Jump to content



Photo

FFG Announced Restricted List


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 CaliAlpha

CaliAlpha

    Member

  • Members
  • 167 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 01:43 PM

http://www.fantasyfl...s.asp?eidn=4834

 

Check out the article about it above.

 

I think they should have not restricted those objectives. Yes they are powerful and get really broken when you draw the right cards, however; there are ways to stop this from happening. Plus the number of cards out is too small to start restricting objective sets.


Edited by CaliAlpha, 21 May 2014 - 01:48 PM.

Current LCG collection

/////Star Wars: The Card Game\\\\\/////Android: Netrunner\\\\\/////Warhammer 40k: Conqeust (soon)\\\\\


#2 zachbunn

zachbunn

    Member

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 01:59 PM

After playing in the regional this weekend, I hate to say it, but I agree with this decision. I wasn't willing to push too hard in one direction or another, because I think the game is young and I trust the developers. However, at this point in the game, even if there are decks that can do well against this deck, I think having a deck that is just so obviously better than any other light side option is extremely bad for the health of the game.

 

The real problem is that this deck closes down the option pool. By being far and away the most consistent and powerful light side deck, it makes running anything else tough. This means both light and dark side decks get absurdly similar. The nice thing about a restricted list is that if in a year this becomes a lot less potent because of the options the other affiliations have, they can easily unrestrict these cards. 

 

After coming away on Saturday from the regional, instead of looking forward to the next one I was dreading having to go through another day of smugglers in every single game (both me and my opponent). At the end of the day, this combo turned the game into something dramatically different than it was before and as it stands, I support this decision.

 

Super excited to see what happens to decks for the next round of regionals!


  • Buhallin, stevepop, MacRauri and 1 other like this

Do or do not, there is no try.


#3 Goknights12

Goknights12

    Member

  • Members
  • 103 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 02:29 PM

Wow! This was fast, but I can only imagine that FFG saw the consistent complaints and groans from everyone who went to tournaments. I think is is a good choice, I would have even accepted one of each, but this also helps. The direction of the game "to indirectly quote from Zach" was so changed that is just became boring and too frustrating to even think about. Regionals are really going to be shook up now.

 

I think the "death" of these two sets came because they were released 1. too close to each other. I mean I know that they play off of each other, but had they released them as book ends to the cycle I think people would have been happier with it, and 2. Maybe premature in the life of the game. The game was still pretty young, and did have a lot of cards just yet, and to drop something like that really creates a best way scenario in which you focus only on this deck because it wins the easiest.


Edited by Goknights12, 21 May 2014 - 02:43 PM.


#4 mischraum.de

mischraum.de

    Member

  • Members
  • 315 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 02:36 PM

I am a bit disappointed about the design process. That is not an absurde combo of objective sets that somehow lead to a killer deck.
  • LtCorwin likes this
Travelling for LCG tournaments: Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Gen Con, Genoa, Göteborg, Liege, Salzburg
Next destination: Make a suggestion!

#5 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,000 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 03:00 PM

Too soon. Bad decision.
  • divinityofnumber likes this

#6 dennisharlien

dennisharlien

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 03:03 PM

After this last weekend at Regional's I whole heartily agree with Fantasy flight on this.  This is the best option currently to fix the broken state of tournament play. As Zach stated he, myself, along with most every other player were playing this deck as it was too strong not to, and if you did not play it, you would be playing with an artificial handicap compared to the other players. I did not loose a single lightside game and made Top 8 out of 32 players. All but one deck out of 7 matches was the same lightside game. This also piginholed the darkside deck to very few option if you wanted to be successful in having a chance at winning the match much less darkside games.


Edited by dennisharlien, 21 May 2014 - 03:06 PM.

Dennis Harlien

2013 SWLCG World Champion


#7 Hannibal_pjv

Hannibal_pjv

    Member

  • Members
  • 156 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 03:21 PM

I agree. it is better to have more diverse deck types than avoid some restriction just because the game is so young... Even young game can become very boring if there is "only one way of winning". Those pods are good even they are restricted. Only the really powerful combo is somewhat diluted.



#8 The Gas

The Gas

    Member

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 03:42 PM

Hopefully they revisit this decision once the whole cycle is out.  The playtesters must have thought it was fine in that context, or else they were totally asleep at the wheel and a serious reevalution of the process is in order. It's not like the game has been running for five years and the combo comes from combining something new with an old set from the first year nobody uses, it's all part of the same set of cards that were tested together.


Edited by The Gas, 21 May 2014 - 03:43 PM.


#9 Conradj

Conradj

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 04:00 PM

I was holding to the belief that in testing with the whole cycle, it was more balanced and the developers had a plan.  Now we can see they underestimated the combo.  It's a little disheartening that such a crazy combo got past the testers, but I still appreciate they've admitted to their lack of vision, and have done something to correct it.

 

Let's hope this restricted list stays a short list. 

 

May the 'edge' be with you


  • LtCorwin likes this

#10 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,000 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 04:05 PM

You don't know that's true. Remember playtesters test the whole cycle together not in packs. Perhaps these sets should have been released in 1 and 6 instead of 2 and 3.

#11 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,293 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 04:13 PM

I don't like knee jerk reactions like this so soon into the life of these cards. Also, a restricted list like this is a really inelegant solution moving forward. If they ever wanted to restrict another light side combo by adding 2 more sets to the restricted list it would also restrict the running either of those hypothetical sets with either of these. Eventually, that could represent significant collateral damage. This is a "solution" that really only works well with a single combo.
  • Toqtamish likes this

#12 The Gas

The Gas

    Member

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 04:33 PM

Not necessarily.  It could be maintained as a list of restricted *combinations*.  So, say pods A and B form one abusive combo, and C and D form another. Each combo gets restricted as a unit. So, you can't run A and B together, nor C and D, but you're free to run A and C.



#13 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,293 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 04:58 PM

Not necessarily.  It could be maintained as a list of restricted *combinations*.  So, say pods A and B form one abusive combo, and C and D form another. Each combo gets restricted as a unit. So, you can't run A and B together, nor C and D, but you're free to run A and C.


That is of course a solution, but that's not how the FAQ rules are currently written, which is that there is a single restricted list which you pick one set from. Sure they can change the rule in the future, but that's just evidence that the initial solution has issues.

#14 Buhallin

Buhallin

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 05:10 PM

You don't know that's true. Remember playtesters test the whole cycle together not in packs. Perhaps these sets should have been released in 1 and 6 instead of 2 and 3.

You keep clinging to this, but I don't see how it isn't blown out of the water by the actual fix.  If everything was going to be better next week, or even in two months, I have a hard time seeing them choosing to create the restriction.  Are they going to undo it in two months when the big fix arrives?

 

What's more, if they saw the combo, and fully appreciated what it could do, and had a fix, releasing them in this order makes no sense at all.  You're basically arguing that everyone saw that this would be a massively game-breaking combo for 3-5 months until the fix arrives, and said "Yeah, that looks good!"

 

We may not know where the screwup happened, but I think it's pretty obvious at this point that a screwup happened.  "They intentionally broke the game but only for three months" was only viable until they saw the need to fix it.


  • LtCorwin likes this

#15 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,000 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 05:36 PM

I agree with dbmeboy. It's very much a knee jerk reaction

Restricted list is a very inelegant tool

TheGas that seems a reasonable idea for it something like this remains around. Personally I hope it goes away sooner rather than later.

Edited by Toqtamish, 21 May 2014 - 05:40 PM.

  • LtCorwin likes this

#16 romo

romo

    Member

  • Members
  • 22 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 05:44 PM

For now I am satisfied with this change, and am certainly glad that combo has been removed.  It was a good decision to eliminate this problem before the remainder of the regionals.  I don't want to end up with a huge restricted list like AGoT either, but if that game sets any precedent for SW, things may be removed from the list after an appropriate errata is made.



#17 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,000 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 06:08 PM

Problem with AGoTs list is that not all of the cards or even the majority are there due to "brokenness" but to encourage diversity. I don't want to see that ever happen here. At least with this one while I don't agree with it I can at least understand the reasoning better.

#18 See Threebilbo

See Threebilbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 244 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 06:17 PM

After thinking about it a bit, I've got a few more reservations than I did originally, but I definitely think that something needed to be done, at least as a stopgap measure for now.  I know I'm mostly a casual player, but I've had my fair share of very, very unfun games (of Magic, for instance) where people use decks that autopilot themselves like this one did.  Not an experience I would wish upon (most of ;)) my enemies.



#19 MacRauri

MacRauri

    Member

  • Members
  • 182 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 06:21 PM

restricted lists aren't permanent.  We could get this combination back one day, but after losing (and winning) on turn 2 at last regional due to explosive draws despite good DS turns I rather hope not.



#20 stevepop

stevepop

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 07:55 PM

Notice how everyone (or at least nearly everyone) who played in a regional with those two sets supports the change? I did and I support the change. The combination of high-level players and a deck that's clearly better than all others is just not good. A restricted list is an excellent solution. When answers and alternatives arrive they can remove them from the list.






© 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