Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to Wandalf the Gizzard in 1 core set   
    Technically, you have enough cards to build tournament legal decks with just one core set, but you’ll have enough trouble trying to build viable thirty card decks. I would advise getting two, if not three to round out a full collection. One is possible, which is what I started with, but by no means easy; which is saying a lot about this brick wall of a game.
    Expansions for this game always come with a full card count, though. No need to by multiples unless you want multiple decks with all three copies of the same card.
  2. Like
    signoftheserpent got a reaction from A7T in Imprisoned!   
    Having the rebels attack seems blackly humorous. What might compel them to attack this ship - it must be a threat to warrant destruction as they won't immediately know they have allies aboard.
  3. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to Tramp Graphics in Probe Droid?   
  4. Like
    signoftheserpent got a reaction from TheGMSource in Astrogation Check   
    Nothing wrong with a narrative approach at all, but I notice that word is being used a lot to cover all sorts of aspects found within the game, including rules issues or omissions.
  5. Like
    signoftheserpent got a reaction from TheGMSource in Astrogation Check   
    I've no idea, was it?
    I'm not sure what that has to do with what I asked though.
    I asked about rules written by the designers. Sure I can invent my own stuff, so what?
  6. Like
    signoftheserpent got a reaction from Icosiel in Astrogation Check   
    In all situations.
    Not much point to including this talent if it interacts with nothing.
  7. Like
    signoftheserpent got a reaction from Decessor in DH1 to DH2 Character Conversion   
    Not really; DH2 has aspects unique to it that confer abilities to the character. BC, OW and DH1 do not have these at all.
    Youd' be better off starting again.
  8. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to -Istaril in Core Set Value   
    9 agendas; 8 that allow you to mix a second faction in (by name; e.g. Banner of the Wolf allows you to include non-loyal stark cards to flesh out your deck), and one that gives you a minor benefit (alongside a deckbuilding restriction) from running a single-faction. You can also run no agenda, so that's a 10th option.
    2 Cores, as I mentioned above, lets you build completely legal tournament decks - even a single core allows it (but not with a single faction - you are obliged to include two, and deckbuilding is extremely limited if trying to build a tournament legal deck).
    Including 20 neutrals isn't that uncommon - my current 'competitive' Lannister single-faction list includes 26 neutrals - although it is definitely on the high end.
    Furthermore, most decks right now use the "Banner" agendas, which allow them to play cards from two factions - with two cores, you have 40 main-faction cards (actually 39, given that you have 4 of one card), and in the vicinity of 24-26 cards available from a second faction (the non-loyal ones), plus any number of neutrals (around 50, from two cores). There's a fair bit of deckbuilding, and while you won't quite reach the consistency you would with full playsets of every card, you'll definitly have tons of deckbuilding options.
    If building tournament-legal decks is particularly important to you, I'd buy 2 cores as a starting point.
  9. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to -Istaril in Core Set Value   
    The contents of the core is: 
    x 28 Plot cards (26 different ones)
    x 20 Stark cards (19 different ones)
    x 20 Lannister cards (19 different ones)
    x 20 Baratheon cards (19 different ones)
    x 20 Greyjoy cards (19 different ones)
    x 20 Targaryen cards (19 different ones)
    x 20 Martell cards (19 different ones)
    x 20 Tyrell cards (19 different ones)
    x 20 Night’s Watch cards (19 different ones)
    x 31 Neutral cards (19 different ones - but some resources are 4x, other staples are 2x)
    x 1 Fealty Agenda card
    x 8 Faction/Agenda cards
    x 6 Melee title cards
    x 30 Gold tokens
    x 30 Power counters
    x 10 Influence tokens
    x 1 First player token
  10. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to -Istaril in Core Set Value   
    The Core box for 2nd Edition contains 211 distinct cards - most as single copies, but a few are duplicated (234 cards in the box). They are split among the 8 factions, neutral cards, and plots. It contains rules for a tutorial match, and then rudimentary decks that aren't quite legal that allow you to play fun games with up to 4 people - you can also build with the rules used for their inaugural "Kingslayer" tournament. However, if you want to build a tournament legal deck, it's *possible* with a single core, but extremely restrictive (it's a process of picking a main and support faction, cutting about 4 cards and building a plot deck) .
    Still, a single core is a very good starting point - and if you like it, you'll probably feel the urge to pick up a second one to give you some deckbuilding flexibility. Because of the high proportion of singletons, there are very few "wasted" cards in your second core, and it'll allow you to build many more legal decks, and play much more consistent decks. 
    Then, depending on how far along in the cardpool you are at this point, you might just consider picking up chapter packs (full playset of 20 cards = 60 cards) to round out your decks, or picking up a 3rd coreset. The third coreset is seen as "necessary" right now (because it's the only product out) for high level competitive play, as it grants you a full playset of every card - but as the card pool expands, we don't know if it will still be as "necessary". On the bright side, again as the core was built to create as large a cardpool as possible (probably to make the game more palatable to veteran thrones players, used to a cardpool of over 2000 cards), the 'third' core is still very few 'wasted' cards - less than any 3rd core for any other LCG, and the core has a surprising amount of depth. In the first week of online/gencon play, people were  howling about the overpowered Greyjoys - 2 weeks later, about the overpowered Targaryens, and shortly after that, about the overpowered Baratheons, which are now being supplanted by the Lannisters... I wonder what next week will bring ;p
  11. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to Verlaine in Not happy about buying new damage deck/core set!   
    That's because there is no reason. We have nothing to lose here. In fact, if the damage deck was sold tomorrow, I expect everyone would breathe a sigh of relief.I think that most here, like me, just don't think it's a very big deal. All those people who are going to buy 5 core sets to get enough wired cards will have damage decks to burn, right?Seriously, it looks like a nice core set, good enough for any serious, competition-minded X-Wing fan. Note that this does not invalidate what I wrote above: I really hope the damage deck will be sold separately. It does seem unlikely that this will happen though.
    If you want recognition that this was not a customer friendly move by FFG: here you are. I totally understand the disappointment. The game has effectively moved into a 2nd edition without it ever being made explicit. Thankfully the changes are small.
    I don't know why some react so strongly to negative remarks about FFG.
  12. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to Azrapse in Not happy about buying new damage deck/core set!   
    It's so nice to have the FFG Apologizer Squad popping in all "whining" threads, telling everyone how to feel about the game, how to spend their money, and what kind of games they should take part on.
    Look, what people dislike is that the game changes from the previous warm mood of "Buy whatever you like most, and then still you can take part of the nice competitions" towards the much more harsher mood of "Buy what we say, your want it or not, or don't show your face here."
    And I am an ex-MTG player, and I am here precisely because how much I hated what MTG had become. I don't care if Games Workshop or Wizards of the Coast go medieval with their players' rears every now and then. And I don't feel glad because FFG is not as bad as those two are. If we keep in that train of thought, we should be glad that the police _only_ beat us with rubber clubs and tasers, because the Gestapo was much worse.
  13. Like
    signoftheserpent got a reaction from Hobojebus in Not happy about buying new damage deck/core set!   
    Who are you to say what people should or shouldn't be able to afford?
  14. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to PoliteElliot in Not happy about buying new damage deck/core set!   
    Being forced to purchase a new core set to continue playing tournament play is totally unfair.
    A cynical person might say FFG is happy forcing this change in order to sell more core sets. Include the fact that there have already been a few forced purchase updates like Rebel Aces for AW's or, worst of all, the Raider for TieA's.
    I don't care about the new core set, the new T-70 or the new TIE's, and I certainly don't want to be forced to buy them to continue playing a game I have invested significant money into.
    I don't believe a company like FFG, with talented game designers, couldn't come up with a way of allowing all players to participate in X-Wing Organized Play instead of excluding those unwilling to buy a new core set.
  15. Like
    signoftheserpent got a reaction from John Tenzer in Not happy about buying new damage deck/core set!   
    You want FFG to make money.
    But argue that people should buy from the secondary market.
    Perhaps there's a better way?
  16. Like
    signoftheserpent got a reaction from Hobojebus in Not happy about buying new damage deck/core set!   
    I have no idea how much people spend, but i would think it enough that they aren't just going to give up and stop playing as some, bizarrely, recommend.
    I would imagine people aren't buying new starter sets for the same reason I dont wish to: they don't want the ships and thus spending £30 for a small deck of cards is unreasonable.
    These sorts of responses make me question whether those making them actually live in the real world
  17. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to Hobojebus in Not happy about buying new damage deck/core set!   
    I don't play tournaments but there are people who do that don't want those fighters or to buy the core.
    Telling them to just stop playing is a terrible solution and pretty heartless, these are your fellow gamers even if you disagree you should be able to empathise with them.
  18. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to DeathByGrotz in The Alexandrian 'review' of F&D...   
    I'll be blunt then: This thread is nothing but a witch hunt and could well be considered mobbing. The assumption people won't notice it when they search for feedback on reviews before doing their own is not one I personally make, because I know professional reviewers look at their demographic. Usually, a lot of negative feedback would mean a change to the review, however, what you are doing here is a collective beatdown on constructive criticism of the rules (wether it's accurate is another issue entirely. Very few posts here actually address that beyond unsubstantiated claims a la "this blows"). If this is how constructive criticism is treated, people will notice and decide, if they don't like the system, either not to review it at all (meaning less press) or start with a very unpleasant deconstruction (if they get their pagecount that way).
    Another thing: The game does not speak for itself. The fanbase speaks for the game. If I showed this thread to people wanting to start EotE, they wouldn't want to try it. I mean, seriously, you have entire pages worth of people patting each other on the back about how "they sure showed him". It's pathetic.
  19. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to Icosiel in Astrogation Check   
    I understand the desire to have more concrete definitions in terms of rules. There is a bit of dissonance in the design of this game where the rules are specific in one regard and vague in another. Just as an example, there aren't any clear rules (aside from GtA) that determine which side of a ship is facing an enemy's attack; it's left open to the narrative. However, there are plenty of rules that determine increasing defense in particular defense zones and not in others, making it seem like it is something that should be carefully monitored.
    In any case, my players prefer more rigid rules when it comes to things like this. I've come up with a simple system for determining how long it takes to plot in hyperspace coordinates:
    Starting with the round in which the astrogator makes their Astrogation check, it takes 10 rounds to successfully plot a hyperspace route. This is the 'clock' for how long it takes for the navicomputer to do its job. Each success on the Astrogation check subtracts one from the 'clock.' If an astromech droid or navigation droid brain is present, the 'clock' starts at 5 rounds rather than 10. The astrogator can rush the calculations and subtract 2 from the 'clock' if they upgrade their Astrogation check once. For Advantage, Threat, Triumph, and Despair, I use the table from Fly Casual. It's a tad clunky, but it has successfully added tension to a lot of the firefights we've had. Also it adds definite weight to some previously vague or interpretation-based talents.
  20. Like
    signoftheserpent got a reaction from Icosiel in Astrogation Check   
    In all situations.
    Not much point to including this talent if it interacts with nothing.
  21. Like
    signoftheserpent got a reaction from Icosiel in Astrogation Check   
    So there are no actual rules, despite the talent tree for the Pilot career?
  22. Like
    signoftheserpent got a reaction from LethalDose in Morality   
    Where does it say that you do not roll if Conflict was not earned?
    I have no idea why you are misrepresenting what is in the rules. To argue that it says something other than what it says makes no sense and is simply your interpretation.
    We go on, once again, the rules as written. The rules as written do not say anything about rolling only when Conflict is earned, and specifically say that a roll is made regardless of whether no Conflict was earned. As I have already explained.
    Do we really have to go around in circles over this? It's clear you don't like the RAW but you cannot make them say something different. Again, iof you want to change the rules for yourself that is entirely your prerogative and, again, we are not discussing that.
  23. Like
    signoftheserpent got a reaction from LethalDose in Morality   
    Do you realise how patronising that sounds?
  24. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to LethalDose in Morality   
    I kinda see what you're saying, but the examples you're giving pretty much fly directly into the exceptions explicitly written into table 9-2.  The lying isn't for personal gain, it's to avoid conflict.  The theft is from a superior foe that afford to lose the cylinder. If they're pulling a B&E for personal gain, it's a problem.  If they're doing it for save lives or support the alliance, then that's pretty clearly outside the intent of that chart.  The table goes out of it's way to describe how the penalties are situationally dependent and the text explicitly states:
    "Character intent should influence the amount of Conflict awarded,a s some actions may be considered good in one situation and evil in others."
    What you're describing is just blanket application with no consideration context whatsoever.  
    I mean, this whole thread is full of "it works when you use it right" but your its-so-easy example is clearly not in line with the RAW.
    And don't throw some quasi-clever "point of view" crap as a response, that's just tired now.
  25. Like
    signoftheserpent reacted to LethalDose in Morality   
    The biggest negative impact on the game I see is flavor: Primarily the use of dark side points/pips (DSP) on force rolls.
    As I understand it, converting a DSP to fuel a force power (or anything else) is a mechanical representation of "drawing on the dark side of the force."  The 1d10 default for the the roll means without conflict a player is picking up 5.5 morality/game, so to break even, a player can, over average, flip 5.5 DSP to LSP per session.  
    That seems like a lot.  I could be wrong, my frame of reference may be off due to my previous experience running non-force centric campaigns.
    An additional flavor issue I've pointed out before is that it allows the *passive* accumulation of morality, which represents becoming a light-side paragon.  I think that title/status should require the player to be more pro-active.
    Also, the counter-point seems an almost monotonous repeat of the following sentiment:
    If you have a party of 4 force-users, and you have to to come up with a handful of ways to tempt every one of them every play session to balance out an otherwise fairly arbitrary game mechanic (arbitrary in the sense of it's magnitude, a 1d10)  That's a lot of extra work, man...
    You may agree, you may disagree, but it doesn't change my opinion.