Jump to content



Photo

Alliances - thoughts


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#41 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 03:33 PM

Or they can always release a new wheel if they needed to.

#42 Tobogan

Tobogan

    Member

  • Members
  • 142 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 05:44 PM

Or they can always release a new wheel if they needed to.

Only if that wheel doesn't change the current alliances. Think if one day they move you beloved ork/IG alliance deck so it is no longer a legal alliance.


Edited by Tobogan, 30 March 2014 - 05:44 PM.


#43 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,162 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 05:47 PM

It's not beloved by me. I hate the IG.

Of course it would need to keep the current ones the same. My point is there is options. People need to be patient.

#44 Tobogan

Tobogan

    Member

  • Members
  • 142 posts

Posted 31 March 2014 - 06:27 AM

"Your beloved" meant an hypothetical situation xD. Announcing stuff six months early fuels peoples imagination and anxiety.



#45 xodarap

xodarap

    Member

  • Members
  • 142 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 11:13 PM

 

The alliances on the alignment wheel are represented to some degree in 6th ed. 40K and, generally speaking, the wheel is well-arranged.  However, there are still some issues with the alignment wheel from both a thematic perspective and a game-mechanics/design perspective:

1) It doesn't represent degrees of allegiance like the 40K allies matrix, so hypothetically you could end up in a meta where you see lots of DE/Chaos decks and, as they are classified as "desperate allies," this should really be reserved for corner case scenarios.

2) There are alliances that are not represented on the alignment wheel such as Tau/Orks and Space Marines/Eldar who are allies of convenience. Yet DE/Chaos make the cut?

3) The 6th ed. 40K allies matrix may be in line with the latest GW fluff, but a lot of us 40K players view it as a marketing scheme to get people to buy out of faction miniatures. I prefer my 40K with more paranoia and xenophobia. Factions that are battle brothers are OK occasionally and these and other alliances such as those mentioned above could be enabled by specific cards in Conquest. This last point is obviously more a matter of taste than an objective comparison between the alignment wheel and the allies matrix. In the grim darkness of the far future, I'd like to see less friendship. 

 
I realize that the alignment wheel will almost certainly remain in place if for no other reason than that the core set must include enough cards to construct playable 50 card decks.  While this is an advantage for the core set, it may become a liability for the long-term health of the game.  Combined, the pitfalls of the alignment wheel listed above could potentially lead to issues with deck diversity and corner case alliances that are now somehow commonplace.
 
To offer one hypothetical, if Orks and IG prove to be highly synergistic, then suddenly you'd find yourself playing against lots of competitive Ork/Guard decks. I don't mind this combination sometimes (Blood Axes, mercenaries) but it would be a shame if all competitive Guard decks included Ork allies. That's just one hypothetical example but we all know that when decks are optimized for competitive card games, you tend to see similar archetypes over and over. The stultification of deck lists is both common and unfortunate in card games; look at Sith control in Star Wars where two or three objective sets have been dominate since release. It's even worse when it's some strange combination that may not be entirely unthematic but still shouldn't be commonplace (e.g. Orks/IG or DE/Chaos).  
 
The easiest way to address these issues is to do away with the alignment wheel altogether and embrace the distrust and xenophobia of pre-6th ed. 40K.  Occasional alliances could be made possible through card text.
 
If alliances are to play a large role in the game, I think the alignment wheel could at least be more flexible.  A more elegant design solution would be to indicate potential ally factions on the warlord cards, e.g. a Blood Axe warlord could ally with Imperial Guard, whereas a Gahzghkull warlord card would not allow guard allies.  This would also provide a design mechanism through which we could see other ally possibilities such as Chaos with corrupt Guard, Orks manipulated by Eldar, etc. 
 
This hypothetical change would not require re-balancing individual cards or an overhaul of the core rules.  In practice, all that would be required is that warlord cards display the icon of the faction(s) with which they may ally and a number that indicates how many cards from other factions that hero's deck may include.
 

If allies were specified on the warlord cards, it would even be possible to adjust the degree to which a particular warlord might be willing to accept allies.  That is to say, a one warlord might be willing to accept 10 allied cards in the deck whereas another warlord might accept only 5.  Abandoning the rigidity of the alignment wheel also opens up more interesting combinations such as a radical Inquisitor warlord that would allow for some daemon cards to be included in the deck, or a less xenophobic IG commander to take Tau allies.  In cases where alliances might create powerful synergies, balance can be maintained by simply restricting the number of ally cards permitted.  This just seems like a more flexible and modular system that would allow for more thematic, diverse, and customizable decks. 

 

There are plenty of ways this might be addressed and this is just one possible suggestion.  I'd just like to see groundwork in place for a highly thematic and diverse meta for this promising game.  
 
EDIT: Added introductory paragraph and clarified incorrect terminology

 

 

 

 

The alliances on the alignment wheel are represented to some degree in 6th ed. 40K and, generally speaking, the wheel is well-arranged.  However, there are still some issues with the alignment wheel from both a thematic perspective and a game-mechanics/design perspective:

1) It doesn't represent degrees of allegiance like the 40K allies matrix, so hypothetically you could end up in a meta where you see lots of DE/Chaos decks and, as they are classified as "desperate allies," this should really be reserved for corner case scenarios.

2) There are alliances that are not represented on the alignment wheel such as Tau/Orks and Space Marines/Eldar who are allies of convenience. Yet DE/Chaos make the cut?

3) The 6th ed. 40K allies matrix may be in line with the latest GW fluff, but a lot of us 40K players view it as a marketing scheme to get people to buy out of faction miniatures. I prefer my 40K with more paranoia and xenophobia. Factions that are battle brothers are OK occasionally and these and other alliances such as those mentioned above could be enabled by specific cards in Conquest. This last point is obviously more a matter of taste than an objective comparison between the alignment wheel and the allies matrix. In the grim darkness of the far future, I'd like to see less friendship. 

 
I realize that the alignment wheel will almost certainly remain in place if for no other reason than that the core set must include enough cards to construct playable 50 card decks.  While this is an advantage for the core set, it may become a liability for the long-term health of the game.  Combined, the pitfalls of the alignment wheel listed above could potentially lead to issues with deck diversity and corner case alliances that are now somehow commonplace.
 
To offer one hypothetical, if Orks and IG prove to be highly synergistic, then suddenly you'd find yourself playing against lots of competitive Ork/Guard decks. I don't mind this combination sometimes (Blood Axes, mercenaries) but it would be a shame if all competitive Guard decks included Ork allies. That's just one hypothetical example but we all know that when decks are optimized for competitive card games, you tend to see similar archetypes over and over. The stultification of deck lists is both common and unfortunate in card games; look at Sith control in Star Wars where two or three objective sets have been dominate since release. It's even worse when it's some strange combination that may not be entirely unthematic but still shouldn't be commonplace (e.g. Orks/IG or DE/Chaos).  
 
The easiest way to address these issues is to do away with the alignment wheel altogether and embrace the distrust and xenophobia of pre-6th ed. 40K.  Occasional alliances could be made possible through card text.
 
If alliances are to play a large role in the game, I think the alignment wheel could at least be more flexible.  A more elegant design solution would be to indicate potential ally factions on the warlord cards, e.g. a Blood Axe warlord could ally with Imperial Guard, whereas a Gahzghkull warlord card would not allow guard allies.  This would also provide a design mechanism through which we could see other ally possibilities such as Chaos with corrupt Guard, Orks manipulated by Eldar, etc. 
 
This hypothetical change would not require re-balancing individual cards or an overhaul of the core rules.  In practice, all that would be required is that warlord cards display the icon of the faction(s) with which they may ally and a number that indicates how many cards from other factions that hero's deck may include.
 

If allies were specified on the warlord cards, it would even be possible to adjust the degree to which a particular warlord might be willing to accept allies.  That is to say, a one warlord might be willing to accept 10 allied cards in the deck whereas another warlord might accept only 5.  Abandoning the rigidity of the alignment wheel also opens up more interesting combinations such as a radical Inquisitor warlord that would allow for some daemon cards to be included in the deck, or a less xenophobic IG commander to take Tau allies.  In cases where alliances might create powerful synergies, balance can be maintained by simply restricting the number of ally cards permitted.  This just seems like a more flexible and modular system that would allow for more thematic, diverse, and customizable decks. 

 

There are plenty of ways this might be addressed and this is just one possible suggestion.  I'd just like to see groundwork in place for a highly thematic and diverse meta for this promising game.  
 
EDIT: Added introductory paragraph and clarified incorrect terminology

 

Those are all really great ideas.  I just hope they get listened to.   I guess I don't have to ask YOUR thoughts on co-op for this game.... 


"Hastur. Hastur. Hastur. Suck it, my girlfriend is Science!"
-Will Wheaton-

#46 xodarap

xodarap

    Member

  • Members
  • 142 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 11:43 PM

So I have played other CCGs and LCGs before and the wheel i think is needed for game balancing and to keep Fan boys happy

I played VS my favorite Card game mechanic of all time one of the things that killed that game is that any team (faction) could be in the deck with others so you had characters and teams you never heard of kicking the crap out of the iconic super heros and teaming up for no reason and it caused alot of problems with balance for the game.

This wheel keep the ballance for the designers to make sure the cards they design wont break the game.

 

Thats my 2 cents

 

As a side note this game looks amazing and I cant wait to try it out

Appologies, but it's  2014 and your talking about a game that's  been dead for seven years (sometimes I even wonder if my roomie and I are the only ones who still play it.) So, I don't get to do this often...... 

 

While it's true that you could have any charachter or faction in your deck it was by no means optimal.  The game was based on teams and as you know if you didn't have at least two IN PLAY from the same team, then you had a glaring weakness that no dominant deck ever possesed.  Also what chacters and teams that you never heard of were kicking the crap out of the iconic heroes?  The two most dominant decks in the beginning were Titans/Sentinels then the meta became a bit more diverse but not much.  The next truly dominant deck was Avengers.  Pretty Iconic.  Only the Squadron Supreme could come close to them but only close not better.  With the release of JLA the JLA or JLA/JLI variants became the beatdown de'jour and with Crisis came JSA which was a LOT better than many expected.  After that WoW was announced and the serious money players left, money tourneys stopped and it was pretty irrelevant.  The factions did NOT kill VS.  Upper Deck did.  Deciding to move it's resources to the abject failure that would become the WoW tcg, letting fans design cards, power creep from hell, THESE are the things that killed VS.  not the fact that you could (if you were victory challenged and success impaired) have many different and crazy factions on your team. 

 

An' your right.  It is a HELL of a game.  Best.  Ever.  Only NetRunner can even come close....and that takes a pretty great game of NetRunner!

 

As for the wheel the best idea I've read so far is either having factions printed on the warlord or and entirely different wheel available in other expansions along with other planet decks to represent an entirely different system making all manner of crazy corrupted alliances possible.  Maybe corruption tokens would help?


"Hastur. Hastur. Hastur. Suck it, my girlfriend is Science!"
-Will Wheaton-




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS