|
Thirsty Dog posted:High Command was dull with just the starter set but it is a much, much better game now. I.. really dislike High Command. My buddy played khador and won just by buying units that give victory points, instead of fighting over territory. This was in a 3-4 player game though. Is uhh a program named after an eight sided object not allowed here? Because thats a great way to play test stuff. Also to grab other players, since my area in British Colombia doesn't have a lot of Conquest players.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
Cheers for all the answers. I talked it over with my group, and I ended up picking all three starter High Command boxes since a) got them really cheap b) playing more than two people at a time is important for us and c) they preferred the novelty of a deckbuilding game - most of them have bad experiences with deckbuilding in Magic it seems. It also helps that they have incredibly lovely taste in games (Risk and Monopoly are some of their favourite (and only) games) so any kind of perceived issue regarding bad luck when drawing or anything like that is bound to go unnoticed/uncriticized. Sadly, $85 in shipping.  That said, I will pick up Warhammer Conquest further down the line - I like the mechanics and the dynamic gameplay, but it can wait for now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Exmond posted:I.. really dislike High Command. My buddy played khador and won just by buying units that give victory points, instead of fighting over territory. This was in a 3-4 player game though. With just the base sets? It's much, much harder to get anywhere now with Khador ignoring fights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Spoilers for The Scourge (new Conquest warpack) are up, and they're looking awesome! Lots of really cool and interesting cards there-- in particular, the two least popular factions, Orks and IG/AM, got big buffs with cards like Dakka Dakka Dakka! and Iron Guard Recruits. I'm looking forward to building an Ork deck that uses high-HP units and Dakka Dakka Dakka! to power up Brutal and Bad Dok and overwhelm opposing capping units-- most current decks use lots of 1 HP weenies to hold down command, and it looks like Orks will have some of the best tools to deal with that. Between Dakka Dakka Dakka!, Ork Kannon, and importing both Iron Guard Recruits and Sanctioned Psyker from the IG/AM, I think the Orks just got quite scary when it comes to command! I also like the looks of the new Chaos warlord. Moving damage is a very powerful effect, and while he isn't quite as much of a support player as Zarathur, he's quite a threat on his own. Fetterkey fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Are the factions roughly balanced with each other in the 40k LCG?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
GlisteningDragon posted:Are the factions roughly balanced with each other in the 40k LCG? Considering it's just a core set and a single expansion it's not so bad. Dark Eldar and Space Marines tend to have a leg up at the moment. It'll get way better by the end of the cycle though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
GlisteningDragon posted:Are the factions roughly balanced with each other in the 40k LCG? None of the factions are outright bad/unplayable, but some are definitely better than others. Being an LCG, this will fluctuate and waver over time. Also goddamn that Klaivex Warleader is insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
So I don't know if they're kosher to discuss here, but this seems like the place: Does anyone here play Marvel's Legendary and its expansions? It's a pretty quick, fun co-op deckbuilder where all the cards are solely contained in the core set (and expansions, if you want more heroes, villains, and plots,) but you never need to buy more than one of any set and there's no real PVP to speak of. I've been having a lot of fun with it (I did skip the Fantastic Four expansion and the Villains core-box/alternate gamemode), but overall it's a really fun game with a very comic-bookish flow. All the heroes play like you'd expect them to play and are pretty well-represented mechanically, and the style of game really lends itself to that protracted back-and-forth battle that you'd expect from a major Marvel event. I'm definitely considering picking up Villains and the slated Villains expansion (Fear Itself, based on the comic book arc) next month, but I don't know if "It's the same game as Legendary, BUT YOU'RE THE BAD GUYS" is really worth it to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:None of the factions are outright bad/unplayable, but some are definitely better than others. Being an LCG, this will fluctuate and waver over time. I can't wait to attach Dozer Blades to all kinds of nonsensical units. Valkyries! Killa Kanz! And it might actually make the drat Hellhounds useful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
I'm actually really excited about that new ork support, it's a fantastic effect even before you take brutal into account. Being able to effectively share hit point pools is going to be huge. It may cause some people to misplay into stuff like Klaivex Warleader, though it's important to note that because the support effect turns the attack into indirect damage, the Fury of Sicarius won't be usable against it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Tempus Rimeblood posted:So I don't know if they're kosher to discuss here, but this seems like the place: LCGs are their own animal. Legendary is more like Dominion and is best discussed in the main Trad Board Games thread, where it has been discussed before. Not that anyone is likely to bite your dick off for mentioning it here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:I'm actually really excited about that new ork support, it's a fantastic effect even before you take brutal into account. Being able to effectively share hit point pools is going to be huge. It may cause some people to misplay into stuff like Klaivex Warleader, though it's important to note that because the support effect turns the attack into indirect damage, the Fury of Sicarius won't be usable against it. Kustom Fields is hilariously awesome, probably my favorite card of the pack (I am biased towards orks though). Nazdreg's benefits from it are obvious, but Zogwart will also get a tiny bit of use out of it (plopping damage on runtherders to get more snots).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
I'm still waiting to see a reason why I would use Zogwart at all. I really don't like the look of him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
What's the timing on Shielding damage versus using the reaction on the field generator? For example: I use Dakka Dakka Dakka and deal 1 damage to my Orc Doctor and an opponents Trader. Can I use the Field Generator after he uses a shield to prevent the damage to his Trader or do I have to use it before he has an opportunity to use a shield?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:What's the timing on Shielding damage versus using the reaction on the field generator? That won't interact with the shield generator at all because the shield generator can only be used against damage caused by an attack. But the order goes Assign Damage -> Shields -> Take Damage, and the generator is a reaction you'd have to use after one of your orc units is assigned damage, so it would be before shields are used.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Ku'gath is the best manfighting Warlord released so far. He beats any Warlord and many units 1 on 1 by effectively dealing 2 damage and healing 1 with every attack. That said, I find his signature squad unit and support to be incredibly weak and Chaos still has not gotten their second 2-Shield card, so he's likely to stay on The Shelf for a while more. EDIT: Oops, mixed up Zogwort and Ku'gath. nyxnyxnyx fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
nyxnyxnyx posted:Zogwart is the best manfighting Warlord released so far. He beats any Warlord and many units 1 on 1 by effectively dealing 2 damage and healing 1 with every attack. You're saying Zogwart, but you mean to say Kugath. Kugath is amazing. Zogwart blows up all the tokens he wants to play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
S.J. posted:I'm still waiting to see a reason why I would use Zogwart at all. I really don't like the look of him. If we had more effects to sacrifice units for stuff Zogwart could get pretty good. Considering that Orks ally with Chaos and Imperial Guard, that kind of effect shouldn't be scarce for too long.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:If we had more effects to sacrifice units for stuff Zogwart could get pretty good. Considering that Orks ally with Chaos and Imperial Guard, that kind of effect shouldn't be scarce for too long. They've been pretty harsh about IG sacrifice effects so far, since they all require an IG unit, not any unit. That's keeping that faction from really taking off (that and poo poo all for Kimera clearing).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:None of the factions are outright bad/unplayable, but some are definitely better than others. Being an LCG, this will fluctuate and waver over time. That was my worry when I saw that they had all the factions playable. What factions are the top right now, the weakest? Are the poster children (Space Marines) the top?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
GlisteningDragon posted:That was my worry when I saw that they had all the factions playable. What factions are the top right now, the weakest? Are the poster children (Space Marines) the top? Space Marine decks have been the best so far, but Dark Eldar decks are right there with them and in greater number. We have yet to see the effects that the 2 packs have had on the game, but looking at the cards it seems like Space Marines have received the least benefits so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
GlisteningDragon posted:Are the factions roughly balanced with each other in the 40k LCG? Roughly, yes. Orks and IG seem slightly worse than others and Space Marines and Dark Eldar seem slightly better, but the warpacks look like they're doing a good job of balancing this out. For instance, Space Marines got only very situational cards in the most recent warpack, while Orks and IG both got great staples. Space Marines aren't "the top" per se but they're a very versatile army and have few bad matchups. To put it another way, if you name a faction there is probably some faction that is better against it than Space Marines are, but Space Marines in turn don't have as significant weaknesses as other factions do. That sort of versatility and consistency can be a real boon, especially across a large tournament.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
So I should probably absolutely wait on the GoT card game until gencon, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
MisterShine posted:So I should probably absolutely wait on the GoT card game until gencon, yeah? That's what it sounds like! As we get closer to it I imagine you'll be able to find the first ed. really cheap if you really want to test the game out early, but I wouldn't bother now for near-full price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Well I'm a big house Martell fan so if they're getting boxed in the new core set and the first Ed stuff isn't going to be useful anymore, might as well wait Be nice to get in ground floor on an lcg for once and not have 20 packs to buy
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
I was hoping someone could help me out with some basic questions I still have after reading the OP. My fiancée and I have very recently started to get into designer board games, and are interested in getting some more. (We just bought Twilight Struggle.) The LCG format sounds interesting to me, and the themes are appealing (especially Netrunner and LotR, and maybe Star Wars to a lesser extent). Our play sessions are just the two of us on a weekday night or sometimes a Saturday afternoon. Neither of us have any interest in ever doing a tournament of any kind. That said, is there still a need to buy multiple versions of the core set/expansions? That would be a huge turnoff - I'd love it if we could sort of treat this as a board game with expansions, like, say, Rivals for Catan. Assuming so, any general thoughts on whether to pick up Android/LotR/Star Wars outside of which has the most appealing theme?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Mr. Met posted:I was hoping someone could help me out with some basic questions I still have after reading the OP. My fiancée and I have very recently started to get into designer board games, and are interested in getting some more. (We just bought Twilight Struggle.) The LCG format sounds interesting to me, and the themes are appealing (especially Netrunner and LotR, and maybe Star Wars to a lesser extent). I got into the LCG format for the same reason, and my advice to you is get LotR. The game has the benefit of being co-op, so you can both learn the game together and help each other out. Android was a huge turn-off at first because it was so complicated and we couldn't really assist each other. Also, LotR is a good format if you aren't interested in tournaments anyway, since you just play against the game's encounter deck and can purchase more quests as you go along. Also, it's very good. The way the game alters its mechanics to represent certain events is pretty fascinating. Max fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Mr. Met posted:I was hoping someone could help me out with some basic questions I still have after reading the OP. My fiancée and I have very recently started to get into designer board games, and are interested in getting some more. (We just bought Twilight Struggle.) The LCG format sounds interesting to me, and the themes are appealing (especially Netrunner and LotR, and maybe Star Wars to a lesser extent). LCGs work pretty well if you just treat them as board games, though you might want a second core anyway to expand your options. As for which one, I'd recommend Lord of the Rings over the others a bit, as it's a co-op, but if a particular theme really appeals to you, I'd go with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
I'm going to third LotR. The basic concepts of things like timing windows that are present in all of FFG's LCGs(and most CCGs/ECGs/TCGs) are best learned for total new players in a co-op format. Netrunner will be very unforgiving and painful, I don't know any couples that got into it. Star Wars is more forgiving but the only couple I know that got into it was already into a lot of other games competitively. The couple I know that got into LotR did so because they were both fairly new into the hobby and she wasn't as into it as he was so he could spend time designing the decks and then she could sort of follow his lead in game. Also as mentioned LotR has a lot of replay with just a core and is a lot easier to expand with single adventure packs fueling your new game nights. If it's something you'd look to play really often, I'd say it probably falls short of Netrunner or Star Wars in that regard as the games are a bit longer and there isn't a whole lot of variation in terms of surprises or interesting plays to be made once you're familiar with what works and what doesn't. With 2 players you're probably ok just buying a single LotR core as well. With any of the other games: you'd want at least 2 cores for Netrunner and the first deluxe expansion for Star Wars(Edge of Darkness).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Thanks for the help, LotR sounds perfect and I'll probably go ahead and order the core today. The replayability problem you mention I'm sure won't be a concern given how many expansion packs there are combined with the fact that I expect we will rotate it and out with other board games. Also, I'll probably buy every single expansion in order of release since I'm an insane person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Mr. Met posted:I was hoping someone could help me out with some basic questions I still have after reading the OP. My fiancée and I have very recently started to get into designer board games, and are interested in getting some more. (We just bought Twilight Struggle.) The LCG format sounds interesting to me, and the themes are appealing (especially Netrunner and LotR, and maybe Star Wars to a lesser extent). The first thing you need to figure out is if you want a co-op or a competitive game. If you want co-op, buy LotR. A single Core should be enough to let you figure out if you like the game enough to buy xpacs and/or a 2nd Core. LotR is probably the LCG that least requires buying a 2nd Core (there's definitely some 2nd Core stuff you'll want if you get really into -- more Gandalfs at least but probably some other stuff that I can't remember off the top of my head...Forest Snares maybe?). LotR also has the benefit of supporting solitaire play, so even if your fiancee doesn't get into, you can still play it by yourself. If you want a competitive game, your best options right now are probably either Netrunner or WH40k; choose whichever theme most appeals to both of you. There are other options: Star Wars, Call of Cthulu and Warhammer: Invasion (I haven't played any of them), Game of Thrones (being retired and replaced later this year), and non-FFG stuff like Doomtown, Pathfinder, or Shadowrun. Netrunner or 40k are probably your best bets though. You should be fine starting with a single Core of either, if you guys get really into it you can start thinking about a 2nd/3rd Core. Keep in mind that if you go for competitive, it's going to be pretty important that your fiancee is just as into the game as you are, since she'll need to spend time between gaming sessions building decks to compete against yours. It's possible for you to build decks for both of you to play but that can be tricky since you'll be hyper-aware of the card interactions and she'll be trying to figure out how the deck you made for her "works". This is much less of a problem with LotR; since you're playing co-op it's not nearly as big of a deal for one person to deckbuild and the other to just play (unless quarterbacking is a huge issue for her). FWIW I really enjoy Netrunner but only know one other person who plays it (outside of OCTGN) and my wife liked it but didn't like it enough to get into deckbuilding, so we don't really play it together anymore. LotR is one of my favorite games ever, my wife likes it and will sometimes play it with me if I hand her a deck (though it's not really a game she ever requests), but most of my plays are two-handed solitaire. Good luck. edit: left the response open in a tab too long so everything above has pretty much already been covered. Mr. Met posted:Also, I'll probably buy every single expansion in order of release since I'm an insane person. I feel you on the compulsive collecting thing but seriously, don't feel like you need to buy everything and certainly not all at once. Tales from the Cards has a pretty great xpac buying guide, give it a read-through. My policy is to at least finish all the quests in a cycle before buying anything from the next cycle. Also, as a heads-up, FFG doesn't keep all of the xpacs in print all of the time, some stuff you may have to wait a few months for a reprint. Lawen fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Lawen posted:I feel you on the compulsive collecting thing but seriously, don't feel like you need to buy everything and certainly not all at once. Oh god no. I just meant that after we play through the core, I'll start the earliest expansions and playing through them. (Assuming we don't hate the game.) I'm not THAT nuts. Hard to imagine throwing hundreds of dollars at something sight unseen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Myself, I'd advise Star Wars, as it's very newbie-friendly (non-intimidating deckbuilding is a big factor here) and very good in general. I bought it as a simpler alternative to Netrunner I could play with my girlfriend and then really fell in love with it. It's not very popular, since FFG really mishandled the line (long shipping delays combined with system that in itself makes for slow changes in meta, driving away competitive players), but make no mistake - the gameplay is excellent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
I'd recommend Doom Town. Having played all the LCGs in their early days, I think it's perhaps the strongest at this early stage of its existence. One copy of the first box is certainly enough for two people who aren't hoping to play competitively, and if LCGs end up not being for you, well you still get a really nice deck or two of full, beautifully illustrated, playing cards out of them. So you can use them for games of Poker or Hearts or something. There's a thread for it somewhere. And if you do like it, well you're in on the ground floor like everyone rather than starting a game that's been around for a while. You'll experience the new stuff when everyone else does. Funso Banjo fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Lawen posted:LotR is probably the LCG that least requires buying a 2nd Core (there's definitely some 2nd Core stuff you'll want if you get really into -- more Gandalfs at least but probably some other stuff that I can't remember off the top of my head...Forest Snares maybe?). You can cope with only four Gandalfs if you're playing solo, and even two-player co-op isn't much of a problem. On the other hand, Sneak Attack, Steward of Gondor, Dwarven Tomb, Unexpected Courage and The Galadhrim's Greeting are all staples that you don't get three copies of in the Core Set.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Fetterkey posted:Roughly, yes. Orks and IG seem slightly worse than others and Space Marines and Dark Eldar seem slightly better, but the warpacks look like they're doing a good job of balancing this out. For instance, Space Marines got only very situational cards in the most recent warpack, while Orks and IG both got great staples. As long as it is better than A:NR balance when I stopped playing it. I picked up a core last night and I am a little bummed that you pretty much need two of them to build a consistent deck, just like A:NR. I still don't understand why they cannot just give us playsets in the core.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
GlisteningDragon posted:As long as it is better than A:NR balance when I stopped playing it. I picked up a core last night and I am a little bummed that you pretty much need two of them to build a consistent deck, just like A:NR. I still don't understand why they cannot just give us playsets in the core. The party line (if you chose to believe it or not) is that core sets are designed to be introductions to the game. If they gave you full play sets they wouldn't be able to give you the wide berth of cards they do AND keep the price low enough for someone to pick up "just to try it".
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
GlisteningDragon posted:As long as it is better than A:NR balance when I stopped playing it. I picked up a core last night and I am a little bummed that you pretty much need two of them to build a consistent deck, just like A:NR. I still don't understand why they cannot just give us playsets in the core. Because then they'd have to charge double or split into separate boxes for different factions which is confusing and doesn't encourage playing different factions. If they'd just included play sets or certain cards they'd have to skip others and that would make the deck building aspect worthless. The base core is designed entirely to give you a feel for the game, then if you like it you can invest more to play competitively or just stick with the base stuff and fuss around. I think the $30+ price is the only point they hosed up on for Conquest but otherwise their model is fine. The benefits or netting casuals is perfect, again I wish they'd gotten the MSRP down so we'd see $20 sales of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
omnibobb posted:The party line (if you chose to believe it or not) is that core sets are designed to be introductions to the game. I understand the "pick up and play" aspect of it, I just get tired of the redundancy coming from FFG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
I wonder how much additional copies of the same cards would actually add to production costs. There is no additional R&D so it can't be compared to an expansion pack. In fact, it might need less play testing because they could just test complete decks instead of having to test the sparse decks and competitive decks for balance. Furthermore, I think a lot of casual people are turned off by the feeling of getting ripped off, even if in practice they weren't going to have more fun with 3 of everything anyways. LotR's base set would probably get better reviews if it had better cards. It breeds ill will and distrust for the brand. If I were marketing these games I would try to make at least one of the following happen, in order of desirability: - Just print 3 of everything in every core set, consider it a loss leader - Sell a "complete your core set" thingy for cheap - Sell a complete 3 of core set after a year for people who want to catchup. fozzy fosbourne fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:46
|
|
