Jump to content



Photo

The Future of Star Wars LCG - How does a meta develop with an LCG? What are other FFG games like?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 GongShowHost

GongShowHost

    Member

  • Members
  • 114 posts

Posted 03 April 2013 - 08:16 PM

For those who don't know "meta" refers to the overall context of decks in a competitive area of play. Top level national and international tournaments tend to have their own meta in addition to more local events. What I am wondering is how reactive is Fantasy Flight to the upper level meta? They seem vey on the ball with errata and FAQ entries. In terms of developing cards themselves do they tend to fix broken affiliations or dominant deck types with counterbalancing cards and strategies in later expansions? This reminds me of another concern where we are likely to face far more errata than we will ever see banning. I doubt we will ever see a card banned because it would ban the objective set it's in as a result. Unfortunately, this means scads more errata which is a shame because banning a card doesn't have the same financial meaning given the nature of LCGs. Errata is alienating to new players as they have to memorize even more information.

 



#2 cleardave

cleardave

    Member

  • Members
  • 402 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 12:28 PM

Currently, there was only the briefest of errata for the Core Set, and it's not even much.  They just clarified the "after you refresh" issue with Fleeing the Empire and Fleet Command Center to make it more intuitive.  As it happened, I was interpreting it that way anyways, so it's a non-issue for me.  I think a lot of people played it "correctly" but when it comes to tournaments and organized play, you can't have a nebulous phrase like that hanging in the air.

Beyond that, the FAQ/Errata document is just some clarified examples of play, which were mostly obvious if you really read the rule book.  I think the Trench Run clarification was the only thing that really needed to be expanded upon, since it seemed to cause a lot of debate on which cards could interact with it or not.

I was very impressed that we essentially got no errata on the Core Set from that FAQ, and that a similar amount of care in printing was had with Netrunner, which also got a FAQ with no errata.

FAQ's are always nice, as I do think it's worth the read, even if you don't feel like you need to learn anything.  You may discover you've been playing it wrong the whole time.  Sometimes a corner case situation pops up in it that you've never encountered, and you can file that away for future reference as well.

Errata is good to have, in that it corrects errors on the cards, but I would much rather proofreading and other quality control checks be more thorough so as not to require a giant document to flip through to ensure everything is being played correctly.

From what I understand, FFG is good about reprinting future sets with corrected text.  I think the only big problem they've had was with the first big box expansion for Mansions of Madness, but FFG in good faith delivered corrected materials to anyone who bought a copy, and all current copies of the expansions are 100% correct.



#3 just Logan

just Logan

    Member

  • Members
  • 144 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 06:17 PM

A well designed game doesn't need a lot of errata- I've seen a lot of games errata cards for being either too powerful or causing an unexpected combos- FFg has a really good grip on how to handle timing issues in a fair sane way.  This game has the benefit of having multiple ways to value a card- it's individual strength, it's force icon uses, it's pod's worth taken into account, the overall synergy within it's pod, the synergy with other pods it might be able to combo with. I think these things will make broken combos and must incluse very rare once the card pool expands a bit. Now the LCG meta evolves like any other obvious powerful combos are made, then perfected and popularized by top players people react to those decks until playing the power decks is almost a liablility- that turns into an insestous play counter play until a normal non- reaction deck wins out then the power decks become good again the the counter decks ad infinitum 



#4 Arma virumque

Arma virumque

    Member

  • Members
  • 217 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 10:40 AM

My experience has been with A Game of Thrones (LCG era only) and Warhammer Invasion.  Both of those games had substantial errata and rules clarifications.  By comparison, I was very impressed when I read the rules for Star Wars LCG -- they were much cleaner and less ambiguous than my prior experiences.

My guess is that some level of errata is inevitable.  However, banning is quite unlikely.  FFG's preferred solution in other LCG's has been the creation of a "restricted list."  The equivalent for Star Wars LCG would say something like:  "The following 5 objective sets are restricted.  If you select one of these objective sets in your deck, you may not include any of the others."



#5 MasterJediAdam

MasterJediAdam

    Member

  • Members
  • 665 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 02:44 PM

I too have been impressed overall with the way FFG has handled Star Wars LCG. I do share concern about the top-tier meta, but not because I will be there. In the other games I play, the top tier meta shapes the rest of the meta in weird ways.


Welcome to the machine!





© 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