Jump to content



Photo

Weird affiliation rule


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 gubast

gubast

    Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:07 AM

As seen in the LS presentation article, if I build a deck with 8 pods of a faction A and 2 pods of a faction B, I have to play the faction B affiliation card to be sure to begin with a faction B ressource.

So, I clearly built a faction A deck but I play the faction B affiliation card ; isn't it weird ?



#2 Ulairi

Ulairi

    Member

  • Members
  • 165 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:14 AM

No. It's not. By using the Faction B card, you are guartaneed to start right away with a resource so you can play those cards because you'll have a smaller % chance of drawing objectives for that faction. With Faction A you have a higher chance of getting a Faction A objective card and therefore can play the Faction A cards. It's a way to make sure you'll be able to use your resources and play the cards. Remember, sitting on cards because you don't have a Faction B objective is  going to mean if you didn't have Faction B as your faction card, you wouldn't be able to play those cards. 

 

It makes a lot of sense. 



#3 gubast

gubast

    Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:33 AM

Ulairi said:

No. It's not. By using the Faction B card, you are guartaneed to start right away with a resource so you can play those cards because you'll have a smaller % chance of drawing objectives for that faction. With Faction A you have a higher chance of getting a Faction A objective card and therefore can play the Faction A cards. It's a way to make sure you'll be able to use your resources and play the cards. Remember, sitting on cards because you don't have a Faction B objective is  going to mean if you didn't have Faction B as your faction card, you wouldn't be able to play those cards. 

 

It makes a lot of sense. 

 

In a gameplay mechanism point of view, I totally agree with you.

But it seems clumsy in a story immersion approach, "far far away" of the cinematic experience promoted by FFG, doesn't it ?



#4 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 765 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:46 AM

I don't particularly think so. The Rebels used the resources of the fringe many times. The Empire was ruled by two Sith. The Jedi were integral to the success of the Rebels. The Empire subcontracted to various Scum factions. Having split decks doesn't seem wrong at all!


All art is quite useless


#5 gubast

gubast

    Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:09 AM

In my vision of the game, if I play an affiliation with 90% of cards from an other affiliation, it breaks the immersion.

Well, that was my 2 cts.



#6 StarDuster

StarDuster

    Member

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:21 AM

gubast said:

In my vision of the game, if I play an affiliation with 90% of cards from an other affiliation, it breaks the immersion.

Well, that was my 2 cts.

 

I agree with this somewhat. If I'm playing 8/10 Rebel Objectives, it "feels" like I should be using the Rebel Faction. However from a game standpoint, min/maxing and running with the 2/10 Objective faction as my decks faction.

 

My Sith deck has a splash of Scum and Villany. However, I run with the Sith Faction as my faction due to "how I want to play". Running x2 of the only Scum and Villany and the Neutral "ignore resource match" objectiv, I've been able to get Boba and Mandalorian armor out every time that I have drawn it -- so I'm happy as is. (Well, minus me wanting more Scum and Villiany cards. Haha.)



#7 Ulairi

Ulairi

    Member

  • Members
  • 165 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 11:07 AM

gubast said:

In my vision of the game, if I play an affiliation with 90% of cards from an other affiliation, it breaks the immersion.

Well, that was my 2 cts.

 

It's a game. It's a card game. It isn't trying to be a role-playing game, novel, comic book and or movie. There isn't any immersion in a card game. There is flavour and everything and I think the game has it. I think when players want immersion we need to be much broader with the term. 



#8 MarthWMaster

MarthWMaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,107 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 11:20 AM

I originally felt the same way as the OP does about this. The affiliation card should bear the emblem of the deck. Handwaving it away as a game mechanic that is immaterial from a flavor perspective doesn't work for me. If I see the Sith emblem on my opponent's side of the table, I should expect to get my ass kicked by dark side powers, see Vader's cruelty destroy my card advantage, etc. I should not expect to see a flood of TIE fighters and Star Destroyers, with a token appearance by Darth Vader rounding it all up as a "Sith" deck.

BUT. I think there is definitely a cost to not using your main affiliation's card. With it, you are guaranteed to always have the resource match necessary to play the majority of your cards. When you use an off-color affiliation card, you help ensure that you'll have the resource match, but by doing so you heavily skew the deck toward favoring a specific draw, at least when using the token 8x/2x affiliation makeup. As an example, I tried building a Vehicle-heavy Imperial Navy deck. I splashed in 2x Black Squadron Assault (the Sith objective with Vader's TIE Advanced), but found very quickly that the Sith affiliation card wasn't pulling its weight enough for the 4 cards out of 50 it helps bring into play. So instead I switched my affiliation to Imperial Navy, and if I draw one of the offending cards while I don't have a Black Squadron Assault in play to pay for it, I stomach it, and either discard it or use it for the edge battle.

TLDR; your affiliation choice should be dictated by the cards you want to play the most, not by how many resource matches you can provide for each affiliation.


"To play a wrong note is insignificant. To play without passion is inexcusable."
– Beethoven

#9 gubast

gubast

    Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 11:37 AM

MarthWMaster said:

TLDR; your affiliation choice should be dictated by the cards you want to play the most, not by how many resource matches you can provide for each affiliation.

Couldn't agree more :)



#10 Ulairi

Ulairi

    Member

  • Members
  • 165 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 01:05 PM

MarthWMaster said:

I originally felt the same way as the OP does about this. The affiliation card should bear the emblem of the deck. Handwaving it away as a game mechanic that is immaterial from a flavor perspective doesn't work for me. If I see the Sith emblem on my opponent's side of the table, I should expect to get my ass kicked by dark side powers, see Vader's cruelty destroy my card advantage, etc. I should not expect to see a flood of TIE fighters and Star Destroyers, with a token appearance by Darth Vader rounding it all up as a "Sith" deck.

BUT. I think there is definitely a cost to not using your main affiliation's card. With it, you are guaranteed to always have the resource match necessary to play the majority of your cards. When you use an off-color affiliation card, you help ensure that you'll have the resource match, but by doing so you heavily skew the deck toward favoring a specific draw, at least when using the token 8x/2x affiliation makeup. As an example, I tried building a Vehicle-heavy Imperial Navy deck. I splashed in 2x Black Squadron Assault (the Sith objective with Vader's TIE Advanced), but found very quickly that the Sith affiliation card wasn't pulling its weight enough for the 4 cards out of 50 it helps bring into play. So instead I switched my affiliation to Imperial Navy, and if I draw one of the offending cards while I don't have a Black Squadron Assault in play to pay for it, I stomach it, and either discard it or use it for the edge battle.

TLDR; your affiliation choice should be dictated by the cards you want to play the most, not by how many resource matches you can provide for each affiliation.

 

I disagree. If you want, it doesn't matter matter what game and I can point out how it doesn't fit the setting. These games are abstractions and it's more about flavor than anything, for me. 



#11 D.Knight Sevus

D.Knight Sevus

    Member

  • Members
  • 124 posts

Posted 29 December 2012 - 06:52 PM

Ulairi said:

MarthWMaster said:

 

I originally felt the same way as the OP does about this. The affiliation card should bear the emblem of the deck. Handwaving it away as a game mechanic that is immaterial from a flavor perspective doesn't work for me. If I see the Sith emblem on my opponent's side of the table, I should expect to get my ass kicked by dark side powers, see Vader's cruelty destroy my card advantage, etc. I should not expect to see a flood of TIE fighters and Star Destroyers, with a token appearance by Darth Vader rounding it all up as a "Sith" deck.

BUT. I think there is definitely a cost to not using your main affiliation's card. With it, you are guaranteed to always have the resource match necessary to play the majority of your cards. When you use an off-color affiliation card, you help ensure that you'll have the resource match, but by doing so you heavily skew the deck toward favoring a specific draw, at least when using the token 8x/2x affiliation makeup. As an example, I tried building a Vehicle-heavy Imperial Navy deck. I splashed in 2x Black Squadron Assault (the Sith objective with Vader's TIE Advanced), but found very quickly that the Sith affiliation card wasn't pulling its weight enough for the 4 cards out of 50 it helps bring into play. So instead I switched my affiliation to Imperial Navy, and if I draw one of the offending cards while I don't have a Black Squadron Assault in play to pay for it, I stomach it, and either discard it or use it for the edge battle.

TLDR; your affiliation choice should be dictated by the cards you want to play the most, not by how many resource matches you can provide for each affiliation.

 

 

 

I disagree. If you want, it doesn't matter matter what game and I can point out how it doesn't fit the setting. These games are abstractions and it's more about flavor than anything, for me. 

I think you misunderstood the intent of the post.

Marth was not saying that he used the Imperial Navy Affiliation card because using the Sith card created too much of a flavor disconnect in his mostly-Navy deck, but rather because the fact that it could not produce Navy resources actually hindered him in play, and if he ends up drawing one of his two copies of Vader's TIE Advanced or I'm On the Leader without Black Squadron Assault in play, he'll just discard or edge it.

Also, there is right now another significant consequence of playing your splash Affiliation's card - you lose the ability to play a powerful objective of your primary affiliation.






© 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