Jump to content

Buhallin

Members
  • Content Count

    5,318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Buhallin


  1. 32 minutes ago, Supertoe said:

    The release rate will indeed be significantly slower. The cardpool that you deckbuild with will only be getting maybe 40 new cards (assuming 16 hero and 4 reprints).

    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. 13 minutes ago, gokubb said:

    With 20 cards in the pack dedicated to a specific hero, your deckbuilding pool is going to grow slower than Arkham and LotR. Sure you can use the hero in the pack and have a whole level of new options, but if you're a Spider-man fan and really only want to play him, or if you hate the released hero and will never play them, then your new deckbuilding options for a hero pack are probably about 150% as much as an Arkham or LotR one. But, the packs come out less frequently. The player options in this game are going to grow and evolve slower than any of the other LCGs. Which is my biggest gripe about reprints. The deckbuilding pool will already change slowly and they are going to waste slots for new cards with reprints that I'll probably throw away.

    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. 8 minutes ago, KBlumhardt said:

    Agreed. 

    Plus, I'm a bit confused how it even works... I assume since it increases your deck size, you would need to immediately need to add the five extra cards to your deck to remain legal.  Since these are cards being added between scenarios, would this mean you'd still have to spend XP to add lvl 0 cards?  In which case, you'd have to actually save up a *minimum* of 7 xp to even add this permanent to your deck? 

    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.


  4. 16 minutes ago, rsdockery said:

    She really only needs the one Cornered, since she tears through her deck fast enough to find it naturally.

    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.


  5. 5 minutes ago, Soakman said:

    It also is stepping on the toes of the fun involved in larger group play. It may be useful in solo if you feel you desperately need an out of class card to cover yourself, but if I can take double or nothing without being a rogue for example, what sort of signature class basics are going to lose their shine when you can otherwise pair up with a friend to help pull off those fun shenanigans? This is one of those cards I’m going to shrug at and never use unless I basically feel like I have to in order to run Patrice.

    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.


  6. On 9/7/2019 at 12:04 AM, gokubb said:

    Pretty dumb argument. I firmly think Keyforge is a bad game that isn’t fun and is a complete waste of money. However if you can’t understand that an upfront, published, limiting system by performance statistics is different than a reactive limiting system driven by performance is different, then you’re being purposefully ignorant. 

    As the above says, this isn’t the point of this forum post. 

    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.

     


  7. 1 hour ago, Derrault said:

    It’s not a question of how the measurement system was arrived at, it’s how it’s applied.

    if someone has to make a decision every time to ban a deck, there’s no guarantees it would be the same decision each time.

    Decks getting enough power that they exceed whatever power levels are set for a given tourney are not so arbitrary.

    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.

     


  8. 3 minutes ago, Derrault said:

    @Buhallin
    "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? "

    Correction, a rule moving up the power level based on wins provides an objective metric. (It's irrelevent how that rule comes into being, what's important is that it's universally applicable; the same events in two locations would result in the same outcome). 

    Banning, being an active choice removes that objective metric, the same events in two different locations might result in two different outcomes. That's subjectivity in action.

    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.


  9. On 8/28/2019 at 10:19 AM, rsdockery said:

    But how you get there is, itself, important. Active banning requires subjective judgment. Automatic retirement doesn't.

    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?


  10. 17 minutes ago, rsdockery said:

    Honestly, the weakness doesn't change that much. You already want to smash open your piñatas ASAP to minimize the resource impact. Like, Something Worth Fighting For will eventually pay for itself, but until then, it's tying up your three resources. Even cards that aren't pure soak get their valuations changed. Most investigators might want to avoid assigning the last point of damage/horror to Xavier until they've got multiple enemies in one place, but for Tommy, the bounty is big enough that he's probably fine sacrificing Xavier to hit just one enemy or even whiff altogether (soaking up to 3 damage and 3 horror for the team is good enough on its own when you're spending a net zero resources), particularly since Xavier goes back into his deck afterwards.

    For the most part, Rookie Mistake just means you're more hesitant to injure allies you want to keep around (like upgraded Beat Cop) while it's still in your deck.

    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.


  11. 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.

     


  12. 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.

    11 minutes ago, Mimi61 said:

    Is there a way to get the resource from Madame Labranche between discarding and drawing your new hand???🤔

     

    Nope, no window in there to trigger her.


  13. 2 hours ago, CitizenKeen said:

    Agree to disagree.

    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.


  14. On 8/2/2019 at 6:23 PM, GooeyChewie said:

    From what we know so far, this game reminds me a lot of Sentinels of the Multiverse. 

    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.


  15. 16 hours ago, xchan said:

    Use him as a resource? Having the option to play Nick doesn't mean you have to play him every time you see him.

    If there are better cards in your hand, you play those. If not, you play Nick and enjoy his versatility.

    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.


  16. On 8/13/2019 at 10:04 AM, Mep said:

    to $20. With tariffs and increase in minimum wages across the US the inflation will push those $40 MSRP items to $60. Death, Taxes and Inflation.

    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.


  17. 29 minutes ago, gokubb said:

    Card draw becomes even more important in this game. Every card drawn isn’t just another step closer to a combo or the possibility for a key card, it’s also resource acceleration. It’s more like a deckbuilding game. Draw as much as you can every turn, combo or not.

    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.


  18. 4 minutes ago, Supertoe said:

    wait whattt

    You draw up to hand size each turn?

    I retract all former statements about resource cards they suck ***

    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.


  19. 14 hours ago, phillos said:

    Maybe, but what did you spend to play him?  Not good cards?

    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...