|
JoshTheStampede posted:French has said that Valar will definitely be in 2.0, and has strongly suggested it would be evergreen (so in a big box), but while everyone has taken that to mean it would be exactly the same as the 1.0 version, he's never said that at all. It could be no saves. It could be Varys-style discarding instead of kill. It could be anything, really, that is still a global board wipe. People immediately say "hurr all men must die has to kill or else its dumb" but semantic stuff like that happens all the time. 1.0 wasn't really like that though. Valar was definitely defining (I believe only my wildling deck didn't run it), but uniques were still played. For one, you could still save characters so duping was still a thing, on top of other effects. The other thing is that at 2/0/0 (didn't have reserve in 1.0) that's a massive handicap to recovery. So you essentially force your opponent to drop it while you play something high gold/claim and unload on them knowing they're not gonna be able to hit back with much/anything. And board wipes actually favor strong characters over weenie swarms. Unless someone just lets you set up some unassailable board position with your 2-3 superstars, letting through a bunch of uncontested challenges or tapping your big guys to block shmucks isn't a winning play. That said 1.0 was quite a bit more killy in general.
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:King's Peace has been fully spoiled. Greyjoy gets a really good location destruction card. https://boardgamegeek.com/blog/4547/four-watch Newly made lord's a reprint. Not sure how it'll fit in with the new Greyjoy themes though since there's no real choke archetype. It's kinda cute with Euron though. StashAugustine posted:If I was looking to get into an LCG for when I don't feel like playing Netrunner, which of the competitive ones would people recommend, especially when it comes to playing online? I don't really have a huge preference between them. I'm also a bit surprised they picked up L5R. Not only does it seem to have a lot of similarities with AGoT but a lot of that game seemed tied up with the lore and whatnot. I really wish they would've picked up VTES; it would've even filled a niche they don't already have (multiplayer LCG).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
To be fair, the bluffing component isn't all that necessary. There's plenty of magic decks that run only one morph dude. It can work fine as a cost reduction/delay mechanic, or having an effect trigger upon reveal. I just hope this means they're planning on bringing shadow back for AGoT.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
I still think the game needs new planets, or a tweak to that mechanic. I was discussing it with a couple of people last weekend after the store championship we had and the game still seems to depend extremely heavily on command. One bad command round just seems to put you way behind. I'm starting to think having cards and money being attached to command struggle is a bit much, but that could be my lack of experience/sucking at the game (I hadn't played previously for a few months).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Look at this Stark power rushing. Look at it! I'm actually kinda worried what these sets will do to the game. This should be dropping before regionals, and having one faction gaining that many more cards than the others could be unbalancing. They really should've focused on at least two factions per deluxe expansion, at this rate they probably won't have them all done for a couple of years or more. That said, the cards they've previewed are all solid. Loyalist and the Minstrel should be near auto-includes (and another relatively decently costed intrigue dude for Stark is really appreciated), and it does look like there's the makings of a really strong mil power rush deck there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Honestly First Snow of Winter's gonna be just as grim as the Targ plot. The combo is gonna be really rough for any swarm. At least Blood of the Dragon has horrible numbers otherwise (I swear the analog had better numbers in the old edition). For the Watch looks really strong as well. I really think Night's Watch are stronger than they're given credit for.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
nyxnyxnyx posted:Yeah the Targ plot is a little crippling gold-wise but it gets better when Targ gets non-terminal burn. (since the plot comes with the terminal effect) Right now it's pretty underwhelming. It with Dany kills anyone with 2 or less power straight away. It also puts a lot of the bigger guys in danger of getting Dracarys'd. On top of which, it's extremely difficult to win challenges with everyone down -2. Of course the big issue is that without Dany, it's super underwhelming.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Dany's power only activates during challenges against you. True, but if your opponent also takes a turn off of challenges, that's typically a win. I guess "straight away" wasn't accurate but I like the outcome either way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Like Warm Rain is solid if you're running the direwolf pups. I also don't mind it if you're running the new wolf dreams as well to search out dire wolves to actually trigger it. I think 1 is playable with either of the cards I mentioned previously, although one copy would be near the top of my first cuts if I need space.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:9 Clans, But I could see them bringing back senseis in the form of GoT agendas-so like Yoritomo sensei let you use mantis dudes with your house discount or -1g, Hida sensei for using crab dudes, etc. If they follow the old game they could even have factions excluded (so no bayushi sensei crane or w/e). It would allow for a bit more diversity (which is really necessary in the LCG model since you're splitting your initial card pool among a bunch of different factions) while still having clans be largely different. I'm actually really interested to see how it will do overall though, since from my understanding AEG kinda soured a lot of players on the license in general. Although Netrunner's done gangbusters so idk. It just seems there's a lot of playstyle and feel similarity with GoT.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Chances are I'll be playing L5R as well. And it definitely had a pretty big fanbase-I think for a long time it was the #2 tcg behind Magic, and the regional tourneys would get 100+ people at times. And the core game IS really good. There's multiple victory conditions, lots of interaction built in the system, and typically there's always been varying ways to go about deckbuilding. The thing is though a lot of that was the setting, backstory, etc and people were seriously invested in the universe. I'm not sure how FFG is gonna wanna handle that aspect-they obviously can't do much with SW, 40K, or Got's respective stories but how have they treated Netrunner's storyline? The other thing I'm wondering is how they'll go about adding 100s of tokens into the game, because if I've learned anything, it's that FFG loves printing tokens. MisterShine posted:That Dreadnought is loving insane though.More so when Backlash hits and you cant just hand-wave it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Went to a store championship last weekend playing Stark/Fealty. I had took second in one previously with Lannister/Rose, so wanted to try something different. Decent turnout with 18 people, although they did 4 rounds with cut to top 8 which I found somewhat strange, but it ended up benefiting me. Unfortunately, only one of the games seemed all that competitive, even though most took nearly the full time. I'll post a mini-report here, and give some general thoughts on Stark. Round 1 I played against a Greyjoy/Stark deck that was running a strong army theme with a lot of the war plots. Setup on my side was Ayra with a dupe, Sansa, and some reducers. He mustered a couple of guys without military, so I decided to play a bit risky and lead with sneak attack. Sneak, Winter is Coming, Ice, and Grey Wind lead to 5 dead dudes t1 as I emptied his side of the board and he never was able to get back in at all. I should've tried this strategy a couple other times, but I was dead tired and not thinking much so w/e but I actually felt a little bad because it was just a grim start for him. Round 2 I played against Bara/Fealty. We both had a decent setup, but he saw none of Mel, Robert, or Stannis and wasn't able to do much to stop me from slowly killing most of his guys and grinding out the game. It didn't help that Grey Wind and Robb showed up early for me, and his board was mostly 2 power (he actually threw Robert's Warhammer on Moon Boy twice just to keep Grey Wind from munching on him). Round 3 I played against Bara/Rose. I don't recall the setup exactly (neither was all that bad) but by the end of T1 marshaling he had Mel out with a dupe, Knight of Flowers with a dupe, and a couple other support characters. That was enough to keep Robb locked down early (first 3 turns), and I was never able to get my kill engine rolling as his characters were generally better than mine with Robb being knelt so long. Ended up conceding with 5 or so minutes left. Round 4 played Greyjoy/Fealty. He set up Balon, Seastone Chair, and a chump. Followed it up with some other warships. I was able to get Balon put to the sword on T4, but by that point I'd already lost Syrio, Cat, and Sansa. His boats were able to blank enough of my chars power that he was able to pull out a win with unopposed + Great Kraken. I think had I another turn I would've been able to pull it out as I had stabilized pretty well after the Balon nightmare, but I didn't get it. Cut was to top 8 as I mentioned, and I ended up 5th and playing against the Bara/Rose deck I had played in round 3. This was the only game where I actually thought things were in doubt much after T1/2. He didn't get the killer start he had before, and we both ended up going wide with characters (I recall dropping wildfire on T2 to wipe 3 of his smaller guys, only to have them instantly replaced with a couple more). Unfortunately though there was some rules issues that kinda marred the game at the end (he used mare in heat a couple times to send one of my guys out of combat when he had multiple defenders, there was also some forgotten triggers that would've maybe gave him the win had the mare in heat misplays not been brought up) but otherwise a great game, with a lot of back and forth. I did make what I thought was a clever play, eating one of my own chumps with Grey Wind to ready my army and stop one of his attacks (which was unexpected by my opponent). Next round I played against Lannister/Crossing, and pretty much got rolled. I should've opened with Sneak, but didn't want to be risky (and wasn't thinking much at this point) so went with my normal Noble Cause opening. I accidentally dropped it before my opponent had set up and didn't bother switching/bluffing I was playing something else. So I got naval superiority'd, then hit with a tears on my Robb T1. T2 he dropped Gregor, and put Grey Wind to the sword and I just scooped. The naval could've been a valid play independent of him seeing my card, but talking with some folks afterwards he had been doing a ton of scouting everyone's decks. Just left kinda a bad taste in my mouth, especially after he said he usually opened with it, but didn't in the finals apparently. I guess he also hit 2 pentoshi's with it during the tourney so it went well for him. So overall I ended up 3-3 in my games. The big issue I see with Stark is they're lacking finishing power-they're pretty killy, and they have solid defense but it takes awhile for them to put games away unless you're getting Robb out and winning challenges early with Sansa or just steamrolling their characters. That said, they're also very resilient and even in the games I was getting rolled (barring the last one) I was able to still keep power gains from getting too explosive. Blackfish is gonna be a huge upgrade for them-just having someone else with renown will make a lot of difference. Frozen in Ice reprint would also be seriously welcomed. I'd still say Lannister is currently the best faction overall (Cersei, Tyrion, Jaime, Tywin, Gregor are all amazing characters) but Stark is right there and likely will be pushed above them with the deluxe pack.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Fyi Arya doesn't get a dupe during setup. Sansa similarly doesn't kneel. Yeah I know, I dropped one on her from hand (had a 6 card setup).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Ahh, that makes sense. And yeah, after playing Stark some, they really kinda suck at winning. I think Greyjoy does the aggression control a lot better, especially since Balon can single handedly win challenges, and Wildfire, among other things, severely restricts the whole "pack of wolves" thing some of the cards do, often involving the actual direwolves. As good as all the House Tully power rush stuff looks, I kinda hope that's not gonna be their only viable winning strategy. The thing with Greyjoy is they don't have the kill that Stark does. And I've found them to be a lot less consistent in general-they'll totally blow you off the table sometimes, but others they won't get the locations they need and/or get kinda gold-choked and just flounder around. Like the deck I was running will be significantly better just being able to swap out Ser Rodrick for Blackfish/Eddard. Frozen Solid will also help a ton with the control strategy. Although that said, I could also see a situation where the power rush is just gonna be far stronger in general and forces everything else out. You can keep some of the kill while just blitzing down power gains with all the tully stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
I doubt they'll print any 2 or less dudes with unconditional multiple icons. With how they've changed costs from 1 to 2 ed, 3 is essentially where 1-2 sat before. High end used to be 5, now it's 7. Night's watch is looking like they'll get some really good tools coming up (love the attachment), but may still be a touch slow and/or overly dependent on The Wall. At least they seem to be making 4 cost locations beyond the threshold where you have to worry about destruction.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Yeah the Vs game isn't all that good. It has some similarities with the old one, but it's been dumbed down a lot, for lack of better term. It's also went to a mechanic where instead of attacking the player, each person has a superhero that they choose and needs to be killed. They also made the bizarre decision to add a system similar to mana, which kinda goes against one of the things that made the old vs. system so great (basically no real mana screw).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:I don't mind the summer/winter them as long as it remains neutral. Right now Star Wars is doing and Endor theme and the Scum faction is completely ignored which is making their stuff very insular and not able to cross pollenate with the other new decks that are built around the Endor theme. It's extremely frustrating, and if the Summer/Winter thing ends up with one side being strong and the other side just being meta to it, it's going to be really bad if certain factions are able to take advantage of that more than others. This is kinda what happened during 1.0. Winter was generally considered much stronger, and the factions that had winter cards/stuff that played off of winter benefited heavily. Also anything that was punished by summer was generally going to be stronger just because summer was so much weaker. Deviant posted:But it's not like the cards are bad on their own. Both of those plots seem perfectly playable, if Summer is a bit better.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:I mean, we play some heavy Euros (Splotter, Vital, etc) and war games so complexity won't be a huge deal, I just don't necessarily want to lifestyle/buy a thousand dollars of expansions. I think you're right though, aGoT/LotR will probably be an easier sell. Both are solid games. I prefer GoT but part of that is probably just from being familiar with the 1.0 version of the game. I'd say if multiplayer interests you at all that GoT is the way to go as I don't believe Conquest is even playable multiplayer whereas GoT is decent for it. I will also say I know some people I've talked to actually find Conquest to be more skill-intensive due to how you need to allocate your forces across the different planets and the ability to somewhat control your engagements so if that sounds like something you'd prefer there's that. Honestly, even though I dislike Netrunner I think you can't go wrong with any of FFG's LCGs. I've played most of them (and actually just today decided to pick up LotR) and they all are well-designed, with a surprising amount of differentiation in how they play out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Between WH and GoT, WH is the much better 2p game imo. Obviously GoT wins by default in multiplayer. Just wondering, why do you think so? I've had this discussion with a few people around where I play and it seems people are divided. I think GoT is better largely due to the fact I think the command mechanic is way to random and swingy (having both card draws and resource generation both be attached to winning command seems too much to me). That said, as I mentioned above some dudes I talked to actually enjoy having command be so important, as it can be a large skill test w/r/t how you deploy your forces.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I don't think it's any less random than econ cards in any other card game. Your 1 drop/1 command cards in Conquest ARE your econ, and are just as important as your lands in Magic, Hedge Funds/Sure Gambles in Netrunner or your Kingsroads/Roseroads/reducers in Game of Thrones. Yeah, if you don't draw them, you're pretty boned, but that's the nature of card games. I think the negative perception is just a matter of not enough time understanding the system, since it does take some getting used to equating "units" to "econ," as opposed to the actual location "econ" cards like the Promethium Mine or faction reducers that hardly ever see play. A 1 cost 1 command unit is not only (theoretically) gaining you resources and/or cards at a planet, but also denying your opponent the same...unless they do something about it. And I think that's where Conquest really shines, since there are a lot more important decisions to think about. Where to play your dudes, where to send your warlord, whether you can win combat at a given planet with the tricks and shields you have in your hand vs. the tricks and shields they have in their hand, etc. My problem with how econ works in Conquest is that it's dual nature-a bad command phase in Conquest not only stunts your econ w/r/t resources (ability to play things), but also your card draw (having things to play/different options). It would be like in Magic an effect that destroyed land and stopped card draw/made you discard. And I think that it does make the game not just more punishing, but more snowbally. That also magnifies a bad draw because you end up losing out on both card draw and resources. On top of which, with the way you deploy econ dudes/dudes in general you could make a mistake that loses you the game but not actually realize it until turns later, which doesn't give much immediate reinforcement to helping you learn what you did wrong. I do agree though that the mechanic does give you a different feel for decision-making, and I'm in general a fan of the mechanic where you deploy units and how battles are determined, I just think having card draw and resource generation being attached to command is maybe a flaw. And as for GoT being more obvious, I'd probably dispute that. Like I tend not to just dump all my econ dudes because I know I need to save for plots/have protection for a big dude coming later/need buffer for intrigue challenge claim/etc. You also need to balance having symbols up for challenges, etc. And I like the challenge phase combat in GoT in general more than Conquest-it feels like there's more interplay and decision making there since you have to decide what to commit for both potential attacks (which may not open up) as well as defense. All that said, I think both games are good and wouldn't dissuade anyone from getting into either. Both play well, and have decent amounts of players (depending on your area of course) so either's a solid choice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Anyone going to the regional in MI this weekend? It looks like Wolves of the North is both released and legal for that, so there's roughly 2 days for putting a deck together (I'm sure lots of people have been proxying stuff for awhile, but  ). Looking at the set, I'm thinking there's a Stark power rush deck that could be built that should be pretty strong. I'm also thinking about updating my old Stark kill deck to be a bit quicker (likely swapping in some of the renown characters, and getting rid of the last of my neutral dudes). How much do people expect the new set to change the meta? I had thought it would be overwhelmingly Stark heavy but looking at it I'm not sure if that will be the case (which is a credit to the design imo). I'm still a bit tempted to just run some version of Lannister because their characters are still amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Yeah, the guy ended up losing 3-15 against Lannister Crossing ( Blackfish is good if you don't run 7 Cat. He's good with her, but Stark can't really afford 2 6's and a 7 imo (and Robb's still really good). 6 Eddard looks solid, but messing around with him I typically didn't have a second character I wanted to be sending with him since he's already beefy on his own. Much like 7 Eddard, he's a dude who really wants to be in Night's Watch/Martell or some other super-defensive shell. The card draw on Blackfish is legit, especially since he doesn't have to be participating to have it trigger. Went to regionals today in Michigan and scrubbed out. We had a pre-tourney with the spring kit on Friday and Stark decks were out in force for that (I played a modified version of the list I took to the last store championship I went to, lots of others were going heavy with new Cat and sac stuff). Actually had 14 people which was nice for something so small. Afterwards, I yet again made probably my biggest error of every tourney I've been at since the first one I played. First store championship I went to I threw together a Lanni/Rose deck, went 3-1 (with the one loss being another Lanni deck) and pretty much cruised. And for some dumb reason I've stayed away from it ever sense out of some need to be different or something I guess.This time, I decided on a Greyjoy/Crossing deck. My thinking was with people running so little location hate, focusing on location abilities (of which Greyjoy have a ton) gives you a bit of an advantage (especially with stuff like seastone chair, which has the bonus of getting around calm which is very common still). Plus, the deck is blazing quick and sometimes just...wins. The biggest problem with it though is if you fall behind it's hard to recover, and if you play against Targ you pretty much have to just pray because they set up to counter you. So of course after my round 1 win I get matched up against 2 targ decks that proceed to burn all my characters to death. I would add a report, but round 2 & 3 it was pretty much just "Dracarys all your guys lol" My big mistake was not just playing my old Lanni deck (or any Lanni deck). I don't even think it's "broken" or unbeatable (although I believe at our regional the final table was lanni/lanni), it's just extremely consistent and has no real bad matchups vs. anything. There's good characters up and down the cost spectrum, and their econ allows them to recover if you do have a bad turn. Also, they have many ways to win since the theme of "lots of gold" doesn't particularly shoehorn them into a style. Again, not unbeatable by any stretch but just really solid with none of the weaknesses the other houses seem to have. alansmithee fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 08:06
|
|
) but the pieces are starting to appear for a lot of cool decks. I don't think Blackfish is really worth it quite yet, there are better options in the 6 drop spot for Stark right now and he's hurt more by milk than any of the others.
|
PaybackJack posted:The Lannister cards are kind of bad. That's keeping in theme though. Uhh Tower of the Hand is likely super-broken.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Your Conquest bias is showing here. Star Wars is not a 'beta Conquest'. If anything Star Wars is L5R-lite. Mechanically Star Wars has more in common with aGoT than Conquest. If you're basing your argument around the pod system, then I guess I can see where you're coming from but its still a pretty big difference. In my mind, Star Wars broke the mold on standard deck building and a lot of people bitched and moaned, and when Conquest came along they wanted to use the idea again but scaled it down so that there wouldn't be as much whining from people who needed to be able to control every card in their deck. Yeah the pod system is one of the more interesting things for deck building in forever. What it does for card balance is actually very interesting in that you're not allowed to just jam the best cards in your deck without risk of having filler with it. I actually like Star Wars a lot as a game, but the sketchy release schedule for the expansion packs early did a number on the game's momentum, I think. At least it did around me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Fetterkey posted:The Star Wars players in my area think that Conquest is basically an improved iteration of Star Wars with a better version of the pod system and the #1 most requested feature of Star Wars (playing units to specific objectives rather than just having them out there in general). There are still a few die-hards who play Star Wars as well, but most of them also play Conquest and consider it a better game. I've never heard about Conquest being improved Star Wars outside of this board. And I don't see how you could say it's got a better pod system since it doesn't have a pod system outside of your leader having preset cards (and fwiw I think that's a flaw in the game). I've never heard of anyone requesting that people play cards to specific objectives in SW either. If anything, I think the objectives are way better than Conquest's planet system-not only are they not always the same cards, but the fact your engagements actually eliminate them means you can actually work to deprive your opponent from a benefit you don't want them to have vs. just having to wait around until it's the first planet in line. Basically as was mentioned before it seems like a lot of your biases are making you believe subjective opinions you and parts of your playgroup hold are somehow objective truths. I think both games are solid and have their place, but if I were to pick one that's better designed I'd have few reservations going with Star Wars (but again I'm a big fan of the pod system and think that's a big innovation, especially now that there's a larger card pool to support it).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:There's no LCG I wouldn't recommend to anyone though. I think for most groups Thrones is a solid choice because it's mainstream pop culture, very easy to learn and play, doesn't require a lot of "blind math" like Netrunner does, and the deck building is also very simple. Unrelated, if/when they implement a restricted list for GoT it's looking like Lannister will end up the new Martell (having seemingly all their cards on). Pretty much all their uniques up the chain are good to great, and the tyrion/tywin combo means they don't feel the pain of events costing gold nearly as much as other factions do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
radlum posted:How's the balance between the Houses? I'd say Lannister>Stark, Bara, Greyjoy, Targ>Tyrell, Martell, Night's Watch. The problem with the base box though is it's a bit swingy in that if someone drops one of their good 6 or 7 drops first, it can be extremely hard to come back from that.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Is there a 'tournament winning decklist' thing for Conquest? Closest I can find is digging through the warlord forum threads but that takes time I noticed on conquestdb the winning decks that are reported are all tagged with a little trophy icon. You'll also see second/third place decks there too, etc. Granted, it's not like MTG where you'll typically get decklists posted automatically somewhere-it's largely all based on if whoever wins posts them up. Also I know some dudes don't like their decklists getting out so they purposely don't put them up so that's still a thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Fetterkey posted:In Conquest news, I won Regionals (my report is over here). Eldorath has been less popular recently, but I think he's still quite good. Good job at the tourney. Nice to see Eldorath still able to compete. Also some of my friends did some playtesting for necrons, and apparently they're albe to ally with everyone, but you have to choose which at the start of your turns you can actually play (or so it was during playtesting). GrandpaPants posted:CSI has the release date for the 25th. They've been pretty accurate on their end, especially on timescales < 1 month.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
I kinda wish I'd have waited now to pick up LotR stuff. I've recently got the first three sets, but if they're moving on to another co-op LCG I'd rather just start fresh. Also I'm kinda one of those suckers for Lovecraftian stuff (I actually have all the arckham horror board game stuff, and eldritch horror as well).
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Levies are worth the inclusion to ensure your opponent can't Put to the Sword, Tears, or any of the Martel event tricks and a few of the Stark ones. Definitely worth running in my book. Sounds like they'll work great in BAMF. Thing is why not just run hand's judgement in those cases? I don't think the card is bad by any means, but I think it's one of those things that finding a slot will be difficult. It's free, but otoh you're only taking based on the number of attackers so you could end up not even taking enough to stop whatever nasty event(s) you want to prevent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:That's always the problem with these mechanics: Deep Strike, Morph, Ninjitsu. Is that only the cards with the mechanic can be bluffed. In Netrunner I felt like it would have been much better to have any card be bluffed as an agenda or ice. Knowing that the card being bluffed is always one of the cards from that set was hugely limiting to the range of bluffs possible to the point where you weren't really bluffing anymore. This was always a big part of my arguments about Netrunner not really having the huge bluffing element people made it out to have. My point was that in Mtg (or other card games), I have no idea what cards are in your hand-I have to think about what they might be based on your plays, reactions, etc. Whereas in Netrunner, when you take a card out and put it in front of a server for instance, I now know that it has to be ICE-and on top of that I can look at how many credits you have to further narrow that card down to relevant choices (if it's higher than you can afford, it's irrelevant anyways and might as well be dead when I'm deciding to run).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
Carteret posted:Yes to all 3. Assuming the card effect doesn't say otherwise of course.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Just as an FYI since I haven't heard it discussed much here (at all?) but I've been hearing a lot of ~rUmOrS~ about FFG losing the 40k license entirely (basically GW considers Asmodee a competitor and is also trying to do more game stuff in house). What that would mean is that Conquest could be getting the axe. I hope that's not the case (especially as I trust FFG way more than GW) but could be something for folks to think about before investing in the game much.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Netrunner was also Gencon. I wouldn't be surprised if they had Arkham there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:The big boxes are designed to make house archetypes wider, not deeper. They also already confirmed the other house cards in the box are specifically strong against some Lannister shenanigans. Stark fealty is still considered too tier nationally, but Lannister remains a strong second. From my understanding in a vacuum lanni is still considered best. Its just stark fealty has a great game against Lanni so in the meta they are stronger with tons of tourneys having huge Lanni presence
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Yeah, but that's how tiers are designated in something without hard statistics (like an overturned character in a fighting game, for instance). My point was that unless you expect tons of Lanni, the "best" deck is still gonna be some Lannister variant. If you expect a field like the dude at Nationals who ended up playing like 8 out of 11 matches against Lannister variants (and I think one of the other three was Lion banner), then yeah Stark's the way to go. Although even with that, I think that most factions are viable. I'd say Lannister/X, Martell/Lion, and Stark Fealty are probably the 3 best decks, but Bara fealty and Greyjoy still are competitive. And everythings gonna get shaken up as soon as Valar is released anyways. Also, looking at some of the newer spoilers, character life expectancy in general may be taking a severe dip.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Did I miss that someone started a Game of Thrones 2.0 thread or are people just kind of bored with the game? I'm thinking it's just a lull. Things are spoiled out for like the next 4 months, so it's just about waiting (or so I hope, I don't think people are bored of it). Tourneys have also slowed down a bit with no regionals/Gencon/Nationals. Also building decks now to me seems a bit futile since Valar will be out in a month or so to blow up the meta.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:The WH40K license being lost has been speculated on but never confirmed here afaik. Kind of a big deal. Would love to see GW explain that in their next Annual Report. This is obviously just rumors and innuendo, but form what I had heard was it had to do with Asmodee picking up FFG. GW sees Asmodee as a competitor since they're also European, and GW is in general trying to branch out into being more a gaming company rather than just being a miniature company (which had been their previous line).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:So with Valar coming up, not to mention the already numerous ways of killing dudes that the last cycle introduced, how do you decide which characters are > 1-of in a deck? Pretty much pick 2 (or, if you're running alternate saves like iron mines, bodyguard, etc, you may wanna run 3) characters that are essentially your build-arounds. Those all would get 3 of, and every other unique gets a 1 of imo. In general I also see more non-uniques being played and relied upon since they're never gonna be dead draws. You'll also have less of the ridiculous boardstates where you have 6/7 dudes on a side and 10+ power spread on characters. The 2 gold is gonna be much more painful than it was in 1st edition since everything costs much more now, but it's a necessary thing to have in the game IMO.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 06:11
|
|