|
S.J. posted:The thing is, his reaction specifies after an enemy unit dies, so I don't think the dude would even qualify for the trigger since he'll be dead at the same time as them. Hence my confusion This is a counter-Magic:TG ruling. There is/was a precedent with Magic:The Gathering that cards with "goes to the graveyard" effects trigger when that card with the effect is put into the graveyard. This is something FFG feels is apparently dumb and is choosing to go the opposite way with for whatever reason.
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 17:12
|
|
. So from what I understand you'd Warpstorm -> everything dies -> the dude isn't at the planet anymore and so no trigger occurs???. I saw the part of the rulebook you're referencing, but it's specifically talking about multiple simultaneous triggers - in my example that doesn't really matter, since it's just going to be the same trigger occurring multiple times, at worst. I'm just curious about the timing of the reaction.
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:The reference guide has a diagram showing when action windows occur, but it is essentially after every step. They do not replace your turn. I'm not sure if this is different than Star Wars or not but in Star Wars during the deploy phase taking an action and deploying a card are both your "action" while battles there's a separate action window in between combat actions. What that means is that you couldn't for example deploy a card and then play an action card back to back. Maybe someone who's able to check the rules could clarify if that's the same in Conquest or if its different than Star Wars.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Taran_Wanderer posted:Yeah, this is right. When it's your turn to Deploy, you can take an Action or Deploy a card, then it's your opponent's go. This is why all the deploy cost reducers are Interrupts rather then Actions. It's important as well because it means you can't chain the Orc that comes into play and deals damage with the Chaos Flamers unit action ability without giving your opponent a chance to play an action of their own. You could chain in a battle though, attacking with the Flamers then sacrificing them to deal 2 damage if you had initiative before your opponent had a chance to play an action card.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
I'm trying out playing Orks and Chaos, giving that 9 damage Daemon a rockit launcher is just awesome. You have initiative? Well too bad I have ranged, BOOM. I'm trying to build the deck around swarming the first plant everyturn and trying to take out the enemy Warlords with enchanced units like giving Goff Boys the Rune Encrusted Armor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Sgt. Anime Pederast posted:How long does it usually take for games to get restocked? Conquest is currently way overpriced or sold out everywhere. Or limit one to a customer. My distributor said second week of November. Probably will be later knowing FFG.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
brother-joseph posted:Conquest chat: is it just me, or can orks not stand on their own, like, at all? Snotlings and burna boyz and the kannon all splash very well into Chaos, but that ork general just doesn't seem good on his own right now. I'm pretty happy with the Orks but I'm also running three cores. If you're not they don't have the consistency to really work as well as the Tau or Space Marines. I don't really use the token units. They don't have hammers so you can't use them to win command and they all die immediately to a range attack which a lot of factions have. The unit that takes a damage to untap is amazing when you load it up with the +2/+2 armor from Chaos. I'm winning a lot of games by being able to take out their Warlord, not many factions can take the first planet without assigning their Warlord there so you get into a situation where once you've flipped their Warlord they have to defend the starting planet. The only real "hole" in their game is that they don't have the best event cards and can't do much against other players events. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
The Orks are definitely short on combat tricks but they make up for it in overwhelming strength I find. As mentioned I'm not using an tokens or units that die in a single area1 attack, they're just not worth it. The card that spawns the Acolytes is just there to provide a cost reduction to one of the daemons. Deck Created with CardGameDB.com Warhammer 40,000: Conquest Deckbuilder Total Cards: (50) Warlord: 1x Nazdreg (Core Set) Army Unit: (26) 4x Nazdreg’s Flash Gitz (Core Set) 3x Chaos Fanatics (Core Set) 3x Possessed (Core Set) 2x Soul Grinder (Core Set) 3x Splintered Path Acolyte (Core Set) 3x Goff Boyz (Core Set) 3x Weirdboy Maniak (Core Set) 3x Shoota Mob (Core Set) 2x Bad Dok (Core Set) Attachment: (10) 1x Cybork Body (Core Set) 3x Promotion (Core Set) 3x Rune-Encrusted Armor (Core Set) 3x Rokkit Launcha (Core Set) Event: (5) 2x Bigga is Betta (Core Set) 1x Promise of Glory (Core Set) 2x Warpstorm (Core Set) Support: (9) 1x Kraktoof Hall (Core Set) 3x Promethium Mine (Core Set) 3x Ork Kannon (Core Set) 2x Bigtoof Banna (Core Set)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Other than shoota boyz anyways, because they're just too good Yeah, Splintered Path Acolyte also dies in a range 1 but really both those units are just to take control of planets. I found that using the neutral units painted a bit too big of a target on that planet for your opponent to want to fight you for it; basically I'd rather not give my opponent a free card or a resource. Tokens and the 0 cost orc unit don't provide command and being able to get those resources is key in this game.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:Worst case scenario it's like the SWLCG deluxe expansion for scum and smugglers and you need to buy multiples to get a full playset. Star Wars didn't need 3 cores though. Although given that this is a Warhammer product I would be surprised if FFG didn't push the amount they taxed the players beyond the normal LCG amount.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Fetterkey posted:I actually think Calamity looks pretty bad at first glance. It doesn't affect tokens, so it's not a swarm removal card but rather one to get rid of lots of low-cost cappers. Further, the fact that it's a Headquarters action means you can only play it after all command struggles and combat are resolved-- so it's a card that punishes opponents outcapping you with tons of weenies, except that it sends your weenies back too, and if they've been outcapping you they probably have more resources with which to replay the cards that got sent back to their hand. To make matters worse, the only action window in the Headquarters phase occurs before you get your 4 resources and 2 cards for the turn, so you have to have had 2 resources left over at the end of the turn and the card already in hand. I don't always see eye to eye with Fetterkey, but when I do he's probably already made a post explaining things better than I could have. Calamity looks like a poor man's weak version of  .
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Elaborate please. Ties of Blood and May the Force Be With You are both very strong against defensive control. ToB punishes you for not attacking and MtFBWY means that Yoda can attack and then still commit to the force struggle which means a lot of the time the DS doesn't have the balance at the start of their turn.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Question regarding Conquest; is there still an opportunity for combat actions if there is no enemy units participating. For example, if I have a unit at the first planet and my opponent does not, is there a chance to use Ork Kannon before the battle ends?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
nyxnyxnyx posted:From my understanding, yes. That's how we've been playing it because the wording says that as soon as a unit is able to "strike" and there are no units on the otherwise the battle is over, but I ruled that the action window before it would still occur.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
It was definitely a "rogue" deck. Everyone was still thinking that pure Jedi even with an addition of a few Smuggler sets would be the heavily favored playstyle. Really his deck wasn't that different that most of them but he was running two sets that most people didn't think about and those two sets made up the rogue strategy and turned that into a really punishing strategy in the current environment. I don't want to sound like I'm taking anything away from him, the environment shifted in a way that made that strategy more viable and he caught it and played it to victory. He played excellently in the games I saw him play, he baited his opponents in the perfect way and his DS game was incredibly punishing and he gave up nothing on that side. Great player, great decks; give that man major props next time you see him.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Buy 3 sets of Conquest. Don't worry if your friends don't like deckbuilding because you can build 3 different decks out of 2 cores that will function fine. I bought 3 sets of Conquest and am fine to sit on them because the game is really easy to teach and you can teach someone in 1 game then have them beat you the next because they saw how cards interact and made smart choices. I hated High Command. I found it boring and heavily draw based with very boring combinations and no "back and forth" action. Conquest is much more involved and big battles are pretty climactic with actions and abilities flying around.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
What's the timing on Shielding damage versus using the reaction on the field generator? For example: I use Dakka Dakka Dakka and deal 1 damage to my Orc Doctor and an opponents Trader. Can I use the Field Generator after he uses a shield to prevent the damage to his Trader or do I have to use it before he has an opportunity to use a shield?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
I'm going to third LotR. The basic concepts of things like timing windows that are present in all of FFG's LCGs(and most CCGs/ECGs/TCGs) are best learned for total new players in a co-op format. Netrunner will be very unforgiving and painful, I don't know any couples that got into it. Star Wars is more forgiving but the only couple I know that got into it was already into a lot of other games competitively. The couple I know that got into LotR did so because they were both fairly new into the hobby and she wasn't as into it as he was so he could spend time designing the decks and then she could sort of follow his lead in game. Also as mentioned LotR has a lot of replay with just a core and is a lot easier to expand with single adventure packs fueling your new game nights. If it's something you'd look to play really often, I'd say it probably falls short of Netrunner or Star Wars in that regard as the games are a bit longer and there isn't a whole lot of variation in terms of surprises or interesting plays to be made once you're familiar with what works and what doesn't. With 2 players you're probably ok just buying a single LotR core as well. With any of the other games: you'd want at least 2 cores for Netrunner and the first deluxe expansion for Star Wars(Edge of Darkness).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
GlisteningDragon posted:As long as it is better than A:NR balance when I stopped playing it. I picked up a core last night and I am a little bummed that you pretty much need two of them to build a consistent deck, just like A:NR. I still don't understand why they cannot just give us playsets in the core. Because then they'd have to charge double or split into separate boxes for different factions which is confusing and doesn't encourage playing different factions. If they'd just included play sets or certain cards they'd have to skip others and that would make the deck building aspect worthless. The base core is designed entirely to give you a feel for the game, then if you like it you can invest more to play competitively or just stick with the base stuff and fuss around. I think the $30+ price is the only point they hosed up on for Conquest but otherwise their model is fine. The benefits or netting casuals is perfect, again I wish they'd gotten the MSRP down so we'd see $20 sales of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Max posted:Netrunner would be difficult to pull that off with, since it would be dependent on the players picking the Runner or Corp, and then which faction each of them pick. There is already draft play available for Netrunner. Both as a supported pack form but I think if you hunt around the BGG forums you can find stuff about people who've made a cube for Netrunner of the existing cards. Lichtenstein posted: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. Responding to this in the Star Wars LCG thread .
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:Star Wars is only 2 player aside from some 1 player vs many scenarios that came out with one of the expansions...I think. Overall however, I'd say Star Wars is the best option for kids to get into. You can do 1v1, 1v2, 2v2, or 1v3. If you do 1v2 or 1v3 you use special decks. All the stuff to make the game anything more than 1v1 is included in a single deluxe expansion, but if you want to do 2v2 you could probably just get the rules offline and make decks normally as the multiplayer objective cards are not necessary for construction.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Why is it a worse Rokkit Launcha (except for the cost)? It's basically Super Ranged, in that you can get a unit to go first before the ranged units even. Whether that is actually important is left to be seen (I doubt it), but it does let you alpha strike with two units if you have it and a ranged unit and initiative. The wolf would only work once per battle so it the combat drags into later rounds I don't think you could use it again like you could a unit with a Rokkit Launcha. I'm not extremely up on the Conquest rules so I don't know the exact timing window on it. They're not really comparable though because they aren't in the same faction. Tau would use it, Space Marines might use it, IG could use it alongside Rokkit Launcha if they really wanted to. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jan 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:Nope, you can only take stuff from one allied faction, not both. It does have an advantage over ranged in that your character will always go first even if you lack initiative whereas ranged characters could get beaten by other ranged + initiative. I guess I really need to sit down and reread the rules for this. I haven't played a whole lot since I bought everything a few months ago. Looking at the timing windows now I see that you're right and ranged only works once per battle, I assumed once you reset the combat round you started with ranged units and moved to non-ranged again. Also, yeah you definitely can't use it and Rokkit Launcha in the same deck. Not sure where my head was at on that one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:They overhauled everything and I hate it. That's so bad, I have to believe they're just testing something live. They cannot stick to a grey background. It looks like some dude's blog about FFG's stuff not an actual website for the company. The first forum thread in FFG Website Section is titled "New theme - my eyes!". Hilarious. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Feb 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Tiny Chalupa posted:Is there a website or video I can check out that shows a beginner 40k conquest game? One of the best things that FFG does is put out these great tutorial videos that are pretty high class.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Azran posted:Lore reasons. It's like having a WW2 card game where one of the Russian cards is "Mosin-Nagant Rifle". I mean, if you can deal with the abstraction of a single Scout, not even a squad, capturing a planet, you can deal with run-of-the-mill weapons being attachments because of gameplay reasons. So the idea is that the Godwin Bolter is the standard issue weapon and is theoretically already equipped by the army unit because they're obviously not going to the planet without weapons. So basically if they had the text space to add the word "modified" or "enhanced" to the title this wouldn't be an issue. I guess those are the same people that can't deal with X-Wings fighting Rancors in Star Wars.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
omnibobb posted:Regarding the number of deluxe expansions needed. Since they make a point to say that you get 3x copies of the 2-new, original seven factions, cards. I think it's a safe bet they are doing 3x of each Tyranid card as well. I think if they were doing 1x of each Tyranid card or 2x we'd see the same from the cards for other factions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:Now if only Warhammer 40k hadn't so blatantly ripped off StarCraft... Infested rules could be cool. Something like a 'nid Warlord with the power that instead of having 4x of one unit only he can use; you can choose any other Warlord's units. Or make that apply to unique units. Or just having his 4 personal guard units(what are we calling these Warlord specific units?) be super weak but can take control of non-vehicle units or something. There's some cool design space there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
nyxnyxnyx posted:Void Pirate, Rogue Trader, Promotion I should thank you for the Dark Eldar deck you posted some pages back. I took 2nd in our Store Championships over here in Taiwan with it. Had a bad mulligan in the champ round against space marines and drew seemingly every expensive card in my deck while he drew a bunch of cheap ones and was able to dominate the command struggle. While being able to give up the first two planets without long term consequence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
nyxnyxnyx posted:You're welcome (: It's a fun deck to play. Yeah I got hosed one game by space marines "destroy all non-uniques at a non-first planet", but still came back from that. The deck was incredibly frustrating to play against and the amount of hand disruption was fantastic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:A conscious decision to be lazy. Well they could have just made them neutral but then you'd only get the 3 of them. This way each group gets access to running 6x of them. I know what you're saying but I don't mind them being lazy with a card that will be useful in every faction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
MisterShine posted:Nobody is sure how the gently caress we're supposed to use Doom Siren Seem pretty obviously. It's 2 shields.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Conquest is pretty dead in Taiwan. People here don't really have the disposable income to support multiple LCGs and Netrunner is still the strongest. Conquest took forever to get a Chinese version as well, by the time that can out the players who were interested moved onto other games like Doomtown, back to Netrunner or decided to wait for the Game of Thrones LCG.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Question for anyone who played first edition Game of Thrones; are the resin houses going to be usable with the second edition?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
A Game of Thrones LCG tutorial has been posted, and has the same voice actor as the Star Wars one, though he's not quite as enthusiastic in this one. Guess he was more of a Star Wars fan. Having not played the game, or seen it played, it's nice to see how it works mechanically.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
jsr v2.0 posted:This GoT game looks pretty great. Only seen the tutorial video and read over some spoilers, but my partner and I are psyched to play it. I just pre-ordered a copy from CSI, and might get a second if it's needed. The mechanics and the flavor seems spot on. When you seek
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 09:26
|
|