Jump to content

Buhallin

Members
  • Content Count

    5,333
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Buhallin

  1. Haven't seen anything to indicate that the hammer/gem are different. I think they're both power, just one is simplified slightly for inclusion in the text.
  2. Can't speak to Warcry, but in the annals of CCGs Horus Heresy did quite well - it had at least 5-6 expansions, which is pretty solid. Your Kindle comparison is flawed, too... I like my iPod because it lets me carry every CD I own, which simply wouldn't be possible. It lets me shuffle between them at will, or automatically, which my CDs can't. In short, it offers a great deal of functionality compared to the non-digital (i.e. physical) version. But what does the Kindle offer? I'm an avid reader, but I usually only carry one or at most two books with me. Sure, the notetaking is nice, and the wifi purchase is cool, but none of them are critical functionality to most reader. And the price, to be honest, is astronomical. Sure, people may have issues with lacking a physical book and pages to turn, but it's probably not a deciding factor in most cases. I'm not disagreeing that fidelity/convenience play a factor, but in general I think they're overwhelmed by other influences. Even your original example with the U2 concert is, IMHO, pretty weak... Sure, people are excited about getting to see U2, but is it just because of the fidelity aspect, essentially just because they're hard tickets to get? George Strait sold out here (Texas) in something like 3 minutes - you couldn't get higher fidelity than that. It means nothing to me, because I don't care about going in the first place.
  3. I'm running 60 per deck at the moment. I've never been a big believer in minimum deck sizes. Invasion seems to not be so heavily combo-based as most others, so it's even less of an issue. There are certainly some powerful combos, but there don't seem to be many "If I draw X and Y I win, otherwise I'm in trouble" setups. It seems to me that it's a far better approach to set up a general approach and theme for the deck, and be able to play what comes. So for the moment I'm running 60. Above that doesn't seem to be productive with the current card pool, because themes seem to fragment and the deck gets disjointed. Another point to consider, although I haven't actually played enough to verify it, is that card draw will be critical with attrition. The combination of choosing where to apply damage to your opponent and persistent damage means that units are going to be dying A LOT. Maintaining quest and kingdom is going to be critical to being able to keep new units coming into the fight. That's also why I think support cards like the Contested*, Armoury, and Forgotten Cemetary are important. Unit power can be removed relatively easily, but the options for hitting those are more limited.
  4. While your points may be accurate in concept, I don't know that they actually explain what you're trying to make them explain - specifically the slow uptake on LCGs. You put CCGs and board games at complete opposite ends of a spectrum between fidelity and convenience. Assuming that is accurate (which I'm not sure it is) then either characteristic must provide something desirable. If LCGs sit in the middle of that spectrum providing a little of both, they should be fine. But I don't really think it's relevant, honestly. You're trying to isolate to a few characteristics which say little to nothing about the actual success of games. If it were all about fidelity, or all about convenience, then every CCG would succeed because Magic does, or every board game would succeed because Cataan did. Obviously there are a lot of failures on both ends of the spectrum, so there has to be a lot more involved than just the question of the packaging type. IMHO, the LCG concept hasn't been given a real shot until Invasion. Both the previous ones were conversions from previous CCGs, and carried a lot of issues over from those previous ones. Also, IMHO, they really aren't great games - CoC and AGOT share WAY too many of their mechanics, CoC does very little to exploit and develop its setting (there's almost no story to it, and no sides), and both were essentially failing CCGs when they came out. The reality is that LCGs target the CCG crowd more than the board gaming crowd, and a vast majority of CCGs have failed. It's a hard market to get into, and I do think you're right about the fidelity aspect - although I call it the crack aspect, personally... Getting CCG players to move away from the few established games to look at something new is very, very hard. It's even harder when you take away the risk/rush of random buying, and when you throw in incorrect perceptions of cost it gets even worse.
  5. You may not like the interpretation I offer, but I'm certainly not lying about anything, and I'm not just flinging insults about. If you purchase the set for yourself, you have more than enough to demo with. If a store wishes to demo the game, they can easily crack a store copy - and if they don't, I don't see why that's your problem. Giving demo decks to players is nice in CCGs, but doesn't fit the LCG model at all - it would be like saying you need extra boxes of Monopoly to give to people after you demo it. None of the above requires any help from FFG, and honestly doesn't see much benefit from it. Nice? Sure, but I've never seen any poster or promo card make people stop and look like a regular play session does. But you aren't willing to do that. You won't try the game unless FFG gives you (and your stores) free stuff that you think it has to have to promote (whether it actually does or not is irrelevant). Is that somehow inaccurate? But we're saying the same things over and over again here. You expect more from FFG than they're willing to do. Maybe that works, and maybe it doesn't, but either way it seems your potential involvement in this game has been decided, so why are you still here?
  6. rickert said: willing to do anything except spend my own money. So... Pretty much just looking for free stuff then? I thought we'd already had this disucssion? I don't doubt the game is doing better or worse in different places, but you're the only one on here who seems to think it's impossible to get it going in their area unless FFG pays you. I've played CCGs since Arabian Nights, and I've been unpaid help in more than a few of them. I've seen games with lots of shinies to give away fail and games with no support at all survive far longer than I ever would have expected. Someone who believes in the game and is willing to put it in front of people counts for far more than all the posters and promo cards in the world. You obviously don't believe in the game. You aren't willing to buy it unless FFG does something to pat you on the head and tell you that your $40 isn't going to be wasted. I'm sorry, but with an attitude like that you'll never get squat going anyway no matter what they send your way. Besides, after perusing the community forum it looks like central Indiana is doing just fine - they've got the first tournament I've seen listed, and at least 3-4 players here expressing interest and in the area. That's not a bad start at all. Really - if you're having such a hard time getting thing's going, maybe it's just you.
  7. And if the game is doing well enough in other locales, why should they develop an entire system just to help you? It certainly doesn't seem to be wise ot develop an entire line of promotional items, cards, and demo organization just for central Indiana because you're too self-centered to adjust to the idea of promoting the game on your own. We get it. You won't be promoting it without any help from FFG. That help is, in all likelihood, not coming. You throwing fits about how you won't be exploited by FFG and DAMNIT you aren't going to promote their game for free!! isn't helping anything. So, can you just the trolling please? Your point has been made, and unless you feel some vindictive need to throw tantrums on the forum and try and hurt FFG over it, you really should just move on.
  8. rickert said: No. I don't want to make money for FFG on my own without them lifting a finger and they don't want to help. I'm just glad I hashed this out before wasting any money on this game to have it mostly sit on the shelf for lack of players. "Listen to me, Obi-Wan Kenobi! I'm your only hope!" Ego much?
  9. I have to admit I'm somewhat amazed at this. I don't know a single CCG for which a single starter, even faction-specific, is anything more than an experiment. To truly play the game almost universally requires at least a box of boosters, which will automatically include a lot of cards you don't want for whatever faction/color you're trying to play. The LCGs give you solid decks to play with, and the multiple factions are, IMHO, a very god thing - even if you only want to play dwarfs, you still have the option of including some Empire cards. I know that's not going to convince anyone who objected in the first place, but still... Compare to most CCGs, an LCG is an incredibly good value. It's incredibly odd to me that people with multiple 5000-count boxes of Magic cards will pass on a game because the initial purchase is $40 instead of $10, even though that $10 purchase is essentially useless. If your friends insist on using your decks rather than buying their own, just start making more decks that use all the good cards, and giving them scrub cards
  10. So then what would you expect FFG to do? Provide demo decks? A single box comes with enough cards to set up all 4 races. One purchase will give you more than enough to demo with, not sure what else you can expect to do. Announce events on their forums? There's a "Community" forum for you to do exactly that. Promo cards? Why? The only people who care about these are the ones who already play and want the hard-to-get stuff. They don't do anything to get people interested in the game in the first place. Posters? Yeah, that'd actually be pretty cool, but given the breadth of FFG's game line I can see why they don't do a poster for every game they make. The few things you're asking for that might actually help are well within your own power to accomplish. Beyond just patting you on the head and stroking your ego about what a great job you're doing helping them out and they couldn't possibly live without you, I really don't see that any of this actually impacts your ability to develop the game in your area. We've all got a ton of games sitting and gathering dust. Some games do better in some areas than others. If you care enough to do something about it get out and do it, and FFG's involvement or lack thereof is pretty much irrelevant.
  11. Or have your LGS order it, and set up your own demos. If you don't have players with cards, what would FFG's official tournaments accomplish? Why do you need to wait on them for demo information, unless you're just trying to get free stuff? If your LGSs aren't carrying it, talk to them about it. The game is out to distributors, if your LGS isn't bringing it in FFG has nothing to do with that.
  12. Tuesdays are bad, but other days are fine. Pick one, and I'll do my best to be there. I am probably going to be there tonight (Friday) for at least a few hours if you can make it tonight.
  13. I think it's a bad idea to pull rule specifics from other games, however closely related. As near as I can tell, Tactics are never actually "in play". The selling point for me is this: Tactic cards are actions that are played from a player's hand. When you play a Tactic to do something to another (such as Twin-Tailed Comet) even then you aren't responding to the Tactic, you're responding to the action (with perhaps some restriction on the source of that action). Within the rules as presented for Invasion I can't find anything that suggests that Tactics are considered to be in play. I expect the icons are simply there for visual conformity to the other faction cards.
  14. Rulebook, p17: If a card refers to each player's corresponding zone, it is referring to the zone in which the card is located as well as each opponent's zone of the same name."
  15. Whoops, misread 3 - thought it was just asking if the two could trigger off the same death. But yes, dormouse has it right on that one, my bad there. But are you sure about #1? The term 'combat' seems to be pretty vague. There are several references to dealing combat damage, though, which seems to specifically refer to damage inflicted by units during a combat. It certainly seems different from just being a shorthand for "Damage during the Battlefield Phase".
  16. mathulus said: Hi. I've just gotten my copies of the core set. So I've studied the cards and played a couple of caos vs dwarf games. There has come up a couple of things that is unclear to me: Does the "during combat" of the Shrine to Nurgle mean, during that unit is in combat. Or generally, when there is combat. Because if it is the latter, then you culd do some really nasty things with caos. With the Slaaneshs Domination can you play an action that cannot be fulfilled, like Grudgetower Assault outside of the Battlefield Phase? Does the tactic cards you play become discarded? Do the opponent keep the tactic cards you do not play? Can you play them later? If two Dwarf Rangers is defending (in the quest zone) and both are killed, do their abillities trigger? How does Rune of Fortitude stack (if they are in the same zone)? I'm guessing that the loss in power stack, but you still only need to pay one resource per unit to bring them upp to full power again. Does The Greatswords gain power when they themselves enter a zone? Since the effect is resolved after they has entered the zone, i'm guessing yes. While you can play actions "in response" to other actions, do you have to? For example if my opponent plays Striking the Grudge on his Dwarf Masons, after he declared them as Defenders. Could I wait for his action to resolve, and then play my Blood for the Blood God? Can you still redirect damage that cannot be canceled? Any input is appreciated =) My (quite unofficial) interpretations: - Combat is not a phase, so I think that if a unit isn't actively attacking or defending, it's not in combat. - I would say that apart from paying the cost (which is specifically mentioned) any other restrictions on the card's ability, targets, etc. still apply. If the card can't be played for whatever reason, I think it would go back to its owners hand. - Yes - Each are separate abilities, with their own cost to cancel. - The ability of the Greatswords isn't active when they are played, so I don't think it can trigger based off of them being played. - Yes, you can wait and play it as a separate action rather than doing it as a response. A Phase only ends when both players have passed their opportunity to initiate actions. - Redirect is not cancel, so I think you can. The damage is still hitting, and so has not been cancelled, it's just not ending up where expected.
  17. Board doesn't seem to have PM options, unless I missed it. I'm usually there on Sundays from about when they open (noon) for a variety of gaming. Can you make it around then?
  18. Unless an ability specifically says you can only target your own unit, you can target anything. There are a number of nasty effects like this.
  19. Card effects stack. As a side note, even if they didn't stack Keystone Forge would remove two. Using an ability off two different copies of the same card isn't an issue of stacking.
  20. You definitely wouldn't have to pay for the Gors, because their ability doesn't target anything. The other questions are dicier, but here's my read: I think it would affect tactics. Just because a card is a tactic doesn't mean it has a target, or that the card specifically targets something. A tactic generates an effect, which occurs then goes away. I also think you do have to pay the extra 1 even if there is no cost. The word "additional" in there makes this dicey, but this is at least consistent and avoids a lot of painful issues. For instance, if something reduces the cost and then the Church increases it (but only if it already has a cost) what happens?
  21. And moving a card isn't playing a card. If it were, all kinds of effects would be firing off from moving. It pretty much has to come from your hand.
  22. Ruvion said: Barring direct damage or kill effects, you can't shut down quests using the conventional use of Battlefield phase. I assume you put it like this because your opponent can just choose not to defend with his questing unit?
  23. I believe the answer to both your questions is yes. Quests are certainly going to be difficult to complete, because the results can be quite powerful and it's not all that hard to shut them down. But I can see them working... Using very tough units, or units that have nasty effects when attacked, will obviously help. Fledgling Chaos Spawn and Zhufbar Engineers are good candidates to make your opponent squirm about it. They can also be used to draw damage towards questing units that otherwise might not pose much of a threat, such as Peasant Militia. I see them as being more for strategic control than their direct benefit... If I can make my opponent attack to stop a quest (on my hopefully well-defended and development-ed quest zone) that's an attack that isn't going somewhere else.
  24. I'm in SA as well, and looking for players. What's your store of choice? I typically frequent Dragon's Lair myself, but hit all the others at various times.
  25. apkenned said: Because one player can a mass enough power in one turn to oust someone. I think this will lead to a cold war style game..where the first to fight is the first to lose. How could this happen? You literally cannot knock an opponent out in one turn, no matter how much power you mass, because you can only hit a single zone per Battlefield phase. Any scenario which allows this to happen has the opponent already beaten down rather badly in the first place. You're never going to completely get rid of a cold war environment in any multiplayer game. Whether it's cards, minis, or on a board, multiplayer games always tend to favor those who sit back and let the opponents beat themselves bloody, at which point they sweep in and clean up. But this system makes it far less than in others, for a few reasons... The lack of tapping - being able to defend with units which just attacked - is a major one. The spread defenses of the capital is another, as you can take a shot at an undefended zone without any penalty. I also think that being able to allocate your own damage will mean a lot - will well-timed attacks you can make sure that your target looks tasty to whoever goes next, too, and your vulnerability is less appealing. You're also never going to get rid of ganging up on the weak one. That's what multiplayer should be, IMHO. It takes people out of the game and keeps it moving.
×
×
  • Create New...