|
Well, yeah that's what I meant. At the end of quest phase he'll attack every round, and then again during the combat phase. So, the first time he shows up he'll only attack during the combat phase, since the end of phase trigger is already passed? Also, sorry to break it to you - Landroval doesn't save discarded heroes, only destroyed ones. You'd need a Fortune or Fate or something.
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Amoeba102 posted:Also, sorry to break it to you - Landroval doesn't save discarded heroes, only destroyed ones. You'd need a Fortune or Fate or something. Is there a difference? When we did finally beat that quest, we also had Fortune or Fate ready (although had we chosen to use it we would have had to sacrifice someone other than Idraen 'cause she had some of the blue dollars). I think we might have ended with a slightly worse score, but other than that it wouldn't be too different. So I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Amoeba102 posted:Was OCTGNing with LOTR. Got through to Moria on the second try with the suggested decks - which could honestly do with some work but I find it hard to make decks directly via the OCTGN deck builder. But Moria itself , I have no real plan for the Balrog. I know roughly what I should be doing for the first two thirds then I just end up hitting a wall. I tried three times and the last time went rather well, I was in a great position at 2A and worked well through this stage and even got to the 3A before the Balrog came out but I was just beaten down and limped to a loss. I know I messed up by waiting for 9 resource tokens on the quest rather than 6 for two players, So I would have had one or two more rounds till the Balrog showed up. I could have made some progress on the stage maybe. But how do you actually kill the Balrog? Even if you sacrifice a hero with the Great Bridge, you still have 11+ dmg to deal. I used Merry with 4 Hobbits total under my control, 2x Daggers of Westerness, plus some Halfling Determinations and Unseen Strikes. Pumped him up to something utterly ridiculous, and after sacrificing Gandalf, it was enough to kill him in 2 more attacks.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Fetterkey posted:New cycle announcement for Conquest! Sounds like they're going to keep releasing new warlords, with the first one being a Commissar: Well that's a possibly really powerful ability he's got. But you better set up to win any fight you bring him to. Also gently caress yeah color traits for orks. Blue is a good start, but I can't wait for red (red unz go fasta hopefully means more than just "mobile"). DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 17:05 on May 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
Adding color traits is an interesting addition to Conquest that is both highly random and could be a very good balancing mechanic for some of the lesser powerful planets & factions. I'm probably done with buying any Conquest after the tyranid box comes out but this is a pretty interesting mechanic.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:Is there a difference? When we did finally beat that quest, we also had Fortune or Fate ready (although had we chosen to use it we would have had to sacrifice someone other than Idraen 'cause she had some of the blue dollars). I think we might have ended with a slightly worse score, but other than that it wouldn't be too different. So I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. The difference is Landroval can't be used to save any hero that's discarded from an effect, such as Tactics Boromir's ability. As you said, not that big of a deal.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
Rockker posted:Looks like FFG has a preview up of the Game of Thrones TCG second edition (basically a reboot of the current game) I really hated the GoT LCG. Does this reboot change enough to sway me?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
djfooboo posted:I really hated the GoT LCG. Does this reboot change enough to sway me? It's been maketed mostly as the same but different, but they haven't gotten far into the mechanics of it, just says by they've removed some of the clunkier systems in an already clunky game. My suspicion that s you would not like it if you hated the first.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
tijag posted:This seems like the right thread for this? gently caress, it would be nice if the relaunch and clean up meant we didn't need to buy three cores for once.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Thirsty Dog posted:gently caress, it would be nice if the relaunch and clean up meant we didn't need to buy three cores for once. Unlikely. Considering the number of factions in the box, even more than Conquest, the card pool is probably going to be pretty drat thin.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
My only real problem with the 3 core system is that they never print enough of their initial run and everyone is scraping by for a few months with a single core and it sucks. Overprinting the Core set should never be something they're afraid to do because it will remain in demand for years to come. I was like the only person who straight bought 3 cores of Conquest from the get go and then had to wait 2 months for them to restock the things so everyone else who just bought 1 could come play competitively. Seemed like the same thing happened all over, a lot of the people holding tournaments were restricting them to 1 core. I just know that there's some marketing genius that thinks by keeping the supply small they'll increase demand; which might be true for stuff like iphones but I really don't think it would be true when you're actively trying to sell multiple copies of the same product. I'm probably just going to buy in for a single core because this way when we get shorted, like I know we will, I won't be actively killing my player base by taking cards out of their hands.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:My only real problem with the 3 core system is that they never print enough of their initial run and everyone is scraping by for a few months with a single core and it sucks. Overprinting the Core set should never be something they're afraid to do because it will remain in demand for years to come. I was like the only person who straight bought 3 cores of Conquest from the get go and then had to wait 2 months for them to restock the things so everyone else who just bought 1 could come play competitively. Seemed like the same thing happened all over, a lot of the people holding tournaments were restricting them to 1 core. I just know that there's some marketing genius that thinks by keeping the supply small they'll increase demand; which might be true for stuff like iphones but I really don't think it would be true when you're actively trying to sell multiple copies of the same product. I'm probably just going to buy in for a single core because this way when we get shorted, like I know we will, I won't be actively killing my player base by taking cards out of their hands. Agreed. The Tyranid box will help this for newcomers (you can buy one core + one Tyranid box and play competitive Tyranids), but that doesn't solve the release problem, which I've seen in both Netrunner and Conquest now. I don't know if it's a marketing stunt so they can talk about how their products are "sold out everywhere" or if they're honestly bad at predicting how much they're going to sell, but it's really annoying having to turn people away because the game they want to buy is not physically available. Many of those people don't necessarily come back...
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:Is there a difference? When we did finally beat that quest, we also had Fortune or Fate ready (although had we chosen to use it we would have had to sacrifice someone other than Idraen 'cause she had some of the blue dollars). I think we might have ended with a slightly worse score, but other than that it wouldn't be too different. So I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Destroyed means that it has died by means of damage. Your covered anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
I got through the mines of Moria, but I just ran away over the bridge because even with a sacrifice I wouldn't have been able to take on the Balrog. Now I have twice as many burdens to bring along drat. The condition ones don't bother me since I seem to have been able to deal with them pretty well with Elrond's coming in and just putting the burdens on Fatty since I don't use him for anything. Definitely getting rid of Fatty when I rework the decks - his only use was in the Knife in the Dark since you can quickly boost to engage Bill Ferny and then use threat reduction afterwards.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Thirsty Dog posted:gently caress, it would be nice if the relaunch and clean up meant we didn't need to buy three cores for once. There are a few options. One is that they make the core box a huge product with triplicates of all the cards so that the card pool at launch isn't absurdly small, another would be to make the core set the normal size, but include triplicates of all the cards and have the card pool be incredibly small at launch. Third option would be to do it the way it is, so that if you want to play competitively, you buy 3, but if you just want to try the new game out, you can buy one, and there is probably a middle ground where you buy 2, because for most decks 2 of any one card will be enough. Unless they fundamentally change the game to allow only 2 of any card [like how you can only run 2 of the same objective in SWLCG], then this is the best option. It would be interesting though if they made a 'competitors pack' or something like that, where it was all the cards from 2x core set, but none of the tokens/game instructions. That way they could make it available for people, but not make them buy 3x cores.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
While I perfectly understand the design mentality of Core Sets being introductory, I'd really love it if they'd make everything a 2-3x. For ANR the third core set is for only 7 cards, but of those 7 you want 3-4 in triplicate when you run them. LotR is a third core for again 7 cards (11 if you're wanting Gandalfs for 4 players). Conquest made sense because almost everything was a 1-of, and it was nice to only need 2-of for SWLCG. Though from a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense to make heavy investors buy 3 cores (they were already going to buy 2).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
With 8 factions, and the need to throw in cards from a 2nd house just to make a legal deck out of the core, I would assume the AGoT core set will resemble Conquest far more than ANR.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Carteret posted:With 8 factions, and the need to throw in cards from a 2nd house just to make a legal deck out of the core, I would assume the AGoT core set will resemble Conquest far more than ANR. Yeah, unless they really minimize the card pool or have a lot of neutrals.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Someone said that basically 1/4 of the stuff that you get in an extra Conquest core is redundant. With that in mind its pretty easy too see why they want to stick to this model and not print a "completion" pack beyond the obvious "we want more money thing." Due to the number of cards and quantity you'd probably end up with a price point higher than your core. Which if the price didn't confuse people having to stock and print an "expansion" right off the bat would be a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
If I could by a "completion pack" for any LCG core with just the cards I need to get everything in triplicate, I'd buy it in a heartbeat even if it cost like 75-85% of the core set price. It's not so much about the money than the fact that I just feel really really lovely buying Yet Another Core Set with a useless huge cardboard box and a bunch of cards that I have literally no use for.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
ALLAN LASSUS posted:If I could by a "completion pack" for any LCG core with just the cards I need to get everything in triplicate, I'd buy it in a heartbeat even if it cost like 75-85% of the core set price. It's not so much about the money than the fact that I just feel really really lovely buying Yet Another Core Set with a useless huge cardboard box and a bunch of cards that I have literally no use for. http://teamcovenant.com/store/covenant-starters.html
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Fourth AP announcement for Angmar Awakened... https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/5/8/the-treachery-of-rhudaur/ ...that hero  I wonder what type of deck I could make around him.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
ChiTownEddie posted:Fourth AP announcement for Angmar Awakened... Woah! Yeah, that's a very cool card. Seems bold
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
ChiTownEddie posted:Fourth AP announcement for Angmar Awakened... I'm thinking a Lore/Tactics deck. Perhaps paired with Hama and Mablung. You could use Mablung's ability for resource generation to pay for cards, and Hama could recycle events that are discarded. Throw Protector of Lorien in there to fully utilize the extra cards.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
ChiTownEddie posted:Fourth AP announcement for Angmar Awakened... Art of the Elven Spear is excellent.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
ChiTownEddie posted:Fourth AP announcement for Angmar Awakened... Neat. He'd be most awkward on the first turn, I think, when you'd have nine cards and no resources to play them. He might work best in a mono-Lore deck. Might also work well when combined with Grima, for the extra resources.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Did they ever say what the flavor was supposed to be behind Spirit Glorfindel?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Is there a general consensus on which Conquest expacs are best for which factions?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Is there a general consensus on which Conquest expacs are best for which factions? The easy answer is that the best packs for the factions are probably the one with the new warlord in them. The secondary answer would be the pack with new 2 shield cards for that faction (Dakka Dakka Dakka, Heavy Drone Marker), which may even be the same pack as the warlord.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Is there a general consensus on which Conquest expacs are best for which factions? SM: The ones with Ragnar and Primal Howl Kith/DE: The one with Klaivex Warleader Chaos: The ones with Kugath and Slaneesh's Temptation Ork: The one with Snakebite Thug Eldar: The ones with Warlock Destructor and Empower
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
IG: Zogwort's Curse, then the one with the new leader.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:The secondary answer would be the pack with new 2 shield cards for that faction (Dakka Dakka Dakka, Heavy Drone Marker), which may even be the same pack as the warlord. Never the case. Every pack contains non-signature cards for everyone except the faction/s that get the Warlord in that pack (fun fact - there were only 2 neutral cards in the entire first cycle). They don't double down on factions getting more stuff in the same pack. Tyranids also means that there'll be even less non-signature cards the next cycle, and Necrons will cut it down further the cycle after that.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Tyranids also means that there'll be even less non-signature cards the next cycle, and Necrons will cut it down further the cycle after that. It's possible they won't have a Warlord (or two) every pack going forward, but I do worry about that dilution. It makes meta changes incredibly slow. I don't think I've even changed my decks that much from Core, like I think my Shadowsun Tau literally just changed from Repulsor Shield to Heavy Drone Marker and I somehow fit in those +2 ATK with a warlord units somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
I'm fine with not having to rebuild my entire deck every data pack
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
MisterShine posted:I'm fine with not having to rebuild my entire deck every data pack The risk is going too far the other way. StarWars LCG has incredibly bursty jumps in meta.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the element of Star Wars that really agrees with me. I hate playing a single deck for longer than a month so having the meta shift around every pack is great. With Conquest I buy all these packs and since I never get to play that much I just look at what is an upgrade in my current decks and cycle the newer more powerful cards in. I really hate that though because it just rewards the players who don't care enough to play around with your card base beyond "Deck X wins, what can make Deck X better?" I'd rather play against players that constantly play janky crap that's interesting and tries something different, than continuously bouncing off the wall of whatever the top tier deck is. I mean I hate telling a person how they should or shouldn't enjoy playing a game, but my interaction with the "fine-tune" crowd has always been that those players were the same ones who had fragile egos, played to win and not to challenge their abilities or for the enjoyment of the game, and were massive dicks to people who they felt were beneath them because they weren't playing "the best thing in the environment". It's one thing if you're busy and you don't have a lot of time to devote to a game so you just keep up with a single deck so you can try to remain competitive and still get out and have something to play. It's another thing when you're a douche who just wants to win and you refuse to step off a popular deck type and try something different because it would mean that you will probably lose a few games in the process of refining it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
I mean, Conquest adding a new Warlord in just about every pack means that anyone who wants to play something janky every month can do so, while people who just want to make small refinements to powerful decks will be able to do that. There might be something special about Star Wars that I'm unaware of, but in general FFG LCG metas tend to stick to have monthly minor adjustments, then every few months something crazy will happen and the whole meta will shift. The latter doesn't usually happen until you have a deluxe expansion out because their just isn't enough variety of cards to support large shifts.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
admanb posted:I mean, Conquest adding a new Warlord in just about every pack means that anyone who wants to play something janky every month can do so, while people who just want to make small refinements to powerful decks will be able to do that. SWLCG is unique in that there are only 5-10 choices per deck due to the card pod mechanic. So pack to pack the meta shifts very little. That is until a pack drops that puts a new deck past the tipping point, then the meta shifts drastically.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
I mean I like refining my Nazdreg deck, but I was playing against a weird-rear end Urien deck that was built solidly around removing my hand that was janky as hell due to a lack of command icons, but both decks worked just fine. Thats what I like about conquest, the new poo poo lets you try new weird crap sometimes, but doesnt throw out the old stuff right away either. Its like the opposite of regular 40k.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Yeah, that's the element of Star Wars that really agrees with me. I hate playing a single deck for longer than a month so having the meta shift around every pack is great. With Conquest I buy all these packs and since I never get to play that much I just look at what is an upgrade in my current decks and cycle the newer more powerful cards in. I really hate that though because it just rewards the players who don't care enough to play around with your card base beyond "Deck X wins, what can make Deck X better?" I'd rather play against players that constantly play janky crap that's interesting and tries something different, than continuously bouncing off the wall of whatever the top tier deck is. I do think Conquest has been pretty good in terms of meta shifts and deck variety. Almost every pack has made new warlords and new builds viable, which I've been very impressed by. The warlord/signature squad system strikes me as a good balance between the SWLCG "pods" and the more freeform customization that I enjoy in traditional card games. That said, I do wish some of the one-off supports and attachments were a little less swingy. Playing against Kith with Khymera Den or Cato with Tempest Blade is very different from the alternative!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 23:27
|
|