Jump to content

Arma virumque2

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Arma virumque2

  1. Thanks, guys. I've obviously been away from the scene for a while. Is there any particular reason the cardgamedb forums are better?
  2. The boards here have MUCH less activity than I remember from the early days of the LCG. I'm just curious -- is this a reflection of a smaller player base, or has the activity just moved to other sites?
  3. I did a Google search and can't find a record of anyone posting this document online. Is that something that would be possible?
  4. Thanks! Have you tried that out, or are you extemporizing? When you say "standard Melee," do you mean also including title cards?
  5. Does anyone have any experience with (or suggestions for) 2v2 team play? I'd like to play with my kids, but I think they would be less overwhelmed (and have fewer hurt feelings) if they knew from the outset who their ally was, and didn't have to worry about an ally's sudden but inevitable betrayal.
  6. I've come to the sad conclusion that my life is too busy to allow me time for deck building. If I'm going to continue to have fun with my WHI cards, I'm going to have to fall back on copying decklists from the Internet. But because my collection is old, I have to find old decklists to experiment with. My collection goes through Fragments of Power (BloodQuest pack #2). According to BGG, this was published May 30, 2012. Does anyone know where I can find tournament write-ups (including decklists) from around that time, or shortly before? I checked Deckbox, but the "Top Decks" list doesn't go back that far in time. And I couldn't find a search function that would help me find decklists from the date I'm looking for, or weed out good decks from experimental decks. Thanks in advance for any advice.
  7. Thanks for the reply. I checked your website and found the comment(s) you're referring to. Appreciate the tip.
  8. Arma virumque said: I don't understand why the announcement says "maximum legal number of fifty-five player cards." What is that referring to, particularly the "legal" part? Bump. I can't tell if nobody knows the answer to my question, or if there's an answer out there so painfully obvious that people are avoiding the topic out of embarrassment on my behalf….
  9. I don't understand why the announcement says "maximum legal number of fifty-five player cards." What is that referring to, particularly the "legal" part?
  10. 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."
  11. LORDs_diakonos said: I was hoping to get a rulling from FFG here FFG doesn't give rulings in the forums. However, they will give a ruling to you individually if you click on the link at the bottom of the page that says "Rules Questions." If you receive an answer, and if you post both the question and the answer (exact quotes, please) in this forum, it's almost as good as having them respond directly.
  12. richsabre said: if you only own the core set it would be incredibly difficult rich That confirms what I suspected. It's too bad, really, because this is a game I could happily play on occasion, and I would enjoy some variety, but it didn't make my list of must-buy-everything-that-comes-out games.
  13. For those who have given an opinion on the difficulty, are you playing with decks that use the full card pool released to date? How challenging would this be as an expansion for somebody who only owned the core set, for example, or maybe the core plus deluxe expansions but not the chapter packs?
  14. I agree that the "buy in" cost is a barrier for some new players. And I agree with Rings that there are a lot of players who either know that they're completionists, or they're not wholly comfortable with the idea that they couldn't afford to be a completionist if they wanted to. My suggestion would be to repackage the oldest chapter packs into big box sets -- for example, 3x of all the cards in the Clash of Arms cycle, packaged in a single box. I don't know what FFG's cost for printing cards is, but we know they can afford to sell cards with a retail price less than $0.18 per card. (That's the retail cost per card for a deluxe expansion.) If FFG charged $60 for a Clash of Arms super-expansion, that would be $0.16 per card. Since R&D is already paid for, I suspect that's a price they could live with. And it would be a 33% savings for a new player trying to catch up on old chapter packs (compared to $90 for six chapter packs).
  15. From a theoretical standpoint, it's important to understand that you will be playing a very different game, and you may discover strategies that work well with your selected group of cards, that wouldn't work well if you had to worry about the type of threats that could be brought to bear if you were playing against the other cards too. But since you're playing solo, that's not a big deal. Just something to keep in mind if you find an "unbeatable" strategy for one of your races. I would recommend going slow on the purchases. Buy the core set (or two), and play with those for a while. Then add in some deluxe expansions, one at a time. This will give you a chance to really explore all the cards you own; otherwise, you may buy a lot of cards that never see play.
  16. Hahma said: Below is a post from Board Games Geek by a guy from Fantasy Flight. For the record, the "guy from Fantasy Flight" is the CEO. I love the fact that he participates in the online community. And I love the fact that he gives reasonable answers that reflect a businessman's sense of the need to strike a balance between extremes.
  17. Mestrahd said: Ok. I'll start a thread today. The question now is, which subforum? There's like 80 for AGOT. The General Discussion forum is a fine place. Or the bottom of the main forum page (for uncategorized threads) looks like it's getting a lot of attention these days.
  18. Mestrahd said: I tried some demo decks for AGOT and it seems like once you get a lead, it's very hard to catch up. It kind of rolls downhill. Any of the challenges is potentially helpful either by board control, hand control, or gaining power. And I'm not sure I like the way initiative is determined. It seems the person that goes first is usually going to make headway. It's entirely possible I'm playing something wrong as well. I had the same feeling about the core set decks, in 2-player. The problem's not as bad with 3-4 players (because the losers will gang up on the leader), and it's not as bad with constructed decks (because there are some very effective control possibilities). I agree with Toqtamish -- now that you've tried the game, the guys over in the AGOT forums would love to discuss pros and cons.
  19. (Boy, I haven't done this much posting in months!) One other difference: The AGOT forums are generally filled with thoughtful, reasonable discussions, and the people I've met at tournaments have all been kind and generous. It's an outstanding group of players. I've never been to a Warhammer tournament, and I'm sure there are lots of kind, generous Warhammer players too, but the online forums have a higher level of snarkiness and rude behavior. I enjoy reading the AGOT forums for fun, just like I enjoy the LOTR forums, but I don't get any enjoyment from reading the Warhammer forums. I don't mean to give anyone the impression that Warhammer is a bad game. It's not! As I said earlier, I play it nearly every week, simply because that's the game my friend owns, and I have a good time. But if I could magically change all my friend's cards into AGOT cards, I would. As always, this is just one guy's opinion. Your mileage may vary.
  20. Lightdarker said: This may be far too vague of a question to ask (or demand too long of an answer to bother responding to), but having no experience with the other LCGs, just how similar are all of them (considering that Nate French also designed CoC and aGoT)? From what I've read, there seem to be quite a few mechanics that they share, but just how alike are these games? I haven't played COC, so I can't comment on that. AGOT feels similar to LOTR in some of the mechanics, such as exhausting a character to attack or defend (so you can't do both with the same character). (Of course, that particular mechanic is shared by other CCGs as well.) In addition, AGOT and LOTR both have detailed turn sequences, with many phases. But as you would expect, AGOT has nothing remotely similar to the encounter deck or any of the mechanics that set up your opposition in LOTR. The biggest similarity, I think, is in the card templating. Examples include the bold text in front of an action that specifies (sometimes) if an action can only be performed during certain phases (i.e., "Quest Action:"), or if an action can only be triggered as a response ("Response:"). In addition, there are some concepts that travel well from game to game, such as the difference between "played" and "put into play." Warhammer, on the other hand, is quite different. There's no kneeling to attack or defend. And instead of having defined "Response" triggers, Warhammer uses a Last-in-First-Out stack (similar to Magic), where any action can be played as a response to almost any other action, but resolve first. (I happen to really dislike this mechanic.) Plus, the card template allows for restricting actions to certain zones of play but not certain phases of the game. (Warhammer fans are still waiting for a thorough, comprehensive turn sequence.) In my completely uninformed opinion, it appears that a fair amount of designer effort since the game's release has gone into clarifying these mechanics, or into clarifying cards because the templating language for describing the game's concepts isn't as well defined.
  21. Arma virumque said: In my opinion, there's more tactical depth in AGOT. What I mean is that it's very hard to win AGOT, even with a great deck, if you make poor tactical decisions during play. By comparison, about 50% of my Warhammer games seem to run on autopilot -- my deck/strategy vs. the opponent's deck/strategy, with only a few key tactical decisions each game. Is it self-centered to quote yourself in a post? I want to add one clarification: I was referring to my experience with constructed decks, not the core set. I didn't play too many games with just the core sets, but I have a vague memory that perhaps this generalization doesn't hold true in that instance. I'd be interested to hear a second opinion from somebody like Toqtamish who said that he played extensively with just the core set.
  22. Mestrahd said: Thank you for the further points. I have to compare the two games now. 1) I don't see a time where I would ever have more than 2 players, so does AGOT begin to pale in that regard vs WI? Which is a better straight-up 2 person game? As for your recommendations, I am an experienced CCG player, but I do not care about 3+ player capability, and I'm already "devoted" to at least 2 other games at the moment. So would you recommend Warhammer at that point? I plan on asking my friend's opinion on both games too, and that will carry a lot of weight, but as I said, good reviews always help. AGOT's a fantastic game for 2 players, so no worries there. However, there are a small number of cards in the core set that are pretty lame in 2-player matches; you'll figure out which ones they are pretty soon, and swap them out for other cards. There's no easy answer to your other question, about whether Warhammer would be better for you because you're "devoted" to 2 other games (which I assume means that you would play AGOT/Warhammer only sporadically). Let me share one observation that may help: In my opinion, there's more tactical depth in AGOT. What I mean is that it's very hard to win AGOT, even with a great deck, if you make poor tactical decisions during play. By comparison, about 50% of my Warhammer games seem to run on autopilot -- my deck/strategy vs. the opponent's deck/strategy, with only a few key tactical decisions each game. The flip side of the tactical depth is that AGOT creates more "brain burn" for casual players: The tactical decision trees can be overwhelming, and lead to analysis paralysis. With experience, of course, this isn't as big a problem. I hope that helps. I'm a sporadic player myself, and would definitely choose AGOT over Warhammer if given a choice. Unfortunately the only person I can make time to play with doesn't own AGOT cards, so I haven't played it in over a year. I miss it!
  23. I also like AGOT better than WI. Here are a couple more points to think about: 1) If you think you might want to play a game with more than 2 players, AGOT is the only way to go. 2) The AGOT learning curve is steeper than WI, in several ways: The gameplay is more complex (and the FAQ is larger). The cards in the core set are all singletons, so it takes many games to become familiar with all the cards in your deck. And there are more expansions available. Personally, I recommend AGOT for experienced CCG players, people who want multiplayer, and people who want to be devoted to their LCG. WI might be a better choice for less experienced players and people who just want a core set to throw on the table once in a while.
  24. I'll add one more voice of support for the OP (who may have given up on this thread after the response he got from what has usually been a fairly supportive community). I'll add three points to the discussion: 1) For those who argue that this is a deckbuilding game, please remember that FFG has consistently promised that all the LCGs would have an enjoyable experience out of the box. The game may get better with deckbuilding, but it shouldn't require it in order to be fun. 2) For some people, tweaking the rules is just as much fun as tweaking decks. In each case, the player is engaging a problem-solving part of the brain, playing the game repeatedly, tweaking some more, and building something that feels "better" than what he started with. It's the same sort of creative effort that we all enjoy -- the OP is merely applying it to a different part of the game than the rest of us. Outside a tournament, that's his right. 3) (I don't know if this applies to the OP or not, but....) Those of us who are experienced at CCGs/LCGs sometimes forget that this is a challenging hobby. New players can be overwhelmed by the number of moving pieces in play. Deckbuilding adds another gigantic layer of complexity. For LCG novices who are having a hard time, changing the rules is a faster and more reliable fix than deckbuilding. With experience, the need for rule changes will go away naturally.
  • Create New...