Jump to content

cyberfunk

Members
  • Content Count

    291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cyberfunk

  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).
  16. This strikes me as a bit better than Warpstone Excavation for most decks *when in your opening hand*, although Warpstone doesn't prevent you from playing Villages and can be played in multiple. There's not a huge difference between a 2-cost guy/Village/Warpstone and Muster/3-cost guy/2-cost guy. Both are probably going to give you three hammers on the table. The *BIG* drawback, though, is when you don't get it in your opening hand. Warpstone is still a pretty good card on turns 2-4 since it doesn't cost you a thing (if you already have one on the table). Giving up an attack, however, is a big cost, and a really big cost for some decks. The sooner you want to start attacking, and the more important attacking is to your plan, the worse Muster looks. The thing I really like about Muster is that gives every faction another opening play. A lot of races are locked into building around Contested Village/2-cost dork or some combo opening like Chaos Spawn/Braying Gor. If you also have the chance to hit Muster in your opening hand, then 3-5 cost units start to look a bit better, as they may be able to to help get your economy rolling. Admittedly, it could make for some pretty silly starts and may turn out to be too good. The thing I liked about Innovation is that you had to trade at least two cards out of your opening hand if you wanted to use it to accelerate your start; Muster actually nets you a card.
  17. Yeah, no reason to bring back Tunnels. Dwarves should definitely have to pick between that and Reclaiming. And it super-splashable and works with basically any Empire plan. Wilhelm could probably stand to make a comeback, as VTHC is gone and he's never going to get picked in Verena ahead of Electors. Soul Stealer was always a bit of a head-scratcher to me. It can certainly be very strong in the early game for the first player, but it's not much ahead of stuff like Lobber Crew and Hounds. And it's pretty obviously never going to be better than Warpstones, so it's never going to get played.
  18. We have a handful of NR players here and are looking to get regularly scheduled organized play going. A Yahoo! group has been established @ http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/midmolcg/ Players of other LCGs welcome! Feel free to drop me a message if you have any questions.
  19. 1) Draw more cards. Probably have to do this no matter what, since you only have 2-3 cards that actually do something. If you hit even one piece of ice, you can at least complicate things for the runner. Ice the hand and make him find the right breaker, or non-chalantly ice the deck and leave the hand open. 2) Put Agenda in remote servers and don't advance them (or advance them… suspiciously). Runners often aren't going to run a remote server on the first turn because chances are it will be something expensive to trash. 3) Discard them face-down if you have an enormous set. Four agenda in the opnener is certainly playing from behind the eight-ball unless your other two are really, really good. But, sometimes, you can eke your way into the midgame and turn things into a route because you can win before the runner gets completely set up.
  20. When you use GtW, the only target you have to choose is the spell, which is already in your discard pile. You don't have to choose targets for AP at this point because you have not yet played AP, you have simply targeted it to be played in the future when the GtW action resolves. You only play AP when the GtW effect resolves. The first time the GtW ability resolves, GtW will not be in the discard pile and so AP will not be able to target it. The second time this happens, it will be in the discard pile, because the first GtW action will have fully resolved (including the the part about discard GtW). It's a little counter-intuitive, to be sure, but the FAQ is relatively clear that this is how it works.
  21. Virgo said: There is nothing about playing a card from your discard pile that insinuates it should be discarded if you used Gathering the Winds Nothing except the FAQ The way the FAQ is written seems to be a step-by-step set of instructions, which works if the spell (as most spells are) is a tactic. I'm saying that without the FAQ no one would suggest a spell that is a support should be discarded after it is played, that's sort of like adding extra text to Gathering, which would more appropriately be a card errata. Just like adding the rule that spells played from Gathering cannot be canceled or responded to? Anyway, if that line in the FAQ is leading to a situation where it could be interpreted as discarding a spell that is a support card, then it has to be officially fixed to say clearly one way or the other. Unless it is fixed the FAQ takes supremacy over desirable characteristics of the cards. Spells (not Spell tactics) are resolved and discarded. Loec can still be used to remove units from the quests, clear them from tokens or even damage. Saying that attachment spells CAN be played with GtW but are immediately discarded after they enter play is not a clarification; it would be an erratum to GtW. Saying that spells played with GtW cannot be responded to is simply a clarification of existing timing rules; they can't be responded to because the current action chain is already resolving. I'm not saying FFG can't choose to issue an erratum without labeling it as such, but I'd be pretty surprised in this case. I'm sure somebody has already sent a query to FFG and we'll have clarification one way or the other. I certainly don't think it matters much for balance reasons. There are plenty of sillier things to do with GtW at the moment.
  22. Djibi said: Teokrata said: inqb said: How do you loop 1x Arcane Power with 2x Gathering the Winds? As far as I can see you need 3x GtW, so it's very unlikely to trigger… You have a legend or artifact in the game, 2 gathering the winds, some expendable spell for 0-1 like Scroll or Sight and 1 Arcane Power. You play both spell to get tokens on supports, then You use Gathering to play for Example Scroll and Arcane Power from discard. The first resolved spell is Scroll, support is discarded by the effect, but according to FAQ 1.8 second spell will be resolved too. So, You resolve Arcane Power, draw a card and return Gatheirng to hand. You play support from hand and use second Gathering the Winds to do the same. On each chain You draw a card, so You can draw all deck, make infinity resources with Convocation and just put 3rd Gathering into play to produce infinity tokens to do infinity indirect damage. 2x Gathering + 1x expendable spell + 1 arcane power + legend/artefact = draw all deck for free and win I think it doesn't work because you have to target a card from your discard with AP and your gathering is always in play when you play AP This is why you need the Scroll of Asur or another cheap cost spell in the mix. The sequence is: =Remove tokens to play spells with GotW =Resolve second spell played (in this case Scroll) -Pay costs and choose targets (none). -Resolve spell text (not much) -Trigger "then" portion of GotW (which discards it). =Resolve first spell played (Arcane Power) -Pay Costs and choose targets (oh, look! GotW!) -Resolve spell text (draw card, return GotW) -Trigger "then" portion of GotW (N/A)
  23. Well, it depends on what you mean by "viable." Skaven are probably the easiest of the four, and Undead are fairly good in a supporting role, so if you don't mind mixing those two, you can come up with something that isn't far behind a race-based version of Skaven. Assuming that general-purpose neutrals (Contested Village, etc.) are OK, something like this: Units: 32 3 Veteran Sellswords 3 Clan Rats 3 Clan Moulder's Elite 3 Gutter Runners 3 Night Runners 3 Swarm of Bats 3 Greyseer Thranquol 2 Jezzail Team 2 Mannfred von Carstein 3 Deathmaster Sniktch 2 Storm Vermin 2 Blood Dragon Knight Supports:8 3 Warpstone Excavation 1 Spoils of War 3 Contested Village 1 Drakenhoff Castle Tactics: 10 3 Chittering Horde 3 Warpstone Experiments 2 For us the Bell Tolls 2 Gaze of Nagash You could sub out the Sellswords for another random Skaven if you don't want non-Skaven/Undead neutral units. Going pure Skaven would be bad because you'd lose the Bats, which is one of your best aggro units. The Dragon Knight/Carstein/Gaze doesn't matter that much, but it's better than the bottom-of-the-barrel Skaven. Wood Elves and Lizardmen are kind of tough, but if you wanted to make an Order deck that would be somewhat balanced against the above deck with only neutrals, I would go with something like this: Units: 27 3x Nimble Spearmen 3x Skinks of Sotek 3x Doomsayer of Morr 3x Spawn of Itzl 3x Zealot Hunter 1x Black Knight 1x Drycha 2x Chakax 3x Deadly Salamander 1x Carnosaur Rider 2x Ancient Stegadon 2x Loqtza Supports: 16 3x Contested Village 3x Paranoia 3x Shrine of Sotek 3x Treasure Vaults 2x Light of Morrslieb 2x Abandoned Mine Tactics: 7 3x Innovation 2x Pilgrimage 2x The Wild Hunt Between Zealots, Paranoia, Skinks, and random other removal, you are killing a lot of Skaven without any combos. If you get huge Treasure Vaults set up, then Loqtza is a machine gun. This deck is not going to be good against very many decks, but it should hold its own against the Skaven/undead above. It would be a lot tougher, but if you wanted *exclusively* Wood Elf/Lizard units, you could run a third Chakax along with some Skink Skirmishers, and then Sacred Glade, Shadow Sentinel, and the third Wild Hunt form the wood elf side. You'd miss those Doomsayers and Zealot Hunters, though.
  24. randomblink said: As much as I would HATE to lose a new player to the best LCG there ever will be… If it was up to me, "See ya!" I see what you did there. Blink was pretty sweet, though.
  25. Yeah, dice are a little less cumbersome that tokens sometimes, but I think sometimes they are shied away from as an "official" counting mechanism just because of the possibility of knocking them over during play and losing the info. I often used d6s with printed numbers in Decipher's Lord of the Rings, but in large tournaments I had to go back to tokens.
×
×
  • Create New...