the cores at a nice affordable price to hopefully entice more players), and only one of the Deluxe expansions so far has required a 2nd one. Is the upcoming new one gonna require a 2nd box?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I'm perfectly fine with needed 2 cores (helps them keep the cores at a nice affordable price to hopefully entice more players), and only one of the Deluxe expansions so far has required a 2nd one. Is the upcoming new one gonna require a 2nd box? Oh I'm wrong apparently it includes 2 of each objective. Still the difference in price between buying a third core and a second Edge of Darkness is pretty negligible. $5 according to prices on Amazon($17 vs $22). I know for some people that's probably a lot but I don't think it's a huge deal. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Jedit posted:You can get perfectly balanced decks for all six factions by purchasing one copy each of Combat in Kowloon and Back For Seconds. Any of the first three Shadowpacks are viable as expansions to this. I would definitely buy Reloaded, though, as it has at least one essential card for most factions. Again, for basic fun decks you need only one copy. The second wave of Shadowpacks is on the boat right now and I should have my copies soon. Alright I'm ordering: 1x Shadow of Kowloon 1x Back for Seconds 1x Reloaded 1x Action Pack 1x Revelations 1x Reinforcements That seems like it should be more than enough to get me started and get some decent decks built. Thanks. I look forward to telling you how much I dislike the game and how I'm stupid for listening to you but it's what I deserve for listening to a guy named "Jedit" and isn't rocking the Legends artwork.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:I look forward to telling you how much I dislike the game and how I'm stupid for listening to you but it's what I deserve for listening to a guy named "Jedit" and isn't rocking the Legends artwork. I use the Legends artwork everywhere else I have an avatar, as it happens. Two recommendations for getting started: use the preconstructed decks without tweaking, and play with three people (possibly four). Shadowfist is tolerable as a two-player game, but it only really shines in multiplayer. Also I recommend reading the online rulebook, as it's a little more detailed. When you do get to building your own decks, pay attention to the preconstructed decks and specifically their ratio of foundation characters. These are the ones that don't require a resource to get into play, only Power. Getting at least one of these cards early is essential. While you do get a free mulligan on turn 1 and a costly one every turn thereafter, you don't want to waste time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Why do you need 3, exactly? Like, you need 3 for full playsets of everything or you think you'll need 3 core sets if you want to be able to play at all competitively? It's unclear, but I want to have the option to build any competitive deck, and as others have pointed out in Netrunner the SanSans are important as 3 ofs in some decks. When the game was younger the consoles were also pretty important. I imagine Conquest will be the same. If the one ofs are all garbage, then few people will buy more than two, and they clearly want competitive players to buy 3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
I have 2 core sets and i really regret not getiing a 3rd. There are usually only 2 cards per faction that you get max allotment (3) for when you buy 2 sets. I played/watched about 20 games over the weekend and really enjoyed the hell out of it. My buddies IG+ space marines deck was crushing everyone for a while, then I built an ork+IG that countered it pretty well. Strakens support card that makes guardsmen is OP as hell! While it sucks that you need 3 sets, the competitive deck options in 3 cores is really vast. Youre starting out with a ton more options!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
I don't know if FFG has said anything about why they dropped VtES but I know Richard Garfield more recently has said that it's too long for a CCG. It's very much a product of the early CCG days but with a good reworking like Netrunner it could be very successful. Also, Vampire the Masquerade is a product of the 90's and doesn't sell like it used to. We don't even know if the whole VtES thing fell through because of anything to do with the game. It could have fallen through due to CCP asking for more than FFG was willing to pay because CCP at that time was burning money on World of Darkness. FFG could have also gotten the green light for Conquest right around that time, which is an infinitely more popular game setting that people are known to sink mountains of money into.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:It's unclear, but I want to have the option to build any competitive deck, and as others have pointed out in Netrunner the SanSans are important as 3 ofs in some decks. When the game was younger the consoles were also pretty important. I imagine Conquest will be the same. If the one ofs are all garbage, then few people will buy more than two, and they clearly want competitive players to buy 3. I know, I play Netrunner competitively and I stay away from San San builds because I never bought a 3rd core set. It's not as though you can't play the game competitively without that one card, there are plenty of competitive Corps decks out there - I'm asking more about how wide spread the 'I need three of this one of card' problem would be among the factions. If it something that ever faction has a problem with, that's definitely an issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
S.J. posted:I know, I play Netrunner competitively and I stay away from San San builds because I never bought a 3rd core set. It's not as though you can't play the game competitively without that one card, there are plenty of competitive Corps decks out there - I'm asking more about how wide spread the 'I need three of this one of card' problem would be among the factions. If it something that ever faction has a problem with, that's definitely an issue. I haven't seen all the cards. I imagine it will be most pronounced for the first few months as the card pool will be small, so even a moderately good 1 of will be a pretty important card for a lot of decks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
So reading the rules for 40k Conquest, could there be a "winner wins more" issue if someone somehow completely dominates the planets, such that their resource and card generation outpaces their opponent? I assume it is extremely unlikely, but it's something that I was thinking about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
Lost Realm info was posted! http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=5003 Focus seems to be on rangers! quote:The Lost Realm introduces two new Dúnedain heroes, numerous Dúnedain allies, and a wealth of player cards that reward players for engaging enemies.  Also the cycle is called Angmar Awakened!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:So reading the rules for 40k Conquest, could there be a "winner wins more" issue if someone somehow completely dominates the planets, such that their resource and card generation outpaces their opponent? I assume it is extremely unlikely, but it's something that I was thinking about. Have any scans of the cards appeared? I know the game just got released a few days ago but for some reason I assumed that there would be a full visual spoiler of the core set uploaded somewhere by now. Edit: Not sure if this is full or not but there's www.40kconquestspoiler.com. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
First, Leadership Aragorn, then Lore Aragorn, now Fellowship and Tactics Aragorn. How soon do you think before we have a Spirit Aragorn?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
mongol posted:First, Leadership Aragorn, then Lore Aragorn, now Fellowship and Tactics Aragorn. How soon do you think before we have a Spirit Aragorn? The two Dunedain heroes in the box are clearly Tactics Aragorn and Spirit Aragorn. I'm not a huge fan of the Dunedain mechanism they're showing off though in that preview.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
mongol posted:First, Leadership Aragorn, then Lore Aragorn, now Fellowship and Tactics Aragorn. How soon do you think before we have a Spirit Aragorn? If we can get a Baggins Sphere Aragon we'll have a full set! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Have any scans of the cards appeared? I know the game just got released a few days ago but for some reason I assumed that there would be a full visual spoiler of the core set uploaded somewhere by now. They're all up on cardgamedb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Have any scans of the cards appeared? I know the game just got released a few days ago but for some reason I assumed that there would be a full visual spoiler of the core set uploaded somewhere by now. CardgameDB has a complete spoiler of the core as well. My feeling, not based on playing, is that winner-wins-more won't be a problem. In terms of resource generation, remember that command struggle to milk resource is different from battle to kill dudes. You see units like IG Psyker and Ork Bad Dok that aren't good fighters but bring a fat stack of command icons for that reason I think. And warlords have infinity billion command icons, with enhanced running-away ability. So I think it will be tricky business for a player to win a disproportionate share of the 5 command struggles/round, to the point where frankly if you scoop all 5 of the struggles away from your enemy he kinda deserves to be stomped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
ChiTownEddie posted:Lost Realm info was posted! Even more information on this page: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_npm_sec.asp?eidm=249&esem=1 Ranger of the North is a sick new concept. You use a Leadership event to shuffle it into the encounter deck and when it's revealed it either does two damage or adds two progress to a location and then first player chooses who gets to control it. Personally I'm pumped for these new ranger mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:Even more information on this page: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_npm_sec.asp?eidm=249&esem=1 This is pretty drat cool. It reminds me, sorta, of token creatures from Magic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:CardgameDB has a complete spoiler of the core as well. My feeling, not based on playing, is that winner-wins-more won't be a problem. In terms of resource generation, remember that command struggle to milk resource is different from battle to kill dudes. You see units like IG Psyker and Ork Bad Dok that aren't good fighters but bring a fat stack of command icons for that reason I think. And warlords have infinity billion command icons, with enhanced running-away ability. So I think it will be tricky business for a player to win a disproportionate share of the 5 command struggles/round, to the point where frankly if you scoop all 5 of the struggles away from your enemy he kinda deserves to be stomped. Yeah, my gut instinct says that losing massively means either you suck (ie, you're new and don't have enough card knowledge to judge possibilities/risks) or you got completely outplayed, which are acceptable. But I am sort of worried about the "death spiral" effect in that if you get blown out the first turn, you might as well scoop. I'll probably pick up a Core, though, and trigger my collector's instincts to get more 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
There's a dude on BGG posting some thoughts and recollections of the Gen Con tournament. He got a couple opponents who felt frustrated and forfeited turn 2 after sour openings. However his recap of the final game says he started real strong, wiping the enemy board clean, but his opponent didn't scoop like a pussy as the earlier ones did and staged a comeback. I figure, ideally, because a unit can't have good command icon, good fighting power, and low resource cost, if you're beating the other guy hard at multiple command struggles, he should have the fighting ability to kill you at some battles and swing next round command to his favor. And/or your big powerful guys cost so much that you might easily take one world but can't put guys at the others as well? I think it's interesting that it's a bit hard to stack up on 1- or 2-cost units with what the Core presents, but the 4 resource/turn and bullshit moves like Dark Eldar Power From Pain really disincentivize big dudes. Like really I'm theorycrafting IG w/ Marine based around Bodyguarding Blood Angels and it seems like every desirable Unit takes three drat resource. Especially as the IG cheapos like Penal Legionnaire don't have the Soldier/Warrior trait they need to interact with my warlord and his tricks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
I think the other thing is that the Gencon tournament is 1x Core. With all the singletons and the lack of card knowledge, I can definitely see it being an issue. And yeah, my thinking was that if your opponent has dudes on all the planets, but you have more on the first planet, you're probably winning in the end. But I was just wondering about the concern, especially as it pertains to first impressions. Maybe I can wait half a year for the Tyranids to come out because gently caress playing anything else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Mmmmhmmm. I'm not into the nids or crons but I do wish FFG would clarify their plans for those factions some more. For all that I've been posting and theorydeckbuilding I too might not actually buy this game until a few months post-release have given it time to be studied. Have some real gripes from listening to Netrunner hype that I don't wanna repeat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:So reading the rules for 40k Conquest, could there be a "winner wins more" issue if someone somehow completely dominates the planets, such that their resource and card generation outpaces their opponent? I assume it is extremely unlikely, but it's something that I was thinking about. From the dozen or so games I've played, I don't think runaway leader is going to be a huge problem but I also think that it won't be uncommon to see a turning point at the 3/4/5 round mark where it'll sometimes be pretty obvious that you (or your opponent) should just resign. That said, if it happens, it's because you hosed up or your opponent had just the right card in hand earlier in the game to derail your plans (we were playing stock faction decks but obviously, building a poor deck could lead to this as well). I mean yeah, if your opponent completely dominates the planets in the early command phases he's probably going to have way more resources later in the game and that would be a bad thing for you but you really shouldn't be letting your opponent dominate the planets (and there are lots of options to prevent him from doing so). Alternately, if you do choose to let your opponent dominate planets for resources, you'll probably be scoring the first planet or two in the meantime and have a pretty big advantage later in only needing one more planet for the win while they're still trying to get their first planet scored. Keep in mind that if you commit your warlord to a planet and the other player commits his to a different one, you outright win that planet's resources regardless of how many command icons his (non-warlord) units on that planet have. So if you really need the 2-0 or 0-2 planet's resources/cards and it's not the first planet that round, you can usually concede the first planet to claim the resources you need to give you a boost to get back in the game. Then, like SuperKlaus said, you also have strong command icon cards to splash around, either to try to snag some extra resources/cards or to put pressure on your opponent to commit his warlord to one of the planets that you're not committing your warlord to. Also, if you have cards in hand that you don't have the available resources to pay for, they aren't completely useless as long as they have shield icons on them. That's actually pretty huge and can really tip the balance. Lawen fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:Mmmmhmmm. I'm not into the nids or crons but I do wish FFG would clarify their plans for those factions some more. For all that I've been posting and theorydeckbuilding I too might not actually buy this game until a few months post-release have given it time to be studied. Have some real gripes from listening to Netrunner hype that I don't wanna repeat. What didn't you like about Netrunner because it feels like a way stronger game to me. Not that Conquest might not be solid, but I wouldn't consider it on the same tier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Ok, so I got a chance to get on a device with an actual keyboard. Conquest thoughts: 3 Cores are going to be necessary for competitive play, for reasons mentioned earlier in the thread. Specifically, because when you lay out a factions available cards, 80% of them are single card only in a Core. Only 2 cars per faction have 2 copies in a core, not including the warlord's locked signature cards. This also creates a situation where you end up with a shitload of extra unusable warlord cards, and 6+ copies of cards of a type. I am not super happy with this, but it feels like an acceptable tradeoff for a game that comes with such a huge variety of factions and cards in the base set. It is just more of your money early Runaway winner only seems to be an issue with newer players. If one player understands how to win the command phase convincingly, and do so early, and the other player fumbles around or makes a few bad decisions...it's over. But in my experience, 2 players who had some games under their belt rarely had this issue. The only way I can see an early scoop is if you get no/low units in your first hand, mulligan it, and end up with the same in your second hand. The issue being that units are 95% of the economy in this game, as well as the path to your win conditions. Being dealt early hands with few units can put you in a doom spiral for sure, as you will not be able to grab the high-draw planets to fix your problem. I never had it happen to me, but I suppose its possible. I did have a game where I went down 2 planets, had a hand with no units and no draws from command phase...and ended up winning the game. This goes into my next point, which is... Planet icon order is loving huge. If you see a table where there is not a "win first 3 planets to win" situation, or you can look at the combination of colors and see that some are not as high priority, use that to your advantage! It is good play to skip a 1st planet that you can afford to give up while you win some command battles, especially if the initiative is flipping over to you next turn. Initiative can make or break your battle plan at the huge planet 1 brawls that end up happening later in the game. Ranged and Ambush /anything that can screw with the normal order of battle, either attacking first (initiative/warlord/ranged) are very solid, but when you can throw in units as combat actions (hand of isha/space marine scouts/elysian drop dudes) you can swing a battle out of nowhere. There is an IG card that gives 3 units ranged, and it is the bane of my fuckin existence. It has singlehandedly swung a last planet battle against me in at least 3 games. Very powerful. Shields are a great mechanic. As long as your opponent has cards, the existence of shields really starts to screw with the math of your battles. I generally found that I wanted to overkill by 1 damage if possible, because there are very few shield cards with more than 1 icon. This game has a lot of cool bluff mechanics, and this is one of them. I have skipped using shields on important things to convince my opponent that I didn't have any, then use it at the last minute to turn the battle my way. Assassination, and causing early damage to their warlord, is very good. It is easy to create a situation where your opponent is gunshy of your first attack (initiative or ranged/etc) just taking out their warlord before they get a chance to de-commit. I feel that putting high early damage or bloodying their warlord early is an extremely smart tactic, and sometimes worth giving up a battle to do so. So far, I have played the starter decks for every faction, I think. I have deck-built/played the following: IG + SM - really nasty deck, straken buffs most of the marine stuff and between scouts, elysians, and that stupid "give 3 units ranged" card, I really had a lot of trouble beating this deck. Eldar + DE - very finicky and difficult to use, but ultimately I feel it will be very powerful. I wasnt playing the various yard combos as well as I could have, which I think is the key. I mostly just put a few DE ranged units in the deck, with a few cool events. Orks + IG - I only got a game with this deck, but it was a monster against the earlier mentioned IG/SM build. I ran enraged orks with the +3 hp equipment from IG, poo poo like that. It took a punch and then hit back crazy hard. I barely drew any units early and still won out later when I got a bunch of flash gits and goff boyz out and started rolling 1st planets. Overall the game really clicked with me, and I am super loving pumped to dig deeper and find more gold in the base cards. It scratches the LCG deck building itch and fits a bunch of other criteria that I have not found in other LCGs, which is theme I like, games that take ~30 minutes, heavy battle theme, and unique mechanics. Thats a lot of  hope someone finds it useful.
PaintVagrant fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks bro!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
PaintVagrant posted:Ok, so I got a chance to get on a device with an actual keyboard. Conquest thoughts: This is a great review. Anything you didn't like? Which factions/decks do you think we're hurry most by lack m of multiples?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Yeah the game certainly plays fast. I don't know if it would slow down more if you played more and felt you needed to go into the tank, but I doubt it. It's a lot more viable as a lunch break game than Netrunner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
PaintVagrant posted:Ok, so I got a chance to get on a device with an actual keyboard. Conquest thoughts: Yeah that makes me super stoked. I just don't know if I'll have the money or 3 sets between this and Doomtown. And I'm sure no one in the store will play it
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 03:49
|
|