|
I also think Conquest maybe didn't need to have as many factions as it did, at least initially. I wonder it they considered multiple starter core sets with different factions but more card support.
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
Blamestorm posted:I also think Conquest maybe didn't need to have as many factions as it did, at least initially. I wonder it they considered multiple starter core sets with different factions but more card support. Possibly. They're already going to be adding Tyranids and Necrons in at a later date. That'll make the meta... interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Blamestorm posted:I also think Conquest maybe didn't need to have as many factions as it did, at least initially. I wonder it they considered multiple starter core sets with different factions but more card support. I don't see how they could cut a faction and bring it in later given the loyalty wheel. The two exceptions interact with the wheel in a wholely different way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Possibly. They're already going to be adding Tyranids and Necrons in at a later date. That'll make the meta... interesting. If it wasn't for the goddamn Rogue Trader/Void Pirate the Tyranids would be the perfect entry point for a new player, since they can't use anything but their own stuff (and neutral).
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:If it wasn't for the goddamn Rogue Trader/Void Pirate the Tyranids would be the perfect entry point for a new player, since they can't use anything but their own stuff (and neutral). Huh? Whats so bad about the Rogue Trader / Void Pirate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Exmond posted:Huh? Whats so bad about the Rogue Trader / Void Pirate? Nothing, it's that they're pretty much mandatory cards for any deck (Promotion slightly less so).
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Exmond posted:Huh? Whats so bad about the Rogue Trader / Void Pirate? Neutral so even Tyranids will want them. Mandatory 3 of each in every deck and there's only 2 in a Core Set. Hopefully they've planned for some other kind of economy and we'll see that within the first 2 cycles so there's at least a choice on taking the Trader/Pirate. On another note, has anyone had any experience with Ragnar in their local meta? He only came out here (and the local store tourney is Core only because of the release delays) so I haven't seen him yet and I'm wondering if he works well yet. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Neutral so even Tyranids will want them. Mandatory 3 of each in every deck and there's only 2 in a Core Set. Hopefully they've planned for some other kind of economy and we'll see that within the first 2 cycles so there's at least a choice on taking the Trader/Pirate. I don't know if rogue trader is necessary in eldar decks. They have enough control as is. If the tyranids get the same useful control cards they might not need Rogue Trader / Pirate combo. Haven't seen Ragnar in my meta yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Is it bad that I don't use Rogue Trader/Void Pirates  Playing Tau means that I usually have a ton of resources between Shadowsun's ability and stuff like Carnivore Packs, whatever their mobile dude was called and Earth Caste Technician. Cards I wouldn't mind more of, but eh. Playing Orks means that those cards will likely get friendly fire'd from things like Weirdboy Maniak and Dakka Dakka Dakka or even Ork Kannon. That being said I don't have much of a meta except like 1-2 of my friends, so maybe that is what I'm missing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Is there any ETA on Nids/Necrons? They were the two factions I was most interested in coming from 40k tabletop and I was pretty bummed they weren't in yet
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
MisterShine posted:Is there any ETA on Nids/Necrons? They were the two factions I was most interested in coming from 40k tabletop and I was pretty bummed they weren't in yet Nope, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
MisterShine posted:Is there any ETA on Nids/Necrons? They were the two factions I was most interested in coming from 40k tabletop and I was pretty bummed they weren't in yet I would assume that one or both of them will be in the first big expansion at the start of the next cycle. It should be about another 4-5 months before the end of this cycle then another 2-4 months before the start of the next cycle. There will be an announcement telling us what the first expansion is about well before the actual release. GrandpaPants posted:Is it bad that I don't use Rogue Trader/Void Pirates Neither are really mandatory but there are basically 0 competitive decks that don't use 3x Void Pirate. Rogue Trader isn't nearly as vital because cards > resources, but he's definitely worth consideration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Have any websites/blogs/etc emerged as go to sources on Conquest strategy? I started playing with forums poster Carteret when it first hit octgn but then I got crushed with school, work, life, the usual and now I'm definitely behind the curve on how the strategy scene has played out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
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. Yes High Command sucks. OCTGN is legit here, talk about it all you want. I dunno if card image packs are :files: or not, but if they aren't, uh, I would like my OCTGN Howl of Blackmane and The Scourge cards to look good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:Yes High Command sucks. On that note, something I completely forgot to mention regarding my situation is that my group of friends has a pretty tight time schedule, and six out of eight of them live outside the province, while only coming back between late December and the end of February. The ones that do live here are busy with some of their stuff, besides all of us being at university. The only TCGs played in my city are MtG, Pokemon and Yugioh, and that's all in the only hobby store in the province. Warhammer Conquest, while looking pretty fun and cool to play, wouldn't fit my situation AT ALL due to the deckbuilding element. High Command seems to be "pick three color stacks and shuffle". Also, I want to take back one of my previous statements: it wasn't $85 on shipping costs. It was $35 on shipping, and $50 on taxes.  I really should try and set up OCTGN, I may say gently caress it and buy it if it leaves a good impression on me. Azran fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Have any websites/blogs/etc emerged as go to sources on Conquest strategy? I started playing with forums poster Carteret when it first hit octgn but then I got crushed with school, work, life, the usual and now I'm definitely behind the curve on how the strategy scene has played out. CardGameDB has the most active forum, a decent deckbuilder, and hosts a fair number of Conquest articles, mostly pertaining to basic gameplay and fluff, while TeamSandcrawla seems to be the place for more advanced articles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Azran posted:High Command seems to be "pick three color stacks and shuffle". No, it's pick three sets of cards from within your three chosen colours. You're still going to have to make decisions as to which cards to take in each detachment. The lcg that most interested me with its minimal pregame deck building was star wars but the buy in is typical ffg bullshit and I don't know if the game itself is actually any good. You're only deciding on ten cards though, which are the objectives and bring other cards with them. Pretty neat, especially as I'm terrible at creating decks normally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
I've been wanting to try out a competitive LCG for awhile since I like the concept of everyone playing from more or less the same pool of easily accessible cards with the challenge being more in how you build a deck rather than if you can afford one, so I grabbed two cores of WH40k Conquest through together some trashy Eldar/Dark Eldar deck, and jumped straight into a local tourney. I somehow managed to not embarrass myself as much as I was expecting and was able to steal a win against someone's experimental deck. I made one or two really stupid plays ('Doom'ed all my own dudes) but I think for the most part the game is quite straight forward. Which is good because there also seems to be a lot of tactical depth, which is where I hosed up most of the time. Still, I had a blast and picked up a third core set afterwards. My deck was pretty lovely so I might just blow it up. I kinda want to try IG/Ork or straight IG but they don't seem very popular. I don't know if it's just indicative of the current meta or a balance thing, but I think the top spots in the tournament all went to some Space Marine hybrids, so I want to steer clear of that. Anyone have any success with IG deck building?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
IG Deckbuilding simplified: Start with these for command: 3 Rogue Trader 3 Void Pirate 3 Promotion Pick up these for more command: 3 Ratling Deadeye 3 Sanctioned Psyker Take all the good supports: 3 Rockrete Bunker 3 Catachan Outpost 3 Inquisitorial Fortress (if you have The Scourge) 3 Ork Kannon (if allied with Ork) Pick up all the 2-shield cards: 3 Preemptive Barrage 3 Bodyguard Play at least one Captain Markis Add 8 Signature Squad cards Pick and choose some of these to finish the deck: more Captain Markis Assault Valkyrie SM allies Ork allies (Goff Boyz) Imperial Bunker singleton Inquisitor Acolyte Engineer Augur That's about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Hm - would anyone be willing to play an intro game with me in OCTGN? Same name there as here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
nyxnyxnyx posted:IG Deckbuilding simplified: Thanks, I'll play around with things along those lines. Is the Assault Valkyrie the best of the vehicles available?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Hortism posted:Thanks, I'll play around with things along those lines. Is the Assault Valkyrie the best of the vehicles available? Flying isn't as good as you'd hope because of the way the rounding works (aka, round up). Since there's not a lot of incentive to use one big unit over a lot of small units, it reduces the effectiveness of flying since it can get weenied down. That being said, yes probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Thirsty Dog posted:No, it's pick three sets of cards from within your three chosen colours. You're still going to have to make decisions as to which cards to take in each detachment. Star Wars is a really fun game, but FFG has kind of shot themselves in the foot by having massive delays between product and the nature of the pod system meaning the meta changes very slowly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Hortism posted:Thanks, I'll play around with things along those lines. Is the Assault Valkyrie the best of the vehicles available? The Assault Valkyrie is a solid combat unit. The Leman Russ is about as resilient (and more expensive), but better for command. Neither, however, see tons of play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
So guess the more expensive units in general don't get played much? All I know is that someone played an 8/8 flying dragon on me at some point and I didn't really have anyway to deal with it until I managed to Doom it away later. Is the strategy more to fight around units like that then match them in force in IG, since there doesn't seem to be any direct ways to straight out kill a unit?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
omnibobb posted:Star Wars is a really fun game, but FFG has kind of shot themselves in the foot by having massive delays between product and the nature of the pod system meaning the meta changes very slowly. I don't mind a slow moving meta as I only really play with a small group of friends and we have so many games to play. It's whether you can reliably easily build multiple decks that can compete against each other on a regular basis without buying a bajillion copies that tends to affect purchasing decisions. I'm fairly sure it was the Shut Up And Sit Down review of the Star Wars LCG that turned me off it, they were hugely negative about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
They were also wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
Star Wars is by far the best casual LCG that Fantasy Flight makes. I only stopped buying it because I was buying into too many of them. I also think it may have my favorite mechanics of the LCGs, at least it was until Conquest came out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
Yeah, anyone who seriously shits on Star Wars probably doesn't like the deck building aspect of it. They say it doesn't allow for choice and poo poo when that's just silly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
In SUSD case in particular, I think their reasoning was literally "it's cool enough I guess, but we're too busy binging on Netrunner to bother with other LCGs".
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
I really, really want to "get" Netrunner, but the theme just doesn't appeal to me. The gameplay seems top notch, and after getting a random stranger that helpfully taught me Conquest (psa: it owns), I'm looking forward to a test match of Android.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:In SUSD case in particular, I think their reasoning was literally "it's cool enough I guess, but we're too busy binging on Netrunner to bother with other LCGs". I am getting fed up with Netrunner and this opinion, only applied to all board games, is part of the reason. I have a group of folks who are really into Netrunner, and I am getting burnt out. Getting them to play literally anything else is like pulling teeth. Hopefully the Conquest guys have learned a few lessons from the Netrunner guys. The rules of Netrunner are turning into more of a cluster gently caress of timing windows and crazy counterintuitive twitter rulings with each pack. Is it too much to ask for an lcg with consistent language and good playtesting? Hopefully conquest will still be as strong as it is now in a few years, in this regard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
omnibobb posted:Yeah, anyone who seriously shits on Star Wars probably doesn't like the deck building aspect of it. They say it doesn't allow for choice and poo poo when that's just silly. I think it's a valid complaint. I dunno what it's like now, but there is something lacking in the deck construction aspect. You're making, at most, 10 decisions during deck construction, which means that it's hard to really tweak your deck to run better. It also makes it really hard to be excited for new force packs since there's usually like one pod that's interesting, but I just can't slip in a few copies of an interesting card. It's great as a starter LCG, but it's really dull for anyone who wants more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
I think the "only 10 decisions" argument is really overstating the difference. When doing a Netrunner deck, for example, I pretty much know exactly a good 1/3 to 2/3 of the deck right off the bat just by virtue of selecting an ID and the direction/gimmick I want to pursue, then add some tools and econ and tweak the numbers until I hit appropriate size. And frankly, sperging out whether you need 21 or 23 lands isn't really the exciting part of deckbuilding. The idea in SW is that these are 10 tough choices where you cannot simply assemble your dream combo and then drop some generic econ and a few twists of fate to shore up the shortcomings. Instead you need to think just how far you want to go with your gimmick of choice, have everything gel together and backed up by appropriate support. Sure, one can slap together five 2x pods that synergise and call it a day, but there's plenty of room to tweak 1-2 crucial pods to get your fate cards/econ/whatever without compromising the rest of your deck. An example I found incredibly clever when I stumbled on it is splashing 1x (or 2x if you really nned cash) Council of the Sith in mono scum decks*.GrandpaPants posted:It also makes it really hard to be excited for new force packs since there's usually like one pod that's interesting, but I just can't slip in a few copies of an interesting card. It's great as a starter LCG, but it's really dull for anyone who wants more. * It has a lot of resources, twist of fate, if you draw the objective you get some card advantage and if you don't - the only card you cannot play without it is Advisor to the Emperor who can either burn on edge battles or be put into play by Jabba.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:In SUSD case in particular, I think their reasoning was literally "it's cool enough I guess, but we're too busy binging on Netrunner to bother with other LCGs". No, it was something along the lines of each player's turn being so independent of everything else that it was very hard to build up any kind of flow or predict your opponent or something. Ah gently caress it, here's the link. http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/videos/v/review-star-wars-card-game/
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I think it's a valid complaint. I dunno what it's like now, but there is something lacking in the deck construction aspect. You're making, at most, 10 decisions during deck construction, which means that it's hard to really tweak your deck to run better. It also makes it really hard to be excited for new force packs since there's usually like one pod that's interesting, but I just can't slip in a few copies of an interesting card. It's great as a starter LCG, but it's really dull for anyone who wants more. See I disagree with this. Inevitably when you start looking at top lists you end up with a selection of 95% similar card builds for deck archetypes. Star Wars, in a very sly way wedges that up to at least 90%. Take a typical Magic the Gathering deck, will be 60 cards and of those 60 I'd say you have roughly 9-12(we'll say 1/6th) that are swapped out by players who make personal design decisions; note I'm not counting cards that are effectively placeholders for rares that a player can't afford. In Star Wars, at the very least in order to make any design decisions on your deck you have to remove at least 1/10th of the cards in it. Because most players will run 2x of an objective set for consistency you're really looking at 1/5 of the cards are now different from another person's deck. When you make another change you're looking at 2/5 of a difference. How often do you see Magic the Gathering decks that are running the same archtype that have 22/60 cards different from their opponents in a competitive scene? Now people might look at your 3 remaining cores and go "oh it's the same old Emperor/Vader/Executor build we've seen before" but really all those decks probably have a lot of variance amongst them. I found the Star Wars Regional I went to far more interesting than the Netrunner Regional because of this. At the Netrunner Regional 90% of people were just playing minor variations of the Gabe deck or minor variations of Kate. This was right before Atman so everyone was still using almost the same influence schemes, breakers and events. The second one I went to was more broad but that was because Honor and Profit just came out so I ran into a lot of people experimenting with Jinteki for the first time competitively. Runner wise it was the same mix Criminal and Shaper with another cycle and 2 deluxe worth of tricks that simply ended up being better versions of previous cards. If anything the meta hadn't expanded it had distilled more. People were playing Jinteki because they wanted something different to shake things up. Star Wars this time around the meta has changed quite a bit over the last 2 years. Even if people don't really want to believe it. Scum started off fairly weak and has grown into a powerful faction. Sith has expanded its options and added more tricks to deal with different deck types. Navy hasn't gotten there yet but I think the next cycle is probably where we'll see it shine as fighters should be right in it's wheel house. On the Light Side Jedi has always been a threat but Smugglers were really good and dominated for a long time. As things are expanding now we're seeing a lot of people able to work off a core of powerful sets alongside other sets people thought were garbage. It's sort of clicking that you can actually slot in new things easier because you'll still have a strong core to work off of. So while yes, you do only make 1 or 2 decisions, those 1 or 2 decisions go a longer way towards having a varied card pool with a limited amount of cards. The last two years of Netrunner the Runner winning decks have basically been the same while the Corp decks have been different. On the Star Wars side only 1 Sith objective was the same in the World Championship decks while the Light Side decks were completely distinct from one another. Now you could complain that this is due to Netrunner being poorly designed but obviously the game is more popular and people feel like there's more choice there. So pods encourage you to play a wider variety of cards within a given archetype and make the tournament scene a lot more interesting. They limit the number of choices you actually make but make all the choices available to you, better and more interesting for the game and tournament scene. Every time a new pack comes out, yeah you might go "well none of those are straight replacements for my deck so I won't change it" but all those new cards are opening up a lot of new branches of attack for other archetypes. If you just play Red deck wins in M:TG and they don't print better/more efficient burn spells then your deck probably won't change a lot either. Yeah, you can't tweak your deck but that's also preventing the community to filtering the decks down to optimal choices and in the case where optimal choices do appear (Dash+Freebooters or Gamor Run) they've shown they're not afraid to errata them for the sake of keeping the tournament scene healthy. A year+ ago people were talking about a restricted list for Netrunner and it hasn't happened and look at the state of the game. The decks are practically the same pack after pack because people are either waiting for the next theme to come along that is obviously better than what exists now and filter it down to the most optimal route or just playing the same old cards because the new stuff isn't more efficient. Star Wars doesn't suffer from this because even with really good objective sets you still see a high variance of other sets alongside them. Basically pods are brilliant if you like to build and play different stuff. If you just want to build one deck and constantly refine it until it's perfect then, no it probably isn't as great for you. I have at least 2 decks built at all times, am constantly scrapping, starting new decks and every new pack that comes out opens up a lot of new options; for me this game is perfect. Lichtenstein posted:I think the "only 10 decisions" argument is really overstating the difference. When doing a Netrunner deck, for example, I pretty much know exactly a good 1/3 to 2/3 of the deck right off the bat just by virtue of selecting an ID and the direction/gimmick I want to pursue, then add some tools and econ and tweak the numbers until I hit appropriate size. And frankly, sperging out whether you need 21 or 23 lands isn't really the exciting part of deckbuilding. The idea in SW is that these are 10 tough choices where you cannot simply assemble your dream combo and then drop some generic econ and a few twists of fate to shore up the shortcomings. Instead you need to think just how far you want to go with your gimmick of choice, have everything gel together and backed up by appropriate support. Sure, one can slap together five 2x pods that synergise and call it a day, but there's plenty of room to tweak 1-2 crucial pods to get your fate cards/econ/whatever without compromising the rest of your deck. An example I found incredibly clever when I stumbled on it is splashing 1x (or 2x if you really nned cash) Council of the Sith in mono scum decks*. I'm running 2x Ultimate Power along side 8x Scum right now and it's awesome. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:I'm running 2x Ultimate Power along side 8x Scum right now and it's awesome. I assume some Slave I-style shenanigans? As in, scum lock the board down and then one shot-one kill strike at objectives? Myself I tend to gravitate to Force-based scum, but you've just given me the idea to introduce some Aqualish Thugs to Colonel Starck. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
A couple questions: a) Regarding Lord of the Rings, has anyone found or come up with a variant for growing and removing cards from the available card pool as you play? I have an unreasonable amount of love for the M:TG Marvel VS. PC Games because of the mechanics where you grew your card pool as you played. I was going to try playing LoTR again from the beginning but only adding cards as a I complete expansions, which would make things interesting in terms of expanding the card pool but haven't decided on a clever way of shrinking it so I don't just play the best all-comers with a side bar of quest specific cards at the end. b) Regarding Conquest and Netrunner, do these games have potential to play something like Cube Draft or Cube Sealed Boosters? At the end of my last Magic obsession, I had the most fun drafting or making sealed boosters from Innistrad block and Rise of the Eldrazi cubes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
Would the Star Wars LCG be a good intro to the LCG genre for kids? My kids love games like Dominion and Ascension so I'd like to try an LCG with them. LotR is an option but they like Star Wars better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:30
|
|