Jump to content



Photo

Focus on Your Objectives - Deckbuilding Article


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#1 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,141 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 05:11 AM

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp

Preview article up. Figured they would be starting soon with the December release date. 13 cards previewed in the article just need to click the links in the article for individual pictures.

 



#2 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 807 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 05:28 AM

Yay! Let the excitement resume!


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#3 Jvirtue55

Jvirtue55

    Member

  • Members
  • 158 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:06 AM

Alot of good points are made in the article and it makes me like the objective deck buidling a little more then before



#4 Meaxe

Meaxe

    Member

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 07:10 AM

 The best part of this article is: 

Star Wars: The Card Game™ is coming. 

 

I can't wait anymore… How much time before the launch… 1 month or 2.  For sure, we'll have this game before Christmas and that's a terrific news.

 

May the force be with you



#5 alpha5099

alpha5099

    Member

  • Members
  • 502 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 07:49 AM

I was very excited when this popped up in my RSS feeds today. It's great that we're getting close enough to release for these previews, can't wait to see more. Got thirteen new card previews and everything! Keep 'em coming, FFG, and get this game out as soon as you can. Hopefully this article will assuage some concerns others have been having over deckbuilding in this game.

One question: where did the term "pod" come from? It's what I've been using to describe what FFG calls in this article "objective sets," and I've seen others using the word "pod" as well. Until this article, it was what I assumed was the official terminology for them. Was FFG calling them "pods" at GenCon, or is it a term borrowed from another game? I'll probably continue calling them pods; it's far less cumbersome than "objective sets."



#6 herozeromes

herozeromes

    Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 08:21 AM

So, basically they're saying "we know you are wary of the idea of not having complete control of your deck, but these are the ONLY logical ways that the cards could possibly ever go together anyway, so yeah…OBJECTIVE SETS!!"



#7 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 807 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:36 AM

alpha5099 said:

One question: where did the term "pod" come from? It's what I've been using to describe what FFG calls in this article "objective sets," and I've seen others using the word "pod" as well. Until this article, it was what I assumed was the official terminology for them. Was FFG calling them "pods" at GenCon, or is it a term borrowed from another game? I'll probably continue calling them pods; it's far less cumbersome than "objective sets."

I think Corey called them pods in the GenCon demo video. It does feel nicer than "objective sets" though, yeah!

I am very pleased to see this new preview - it somehow makes it more real that this game really will be coming out! I also feel that the original decision to scrap the co-op game has less to do with popular opinion and more to do with the actual design, as surely the huge backlash that has been going on about this deckbuilding thing would have caused another U-turn before release. 

Looking forward to seeing what Eric has to say about this in the upcoming previews, too - he comes across as one of the most intelligent game designers out there.


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#8 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,506 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 09:59 AM

herozeromes said:

So, basically they're saying "we know you are wary of the idea of not having complete control of your deck, but these are the ONLY logical ways that the cards could possibly ever go together anyway, so yeah…OBJECTIVE SETS!!"

I've been a fan of the deck-building aspect of this game since it was announced at GenCon, but I have to agree with you, Herozeromes -- that is exactly the impression I got from this article too.

As for the name, I never liked "pods." Sure, "objective sets" is longer, but you could shorten it to "sets" and still be fine. I'm glad "pods" is out the window.


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

--Count Dooku


#9 alpha5099

alpha5099

    Member

  • Members
  • 502 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:07 AM

Budgernaut said:

As for the name, I never liked "pods." Sure, "objective sets" is longer, but you could shorten it to "sets" and still be fine. I'm glad "pods" is out the window.

Team Pod for life! You'll never take it away from me!



#10 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,506 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 10:39 AM

alpha5099 said:

Budgernaut said:

 

As for the name, I never liked "pods." Sure, "objective sets" is longer, but you could shorten it to "sets" and still be fine. I'm glad "pods" is out the window.

 

 

Team Pod for life! You'll never take it away from me!

That made me smile. 


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

--Count Dooku


#11 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,141 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:01 PM

Meaxe said:

 The best part of this article is: 

Star Wars: The Card Game™ is coming. 

 

I can't wait anymore… How much time before the launch… 1 month or 2.  For sure, we'll have this game before Christmas and that's a terrific news.

 

May the force be with you

It comes out in December, you can see the release month on the Upcoming page.



#12 qwertyuiop

qwertyuiop

    Member

  • Members
  • 815 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 02:38 PM

alpha5099 said:

Budgernaut said:

 

As for the name, I never liked "pods." Sure, "objective sets" is longer, but you could shorten it to "sets" and still be fine. I'm glad "pods" is out the window.

 

 

Team Pod for life! You'll never take it away from me!

I like that better than Pod People. 

Yub yub.



#13 AshesFall

AshesFall

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 02 November 2012 - 11:22 PM

herozeromes said:

So, basically they're saying "we know you are wary of the idea of not having complete control of your deck, but these are the ONLY logical ways that the cards could possibly ever go together anyway, so yeah…OBJECTIVE SETS!!"

To be honest this isnt at all the way it came across to me. It seems more like they're saying "Yes, we could make yet another card game where you choose every card and make every decision based on one cards usefulness against one other cards usefulness, but we've chosen something new. We want to give you fewer but more significant choices where you have to weigh six cards as a block against six other cards asa block, which is a whole new challenge".

I really liked this preview, I'm actually very interested in seeing how the deck design turns out :) 

 

 



#14 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,506 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 10:08 AM

 I think the part that gave me the impression it did was when it said:

"Do I have enough resources for the more expensive set? Are there enough enhancements in my deck to make good use of the Battlefield Engineers? If I draw Trench Run, is there enough firepower in my deck to take advantage of it?"

When I first read it, it made me think, "Well, yeah. Why would you ever include Battlefield Engineers if you didn't have many enhancements in your deck? Why would you ever include Trench Run if your deck was focused more on focusing your enemies than dealing damage?"

But after rereading it, I am seeing more of what I saw before this article. Maybe my deck couldn't use those two cards, but maybe the bonuses granted by the objectives are exactly what I need.

If, for example, I was running a focus-deck, it might be nice to have Rebel Assault in the deck to increase my otherwise weak damage-dealing capability. If I had a deck with few enhancements, it may still make sense to take Mission Briefing for the card draw and Mon Mothma for her ability to give +1 edge. Then if I get Battlefield Engineers in my hand, I can use it for 3 edge instead of two, making good synergy out of an otherwise dead card.

So there is a lot more going on than the narrow scope the article revealed.


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

--Count Dooku


#15 Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Toqtamish

  • Members
  • 3,141 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 10:29 AM

Budgernaut said:

So there is a lot more going on than the narrow scope the article revealed.

It's only the first article. Plenty more to come and the rulebook in likely a month.



#16 Hannibal_pjv

Hannibal_pjv

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:33 PM

It was allso good to start with something that is unique to this game: the new way of building your gaming deck. Can we now start to speculate how many objective sets are needed to really make diverse deck types?

 



#17 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,207 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 09:58 AM

While the deckbuilding mechanic is no longer my problem with Star Wars: The Card Game, I am glad it was the first issue to be addressed. The tension I've seen here and elsewhere regarding set-based deckbuilding has given me much concern for the game's initial reception. I hope that fans of the saga will at least give it a chance before dismissing it as CCG blasphemy.



#18 alpha5099

alpha5099

    Member

  • Members
  • 502 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:50 AM

MarthWMaster said:

While the deckbuilding mechanic is no longer my problem with Star Wars: The Card Game, I am glad it was the first issue to be addressed. The tension I've seen here and elsewhere regarding set-based deckbuilding has given me much concern for the game's initial reception. I hope that fans of the saga will at least give it a chance before dismissing it as CCG blasphemy.

Yeah, this game definitely faces a bit of an uphill battle. Between those who are disappointed that it isn't the co-op game that was first announced, and those that are wary of the deckbuilding, there are going to be a fair number of detractors right out of the gate.



#19 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 685 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:56 AM

alpha5099 said:

MarthWMaster said:

 

While the deckbuilding mechanic is no longer my problem with Star Wars: The Card Game, I am glad it was the first issue to be addressed. The tension I've seen here and elsewhere regarding set-based deckbuilding has given me much concern for the game's initial reception. I hope that fans of the saga will at least give it a chance before dismissing it as CCG blasphemy.

 

 

Yeah, this game definitely faces a bit of an uphill battle. Between those who are disappointed that it isn't the co-op game that was first announced, and those that are wary of the deckbuilding, there are going to be a fair number of detractors right out of the gate.

 

You are assuming way to much about the detractors.  To say the game has an uphill battle because there are some vocal people that refuse to look at the game because it isn't co-op (and such people existed in opposition to the game being co-op originally) or don't like a deck building mechanic they've barely seen is pretty presumptuous.    The vast majority of the people that will buy this game are not going to be posting on the forums about it at all, let alone pre-release



#20 ScottieATF

ScottieATF

    Member

  • Members
  • 685 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:59 AM

herozeromes said:

So, basically they're saying "we know you are wary of the idea of not having complete control of your deck, but these are the ONLY logical ways that the cards could possibly ever go together anyway, so yeah…OBJECTIVE SETS!!"

Honestly where are you pulling this stuff from?  We understand you are mad at FFG but you are really grasping at straws that are not there.






© 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