Jump to content



Photo

Good and Bad


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Sarim Rune

Sarim Rune

    Member

  • Members
  • 128 posts

Posted 21 August 2009 - 07:34 PM

Allow me to just throw out there that my favorite card game was Netrunning from 'back in the day'.  What I liked about the game was it had a certain amount of logic to it.  For the corporation player, your discards, deck, hand and developments (what cards you had in play) were all things that the opponent player, (the Netrunner) could 'attack'.  Each one was given a neat name (discards was Archieves, your Deck was R&D, etc).  In each case the corp player would have to protect each one area with cards to prevent the Netrunner from succeeding.

Now when I heard about this game, especially about having the three zones, I had hoped that it would carry some measure of logic to it.  But after getting it and looking through it, I'm afraid it doesn't quite have what I'm looking for.  Everything is wildly abstract and while it makes for a fine game, it doesn't make any logical sense. 

To give you an example: The orc forces have a couple of cards that allow them to destroy all Support cards of the enemy in the same zone.  Support cards are things like, Gates, villages and even mutations.  There is no logically reason why when a particular orc hero shows up...some forces of chaos can loose their mutations.  Humans have a card that forces an enemy to move zones.  There is no reason why this would happen, but it's the power of the card, so it happens. 

I'm not saying that the game isn't going to be fair or fun.  I'm just saying that they could have taken a different direction on this, and I'm a bit disappointed that they just went for a bit of a nonsensical, abstract gameplay. 

Oh well.  I hope to give it a few games and I hope it plays 'fun' at least. 

=)

 



#2 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 12:00 AM

BTW I LOVED Netrunner. However...

First off, a thanks for trying the game. Play it as a game. Not as some kind of representation of 'reality' (of a fantasy setting. lol).

Second, let me discuss some netrunner cards. I believe you have selective memory...

Al Boon: Has a random strength... Why? How? What about programs makes it so that its strength is random?

Why does a custodial position allow run on HQ?

Though the theme fits, how does Gideon's Pawnshop allow me to get something abstract like "All-Nighter" from your trash?

And then, after Organ Donating the stuff?

And so on...

All game's are abstract to some way, yes?

 

 

 

 



#3 Sarim Rune

Sarim Rune

    Member

  • Members
  • 128 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 06:02 AM

Of course, all games can have abstraction.  Netrunner had the decker spend 'money' to fuel their programs, which didn't follow suit with how the RPG worked.  Abstraction is fine.  But the game design was very well thought out and the form followed the function, so to speak.  The game design itself was smart. 

But this looks like it will play out like M:tG.  The game design is pretty generic.  that's not at all to say that the game can't be fun.  But it's M:tG with Warhammer units for monsters, mana is resources that you have to build and random magical effects, whether those effects are called buildings, mutations, knight training, forced marching, etc. 

The only thing that's even broachs some innovation in this game is the three sides to grow and defend and the idea of Quests.  Which are really just long term and consistant 'magical effects'. 

I just feel that they could have done a LOT more with this idea than turning it into a M:tG clone. 

 



#4 I.B.lurking

I.B.lurking

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 07:12 AM

I can understand if you think the game logic is way off (that's a personal preference thing but, I can see why it would bother youif you didn't like it) but, to call the game a "M:tg clone" is ,I think, way off. I've played M:tg for years and the things that come to mind on  the way the two games differ are these:

-the way resources are gathered and spent.

-damage stays on units from turn to turn

-any unit can effect resources or card draw in W:I

-Basic win condition. The 'deck out' is the same, I feel you have more control over it ...but still.

-no 'taping' to use an ability or attack,

- no summoning sickness. (Woot!)

I really think W:I is going to 'feel' like a very defferent game than M:tg. I'm sorry you don't like it so far but, maybe you'll feel like giving the game another shot someother time, yah?



#5 Sarim Rune

Sarim Rune

    Member

  • Members
  • 128 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 07:25 AM

I.B.lurking said:

I can understand if you think the game logic is way off (that's a personal preference thing but, I can see why it would bother youif you didn't like it) but, to call the game a "M:tg clone" is ,I think, way off. I've played M:tg for years and the things that come to mind on  the way the two games differ are these:

-the way resources are gathered and spent.

-damage stays on units from turn to turn

-any unit can effect resources or card draw in W:I

-Basic win condition. The 'deck out' is the same, I feel you have more control over it ...but still.

-no 'taping' to use an ability or attack,

- no summoning sickness. (Woot!)

I really think W:I is going to 'feel' like a very defferent game than M:tg. I'm sorry you don't like it so far but, maybe you'll feel like giving the game another shot someother time, yah?

Well, the paint is different but a lot of things seem like the same wall. 

Resources are gathered and spent - Well the rule is different but lands = mana which = resources.  You do get them in a different fashion but they are remarkable similar.  Although resources in Invasion are generic, so that is a difference I suppose.

The basic win condition is also similar if you think about it.  Instead of 20 Health (or whatever it's called in M:tG) you have 24 health, but it's divided into three zones.  But it's the same concept.  You have to put your monsters (units) as lines of defense against the enemy.  You can put out developments but these are just adding health onto a zone.  It's a speed bump and not even a very good one at that. 

I think people are mistaking my posts here as, I'm immediately done with the game.  I've only just begun to play it.  I've made some observations.  I've played it.  I'm not condemning the game NOR am I anywhere even close to stopping because the game has similarities between M:tG and it doesn't have the logic that I thought it could have.  I'm just giving some observations.  Noting that I wanted it to be a little different.  And I'm sure after a lot more games I will decide whether it's the game for me or not.

 

 



#6 Ruvion

Ruvion

    Member

  • Members
  • 758 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 07:33 AM

I have not played the game, but even I can tell the game make logical sense. I think the description you may be gunning for is thematic logic as you've hinted at with the use of the word abstract.



#7 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 08:09 AM

Sorry OP, its just when you start comparing this game to other games, people are obviosly going to jump in and voice their own opinions and/or 'correct' your opinions. lol

As far as MtG, ITS defining characteristics are

1.) Monsters and how they interact with things (W;I has no direct blocking, no summoning sickness, persistent damage, resource system built in to the units, etc...)
2.) Mana system and its acquisition (W;I has very little mana screw which I find pandemic of 50% of all MtG games I've played)
3.) Color wheel (W;I has a similar one, though it's loyalty system is SUBSTANtially different than MtGs).
4.) Rarity (W;I LCG = instant difference)
5.) Planeswalkers, and generic anything goes fantasy / sci-fi setting.

What other games have you played, TCG wise lately? I'm sure I could compare those to MtG and just call them MtG inspired as well, if you'd like. :)

Like perhaps Netrunner, which has money (mana) programs (creatures) and a victory condition which is contingent on defending something / acquiring things that the opponent can interact with through their programs (creatures) which is essentially a strict counting up system. :)

Also... I've also found that 'expecting' things from a TCG is the best route to take to be disappointed. Heh.

Game on. (PS after enough time with games, every game seems like a copy of another... I've gone through WAY too many TCGs... they all kinda blend together after a while...).



#8 Penek

Penek

    Member

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 10:40 AM

Invasion have nothing to do with mtg, except that it have few common attributes from all card games.

1) its uses hand.

2) its have discard pile.

3) you lose if you decks out.

Now if you take like 15-20 minits to read this game rules, you will find for sure, that it same level MTG clone -  as MTG clone of .. Poker?

ps. is it your just second card game after magic?? otherwise i don't see how someone can compare it to mtg or anything else.



#9 Sarim Rune

Sarim Rune

    Member

  • Members
  • 128 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 12:42 PM

vermillian said:

Sorry OP, its just when you start comparing this game to other games, people are obviosly going to jump in and voice their own opinions and/or 'correct' your opinions. lol

As far as MtG, ITS defining characteristics are

1.) Monsters and how they interact with things (W;I has no direct blocking, no summoning sickness, persistent damage, resource system built in to the units, etc...)
2.) Mana system and its acquisition (W;I has very little mana screw which I find pandemic of 50% of all MtG games I've played)
3.) Color wheel (W;I has a similar one, though it's loyalty system is SUBSTANtially different than MtGs).
4.) Rarity (W;I LCG = instant difference)
5.) Planeswalkers, and generic anything goes fantasy / sci-fi setting.

What other games have you played, TCG wise lately? I'm sure I could compare those to MtG and just call them MtG inspired as well, if you'd like. :)

Like perhaps Netrunner, which has money (mana) programs (creatures) and a victory condition which is contingent on defending something / acquiring things that the opponent can interact with through their programs (creatures) which is essentially a strict counting up system. :)

Also... I've also found that 'expecting' things from a TCG is the best route to take to be disappointed. Heh.

Game on. (PS after enough time with games, every game seems like a copy of another... I've gone through WAY too many TCGs... they all kinda blend together after a while...).

Netrunner has a great number of differences over M:tG that make it a radical different experience.  For one thing, the core mechanic of both players having to chip each at HP of the other player simply does not exist.  The corp has to build his resources...the netrunner has to make attacks on the corp player and both prevent him from getting too much power and by exposing his resources.  There is a fundemental difference in gameplay where one player does not need to even interact with their opponent much and the onus is on the decker to cause the oppositionn.  Money is persistant, which it isn't in both M:tG and Invasion.  Programs, while have a likeness to creatures, have a type, if you recall.  Where one program (creature) cannot deal with all types of IC, unless M:tG or Invasion (M:tG does have flying creatures but the point is not the same, as flying just prevents the creatures from fighting, it does not prevent the creatures from interacting differently).  The Decker needs to probe the defenses of the Corp to see where the corp is weak, as ICE has many forms (Datawalls, Codegates, Black IC, etc).  The decker also had the option to fuel his attacks, which is not a feature in either game.  Netrunner did not have the attack/defense concept either.  The decker had to have a separate program to protect him from damage deal to him in the Net. 

 

So with that in mind, I disagree with some of the assessments made. 

1) Monsters do all possess an attack and defense.  Monsters have to be sent to attack the enemy and may be blocked as needed.  The combat system is slightly different but they function remarkably similar.  Unlike M:tG damage is tallied up and assigned.  Had they allowed for a randomizer, as Sabertooth games did in their 40K CCG (albiet not all units had a randomizer), that would have been enough for me to view them distinctive enough from each.

2) Hmmm, I still see it as functionally the same.  In both games, you had to lay down cards to get resources.  Invasion does have a better core concept, in which you always get 3 resources (which you don't have to do anything to earn) but you will quickly find that you need to put down some cards in the Kingdom zone to get more out of it.  I will give you that it's unique in that the cards that give you resources can also defend.  That's a nice concept.  But you spend them very much the same. 

   2.1) Going back to Netrunner, their resources were presistant and the method in which you spent them was rather tactical/meaningful.  The decker could use resources to 'fuel' their attacks.  The corp could play IC facedown for free and then 'rez' them at a moments notice OR they could just rez them when they were played.  That in and of itself was an interesting concept of how resources interact with your game. 

    2.2) Going back to my preconcieved notion about this game, when I heard the concept of developments, where you play a card face down, I thought that was going to mean that you could build a card over time.  Like building up a structure rather than paying resources for a village.  I thought that would be really neat, but alas, developments are really just a word that they choose.  They could have used the term: Speed bump for all it mattered.  They do do more in the game than would first appear (many cards gain bonuses based on you having developments in the zone) but they are quite lacking in flavor.

3) You're correct.  The colour wheel is very different.  I like what Invasion has done with their loyalty, however, it's largely moot if you're not using alliances.  You'll be swimming in the loyalty very quickly.

4) Yes, rarities are different.  I clearly can't argue that.

5) Well, that's a setting specific comment...so...I can't really touch that. 



#10 Sarim Rune

Sarim Rune

    Member

  • Members
  • 128 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 12:51 PM

Penek said:

Invasion have nothing to do with mtg, except that it have few common attributes from all card games.

1) its uses hand.

2) its have discard pile.

3) you lose if you decks out.

Now if you take like 15-20 minits to read this game rules, you will find for sure, that it same level MTG clone -  as MTG clone of .. Poker?

ps. is it your just second card game after magic?? otherwise i don't see how someone can compare it to mtg or anything else.

 

A) There is absolutely no reason at all to get snotty. 

B) I have played it.  I owe it. 

C) Your comparisons are rather simplistic. 

I'm not even use i understand your 2nd last comment.  I have read the rules.  I've played the game.  The attack/defense system is very similar.  Similiar enough for me to feel that they didn't make any significant change from M:tG.  All monsters have Attack/Defense.  Stats are absolute (when a creature takes enough damage it dies).  Don't get me wrong: I would say that at least 90% of the games out there follow this sort of Attack/Defense concept. making the vast majority of games out there stealing ideas from M:tG.  But just because it's traditional, doesn't mean that a game can't come up with something new and different.

Sorry if you don't believe me, but there are a ton of similarities.  There isn't a lot here that's innovative. 

Your last comment is irrelivant as it's merely an attack upon me in some attempt to...what?  Disprove my credibility? 



#11 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 12:59 PM

yeah Netrunner was really something unique.

You never answered us as to what other TCGs you have played. :)

Keep in mind, MtG and Netrunner were made by the same guy, though not his consequetive games (between the two was VTES, another TOP NOTCH game, with multiplayer insanity (made to be solely multi from the get go, unlike all these other 'multiplayer' games).

You are right. MtG and Netrunner (NR from now on) have different concepts. Yes, Runners are trying to do damage, Corps are trying to gain them. Money is persistent in NR. Creatures could only 'fight' certain other creatures (actually I think that was a bit of a design FLAW, but, who am I? Some kinda guy that plays bajillions of TCGs or something? (I do... but still I'm not entirely sure how justified I am in making that 'design flaw' statement)). The Runner probing thing was great!

You also made the comment that Money was spent in NR on things that were also offensive... um... Yes its true almost every other program had a "Pay money > Get bettter" tool built in to them... I'd prefer had that NOT been so terribly persistent on like every NR card... just my opinion. HOWEVER, this game, W:I has several Units that can spend resources for rather substantial effects (Grudge Thrower, Runesmith, Cultist of Slaanesh, Pistoliers, Bright Wizard off the top of my head).

I digress... what are we talking about?

You see the differences in NR and MtG, and see similarities in W:I and MtG... I see both similarities and differences... I am hesistent to say which is more like which.

HOWEVER, given that I consider any game being compared to MtG as a direct insult to that game, I will hesitate on comparing M;I and MtG. :)

(also, just to let you know, I respect your opinion OP. I, in no way, am upset by anything you have said or concluded, nor think less of you, and I just want to make that clear)



#12 Sarim Rune

Sarim Rune

    Member

  • Members
  • 128 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 01:14 PM

Ruvion said:

I have not played the game, but even I can tell the game make logical sense. I think the description you may be gunning for is thematic logic as you've hinted at with the use of the word abstract.

Ruvion said:

I have not played the game, but even I can tell the game make logical sense. I think the description you may be gunning for is thematic logic as you've hinted at with the use of the word abstract.

I'm not sure why semantics always has to get involved.

If you say I'm arguing in favor of thematic logic, that's fine.  Clearly, I'm not arguing that the game doesn't make sense.  It's not written in a foreign language or something.  The text is readable and makes sense.

But here, I'll give you an example of what I am trying to get across as 'logic' and you tell me what the correct term is.

Empire Card: Judgment of Verena

Action: Destroy all units and support cards in each zone with no developments.

Okay, so thematic logic, IMO, is to say that Verena is the goddess of judgment and learning.  Where is the logic that Verena would destroy units and support cards in various zones?  Where is the logic that the spell would not affect areas with developments?  None of it makes any amount of sense.  Clearly I'm not saying that the card effect makes zero sense.  I'm saying that the spell itself could have been just as easily called Judgment of Mork.  The card name has no actual meaning. 

So if we ignore the concept of the card (the picture and title) and just call it Empire Spell A, there is still no actual logic behind the idea that developments somehow prevent units and support cards to be destroyed.  There is no reason why developments should have any protection as they aren't really anything other than ephemeral concepts.  They have no definition in the game.  Had the spell at the very least said: All units and support cards in each zone with no buildings, are destroyed...now we have at least a logical path to follow.  Empre Spell A clearly destroys the units who aren't hiding in buildings.  That at least makes a little amount of sense.  Whereas currently the card is just a rule that interacts with the game that has no reason behind it. 

My point in this was always, I like a game that ends up making sense.  A card game cannot possibly have every card make sense, but it can at least try.  And Invasion doesn't bother to try.  Many cards are just rules that are applied to the game that follow no...thematic logic, I guess.  You could have called the above card: Sigmar's Blessing or Bright Wizard's Fireball or a D&D fireball.  The card name is immaterial.  And I feel that's a shame.  I would have really liked to have seen a game that made more thematic sense. 



#13 Sarim Rune

Sarim Rune

    Member

  • Members
  • 128 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 01:25 PM

vermillian said:

yeah Netrunner was really something unique.

You never answered us as to what other TCGs you have played. :)

Keep in mind, MtG and Netrunner were made by the same guy, though not his consequetive games (between the two was VTES, another TOP NOTCH game, with multiplayer insanity (made to be solely multi from the get go, unlike all these other 'multiplayer' games).

You are right. MtG and Netrunner (NR from now on) have different concepts. Yes, Runners are trying to do damage, Corps are trying to gain them. Money is persistent in NR. Creatures could only 'fight' certain other creatures (actually I think that was a bit of a design FLAW, but, who am I? Some kinda guy that plays bajillions of TCGs or something? (I do... but still I'm not entirely sure how justified I am in making that 'design flaw' statement)). The Runner probing thing was great!

You also made the comment that Money was spent in NR on things that were also offensive... um... Yes its true almost every other program had a "Pay money > Get bettter" tool built in to them... I'd prefer had that NOT been so terribly persistent on like every NR card... just my opinion. HOWEVER, this game, W:I has several Units that can spend resources for rather substantial effects (Grudge Thrower, Runesmith, Cultist of Slaanesh, Pistoliers, Bright Wizard off the top of my head).

I digress... what are we talking about?

You see the differences in NR and MtG, and see similarities in W:I and MtG... I see both similarities and differences... I am hesistent to say which is more like which.

HOWEVER, given that I consider any game being compared to MtG as a direct insult to that game, I will hesitate on comparing M;I and MtG. :)

(also, just to let you know, I respect your opinion OP. I, in no way, am upset by anything you have said or concluded, nor think less of you, and I just want to make that clear)

That's cool.  I like a good conversation.  I appreciate your comments.

What games have I played?  I'll admit that I've been out of the loop for a few years but I dunno, 15 different CCGs over the past 15 year...  What comes to mind is the real question.  M:tG, VTES, Rage, NR (obviously), Heresy, 40K, Illuminati, Hecatomb, AvP, Battle Tech, Star Trek, Star Wars, LotFR, Warcry, Warlords...  That's all I can remember right now.  Might have been a few more. 



#14 Osiris

Osiris

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 03:02 PM

Sarim Rune said:

Empire Card: Judgment of Verena

Action: Destroy all units and support cards in each zone with no developments.

Okay, so thematic logic, IMO, is to say that Verena is the goddess of judgment and learning.  Where is the logic that Verena would destroy units and support cards in various zones?  Where is the logic that the spell would not affect areas with developments

 

Would it be because zones with developments have learnt something? Ok so I'm winging it with that one :P

 

I do however empathise with some of your points. Particularly the point about certain cards having names that seem slightly unsuitable, or not actually match the mechanics of their card.

 

The one that stands out for me is 'Zhufbar Engineers' (I think). Dwarven engineers that make the opponent sacrifice a unit of theirs when the dwarves leave play? That one felt strange since I saw it previewed :)

 

However regarding the debate about resources in ccgs or lcgs, I think they are a necessary evil. In magic you have lands to tap, In star wars force icons to gain, In Legend of the burning sands water to spend; and so on and so on.

 

If we're comapring Invasion to the grandaddy Mtg, then the resources already have a higher level of complexity. In Magic you either lay a land or you dont, you either tap it or...you don't. At least invasion their is a level of both resource management and  damage management (with developments)> do you play your most powerful card to draw you more cards? to gain you more resources? or to attack the enemy?

 

More decisions make for a better game, and consequently better players.

 



#15 rings

rings

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,253 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 03:48 PM

MTG clone?

I really don't see that.  Resource management, draw, no tapping...I really can't find anything that is the same as MTG. 

But, I agree there can always be improvements to the feel of the game. 


Oh, King eh? Very nice...

#16 I.B.lurking

I.B.lurking

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 05:30 PM

Sarim Rune said:

 

That's cool.  I like a good conversation.  I appreciate your comments.

What games have I played?  I'll admit that I've been out of the loop for a few years but I dunno, 15 different CCGs over the past 15 year...  What comes to mind is the real question.  M:tG, VTES, Rage, NR (obviously), Heresy, 40K, Illuminati, Hecatomb, AvP, Battle Tech, Star Trek, Star Wars, LotFR, Warcry, Warlords...  That's all I can remember right now.  Might have been a few more. 

Ah. You've played Rage. How was the game? Way back when, I remember seeing it around but never picked up a pack. Did I miss anything special? I too played Hecatomb. It was rather rule heavy but, I loved the theme!



#17 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 23 August 2009 - 01:00 AM

Rage (first edition): You'd pick ten points worth of garou (werewolves), and then in a seemless fasion you'd both play cards. This'd be equipment, spells, allies, rites, or things to kill...  What you could play would depend on what your starting garou were. Then you'd send out an alpha garou (at the same time) and then choose to challenge something in the hunting ground (other players included). You'd use your combat deck to fight the stuff, other players would use their combat deck to defend the stuff you're fighting (combat decks recycles after running out of cards, and combat cards could only be played by dudes with enough Rage or Strength or whatever stat they were using (also things like tribe of garou too).

Play until a player gets points = starting points of the game.

Things of note:

It kinda wasn't an I go you go game,
When a garou took enough damage it would flip and rage and turn in to the hybrid wolf/human form (flip the garou card over)
The person with the biggest baddest garou won most of the time... but if he lost that garou due to some situation and he was packing combat cards that only that garou could play, he was now toast...
It had shiney cards!
You could probably buy boxes of it for cheap.

Derailed thread FTW

It was one of those games that had many cards match up with what you'd think the card did. HOWEVER it wasn't the most balanced thing (the reason why many TCGs do NOT have cards that do things exactly making sense as determed by what the card is).



#18 rickert

rickert

    Member

  • Members
  • 128 posts

Posted 05 September 2009 - 01:46 AM

Sarim Rune said:

Of course, all games can have abstraction.  Netrunner had the decker spend 'money' to fuel their programs, which didn't follow suit with how the RPG worked.  Abstraction is fine.  But the game design was very well thought out and the form followed the function, so to speak.  The game design itself was smart. 

But this looks like it will play out like M:tG.  The game design is pretty generic.  that's not at all to say that the game can't be fun.  But it's M:tG with Warhammer units for monsters, mana is resources that you have to build and random magical effects, whether those effects are called buildings, mutations, knight training, forced marching, etc. 

The only thing that's even broachs some innovation in this game is the three sides to grow and defend and the idea of Quests.  Which are really just long term and consistant 'magical effects'. 

I just feel that they could have done a LOT more with this idea than turning it into a M:tG clone. 

 

I think the only similarity between this game and M:tG is that it's played with cards. Seriously. There are so many differences. It would be like saying steak and a banana are similar because you eat them both.

For instance. Damage accumulates here, not in Magic. There are three distinct zones on the paying field here but just one in Magic. You have to pay extra to bring in units if you can't pay the loyalty cost, but no such mechanic in Magic. You have to burn two areas to win here but reduce life in Magic. Cards can be used out of your hand and put face down for a game effect here, where is that in Magic? There are resource cards in Magic that do nothing else, where are those here? There are quests here and nothing like that in Magic.

I think you should have done a LOT more thinking about the two games and how they play before taking your flying leap.



#19 vermillian

vermillian

    Member

  • Members
  • 882 posts

Posted 06 September 2009 - 07:50 AM

Hey Rickert. Calm down.

And you forgot about Land (in regards to things that do nothing but provide resources, HOWEVER they seem to be making land more useful in the recent set with the mechanic Landfall... but that's just a 'other card requiring' mechanic and not built in to the rules. Drawing a land still sucks mid-late game unless you've got more stuff that needs played in the same turn, which hardly happens).



#20 dormouse

dormouse

    LCG Designer

  • Members
  • 1,680 posts

Posted 07 September 2009 - 05:09 AM

Okay...

You are dissapopinted in the lack of thematic logic. Semantics come into it because we can only know what you are communicating by the words you are using. You use the wrong word, the sentence you say has a different meaning than the one you want. That is life.

I can understand the point though I don't agree with it. How familiar are you with the world of Warhammer? Verena is the goddess of justice and learning and is the equivelnt of the Roman goddess Minerva. That she lashes out but does not destroy those  who have spent their time using the learned skills and knowledge of masons  and artisans which she is the patron diety of makes perfect sense.

Zhufbar Engineers are dwarves who build devices and weapons out of the star-iron. Dwarves as the article mentioned are notorious with vendettas and grudges and Zhufbar Engineers ability represents their using their creations as a last strike as they themselves are being taken out.

The Empire Card Forced March forcing an opponents unit to change zones makes perfect sense... I'm guessing you were never in the military. A forced march happens generally for two reasons, 1) you are "advancing to the rear" (retreating) because you suddenly find yourself in a disadvantageous position (such as being outgunned or detecting an ambush which you can't get around) or 2) you are moving to advance to a new position and time is of the essence (such as giving chase to an enemy, needing to reinforce friendly unit, or needing to arrive at a point before the enemy).

This game and M:tG bear nothing but the most passing resembalance to each other. I won't go into more detail because it has already been pointed out. If your point is that this game is closer to M:tG than NR was, then sure. I can understand that steatment. If you are actively trying to say that W:I was desiened similarly to or plays the same as M:tG (and how is clone supposed to be taken as anything but?) you are wrong. Pure and simple. It may be your opinion, but it is not supported by the facts.

You seem surprised that some people had a strong reaction to your post or dismissive of you. I'm surprised that you are surprised. What do you think the normal reaction to hyperbole is when it is unfounded?

NR was an awesome game in a lot of ways. It is different than pretty much every other game I've played... I would agree with the caution given earlier, if you are going to continue to play games you'll probably have a more satisfying experience by not expecting it to play or be in line with other games. Viewing each as a new experience will let you appreciate the game for itself and what it has to offer.


"words are like arrows, once loosened you cannot call them back"





© 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