Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Buhallin

  1. I'm sorry, but this is a very silly argument. New heroes are arguably going to have the most punch when it comes to play variation. Excluding new heroes from your count of the card pool is completely ignoring why the size of the card pool actually matters.
  2. The release rate isn't going to be any lower. A full hero/villain pack cycle will give you about as many as you would get from hero cards from the half of two releases you get now. New heroes most certainly grow the playable pool. If someone refuses to ever play anyone but Spider-Man then sure, packs won't have much for them, but it's not any better for Arkham or LOTR if I only ever play Guardains or Lore or even Erestor decks. And honestly, new heroes will do more to increase variation in play options than a few more new cards per pack ever would.
  3. Assuming reprints aren't half the pack, the current design provides more new playable hero cards in the pack than the current pack design on Arkham Horror and LOTR. Splitting hero and villain (e.g. player and encounter packs) does far more to boost player value than a few reprints does to reduce it.
  4. Yeah. I think a lot of people are assuming it will work like Exile, where you can replace cards to fill your deck side without paying XP. But as far as I know there's not actually anything in the rules to cover that - the Exile refill is explicitly for when you're replacing an Exiled card.
  5. Ah, yeah, good point, forgot that. May still hit her harder than most though since her deck is likely heavily built around her ability.
  6. As another (possibly spoiler-y but minor) thought, how crazy would you have to be to run Patrice in Forgotten Age?
  7. I'd probably include two. Sure, she gets through her deck, but assuming she's got the standard 30 cards (not a guarantee, I think) it could show up anywhere from turns 1-6. Going 4 or 5 full rounds with those base stats will be rough.
  8. I'm not sure Versatile is going to kill cross-class collaboration in groups, or that it's really going to be a big problem. If you have someone in your group who can take what you're looking for, it's dramatically cheaper to just let them do it. I can see using it to add a random other card, but it's hard to see it breaking anything. Those cards are 2 XP over cost to begin with, and the deck size increase is going to make getting the combo even harder. But even then, I have a hard time seeing this breaking anything. We already have investigators who can do this from their initial build, and it hasn't demolished the game yet. Is there some theoretical breakage in there? Sure, but you're really talking about something that will require a Level 3-5 from a class, a level 1-2 from a second class, and then one (or more) Level 0s from a third. That seems pretty farfetched.
  9. That seems pretty awful, honestly.
  10. I never said it wasn't different - there's those moving goalposts again. But sure - take a look at the dictionary for "banned", find me where how the decision is made matters, then talk some more about purposeful ignorance.
  11. This is very much not the same thing as the decision being objective or subjective. But wherever you can plant the goalposts to maintain that fictional Keyforge uniqueness, I guess.
  12. Er, does Keyforge have some multiple rule teams in place that I'm not aware of? Because in every game I've ever played which bans or retires cards, that comes from a single authority. There are no "different locations". And no, it's not an objective metric. Someone said "X points worth of wins will retire a deck". What should that be? 2 wins? 20? That's subjective. The system which should contribute to it is subjective - what matters? Wins? Top placements? Number of players at the event? Time between plays? Losses? Rank of opponents? All of that is subjective - the entire SYSTEM is chock full of subjective decisions. Those don't vanish just because the end result is a flow chart. There is very much still an active choice, it just happened a year ago. And do you really think that system will never change? That there won't be a point where they realize all the things they missed and that it's not working as intended, and there won't be an update? Once that happens, THEN can we call it banning? And none of that is even touching whether this is actually a GOOD way to do it, which it really isn't.
  13. Automatic retirement most certainly requires subjective judgement, it's just applied at an earlier stage. Or do those criteria materialize whole form out of the aether with no human involvement?
  14. Outside of pure soak assets, you're going to lose a lot of utility by just smashing them down as fast as you can. Xavier, Beat Cop, Guard Dog, etc etc are all great for picking specific times and usages. I think in practice it's going to be harder than it seems, too - you're going to want to completely fill the sanity/damage meters to maximize the payout, that's not always going to be that convenient.
  15. Tommy seems pretty incredible. The vast majority of allies are at least neutral in their cost/soak, and True Grit/Something Worth Fighting For pay themselves back fully. The weakness will change how you play your soak cards, making it more advantageous to focus into a single rather than spreading it all out. But hey, you get paid for that too.
  16. I wonder if her deck build will do something different with her Basic Weakness. She'll be hitting weaknesses a LOT, and something like Doomed... you might as well retire her before the first scenario. Throw me in with the "She's going to be difficult but very good" crowd. Much like Calvin she's going to rely heavily on the Survivor fail-to-win mechanic. I'm not sure what her secondary will be but I think she's going to play like an iterative Mystic - Mystics have to adapt their role to what spells they have available, she's going to do the same but every turn. Nope, no window in there to trigger her.
  17. Or maybe you could elaborate and we could discuss it more? Apart from the end result being identical from a player's perspective, I'm not sure that having a fixed list of reasons to ban a deck means it's not banning the deck. Would it be different if there were a human periodically running through the list and manually matching decks which are no longer allowed to be played because they fail to meet a criteria on that list? Is it that it's a fixed set of criteria? If a dev team had a piece of paper which said "Any card which appears in 80% or more of Top 8 decks at 3 consecutive major events" would, uhm, fail to meet a criteria, and they remove that card from play, is it banned? At the very least it feels like a meaningless semantic difference.
  18. Jumping on the necro for this, it's not. Not even close. I mean sure, there's superheroes in both, and a central villain, and they all have health, and... Yeah, that's pretty much it. Oh, they both use cards too, I guess. MC has as much in common with Sentinels as they both do with Munchkin.
  19. Well, sure - but the point is that having a hand full of otherwise-useless stuff will be rare if your deck is built well. If you have a card that frequently will end up being dumped just for the resource you probably need to strongly consider whether you should include that card at all.
  20. This utterly fails even the most basic math Hyperbole FTW! Ignorant people who don't do their homework are going to be upset. It won't be any different with MC. The same people who'll gripe about how you have to buy two cores for most of the LCGs will gripe about how there's no customizability in the core game - and from what I understand, there won't be much. I suspect we'll also get a lot of crying about how $60 is too high a price point for a solo player. We'll get a new round of crying about how bad the cores are, and while it will be a new flavor it won't be any less. It's also a bit of unwarranted triumphalism to declare FFG finally listened on the pack structure. I'm happy to see it - split player/encounter packs is something I've wanted for a long time - but I think the motivation there is clear, and it has nothing to do with what we wanted. Marvel heroes have much bigger individual name recognition. You can sell a separate Captain America pack WAAAY better than you can sell a separate Jenny Barnes pack. But even there, we'll see the inevitable whining about how slowly the hero card pool grows because the split means we only get hero packs 2 of 3 releases. People always want the other side of whatever hill you put in front of them.
  21. This is true, but I found there are a lot of other considerations built into the game. Captain Marvel and Black Panther both have card draw options (Marvel on her character, Black Panther through a card) that rely on being in Alter Ego mode. Maximizing that sounds great, but one of the things I found is that being in the right mode during the villain turn is critical, and you can't always maximize those mode changes. But generally, yes - draw is also resources in addition to the choice, and it matters a lot.
  22. LOL. Knowing the rules can indeed change some evaluations I disagree that they suck though. Assuming a two cost card, it means you give up one card to pay the cost instead of two. Looking at someone like Captain Marvel, that leaves you 3 cards in your hand - which is enough for another two cost. They're not universally awesome because you can't split the resources. So you can't use a two-resource card to pay for two different 1-cost cards. But especially when you get into 3 and 4 cost, if you're only getting 1:1 resources from your cards you're giving up a LOT of your hand. A 3 cost with a 5 hand size basically means that you can only play that single card. I don't think they're auto-include by any means, but if you want to run more expensive cards they're going to be important.
  23. This. Sure, maybe you've got a hand full of junk that you can dump and the cycle ends up being good. But that's an awfully combo-tastic setup. There are certainly times when he'll work well with the rest of your (useless) hand, but that doesn't seem like something you want to plan for. Sure, Fury can let you get to your very good cards - but he's just as likely to show up in a hand full of already-very-good cards, and what do you do with him then? Another difference here is that if I have a Gandalf but no resources to play him yet, there's no real cost to just holding him in my hand. In Champions holding onto a card has a very real cost to it as you reduce your draw every turn until you use him.
  • Create New...