Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dormouse

  • Rank
    LCG Designer

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

572 profile views
  1. There has been an update to the newest FAQ which clarifies a couple of issues that were in need of addressing but were left of the FAQ that was uploaded to the webserver. IF you have downloaded FAQ 3.3 please delete it and re-download the FAQ. The file name is the same, but the lead page will mark it as 3.3.1. If you just perused the FAQ and not downloaded it, please familiarize yourself with the new FAQ. Sorry for the mistake and I hope to see you all at GenCon. Damon Stone
  2. There has been an update to the newest FAQ which clarifies a couple of issues that were in need of addressing but were left of the FAQ that was uploaded to the webserver. IF you have downloaded FAQ 3.3 please delete it and re-download the FAQ. The file name is the same, but the lead page will mark it as 3.3.1. If you just perused the FAQ and not downloaded it, please familiarize yourself with the new FAQ. Sorry for the mistake and I hope to see you all at GenCon. Damon Stone
  3. Normally I stay off the boards, but I wanted to give credit, these decks were designed by Jeff Secrest, not myself.
  4. KallistiBRC said: What exactly is a card's "effect" (deals with cancellations, responses, etc) I'm sorry can you be a little more precise here? What is the question or point of contention? IS there an example or a thread you can post or link to?
  5. Hello Players! I'm gathering all unresolved questions, pleas for errata, and points of clarification for the newest FAQ. Please post to this thread any questions or concerns that you have that have not yet made their way into the FAQ. Please also post any problems or points for clarification with the general rulebook and the current FAQ (1.3). Thank you for your efforts, and here is to a fun and competitive regionals season for Call of Cthulhu. Damon Stone Associate LCG Designer Fantasy Flight Games
  6. Wytefang said: Good points have been made in several older posts here by Dormouse and UnifiedShoe (very good post by Unified a few back). Since I'm not a designer, really, I tend to side with the customer's perspective here - I'd prefer they tried to at least somewhat cater to the fanbase, in certain regards. That being said, I'm also a realist and realize that the reality showcases the fact that there's probably no real consensus among even the hardcore players, about what should be done with the game. I should also point out I don't fundamentally disagree with what US has said. I am a player first and I want my games to be of a certain kind... but some games just aren't for me and that is not the designers fault, and it is not mine. Just like my last girlfriend. Totally hot, smart, funny, etc. etc. but we just weren't a good match. Sometimes that is the way of it. Now if the thing that would have made that relationship work so we were both happy was a small change in my expectations then it is in our best interest to make it. If it is a small change on her part then it is in our best interest to make it. I'm not saying that the designer should ignore their player base. I'm saying that we on this forum are only the smallest fraction of this games player base and not even a good representation of it (in regards to having the same focus and level of dedication). That if we want something thatis counter to the purposeful design of the game, and the game is successfully meeting the needs of the greater player base, then it is our expectations that need to change. If the game is not currently working the way it was designed (a distinct possibility on one level or another) and the player base small or large is not satisfied then the game must change. Think of my recent posts as challenging some of the assumptions about how skewed the game is, what the best ways of fixing it are, if the fixes might not already be in place, and what our role in the skewed environment might be. I don't mind one race being dominant. I don't mind a couple of deck types showing far more success than others in tournament play. What I mind is it being so skewed in reality or perception that no one tries to play the other decks and races. We have yet to have a deck type/race that is so dominant that it has curtailed the development of the game for an extended period of time (this game came out a year ago and we've had a different deck type complained about as OP about every two months since the release of the first BP. When we have a deck so dominant that six months go by and everyone is playing that deck or teching against that deck and only that deck then I will absolutely agree. Given the nature of he LCG format I've found that a "wait and see" approach has always shown a solution to the problems that crop up. If Dwaves and Throwers are still the decks to beat in the environment two months after Marched is widely available, I'll add my voices to yours.
  7. The LCG format is selling incredibly well. I mean incredibly well. Some printings are selling out in multiple games in multiple countries within months. Nothing is going to hit the level of the big three, but outside of them, it is easily comparable. That is not to say they are doing the same per unit sales, but with the LCG format they can stay as profitable with a smaller overall printing and sale. You'd be amazed at how much money the randomized nature of the CCG adds to the game. The problem is that W:I is an LCG, not a CCG, and far from a miniatures game. Miniatures war gamers have a certain expectation about their armies being supported in cycles and when new pieces and army books are released. CCG players expect relatively equal support for each faction, though the power level of each faction will ebb and flow. The LCG model is much closer to this, but still almost as far away. Each supplement pack needs to have close to the same number of cards for each faction to keep things balanced number wise, the boxed expansions will allow for surges in card numbers (though W:I seems to be taking a slightly different approach to expansions than Thrones so there is definitely room for variation).and predictably this will affect power balance to some amount. Producing more than seven stand-alone factions is going to require a revamping of the distribution/production of the LCG format. Producing new factions in starter deck style including a capital board outside of the regular BP format is certainly doable... the question then comes to how do you continue to support that faction... because its players will want it supported an equal amount as the main six, without shorting the main six races that the game was absed around? Do you include cards in the BP? Do increase the amount of BP's available in a month? All of these are doable, but they have their own problems... many which involve an increased monetary investment on FFG's part with predictable diminishing returns. The fact is the game works as it is. By taking a hard-line about how they will handle the other factions they have managed players expectations. People know what they are going to get and can choose how involved they want to be with the game. If someone will only play if the Tomb Kings will be a stand alone faction then they know this is not the game for them. If someone is thinking about getting in with hopes of the Wood Elves or Ogers eventually becoming a playable faction then they know ahead of time that this is extremely unlikely to happen, but perhaps they can pick up the Core Set or Companion Set and play with a minimal commitment.
  8. Curator said: Agreed, and supported, but this has nothing to do with a troll demanding capital boards as a thread. Absolutely agree and sorry about the derailing of the thread... but to be honest the OP was so far out in left field and ignoring reality that it was just painful to address his original post.
  9. Is it? Sounds like a restriction for when it comes into play. I can never quite get the difference set in my head between a play restriction and a continuous checking requirement when it comes to attachments.
  10. That by the way should answer your question. Every faction can make a fun loyalty deck, but winning against a tuned deck... well DElf can't do it right now, they need Skaven to provide teeth. This looks to be changing but I don't think it is there yet. DElf/Undead looks like you may be able to get something going to win more consistently and the Enemy Cycle looks interesting... My recommendation is start building and tweaking now. As the new stuff comes out keep re-evaluating your efforts. When you have something you are proud of and confident in post it. see if the gang here can provide some more tweaks.
  11. The fact that W:I is selling as well as it is pretty much disproves all the points being brought up as they are being applied. What the complaints boil down to me are that the competitive scene is skewed greatly (and I agree), that there are three deck types (you really need to include dedicated rush) that hold the top rungs in the food chain is a problem for those who are dedicated to one particular race AND want to play competitively. Lets examine the difference between a true competitive player of W:I and serious fan of W:I. A true competitive player doesn't really care what race they play, or even what deck they play. They want the most degenerate and exploitive build, the greater an NPE it creates then the more assured they are of sweeping the field. Now some of them also play for fun, and like variety, and bucking the meta with their own flavor, but in the end winning is more important to them than the illusion of loyalty to a single faction or alignment. A serious fan of W:I has an alignment or even a race or two they really, really like and always go to that side/faction. They'll play other stuff, but would rather splash into that race rather than play outside of it, and would rather do mono-race if at all possible. They want to win, but they do not approach the game in a fashion that will allow for them to win consistently unless their faction is on top at the moment. The thing that should be remembered at all times is both of these make up less than an estimated 5% of this games main buyers. The majority of this games buyers are casual players who will never play in a tournament unless they get roped into it by friends. Who may be completionists, buying enough to have a full play set or one-of's buying a single set/box/pack of the product as they become available. The game is designed and marketed with their play experience in mind. The way the card distribution of the Core Set is done, and the switch to x3 of all supplements bears this out as does the fact that our most competitive players who harp the most on something being broken/OP have praised the balance of the "limited format." The game is a fast paced blood-bath by design. It is how it is marketed. It is selling extremely well as it is. Expecting or demanding for the game to change for a fraction of its buyers pleasure is not logical. FFG however does care about and listen to the serious fans and the ultra-competitive players, and we know this because it is we who force the creation and growth of the FAQ. It is we who do the play testing, and it is we who have the most direct interaction with James and other employees of FFG, and it is from us that they get their volunteers to run demo's and the like at tournaments, as well as provide a solid presence at events like Gencon to show-off the popularity of the game. The very nature of the LCG means there will always be a couple of deck types or races that will be on top of the heap. But just like every race was more or less equal at first release of the CS, and Orcs jumped out with the first battle pack, and then Orc/Skaven, then DElf/Skaven, then BT, then Dwarfs, they too will fall aside. I'm going to tell you now, even as I knew the Dwarf deck was going to be the deck to beat when everyone else was complaining about BT, it is no longer what I'm focused on. There is something else out there on the horizon. The design cycle is 3-6 months ahead of release, and release is generally two months minimum ahead of players' decks. There is an old saying about the weather in San Francisco, if you don't like the weather walk a couple of blocks. If you don't like the environment wait for a new pack or two. It'll change, and the more open you are to acknowledging this change the easier it is to find the new hotness while it is still new and hot. We make the environment as surely as James does. If everyone decided that Orc/Skaven were no longer their best chance but BT and Dwarfs were then rather than seeing the flux of Orc/Skaven a number of regionals had we saw the numbers skewed in a different way. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that net-decking in this game is actually proving detrimental. A cabal of players have decided that deck X is new hotness and the HDIC and are persuasive enough to convince others and people swarm to that. If they had just posted their decks discussed the hows and whys and let the tournament results speak for themselves, I think we would have seen FAR more diversity in what showed up at Gencon. That diversity may have actually caused a different result. Someone may have come up with a deck that caught people by surprise, or one which was not strong enough to beat a diverse field but was the BT-kryptonite, giving one or two of them a loss that would have allowed for another deck type to have been present in the final cut. *shrug* Hard to say for sure, but I doubt all those players who showed up with BT and Dwarf variants didn't just stumble on them in the last month when Orc/Skaven was what was heavily over-shadowing the regionals. Let's see what the rest of the Enemy Cycle does to the environment and see if BT and Dwarfs are still choking the environment when Marched becomes generally available. With Worlds put to bed James will no doubt be incorporating what he saw into his design plans as well as taking at look at the current environment to see if there are some tweaks to the game that can be done by way of the FAQ but keeping in mind what he has coming down the pike already for us. He is a wicked smart guy, I have faith that if the current environment is not to his liking, and he does not feel the Enemy Cycle and Marched address this enough, that he will take appropriate steps by way of FAQ or the next set to adjust it.
  12. Actually there was some discussion. I told Michael Hurley head of the LCG department that the two best decks were Dwarf and Bolt Thrower, with DElf Control (via Skaven) as a somewhat distant 3rd. That a Dwarf deck would most likely win the entire thing and that it would be based around Support Destruction, Slayers, and Mining Tunnels, and at least one or two decks would be giants and do well despite what a lot of players see as a violation of the most basic deck building tenet. Now I did not expect nearly so many Dwarf or BT decks, but I did expect them to do well and make up the lion's share of the final players. As to why these decks showed up in these numbers? I actually suspect it has a fair amount to do with the posts here about how broken the decks are compared to everything else. Everyone wants to play the "best" deck, and most players would rather net-deck (some with tweaks some without) rather than come up with an original idea. Others would take the base concept and runaway with it (Dut's is an excellent example of this). And yes I believe if the game is operating the way the designers intended it is not the game that is wrong... by definition, it is the expectations of the players. If I want a wild knock 'em down blood bath, chess is not the game for me. The game is not wrong and does not need to be changed, I need to either change my expectations or find a game that meets my needs. To expect the game to abandon its philosophy and the designers to abandon their vision, and the publishing company to abandon their marketing campaign and target audience, is... a tad myopic.
  13. Even ignoring that you can only sacrifice your own units, that it is a "do [blank] to do [blank]" format means it is a cost for the effect and costs can only ever be paid with your own cards/resources otherwise what is to prevent you from reaching across and using resources of your opponents to pay for your card effects? It is all the same thing.
  14. There is a distinct difference between the opinions of a designer who understands the theory, process, and method of game design, and a player who simply wants things their way.
  • Create New...