Jump to content



Photo

FFG Announced Restricted List


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#21 DOAisBetter

DOAisBetter

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 09:59 PM

To those saying this was too soon, I wonder if you have played in a regional thus far. I played in a 30+ person regional already. The field was over 25 smugglers with the two restricted objectives. The other light sides were either sleuth scouts or random jedi/rebel decks that didn't get near top 8. This is horrible for the environment when all the players realize and know you have to all run pretty much the same decks to win. So this is far from a knee jerk reaction, ignoring regional results so far where this seems to be happening at all of them would be turning a blind eye to a problem. I have no doubt they will revisit this later but right now this combo is a problem and it is obvious.

To those saying the restricted list is inelegant, I can say this is a very good way to restrict cards and has worked wonders for Agot even allowing them to shape the meta when the card pool gets huge. In the end this is much better than banning cards, and is better than reducing them to 1 per deck which would just make it a strong but random combo. Yes down the line you can run into things such as wanting to run two restricted objective sets that aren't broken together, but its a small price to pay to have every card playable. Also I have no doubt this will be revisited later if it turns out to not be as big a deal down the line, however it has been obvious that in the meantime we needed these objective sets restricted. 


  • Goknights12 likes this

#22 divinityofnumber

divinityofnumber

    Member

  • Members
  • 611 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 10:26 PM

The frustrating thing to me is that sometimes people in the card-gaming community can't step back and see the pattern...

 

So, now everyone will just play whatever the new "best deck" is, and the community will start complaining about that...

 

All that this move does is force the community to deck build for about 3 days...things will settle and we will again have a small group of dominant LS and DS decks.  

 

 

*edit: 

And it begins; people are already whining in the online community that now Sith are too good again...


Edited by divinityofnumber, 21 May 2014 - 10:34 PM.

Star Wars LCG: FFG EC Regional 2014 - Top 4; Star Wars LCG: FFG Event Center Store Championship 2014 - Top 4; FFG Event Center Season One 2014 - Minneapolis Regional Game Night - Top 4; May the 4th Be With You 2013 - Second Chance Tournament Champion; A Game of Thrones LCG: Days of Ice and Fire 2013 - Joust Top 16

abUse the Force author on CardGameDB.com


#23 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,528 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 10:39 PM

I must confess that I am not optimistic that these cards will ever be removed from the restricted list. If something comes up later that can completely nullify "Holding all the Freeholders," and they are allowed back into tournaments, wouldn't we just see those two decks? This archetype will always have explosive potential that is just too good to pass up and even if other cards bring it down, it still outplays many of the other decks available now.

 

Granted ... I haven't exactly ... you know ... played with or against this deck  ^_^ so I may not have everything straight.

 

Still, restricted lists bug me. I'm the kind of guy who plays by tournament rules even in "casual" play, so if they start restricting things left and right, I'm going to be very irritated. I was hoping we'd be well into the third or fourth cycle before anything like this happened if it were to happen at all.


"There is a fine line between neutral and amoral. In fact, there may be no line there at all."

--Count Dooku


#24 Buhallin

Buhallin

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,649 posts

Posted 21 May 2014 - 11:46 PM


All that this move does is force the community to deck build for about 3 days...things will settle and we will again have a small group of dominant LS and DS decks.  

The problem is that we didn't have a small number of dominant LS decks - there was basically one.  I played 5 matches at the regional.  I faced a total of 7 different LS pods.  Every single deck ran Dash/Freeholders/Han/Lando.  The last was one of the Falcon, Chewie, or Sleuths, depending on flavor and preference.

 

Settling down to a small group of dominant LS decks will be an improvement.



#25 CaliAlpha

CaliAlpha

    Member

  • Members
  • 176 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 12:59 AM

I did play at the Fremont regional and got top 16 with a bye from the store championship and was not running the dash/freeholders combo. I played one person who had that combo deck and it did not work for him. What I imagine the situation was before the cards where released was that the playtester's did recognize the problem and was like holding all the cards and freeholders are really strong and that this should be looked out. But however FFG ignored that advice and was like it this is the answer to all those dark side sith control. Since now Smugglers has a nice punch and can destory objectives out right. Now FFG is like well we should have changed it or listened to the playtesters and well we can't change it now or do reprints the cards. We have to unfortunately have to create a restricted list. Hopefully through the playtesting FFG be more likely to consider the advice the playtesters give and do in house testing to determine that something is broken or too powerful that it should be changed before production. I hope that in the future this does not happen again and maybe one day these restricted cards can now be playable in a tournament setting.


Current LCG collection

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


#26 commonenemy

commonenemy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 04:53 AM

The freeholder/dash deck was over the top good.  I mean the win percentage is outrageous.  Sith Control will perform better than before because of this, but with Knowledge and Defense coming out next week maybe Jedis can destroy the Sith (see what i did there).  I think this is good for the format, maybe dash with jedis might be a thing who knows.  



#27 KennedyHawk

KennedyHawk

    Member

  • Members
  • 250 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:48 AM

To those saying this was too soon, I wonder if you have played in a regional thus far. I played in a 30+ person regional already. The field was over 25 smugglers with the two restricted objectives. The other light sides were either sleuth scouts or random jedi/rebel decks that didn't get near top 8. This is horrible for the environment when all the players realize and know you have to all run pretty much the same decks to win. So this is far from a knee jerk reaction, ignoring regional results so far where this seems to be happening at all of them would be turning a blind eye to a problem.


Its no more of a blind eye than letting sith dominate all of last year was. Also the only 30+ regional thus far had at least two rebel decks in the Top 8 in Texas. Might want to check your numbers.

#28 Rogue 4

Rogue 4

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:11 AM

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.

 

But don't you think by this decision, that they didn't have an answer coming to fix them?

 

I am not in favor of restricted lists either (that's why I offered my experience playtesting SW CCG, both for Decipher and the PC, and Star Treck CCG), so I think the company should live with it until they do fix it. Problem with that though is that a precedent would have been set, "fix" cards that we don't playtest that well with another card. Here the list needed to be created and I don't complain about the choice. 

 

Remember players, if you complain, you better have a solution to the problem, otherwise you are just whinning (I would really rather say something else there, but I am being nice).

 

Also, you can thank the Texas Regional where I am. This was the tournament where we had enough people that have input in the game saw the mechanic for its ugliness that it is. I bet (I don't know) that is what sparked this.


Edited by Rogue 4, 22 May 2014 - 07:13 AM.

Millennium Falcon, Rebel Transport, Tantive IV, A-Wing x2, B-wing, E-Wing, X-wing x4, Y-wing, Z95 Headhunter x2, HWK-290, TIE Fighter x 5, TIE Advanced x1, TIE Bomber, x1, TIE Interceptor x1, TIE Defender, TIE Phantom,  Imperial Aces, Slave I, Lambda Shuttle

 


#29 Rogue 4

Rogue 4

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:17 AM

 


All that this move does is force the community to deck build for about 3 days...things will settle and we will again have a small group of dominant LS and DS decks.  

The problem is that we didn't have a small number of dominant LS decks - there was basically one.  I played 5 matches at the regional.  I faced a total of 7 different LS pods.  Every single deck ran Dash/Freeholders/Han/Lando.  The last was one of the Falcon, Chewie, or Sleuths, depending on flavor and preference.

 

Settling down to a small group of dominant LS decks will be an improvement.

 

 

To prove a point the Regional winner in Tulsa, Tyler this last weekend played 20 games with the Freeloaders/Dash combo. We added any pod that was not used that often and the deck still won. We determined that anything with those two pods played right would win. The Sith deck couldn't do that.

 

There will be an abundant of Rebel and Jedi decks coming soon with Knowledge and Defense.


Millennium Falcon, Rebel Transport, Tantive IV, A-Wing x2, B-wing, E-Wing, X-wing x4, Y-wing, Z95 Headhunter x2, HWK-290, TIE Fighter x 5, TIE Advanced x1, TIE Bomber, x1, TIE Interceptor x1, TIE Defender, TIE Phantom,  Imperial Aces, Slave I, Lambda Shuttle

 


#30 KennedyHawk

KennedyHawk

    Member

  • Members
  • 250 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:19 AM

 

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.

 

But don't you think by this decision, that they didn't have an answer coming to fix them?

 

Or that they do! By adding it to the restricted list they can remove it. It's avoiding a card errata or reprint. This could be a temporary fix until the real one comes through.

 

Also it's good to know that Texas and Texas alone has a big enough impact on the game, we should all bow to you *sarcasm*.


  • Rogue 4 likes this

#31 Goknights12

Goknights12

    Member

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 08:19 AM

I never thought Sith was OP. Was it good? Yes, but it can only stall for so long, and it isn't winning games without giving the opponent a chance. At our store championship, I played my buddy twice with my speeder deck and mopped the floor with him while he used a Sith deck. Using Freeholders/Holding the Cards I never got close. I knew that Dial 6 was the best I could hope for, and anything past that was a personal victory. Can it come off? Yes. Will it? Who knows... To be honest I would have no issue with these sets together if you take away elite from Freeholders. To be able to theoretically play four, four health/elite/1Bunit/2Bblast/1Eunit/1Etactic for free. You have given one card the ability to come out and dominate the game. Now the likelihood of that happening is probably not good, but when you have four holding all the cards two of them probably isn't out of the question, and even with two of them, Mara can't kill one on one turn, the emperor would have to use all of his focus on one to just to lock one down, even some star destroyers wouldn't kill one. Take away elite and I'd be fine with them coming back, but without more sets that continue to make certain affiliations over powered just to counter that, I think this is the best thing we could have hopped for.


Edited by Goknights12, 22 May 2014 - 08:21 AM.


#32 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,528 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 08:48 AM

What I imagine the situation was before the cards where released was that the playtester's did recognize the problem and was like holding all the cards and freeholders are really strong and that this should be looked out.

It makes me wonder if the whole cycle shouldn't be tested together. Or maybe they should let the testers test the whole cycle and then say, "Here are the cards we expect to release in packs. Build what you can when one Force pack is out. Now what can you build when two Force packs are out?" and so on. This isn't for the benefit of the testers catching things, but so FFG can see how the play testers build with a limited number of objective sets from that cycle.


"There is a fine line between neutral and amoral. In fact, there may be no line there at all."

--Count Dooku


#33 Rogue 4

Rogue 4

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:07 AM

I believe they do that already, test them all together that is.


Millennium Falcon, Rebel Transport, Tantive IV, A-Wing x2, B-wing, E-Wing, X-wing x4, Y-wing, Z95 Headhunter x2, HWK-290, TIE Fighter x 5, TIE Advanced x1, TIE Bomber, x1, TIE Interceptor x1, TIE Defender, TIE Phantom,  Imperial Aces, Slave I, Lambda Shuttle

 


#34 Goknights12

Goknights12

    Member

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:25 AM

http://fliptheforce....cles.php?rid=99

 

Good read by Flip the Force


  • mischraum.de likes this

#35 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,169 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 12:14 PM

I believe they do that already, test them all together that is.

That's not what he said. he suggested it not be done that way at all times and sometimes it be done as packs. 

 

One thing to note is that even after testing this could be changed internally at FFG so while beneficial might not always have the desired results. 


  • Budgernaut likes this

#36 LtCorwin

LtCorwin

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 12:30 PM

I think the core problem is that this power combo snuck past FFG's quality assurance type checks.

Given that it did, the solution they;ve implemented seems to be the only one possible, but the situation should never have arisen in the first place.


  • Budgernaut likes this

#37 Buhallin

Buhallin

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,649 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 01:03 PM

Given that it did, the solution they;ve implemented seems to be the only one possible, but the situation should never have arisen in the first place.

This.

 

I think quibbling over exactly which part of the playtesting process failed is pointless - it seems like when most people refer to the "playtesters" they really mean the entire QA process.  On the flip side, some people seem to be getting very defensive towards the "playtesters" as non-FFG individuals, with associated counter-finger-pointing.

 

The entire testing/QA process failed.  That's what people are concerned about.  Trying to blame/defend specific elements of that process is missing the big picture that most players actually care about - specifically, how did something so obviously broken make it through the process?  In the end, where the actual blame lands does nothing to impact the actual problem here, which is a serious lack of faith in FFG's testing/balancing process for this game.



#38 DOAisBetter

DOAisBetter

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 01:54 PM

 

To those saying this was too soon, I wonder if you have played in a regional thus far. I played in a 30+ person regional already. The field was over 25 smugglers with the two restricted objectives. The other light sides were either sleuth scouts or random jedi/rebel decks that didn't get near top 8. This is horrible for the environment when all the players realize and know you have to all run pretty much the same decks to win. So this is far from a knee jerk reaction, ignoring regional results so far where this seems to be happening at all of them would be turning a blind eye to a problem.


Its no more of a blind eye than letting sith dominate all of last year was. Also the only 30+ regional thus far had at least two rebel decks in the Top 8 in Texas. Might want to check your numbers.

 

Sleuths which often use the Rebel Affiliation are not included in the random rebel decks as I mentioned them earlier. In fact I know one of the people who top 8'd with the rebel affiliation and it was indeed sleuths. If my sentence was confusing which I can see it as such I was not saying sleuths didnt get near top 8 just the random Jedi/Rebel decks. 


Edited by DOAisBetter, 22 May 2014 - 01:56 PM.


#39 Troopershark

Troopershark

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 04:30 PM

The fact that they needed to do this (and they needed to do it, the game was insanely terrible right now) is a huge problem and leaves me very concerned about there ability to design cards in the long run.  These objective sets are in back to back pack, and it's not some unbelievable combo, the interraction is so obvious and over the top it's ridiculous, how any playtester did not build this deck first and realize how OP and NPE it is is beyond me, and gents, playtesting gets harder with a larger card pool, not easier, if they missed this in back to back packs, they don't have a playtesting process at all



#40 divinityofnumber

divinityofnumber

    Member

  • Members
  • 611 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 04:33 PM

I will continue to say that making Freeholders unique would have been better than starting a restricted list.


Star Wars LCG: FFG EC Regional 2014 - Top 4; Star Wars LCG: FFG Event Center Store Championship 2014 - Top 4; FFG Event Center Season One 2014 - Minneapolis Regional Game Night - Top 4; May the 4th Be With You 2013 - Second Chance Tournament Champion; A Game of Thrones LCG: Days of Ice and Fire 2013 - Joust Top 16

abUse the Force author on CardGameDB.com





© 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