crowdedmind
-
Content Count
100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by crowdedmind
-
-
I wouldn't describe a survivor theme as 'winning by losing', but rather that many cards provide compensation if you fail a test, hopefully increasing your efficiency average over the course of a game.
-
On 12/03/2017 at 2:16 PM, Network57 said:So I'm seeking further advice because I'm stubborn and want it to work. Given a level 0 deck, what am I mulliganing for? What's an ideal first turn play look like? What are a good 5 cards for splashing that are consistent with each other? Burglary, Hard Knocks, Machete?
I've not picked an ideal 5th card, but my Jim deck is running 2x Lucky and 2x Peter Syvestre: the former further boosts your test consistency, and the latter provides some horror soak (especially as mystics are running Forbidden Knowledge and Ward of Protection) plus an extra boost for some evasion tests (there's an argument for Stray Cat instead).
The mystics can run hot or cold depending upon whether they see the correct spell, so work out what you need to focus on in the adventure (investigating or damage) and hard mulligan for the appropriate spell. Flashlights and Machetes can act as back-up assets to help with consistency here, and if you're desperate you can use Scrying on your own deck. I find that this dependency on certain spells for super-efficient plays is highlighted in solo games, whereas in larger teams other investigators can help cover your slower start. I suppose that this is to balance out the efficient actions on the spells and your ability to focus on one stat (willpower) to improve as you can make sure that all your action tests use it.
Whilst the deck does want a lot of XP, starting with the core campaign you can collect quite a lot quite quickly - always aim for 8XP from the first adventure, for example
EDIT
I forgot to add, you can run Leo in a solo deck as the extra actions are more valuable, but you have to be very clever with your economy as you will be running a lot of more pricey cards.
-
On 10/03/2017 at 7:10 PM, awp832 said:So the question for me is: Is Zoey significantly better than Roland at fighting monsters
Yes. She has the same fight, a better willpower (protects against encounters that might strip assets), and has access to better combat cards (seeker has essentially 0, so the 5 out-of-class cards Zoey can only provide more combat punch). Whether this advantage is so great as to counter Roland's clue gaining effects depends on the number of players. In a 1-investigator team I'd say no, in 2 maybe, and in 3-4 I would say yes.
-
Jim's core skill centres on probability manipulation. If you combine this with his build rules he can run Hard Knocks, Arcane Studies, Scavenging, and Grotesque Statue for a deck that cannot fail skill tests (and literally cannot resolve the auto-fail unless you want to). Agnes has a similar option, but Jim does it better. The fact that mystics have been given spells that lets you collect multiple clues/deal multiple damage per action means that any test-passing combo is even better with them.
-
17 hours ago, Network57 said:Thematically I think he's awesome for Zoey. Unfortunately, I don't think he's the best for gameplay. The +1 Willpower makes sense if you're doing a Spell build, but Zoey prefers allies that help with combat, like Guard Dogs or upgraded Beat Cops. I'd rather take the Emergency Aid, which allows us to heal Allies for the first time in the game, to get even more use out of them. The monk just soaks up a bit of damage, then does a bit of damage; but the other Guardian Allies provide more bang for your buck.
Miskatonic gives Zoey more than one deck: she now has a tank build as well as the fighter build. Brother Xavier is clearly great for the tank deck, but he has a place in other Zoey decks as well. The Willpower not only makes passing tests from encounter cards easier, but as Zoey can play Rite of Seeking it gives her a very efficient option for investigating (even in a combat build 1-2 slots for Rite of Seeking can give her options when the board isn't flooded with enemies). With Charisma being released next month you are not constrained to one ally either.
Eruantalon reacted to this -
Both of the neutral healing cards are, by themselves, mediocre, as they transfer damage between types rather than removing it (mostly good for investigators with unbalanced health stats). What makes them good is a repeatable way to deal with the transferred damage, so Peter Sylvestre, Leather Coat etc and Savenging etc. What is interesting about these cards is that they lay the groundwork for more complex deckbuilding options in the future
-
Before looking at XP cards, Roland has two advantages over Skids when it comes to murdering things: +1 Fight and his signature gun. Skids has far more advantages, however:
1) A more combat-relevant ability. An extra action to either fight or move to an area to fight is more relevant than gaining a clue.
2) Access to more combat-relevant cards. Both can play the Guardian weapons, Guardian allies, and Viscous Blow, but Skids can also play the Rogue weapons, Backstab, and Sneak Attack.
3) Better economy. Skids has better access to efficient resource generation, which makes playing the more expensive combat/damage assets (guns, Dynamite) far easier.
When you look at the current XP cards, Roland does get the Shotgun as another weapon, but Skids gets access to cards that make succeeding in a combat more likely (Sure Bet) or more effective.
This is not to say that Roland is a bad investigator, just that he is more rounded: his two classes let him fight and investigate. With the current cards Skids is far more focussed on killing things*, but that does mean that he is less able to investigate. This makes Roland a better solo investigator, but if you want to add combat punch to your team, Skids is a better first pick. It doesn't mean that Roland cannot fight, but from what we've seen of the deluxe box, Skids is (and will be for a while) the best combat/damage investigator.
*As an aside, I find it odd that people like evading so much with Skids. He has a good agility, and can play Pickpocket, but I don't think that it makes the most of his cardpool. Wendy's mix of Rogue and Survivor cards make her much better at using evade as an offensive tool.
-
-
While Rex, on the other hand...Daisy can't play scavenging.
I was replying to the post directly above mine that referred to Daisy's 5 intellect.
And I was referring to the post saying that Daisy struggles to beat an investigation check by two or more.
-
Daisy's intellect is 5, and with +1 from a Magnifying Glass and +1 with Dr Milan Christopher, you should be beating most investigation tests by 2 or more unless you're playing on hard or greater.
-
The Manchester Orc deck is the Orc deck that was linked to (and has since had Thanquol added). The Bolt Thrower deck we have is here: www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp
The onus is always on the HE player to have an answer. Orcs can explode very easily and once one zone is burnt the HE player has to stop every single attack (and there aren't enough fogs for that level of consistency). Flames doesn't stall the Orcs as they can replay 8+ power in their own turn from four resources in so many ways that a zone will still burn in the next attack. Rock Lobba is worth playing. It lets you sneak in damage in response to a fog and again in the HE player's phase zero, which has burnt a zone (and won the game) more than once.
I'm surprised that you've put DE/Skaven in as tier two. They're tier one as far as I'm concerned.
-
Clamatius said:
Mining Tunnels is certainly 3x before you run any Keystone Forge. I'd be tempted to try switching to a Dwarf board and running both - the effect of KF is fairly useful, especially against opponents that can't immediately field a whole bunch of power after Flames.
The danger of switching to the Dwarf board is that you miss out on the HE loyalty icon and thrower decks don't have a lot of them to begin with. We were going to try something similar but the cost of the HE tactics became difficult too frequently.
-
Dywnarc said:
I copied a few of the unitless decks posted here, and made a few adjustments I thought might be improvements
Why? If someone's posted a deck and you want to try it, do so before you start changing it. How do you know whether or not you've swapped out a key piece of the deck for garbage?
-
If FFG are like most other gaming companies this thread will be a great way to ensure that ideas for cards will never see print.
-
DB_Cooper said:
I know that DE/SKaven or Orc Blitz can beat most of them, but these are TRUE builds you can try and play competitively and we're just AT THE beginning!!!
If all these builds lose consistently to Orc BLitz and Dark Elf Skaven then they are not competitive. Every card game has a lots of different deck types, but if they're not competitive why bother discussing them in relation to the decks that set the competitive bar?
-
Cain_hu said:
Experiences say that you are not right about the comparison, as CCG-s also can't manage the "pain" as you would think. In MtG maybe it's maybe because they develop blocks, not single expansions in one time, all with a different research team. A good example is the faeries deck, which dominated standard from it's apperance till it rotated out of Standard-T2, or the creature Tarmogoyf which were used in every deck which owner could afford it, and it's cost still increases after it is rotated out of the most popular format. (between $45-$56/pcs based on a reliable site)It's a good thing that I don't play Magic then. If designers aren't able to anticipate the environment they will create when they design cards then the design team are not able to do their job. I'm not referring to individual cards, but how an expansion in gerneral will shape the game. Equally, designers may not realise just how far they have pushed an archetype in an expansion, but they should be aware that they are pushing that archetype.
Cain_hu said:
In W:I like games rush will always be one of the strongest archetype, except if you completely hose creature based decks with mass removal effects or something equal. that would hurt the game more than help it... as then unitless and almost-unitless decks would be on the top, which would be very sad in a war-oriented game.Or, for example, you make mass removal effects that only target cheap units.
-
Iffo said:
In fact I'd hate it if W:I becomes another game with...clear divide between playable and junk cards.This is already the case.
The environment at the moment is deformed. This is only the first expansion which in a CCG would mean sucking up the pain for three or four months before getting a raft of new cards which will balance things. One of the disadvanatges of a LCG is that what is effectively one expansion creates an environment that lasts for 6+ months and so the inequity lasts a lot longer. FFG need to ensure that they avoid releasing deforming cards (obviously), but also take the time to plan 2+ cycles of releases. If FFG knew that the Corruption cycle would favour blitz builds then the cards from the Enemy cycle that balance this should be released in the first Enemy battlepack. I'm hoping that this is the case, but I wonder if each cycle's cards are dividing into battlepacks without consideration being given to what the current environment needs to see, rather by how FFG want to evolve the future environment.
-
sentrionic said:
i would highly appreciate an information from a ffg person directly, instead of waiting for information from the german heidelberger-spieleverlag company.
If you'd like a response I'd suggest contacting FFG directly (either by phone, post or email) rather than posting on a forum.
-
After making a lot of the modifications that other people have suggetsed I'd try to keep a couple Call the Blood. Units like Clan Moulder's Elite are really expensive to kill using spot removal and a couple of Call the Blood can really ease that cost. I'd want to add some more Dark Elves to the deck however.
-
I favour Naggaroth Spearmen in Destruction control decks as they let you buy a province when you manage to establish a decent economy: they're essentially a targeted Bolt Thrower.
-
Some of the Skaven units are broken, but even for the non-broken units their economy is too efficient. A turn 1 Thanquol in the Kingdom give you four resources each turn, which split very nicely across all the Skaven units bar the Globadiers (which is why they're not seen as efficient). Most of the Skaven units could do with a 1-point increase in their costs.
-
Wytefang said:
Unfortunately, he claims the same things about your remarks and we've already seen that you were incorrect about the math for having a WE in your hand so one could make the argument that you're claims are a bit suspect, too, at this point. And I also am not meaning that in a mean-spirited fashion either. Just making the point that stats and math can always be manipulated to support a point.
I think the gameplay aspect of being able to quickly raise the amount of cards you can draw along with the aspect of developments has a significant (though still somewhat confusing) impact on the idea that players simply MUST have the smallest sized deck possible.
The differences between Dormouse and I are that (1) I acknowlegded that I made a mistake and corrected it, (2) no-one's attempted to defend Dormouse's incorrect maths, whereas mine has been supported here and, well, everywhere. I don't really care if he has some crazy notions, but I do care when they are presented as fact when they are not. Not only will this potentially influence other players but it's teaching people maths that is incorrect.
You are proving to be reactionary to the point of blind stubbornness. Minimum-sized decks are the most efficient build and therefore give you the greatest chance at winning the game. The fact that this is demonstrated across a wide range of games does not demonstrate indoctrination but rather that people who understand proabability know that this is the best strategy. It doesn't matter what the strongest build is. Developments do not change this either. They might give you something to do with narrow meta cards, but that's not an excuse to build a flabby, unfocused deck.
I realise that you're enthusiastic about the game and that you want it to occupy its own niche, but you're taking things too far. All card games are, at thier core, an excercise in probability. That you love this one more than others doesn't change this. The maths isn't different for Invasion, the principles that you find in every other CCG apply here.
-
The Sheffield regional was 50-minute best-of-three rounds and I only heard about one game going to time (and therefore being recorded as a draw). Blitz decks certainly help generate fast games, but so does conceding a game when you can see you can't win in order to start the next game. Remember that at a regional you're not just playing Invasion, but a timed version of Invasion where a win actually means achiveing two victories in 50 minutes.
Gamers tend to play slowly, over-analyse decisions that aren't that important and generally warp the objectives of a tournament game to fit their own notions of a game.
-
darkdeal said:
I'm not sure how aggressive muliganing works when you can only take one. If you have a hand that is average, do you take the chance at getting a worse hand?Normally, yes. You win by being faster than everyone else and so a hand that's average isn't fast enough. Average in the general sense of course. An average hand for most decks is a bad hand for this.
Engaged with two or more enemies
in Arkham Horror: The Card Game
Posted
Whilst it rhymes, this is not logically sound, and it is important to crush all joy beneath the weight of reason. Your rhyme suggests that anything that is not [Fight, evade, parley, resign] will provoke an attack of opportunity: this could lead someone who wants to read your response literally but doesn't want to read the rulebook to conclude that reaction and free triggers provoke attacks of opportunity.