Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cyberfunk

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Columbia, Missouri, United States
  1. Valhalla's Gate in Columbia will be hosting a Store Championship on March 15, at noon. Check out the Gate's website for more info @ valhallasgate.com. If you're local, our group meets at the same store on Sundays around 2:00PM. You can join our Yahoo! group @ https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/midmolcg/info for updates.
  2. If anybody is here looking for players in Missouri, we have a few playing at Valhalla's Gate in Columbia on Thursdays. We have three players staying current on Wars, and a few others that play but don't have cards. We also have several NetRunners. Shoot me a message if you're playing in Mid-MO!
  3. My guess is that there are a few reasons for the "total objectives destroyed" tiebreaker in the event of a double DS win. 1) There would be a lot of ties counting only LS objectives destroyed. There are only three possibilities (0, 1, 2) for the number of objectives the LS destroyed in a loss. 2) Playing LS second would be a pretty big advantage if LS's objectives were the only count that mattered. It's already better to play LS second if LS is going to win both games (you know how fast you have to win). If LS objectives were the only factor in the tiebreaker, it would also be better to play LS second in a DS/DS win (you'd know how many objectives you had to destroy). 3) Control is still a bit ahead of aggro for DS in game win percentage, so aggro having better tiebreaks gives them a bump in overall win percentage. 4) It makes for some interesting decisions and gives you something to play for in lopsided games. You may want to not take the force as Navy to blow up more objectives, or work in some attacks as Sith. As LS, you may want to leave some defenders even if they haven't blown up an objective. I don't think the tiebreak system is perfect, but it does work pretty well. If I could change anything, it would be the advancement by seeding in elimination rounds in the event of a tie in objectives destroyed, but that should be somewhat rare (and is certainly better than having them play another game).
  4. If we're claiming X-Files episodes for deck names, I'll call dibs on Darkness Falls for any future DS Hoth deck I might want to build.
  5. That's what I get for not reading the card… still like Wampas better.
  6. I think you can do a lot worse than dropping in the three Hoth objectives into Sith control. Icetrompers and Wampas are both great defenders. Icetromper can shut down Han and random 2-health weenies, and do ping damage to set up Force Choke. Wampas are an insane value against Rebels: extremely difficult to take down, and striking for two damage after you (inevitably) win the edge battle. Shadows of Dathomir is definitely the pod to go from the original list (along with one of the singletons, probably). If you'd been running Imperial Command, it's probably a litle bit tougher, but I still might prefer the Hoth stuff. Wampas are harder to Rebel Assault than Heavy Stormies, and can't be Jedi Mind Tricked. Orbital Bombardment doesn't do much in Sith, and Motti is good but somewhat vulnerable. Plus, if you play the Hoth stuff instead of Imperial Command, you can play one or more Heart of the Empire if you want. I'm not sold at all on Lord Vader's Command in a Sith control deck. If you're not attacking, Navy Vader is horrible, and putting him out prevents you from playing your real Vader that does stuff. If you want to play both Vader pods, I think you have to be playing a Navy deck that splashes Sith or maybe a 6/4 Sith/Navy that is going for aggro/control. Lord Vader's Command plus either Ultimate Power or Imperial Command, for example, along with six Sith objectives. Not sure how good it would be, but between Orbital Bombardment and Navy Vader, you could make some relevant attacks.
  7. ..and there was much rejoicing! On the whole, very pleased with all of these decisions, many of which I more or less assumed were happening. I'm a little puzzled as to why they don't just ban the 1-per-deck/restricted cards, but no biggie. I guess Orcs don't really have any non-combo restricted cards, so they may just run the singleton of Warpstone or Muster. As for particular cards: Warpstone E - It was time. I always thought that it should have been one per zone, and then if the environment was healthy the corruption would matter. But this has never really happened, and it's better to just get rid of it. Not sure I would've pretended not to ban it with the one-per-deck, but whatever. Arcane Power - Combo-buster; no-brainer. Muster for War - Another effective ban, but I can't say I mind. This card alone made it it impossible to build multiple decks out of one collection. I think they wanted to give something to the second player with this card, but it didn't quite work out for them. Gathering of the Winds - Yep. As evidenced in Europe, AP being Limited wasn't quite enough. Return to Glory - Yeah, it was cheesy with zero-cost guys. Judgement of Loec - I don't think anyone ever thought this card was balanced. Giving a faction an auto-include to help them out is usually not a good idea. Even though it's HE's only card, they still have to pick it over Mining Tunnels, which is important. Dwarf Ranger - Long overdue. Uncancellable damage you can't respond to is silly. Making them pick between this and Tunnels/Reclaiming is the right call. Urguck/Fists - Restrict both to ban the comob; works for me. Offering to Hekarti - Should've been unique to begin with, and this is more important than restriction IMO. Soul Stealer - Yay! We finally get to use it! I think it's pretty unfair in some spots for the first player, but I definitely think it should come off the list. Lots of answers for it. Sacrifice to Khaine/Temple of Spite - Good idea to restrict the two easiest ways to get the first counter on Hekarti. I don't think either of them is particularly degenerate, but if you aren't going to restrict Hekarti, this makes sense. Sorcerer of Tzeentch - Way over the power curve and too splashable. Remember the base set had a guy with the same stats that didn't kill a dude every turn? Mounted Marauders/Beastman Incursion - Tempo advantage cards that are outside of Chaos's traditional strengths and are sillier when you go first. Makes sense.
  8. Good point. I guess Preying Mantis would be pretty horrible as a unique. And without bad publicity as a win condition. Seems like there's a lot of support needed to make Johnny B. worthwhile… at least something making a lot of actions on the same turn preferable to actions spread out over several turns. And probably some defense against the nastier tag punishments. Account Siphon is nice, but that'd mean at least one influence for Johnny B.
  9. Impressive! And 20s is pretty good for Invasion, all things considered.
  10. Cool. I guess that's down considerably from GenCon, but then this is the first year for this. NetRunner and SW should both be getting interesting next year around this time, so maybe next year will be bigger. I take it that the Invasion turnout was small?
  11. Congrats to Jeremy. Anybody know how many players were in attendance? Totals for other games would be interesting to know as well.
  12. Toqtamish said: alpha5099 said: Man, Sunset is such a tease. I think the only text you can make out is that the flavor text is a quote from Mac. Anyone have any guesses about what Joshua B. does? "When your turn begins … click. If you do, take … ends." maybe gain a click and take brain damage at end of turn. Hate to break up the umlaut discussion, but, yeah, I'd be surprised if this isn't Preying Mantis. So far we're seeing lots of powerful classics that get smacked with uniqueness to keep them sane.
  13. For what it's worth, Eric Lang's preview article says re: deckbuilding, "Choose at least ten different objectives, each linked to a set of five more specific cards…" (emphasis mine) This would lead me to believe that running duplicate objective sets will require you to play a larger deck. Seems like an interesting wrinkle to me, as you obviously won't want to run 2x *all* your objectives, but you will certainly want to play a duplicate of at least one. If you really want Vader swing his lightsaber, then you play 2 of the Vader/lightsaber set. If you really want Vader and the Emperor on the table, then you throw in a duplicate of your favorite Emperor set. But you have to stop somewhere or you won't find that Vader. How bad do you need General Veers? I am assuming that eventually you'll be able to use more than one objective to get a character in your deck, but I wonder if it will be that way initially?
  14. I would be pretty surprised if FFG totally removes the incentive to buy extra cores, but it sounds like, as in NetRunner, two cores will be plenty for all but the true completists and those that want to have multiple decks constructed at the same time. I do think the second core set will be pretty important for competitive decks if the deck construction rules are "10 different objectives" plus any extra objectives you want to run. My guess is there will be an upper-end restriction as well… probably no more than 2-3 of a given objective. If your choices are 1x 10 Objectives vs. 1x 7 Objectives/2x 3 Objectives, you are definitely going to be maximizing the chances of seeing your best cards with the second option. True, in most games, you want to stick to the minimum, but I can't think of another game that lets you up your deck limit by increasing your deck size. That definitely shakes things up.
  15. Yeah, pretty much. Just an example of a 2-hammer opening without Village (assuming another 2-cost guy).
  • Create New...