Jump to content



Photo

Not understanding Deck Building


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 khadorstrong

khadorstrong

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 07:02 AM

Ok, so the game rules are pretty simple. I get those…however I am completely lost on how to build individual decks. 

As far as I understand it, lets say Im playing Jedi…
I pick A Hero's Journey… I then include 

Luke Skywalker, 
Twi'lek Loyalist
Jedi Lightsaber
Trust your feelings
Darobah Training grounds…..

Now lets say I want to add another Luke Skywalker, can I? Do I have to add another Hero's Journey to my Objective set? 



#2 eprieur

eprieur

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 07:07 AM

I just read the rules, it seems that you:

1) Pick 10 objectives. And pick the 50 cards that go with it.

You can include 2 copies of objectives unless it's stated otherwise on the ojbective which could allow you to built a deck I guess with 5 different objective * 2 = 10. I would then assume that you have to include the corresponding 25 cards * 2 = 50 cards also.

 

 

 



#3 khadorstrong

khadorstrong

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 07:10 AM

That seems right, I just wanted to make sure. This may be the strangest constructed way of doing it Ive seen in a card game. Its very interesting tho. 



#4 eprieur

eprieur

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 07:57 AM

Well I haven't played and honestly as a long time deck builder it felt kinda lame.

Who knows maybe it's interesting but the idea of having to include 5 crap cards because I want another copy of Han Solo is not something I necessarily like.

It's certainly simplier to deck built since you have 100 times less choices. I would even suggest it will make the game more enjoyable for people that like to deck built to some extent but feel it's too complicated once you factor in hundreds of cards.

It create an new concept where you don't judge cards you judge packages. So maybe Han is the best card but it's not the best package so it kinda suck overall.



#5 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 814 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 10:06 AM

eprieur said:

Who knows maybe it's interesting but the idea of having to include 5 crap cards because I want another copy of Han Solo is not something I necessarily like.

You automatically assume that the cards that come with Han are crap. Why does everyone do this, when arguing against the deckbuilding aspect of this game? There is a huge assumption that the cards that come with the perceived good cards are perceived to be crap. I really do hold out to my assertion from months back that, left to your own devices, you'd more often than not include those cards that come with Han anyway - just because it's now prescribed that you include them, they are assumed to be crap. 


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


#6 FLGMwt

FLGMwt

    Member

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 10:27 AM

spalanzani said:

eprieur said:

 

Who knows maybe it's interesting but the idea of having to include 5 crap cards because I want another copy of Han Solo is not something I necessarily like.

 

 

You automatically assume that the cards that come with Han are crap. Why does everyone do this, when arguing against the deckbuilding aspect of this game? There is a huge assumption that the cards that come with the perceived good cards are perceived to be crap. I really do hold out to my assertion from months back that, left to your own devices, you'd more often than not include those cards that come with Han anyway - just because it's now prescribed that you include them, they are assumed to be crap. 

I think he intended to mean cards that *could* be crap. Wheter they're good or not, the fact that you are forced to use them if you want a better chance to draw Han is sometimes seen as a downside of this game. I myself find it a streamlining of deckbuilding for people who don't want to have to deal with the intracacies of specific card combinations of a game with a significantly larger card pool like AGoT. It also helps counteract the more tactical feel of the game by balancing good cards with some that are indeed crap. I certainly disagree that the 5 other cards would be defaulted to with, say, a Han inclusion. That's like saying "yeah, you can put in whatever sets you want from all the force packs and core set, but left to your own devices, you'd more often than not include the objective sets in the starting faction decks in the rulebook anyway - just because it's now prescribed that you include them, they are assumed to be crap." I think the objective set selection feels a bit more like sqaud planning in X-Wing than deckbuilding in MtG or the like. But that's just me.



#7 Inksplat

Inksplat

    Member

  • Members
  • 331 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 10:35 AM

In fact, lets look at the cards that come with Han.

 

Questionable Contacts - Objective with 5 health, 1 Resource. Can transfer damage from your units to enemy units so long as they survive the fight.

Cloud City Casino - Enhancement providing 1 Resource.

Crossfire - Event that lets you give a unit ANY combat icon you want.

Swindled - Pay 1 to return a cost 2 or less unit to your opponent's hand.

Twi'lek Smuggler - 2 cost Unit, 1 Health, Unit Damage and Tactical icon.

 

None of those cards are bad. Questionable Contacts and Crossfire are flat out GREAT.

 

Obviously the Han Solo comment was just an example, but still. Actually look at the pods and you'll see that they aren't just filled with crap you don't want.

 

Its also not even close to a Steamlining. You can say "Oh, if I want Han I have to take these" but in reality its "Does this whole pod work with my other pods?" So you have to compare a whole 5 card spread with your existing 45 cards. That isn't simplification, its just a different form of decisions you have to weigh.

Hell, Han might not even be your goal. A couple Swindleds could totally turn a fight. Crossfire could be absolutely crazy. But the fact is, that's what you need to balance--not "Do I want Han? but "How will this whole pod synergize?"

 

I find it funny that its all the "Serious" deckbuilders who are simplifying the situation. Oh, they just want the one card..well..why the hell are you building your pod-based deck based on single cards? You need to find whole pods that work together, and that's the challenge.



#8 khadorstrong

khadorstrong

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:14 PM

part of the challange yes, however that doesnt automatically make it a good thing. I find it to be a bit different, not terrible or anything of that nature, but we will have to see when expansions come out how they all interact. 



#9 Ulairi

Ulairi

    Member

  • Members
  • 165 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

I think anyone commenting on this new way to build decks being good or bad are getting ahead of themselves. We don't know how it will really work because this is a new way to build and the car pool is very limited. Building decks in AGoT is great because the card pool is so large. If we just had a core set for that there aren't a lot of options. 

 

One thing I will say is the simplifed way to build a deck will make it easier to get new players into the game. AGoT is so large that it can be a bit daunting for new players.



#10 khadorstrong

khadorstrong

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:46 PM

Ulairi said:

I think anyone commenting on this new way to build decks being good or bad are getting ahead of themselves. We don't know how it will really work because this is a new way to build and the car pool is very limited. Building decks in AGoT is great because the card pool is so large. If we just had a core set for that there aren't a lot of options. 

 

One thing I will say is the simplifed way to build a deck will make it easier to get new players into the game. AGoT is so large that it can be a bit daunting for new players.

 

Yes, its nearly impossible for a new person to enter game of thrones and do well without paying out their arse!



#11 dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,430 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:59 PM

eprieur said:

It's certainly simplier to deck built since you have 100 times less choices.

I know I'm jumping back a bit in the conversation, but I wanted to address this a little bit.  While it is true that you'll have less total decisions with the objective set deck building, each of those decisions is much more complicated.  Sure, it will be easier for someone to throw a deck together quickly, but high-level deck building will still be plenty involved.



#12 khadorstrong

khadorstrong

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:35 PM

so is there NO limit? If I want to include 7 of the same objective I can?

 



#13 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,704 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:53 PM

khadorstrong said:

so is there NO limit? If I want to include 7 of the same objective I can?

 

You are limited to 2 of each objective set, barring those that explicitly say on the objective "Limit 1 per deck."


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

--Count Dooku


#14 khadorstrong

khadorstrong

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:45 PM

Budgernaut said:

khadorstrong said:

 

so is there NO limit? If I want to include 7 of the same objective I can?

 

 

 

You are limited to 2 of each objective set, barring those that explicitly say on the objective "Limit 1 per deck."

 

where does it say that?



#15 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,704 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:48 PM

khadorstrong said:

Budgernaut said:

 

khadorstrong said:

 

so is there NO limit? If I want to include 7 of the same objective I can?

 

 

 

You are limited to 2 of each objective set, barring those that explicitly say on the objective "Limit 1 per deck."

 

 

 

where does it say that?

Page 28, right column, very top of the page:

 

Any objective set may be included twice in a constructed 
deck unless its objective card states “limit one per 
objective deck.”

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

--Count Dooku


#16 FLGMwt

FLGMwt

    Member

  • Members
  • 28 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:16 PM

Even if the card pool was as large as AGoT, there are orders of magnitude more permutations of decks in AGoT. That makes deck building inherently more complex and involved. Sure, the element of obligatory inclusion factors in an entirely different range of considerations, but it's kind of obviously simpler.

#17 TinyGrimes

TinyGrimes

    Member

  • Members
  • 93 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 05:38 PM

So let's all have this laid out. Clearly this game is in its infancy and thus we will have to see how the deckbuilding plays out in the long run. I'm a high level agot player ( whatever that means) and I find deckbuilding in star wars far more difficult and complex. Here's an example. Let's say in agot thee is one card that causes my deck a problem. I can include an answer for that card. Let's say in star wars a prevalent card causes my deck issues ie the blaster emplacement. Now the obvious answer is to play tear this ship apart which targets enhancements. However to add two copies you have to retool the entire deck. Now I can see how that might turn some off but it is certainly a lot more difficult than adding in 2 newly made lords to handle some troublesome locations. So far I'm really liking this unique approach to deckbuilding. I'm not saying I like it better than the traditional way but thus far it has certainly been interesting.



#18 LMKComaBlack

LMKComaBlack

    Member

  • Members
  • 48 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 06:01 PM

 

Ok, so clearly we have fewer decision points, which each of which makes a bigger impact on the game, but part of this mechanic has deeper game implications.  The baseline idea, is that in a game with loosly fixed resources (minimum 4, max about 7), the cards resource costs **do not perfectly reflect their power**

I will repeat this.  Cards of the same cost are not the same strength, and this is explicitly ballanced via the set mechanic.

 

Yoda:  

Elite (Remove 1 additional focus durring refresh)

Tactics, [Unit Dmg], [Objective Dmg].

for *each* enhancement on Yoda: [Unit] [Objective]

5 Force Icons.

2 HP

All for the low, low cost, of…

 

3.

 

Freaking 3.  Get lucky and you could play that twice on your first turn if he wasn't unique.  Besides.  5 force icons?  It'll destroy any Edge battle you throw him in.

 

The set mechanic requres 4 other cards in your command deck.  The limit two means 2 yodas and you've got 20% of your deck built.  But this serves a really good role.  If the set mechanic wasn't in place, then, sooner or later, you'd have nothing but Luke/Obi/Yoda vs Vader/Palpatine.  There would be no reason for Stormtroopers or Y-Wings in your deck, because all the big names have a much more bang for your buck.  You can fix this (sort of).  Water him down, but then who wants a sucky Yoda.  Up his mana cost, but then your Objective/Resource system is broken because no one can afford to play him.  I suppose you then up the number of resources per objective, but then that furthers the "little guys suck" angle.

 

In a game where you can be drawing 6 cards a turn, and you throw half your hand every turn into Edge battles, there is plenty of room for cannon fodder.  Trust me guys, there is a method to all this.  This is a brand new game (with growing pains), and I'd rather see something different than play Magic the Gathering with a Star Wars lisence.  The resources are tight enough that you can always do something, but you can never do everything, and drawing Vader really is exciting.

 

Btw, tonight Yoda sent a ripple through the force to distract Palpatine (tactics) so a Jedi Loyalist could strike him down while his attention was elsewhere.  It was super cool.  If you haven't played it yet, give it a try (or three… it takes a few games to get comfortable).

 



#19 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 869 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 08:18 PM

I respect them for trying something new, however since you are not going to be relying on traditional multiples of cards (even with 2x a given objective) you are much more likely to suffer from bad draws, particularly in a resource based game.



#20 Ulairi

Ulairi

    Member

  • Members
  • 165 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:36 AM

signoftheserpent said:

I respect them for trying something new, however since you are not going to be relying on traditional multiples of cards (even with 2x a given objective) you are much more likely to suffer from bad draws, particularly in a resource based game.

 

You go through far more cards in Star Wars than AGoT. It's very common in AGoT for me not to see all of my cards, in Star Wars it's very common for you to run through most of your deck. 






© 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