|
Devlan Mud posted:I'd feel a lot better about holding on to Conquest if there was any local interest. The players who didn't disappear during the drought before the Tyranid box were all AGoT players who have switched back to that with the reboot. It's my favorite competitive LCG by far, but I just wish I could get a few games of it once a month or so. In my area people are coming back (and new people are coming in) now that the Nids are out and things are rolling again. Netrunner is definitely still the top game around here, but the Conquest community feels like it's growing. Speaking of which, if there are any Bay Area Conquest goons on here, tournament at Games of Berkeley, this Saturday! 12:30! GrandpaPants posted:I'm trying to think of what IG units would actually work well with Tau, but I guess I've literally never played an IG deck so I have no idea. Staging Ground and Catachan look phenomenal for ambush dickery, but if I recall, none of the non-vehicle IG units actually pack much of a punch. We'll see I guess? Ratling Deadeye, Tallarn Raiders, Staging Ground, Catachan Outpost, and the two-for-twos (Iron Guard Recruits/Sanctioned Psyker) all seem like strong options.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Bought in to got2 with 1 core, played it for the first time this weekend with a 4 player melee using the recommended decks in the back of the book (night watch with baratheon, stark with greyjoy, etc) and kinda ... didn't like it at all. I've played a bunch of netrunner and lotr so was feeling pretty confident I would like this, so it was a bit of a shock. I am confident I got the rules right, although there were probably one or two timing errors, but nothing significant. Nobody saw any real value in defending challenges if you were going to lose because you made yourself more vulnerable to the rest of the table, so people just accumulated a mass of power (everyone was around 10) and the game stagnated a little. Sure, some characters were killed and some power was traded back and forth, but the game just seemed to drag with not much of interest happening. Intrigue challenges also seemed fairly useless as kneeling a card to force one out of 3 people to discard seemed counterproductive. Eventually someone managed to make a big enough swing with an unopposed & renown & rival challenge vs someone without the relevant icon to defend, I just felt relief it ended to be honest. However I do like the mechanics in theory - plot cards and balancing the different challenges especially, so don't want to give up on it straight away. I'd like to think it's a better game in the 1v1 format - more calculated and strategic? The decks we used are obviously wildly inconsistent, which is expected, but others are just reporting back how much they like it I figured it would work as it. Are they using a different setup from the core?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
Thrones 2 has a lot of potential but IMO isn't a great game yet, and melee is definitely weaker than 1v1. I haven't had particularly good experiences with melee myself, but I've had a fair bit of fun with 1v1 games, and my hope is that the game will get significantly better as things go on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Melee definitely requires a deck specifically made for it. Joust and Melee are basically completely different games, and the titles are a really cool mechanic that make for shifting allegiances and powers every turn. Very cool. I played a few games last night, stomped with Stark/Greyjoy and got stomped with Targ/Lannister. I just can't grasp the economy side of the game yet to do well with the Lannister cards, whereas Stark/Greyjoy is very much a straightforward "smash everything" aggro deck with lots of straightforward synergy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
I got GoT2 at gencon and ebayed it for a nice profit. I don't plan on going back to it. I think my issue is that there are too many numerically based branching decisions. These decisions give the appearance that there is one numerically superior solution for any given situation out of dozens of possibilities, which gives me a headache. Of three dudes who can defend, which do I use? There are nine possibilities... Before factoring in saving them for defense or using them for another conflict. Comparing this to netrunner, most of the decisions are small in 'multiplicity' but just as meaningful. Which server do I run on and when? What programs should I install?Should I rez this ice or not? Is this agenda safer in HQ vs a remote? Conquest is similar in this regard. GoT is just too 'mathy' and absent of theme.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Nique posted:Bought in to got2 with 1 core, played it for the first time this weekend with a 4 player melee using the recommended decks in the back of the book (night watch with baratheon, stark with greyjoy, etc) and kinda ... didn't like it at all. The choice of whether to defend or not depends on a lot of factors. If your opponent is player one and is attacking with overwhelming force in a power challenge then sure, there's not much reason to defend, but if they're player three and prodding you with a small military challenge maybe you should. When you have renown or unkneeling effects on your side of the board or in your hand that can also effect it. Intrigue challenges have the weakest inherent effect, but due to the relative scarcity of intrigue symbols and the frequency with which powerful intrigue characters come with stealth it can be a lot easier to get unopposed/rivalry challenges, which become especially powerful when you add intrigue synergy effects (hello Lannisters!). It sounds to me like no one was able to get any of the particularly interesting effects out (or they did and got neutered) that could force you out of the stalemate, which I would attribute to the inconsistency of playing with one core. All of my games have been over by turn four and have involved at least two people in a tight power race. quote:GoT is just too 'mathy' and absent of theme. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Rusty Kettle posted:GoT is just too absent of theme. yo what the gently caress? Every time I play I'm blown away by the thematic implementation of mechanics with respect to the characters/locations/plots etc. Every card just makes sense with respect to the source material and it's what makes the game for me. Played Greyjoy last night and got a kick out of realizing Theon gets a bonus for attacking unopposed, because he's a cowardly little poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
We were laughing our asses off in a game where Bran Stark got drugged up with Milk of the Poppy and then murdered by Khal Drogo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:17
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:yo what the gently caress? IMO that is one of it's flaws. It's theme is entirely dependent on you knowing the lore of the associated material. It feels more like a add on product then something that can express it's theme stand alone. Going in if you know nothing about A Song of Ice and Fire you have a bunch of unexplained interactions and themes in factions that are not really defined. I find that kind of disappointing since they do such a great job of expression theme in the other LCGs.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
The theme is still fantasy and that is clear as day. If you haven't read the books or seen the show then it's at least as thematic as Netrunner or Conquest. The art and text on the cards tell you as much about the characters and cards as any other card game, and you can figure out a lot about them even having no clue about the source. The challenges are thematic as hell for a fantasy game about factions fighting for the throne, as are the kneeling and death mechanics. For instance, the Starks all have a ton of synergy and act like a pack of wolves, because that's basically what they are. Their design and mechanics are thematic, even if you don't know them beforehand you can look through the deck, read the cards, and get that sense (as someone did last night that has never read or seen GoT).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
LordNat posted:IMO that is one of it's flaws. It's theme is entirely dependent on you knowing the lore of the associated material. It feels more like a add on product then something that can express it's theme stand alone. But it's a game based on an established series.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
LordNat posted:IMO that is one of it's flaws. It's theme is entirely dependent on you knowing the lore of the associated material. It feels more like a add on product then something that can express it's theme stand alone. I don't think it's entirely dependent, since you can glean a lot about the houses and some of the characters. Like I don't know a drat thing about Euron since I watch the TV shows, but it's pretty obvious he's some sort of badass raider type. You won't know the various relationships between characters, but I don't think it's that much worse than Netrunner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
admanb posted:We were laughing our asses off in a game where Bran Stark got drugged up with Milk of the Poppy and then murdered by Khal Drogo. Feeding the Stark children to Grey Wind to piss off Robb, out-GRRMing GRRM
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
If you don't know Game of Thrones I think it's reasonable to say that you will not catch a lot of the theme, but to say it's not thematic is straight crazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Saying GoT is mathy and hard to work out strategies for while talking about how comparing server run efficiency in netrunner is rad is also really weird to me but to each their own
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:The theme is still fantasy and that is clear as day. If you haven't read the books or seen the show then it's at least as thematic as Netrunner or Conquest. The art and text on the cards tell you as much about the characters and cards as any other card game, and you can figure out a lot about them even having no clue about the source. The challenges are thematic as hell for a fantasy game about factions fighting for the throne, as are the kneeling and death mechanics. There are two kinds of theme: theme in mechanics and theme in fluff. Both are important. Netrunner has good theme in mechanics in that the game makes the players feel like a hacker taking down a corporation. You might be able to retheme around an army storming a castle, but otherwise it's hard to imagine the any other theme matching that game. The fluff is questionable though. Why are these ice called space names? Why does this corroder wear down walls but not robots? Eventually you are just installing a general icebreaker that doesn't invoke any sort of imagery. Conquest does both well, in my opinion. The gameplay invokes the ideas of sending armies to take key planets. The different factions and units in general tie mechanics and theme together well. There are of course examples of poor theme, but overall I think it does a better job than netrunner. Even mirror matches can make sense if you imagine two generals in the same faction going through some sort of civil war. Game of thrones makes no sense most of the time whether or not you read the books or watched the show. Except in outcome, fighting is the same as spying is the same as politicking. What does defense against intrigue represent? "Hey Tyrion... Keep your eyes open, little finger is poking around." Are the political conflicts representing some sort of debate? Combat can invoke imagery, but it is borderline goofy like the Star wars lcg. In the end, all conflicts a poo poo ton of effort to make any sort of thematic sense out of what was going on, leading to the game boiling down to just juggling numbers and optimizing. As a result, the overall game lost any sort of narrative typically found in Netrunner or Conquest. Oh and mirror matches make no goddamned sense no matter how hard you try. Perhaps you can have infighting within a house and there are new characters participating who behave exactly like Ned Stark or whatever, but it takes a huge stretch especially within a universe like GoT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Seriously how is Netrunner not mathy as gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Big McHuge posted:Seriously how is Netrunner not mathy as gently caress? It is very much math heavy, but it is a very 'low multiplicity' outcome. Can the runner get through this server? Lots of math, but it is a single long calculation. GoT is 'high multiplicity'. Like I stated above, you have nine options for declaring three characters to a conflict. And any of those nine options have further options like, if I don't declare this guy, will I use him for defense or keep him standing to win that bonus prestige in the end. And you do this three times while managing resources and victory points. There is an optimal solution, but I don't want to play with the guy who spends the time to figure it out. It is much much more 'brain burning' than netrunner, where all you need to do is calculate server strength verses breaker strength and manage credits. You barely need to manage agenda points other than 'get them'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Yeah I can get that aGoT feels too abstract from the theme in the mechanics but more mathy than Netrunner? I could see you saying it's more linear and thus makes the math a little easier to see but the game is made interesting by the card effects, and that's what throws off your math easily.Rusty Kettle posted:It is very much math heavy, but it is a very 'low multiplicity' outcome. Can the runner get through this server? Lots of math, but it is a single long calculation. Yeah, so you can make the "optimal" choice from what's on the board but card effects will gently caress with that heavily so you're really making choices based on what you think your opponent will play. You might overly oppose a challenge simply to ensure he doesn't win and get to trigger cards from it, or defend with a weaker character knowing you'll buff them etc. Netrunner is a lot more about board state than aGoT and that's what's throwing you off. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Has anyone managed to make some fun decks just using 2 cores? I've made 4 decks from 2 cores ( to try melee with my mates) but they seem a tad lacklustre and unbalanced especially in 2 player which my wife and I will play much more. I will probably get a 3rd core on payday next month but would be nice to have some decent game to keep her engaged.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
You definitely can. Stark/Greyjoy and Lannister/Nighrs Watch are two good ones, as are Targ/Martell and Bara/Tyrell. Here's some deck lists https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/123229/deck-lists-two-core-sets
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Having not played a melee yet, what would separate a melee deck from a joust deck? What cards valuate higher in a melee? Lower?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
So far it's pretty intuitive. Cards that target all opponents are obviously better than single (Wildfire plot over Heads on a Spike for instance), and characters that can stand somehow are great so you can attack and defend. Having a decent but not too big board presence is key. 3-4 characters is just right, more than that is Wildfire bait.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:You definitely can. Stark/Greyjoy and Lannister/Nighrs Watch are two good ones, as are Targ/Martell and Bara/Tyrell. Here's some deck lists Bad rear end as I have 2 cores too
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Updated FAQs and Tournament Rules for FFG LCGs and miniatures games are up. Nothing for AGOT 2.0 yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
So I've got 3 people interested in playing melee and have 2 cores. Would it be fine to just build the pre-construction decks out of the back of the rules book?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
I would recommend the 4 decks I shared above. They're "real" decks and tournament legal, and will work better with the duplicate copies and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Having not played a melee yet, what would separate a melee deck from a joust deck? What cards valuate higher in a melee? Lower? In melee you want things that make you prickly to attack, so cards like Ned Stark or Ghaston Grey are excellent. In general you want to try and be "below the radar" and then win rapidly before people gang up and crush you. Superior Claim, for instance, is a pretty bad card normally but a Melee staple.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
So can you use cost reducers during setup? Like if your running a mono house deck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
If the card says "next card you marshal", it won't effect a card you play in setup. Setup isn't marshalling and "enters play" effects don't fire either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
So Robert Baratheon is pretty goddamn house, but playing against or with a Baratheon deck just reminds me of old Magic Stasis decks, which makes for a really annoying game. So what's the best counter to a Baratheon deck? I used a Greyjoy/Stark deck to rush out stealth dudes and kill a lot of their stuff quickly, then maintain the population control throughout the game. Three turns of two Sneak Attacks and a Winds of Winter keeps a lot of pressure on. Stealth helps proc Put to the Sword too, which can snag an early key player in the Baratheon line up. Worked well ish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
I haven't had a chance to play my copy of GoT yet, but I remember back in the day when someone would pull out a stasis/control Magic deck I'd just use a hand destruction deck and wreck their day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Big McHuge posted:I haven't had a chance to play my copy of GoT yet, but I remember back in the day when someone would pull out a stasis/control Magic deck I'd just use a hand destruction deck and wreck their day. Well, hand destruction is a core mechanic in GoT! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Just played my first game of GOT. Used to suggested learning decks (Starks vs Lannister). My GF got absolutely wrecked playing Lannister, and I wasn't even trying to put the pedal to the metal. She's got tons of gaming experience, but no CCG/LCG experience, so I think that was a factor, but I also didn't see any huge glaring flaws. Now she has a sour taste in her mouth for the game. Is there anything I can do to give her a better experience? Maybe play the other side and purposely tank it as Lannister? Or are the Starks just that much better with the learning deck set-up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Yeah those starter decks are a terrible matchup. Starks have tons of synergy and very straightforward style that did the same in the first three games we tried.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't like those learning decks either. Inconsistent decks get eaten up by aggro decks without it being very interactive. We played those right out of the box our first game and the Stark deck basically had the nuts draw with an Ice, Arya, Greywind and Robb and the Lannister deck had like their location and some intrigue icons and just got murdered. It would be like in Magic if you gave one player a random mash of good limited aggro and removal cards and the other player got good constructed blue and green cards. Some of those blue and green cards are very good but the first deck is just going to run you over by turning dudes sideways and killing your mans. I'd say for learning I'd mash two durdley decks against each other. Maybe NW, Martell, Tyrell. Lannister and Targ can also be just fun goodstuff.dec types of games, although Dracarys will be bad feels if someone walks right into it and doesn't know how to play around it. Baratheon and Greyjoy are basically pre-assembled top tier decks and will take apart an unoptimized deck with little tuning of their own. Stark without fine tuning is inconsistent but will melt through another inconsistent deck if they get a good draw.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Honestly the game itself is that punishing even in constructed play. I somewhat suspect that people who don't like the starter experience will be similarly put off by the way that the actual game works out...
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Not unlike Magic, but you can go into a death spiral really easily in GOT. Having a turn where you miss a drop is pretty huge if you're going up against an aggro deck. Starting with two Sneak Attacks and winning both military challenges on turns 1 and 2 is pretty remarkably vicious to the board state. A Wildfire Assault just left me with Balon, Ned and Asha, which I was okay with. Aeron Damphair is also pretty sweet if you're playing against anything but Baratheon!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Yeah, for sure. It's pretty brutal. It might feel a little more fair with two consistent decks armed to the teeth with removal effects, but people still gonna die and mistakes are really costly. The core set environment is pretty bomb-centric so if you make a mistake and they murder your Daenarys or Tywin you are gonna have a hard time coming back. It will probably get less punishing as more good efficient cards are printed and decks have more diverse threats. Playing around with deckbuilding, I keep wanting to make something lower curve with more evenly distributed threats but it feels like it's just out of reach right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
So I started designing a basic Cato + Tau deck for Conquest, and sort of accidentally came up with an exact copy of a deck someone else put together:quote:1x Captain Cato Sicarius (Core Set) I also noticed it's all core set cards. It seems like the Warlord Cycle didn't help him much, all the units are synergistic with other units of their type (Space Wolves, etc), or just kinda meh, or high cost. Am I correct in thinking that high cost cards like Land Raiders and Space Wolves Predator just get targetd by spot removal? Secluded Apothecarium seems meh unless you're losing units, which you want to avoid? Nocturne Ultima Storm Bolter seems pretty good though. And the warlord cycle events seem meh as well for SM. Not until Vengeance do I see one I like from Great Devourer. I could see slipping in a For the Tau'va, but it's highly situational? Edit: Upon further reading, I'm a tad vulnerable to Calamity, but I'm not sure what/if i'd change. tl;dr: considering +vengeance, +for the tau'va, +nocturne storm bolter Deviant fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:44
|
|