Penfold3
-
Content Count
1,180 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Penfold3
-
-
A card that is self-referential lowers itself. A card that creates a condition to lower sub-types but does not refer to itself by name does not. It isn't really a case of the rules of English so much as the rules CoC-ish.
-
Greyjoy mill cards should be under-costed. If Sea Raiders discarded a card or two when they came into play I'd play them all the time.
-
FATMOUSE said:
ZombiePrime said:
I like the idea of having KotS re-released, I just wished they did it sooner as I got my second copy of KotS for Christmas. Oh well.
Re-releasing it after the Holidays was probably done purposely.
Also, I doubt the Core Set will ever be released 3x. One, it was just re-released not too long ago. Second, it would increase entry cost; making new players less likely to "join." Lastly, it's suppose to be an introduction to the game. That said, it is annoying (and costly) having to get one or two more sets when odds are you're only interested in one or two Houses, and already have enough power, gold, and plastic tokens to play the game.
I'm pretty sure that is what the expansions are really intended for. Rather than buying multiple core sets to build decks you buy the expansions for the house(s) that appeals most to you.
-
I also read Tyrion as Peter Dinklage. He is a briolliant actor and I've been a fan of his since I first came across him (Threshold).
The thing is Cersei needs to NOT be an evil person. In her mind she is a loving mother and truly her father's daughter. She believes that if she were a man no one would ever question her and she would not have to use intermediaries to get what she wants, she would have the presence and sword arm to just take it.
Everything she does she does because she thinks it is what is best... for her and therefor what is best for everyone who matters. She is a narcissist with delusions of grandeur. Not evil. And that is what truly makes ehr character scary and tragic. If Robert had called out her name the first time they laid together, if he had been faithful, and treated her with respect and defference, she may have been a very different person. Still vain. Still a narcissist, but definitely different.
The genius of George knows no bounds.
-
No, actually it isn't. It is called diversity in effect. A card that is triggered and a card that is pssive/constant but have similar effects are decidedly exploring different design space.
-
At some point you have to remember this is a game. There is no way to make the gods FULLY faithful to the mythos and at all playable. Cthulhu enters play and the game is over. Period. To say nothing of the Blind Idiot God Azathoth. He enters play and you win. Every game. Forever.
At some point the developers have to put game play ahead of the theme with something like this.
-
I'm behind the ban. Though I don't find it logically inconsistent that someone may be against this ban but still be pro-spot banning versus rotation. The turn in the argument is based on whether you feel this card was warping the environment and stifling development or if players had not yet fully explored the options of dealing with the decks that keyed on this card.
IOW personal opinion is still going to llow someone to be pro-spot ban and against banning of some cards.
I don't believe the player base really had fully explored the options available to beating out the Wilding deck... but it was definitely warping the meta-game in an unhealthy fashion so I approve.
There gets to be a point where if everyone is collectively deciding that wilding is the most powerful and so everyone should play it or build specifically against it that wilding decks are over-represented in tournaments and the non-wilding decks tend to be too narrowly focused to handle the non-Wilding decks as such don't make the final cut and everyone points to the tournament results as proof of what they already expected to see, unaware that they caused it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In this case... I disagree with that argument. Ithink that they really were ridiculously strong, and that while I think a couple of deck types could have been explored that would have beaten them and still done well in the field, it would have required our best builders to make such a deck and our best players to pilot it to get any real traction , and that sort of reinforces the idea that getting rid of tBotFM was the correct decision.
Wow. I hope that made sense. Too much coffee.
-
It is pretty clear that they will not reprint anything x3 that has not sold out. Yuggoth Contract being relatively new means you have a year or more before it si likely to even be considered, probably two before it happens. Skip the cycle unless you find it in your local game store or a really great deal on it. If you find after playing for a while you really need some cards from that cycle for a specific deck or two then you can hunt them down, otherwise it isn't that big of a deal.
-
Tokhuah said:
Pose Mundane: Interesting because the word template on this one would indicate the destruction phrase as NOT being a cost... Intentional? Any input Professor?
It is an Then statement, meaning the second part can only happen if the first is successful.
-
Rogue30 said:
So after years of shadow mechanic, months of waiting for answer (including getting incorrect and confusing one), and after all those discussions I still don't know how Dragon Skull work. Good job FFG!
What is the confusion about how Dragon Skull works? You bring it out of shadows, you attach it to a character who gets -2 STR and who is killed if its STR is 0. If you can't attach it, Dragon Skull is discarded.
An attachment coming out of Shadows is not played on a card, it attaches as a passive or response to it being brought out of Shadows. Is that the part you don't get?
-
KLERIKAL_HELL said:
Acording to rules it is correct.But this rules make YS usless because ther are many better ways to play spells from discard piles(CHANT of THOT for example).So lets vote for YS can play UR .
So basically what you are saying is that because the rules don't work the way you want for a card you want to just ignore them? *shrug* I guess you certainly can. Don't be surprised if people outside of your group and tournaments don't do that. Nothing wrong with a house rule, you just have to remember that only the people who play iun your house can be expected to play the game the same way.
-
Oh. My bad.
-
That loop-hole regarding setup seems to have been closed...
(3.20) Attachment Restrictions
Any attachment that has a restriction (such as
"Lord or Lady only" or "attach to an opponent's
character") is immediately discarded
from play at any time that restriction is not
met, regardless of immunity. Such restrictions
are constant effects, and the attachment should
be immediately discarded any time a restriction
is not met including during setup. -
Husemann said:
I saw a few examples from the last sets given. A set comes out, most people jump to it, and it dominates the environment for a while until the next big set comes out. The point of those examples are that it has happened twice now. In a row. If we consider it a trend, where do you believe the next set will take us? I very much dislike that about this game and that is why I agree with Fatmouse. (My opinion of course.)
But this has always been the way of CCG's any time a new mechanic or theme is introduced. The first thing is people start narrowly looking at cards that can go into existing decks, then there is a big kerfluffle and people start building decks around whatever the new mechanic is. IF the mechanic/theme is well done it is instantly competitive (in LCG upon full release). If it is poorly done it is ignored or becomes the only thing that CAN be played. There are people who time tested and proven mechanics/builds to play the new hotness. And then it settles down and people either go back to those old mechanics/themes or find ways to fuse them.
I'm not sure you can say the existence of themes is pushing the game in the wrong direction. That has yet to come anywhere close to having been proven. I think a much better argument can be made about players responses to themes, and just new cycles in general. When was the last time someone here went through all of their Clash of Arms cards to see if there is something that with the expanded card pool would be an excellent card to include in a deck or build around? Do most people look at the newly released cards and try to see what is hot and captures their eye and just go from there?
I'm not condemning one form or saying that the other is better, just that you can see how a player approaches deck building and thinks about the card pool in general is going to greatly effect what cards get chosen and what decks get built. Perception becomes reality... for them.
How much can we hold development responsible for player reactions and choices when it comes to jumping on a bandwagon? Do we have them give up themes and new mechanics entirely because people will instinctively gravitate to the newest toys? And that said, what about the fact that this is what will happen anyway when a new set comes out with no specific mechanic? Older sets will get pushed out as new come in. When the new are themed in some fashion it can create a more varied environment (note Wildings are a definite aberration in my mind) because not every one wants to play a raider deck, an unopposed deck, a winter denial deck... but some people will, and the end result is decks in a single house that do play differently some fully committed, some splashed.
-
Magnus Arcanis said:
Question 1: No. I know what Marius said in his article, but the guy is mortal and is capable of making mistakes. X must = 0. Cause if you didn't pay anything to play the card.. by effect, X should be set to 0. Being able to set the value to whatever you want just doesn't make any sense.
Happy Holidays
This is correct. X is a variable number. When the check is made it is looking for the amount actually paid, not potentially played. 0 is paid so 0 is what you get.
-
Dice rolling? Ugh. The only use for dice in a TCG should be as counters.
-
Or maybe I didn't address those points because they aren't something I was interested in debating at that moment. I chose the part that bothered me, passing judgment on a cycle that he hasn't seen. As I pointed out the examples we have of this in the LCG are vastly different from each other in scope and style and as such there is little that can be determined about how the designers are going to implement a trait themed cycle from a couple of articles from marketing (since the whole point of marketing is to try and build a buzz on something new and different, even if it is not the sets most powerful or game changing feature from a long time players perspective).
But lets talk about the expansions... Who are these marketed towards? What purpose do they serve from FFG's perspective, which from the comments I'm reading here, compared to the verbage on the box and on the inserts of these boxes, do not seem to match the perspectives of some of the players here.
Perhaps these boxes are being done in this fashion because that is their purpose to keep a second "core set" like set of cards available for the houses further enhancing basic themes for them. Perhaps the point of the cycles is to explore the nooks and crannies of Westeros allowing all kinds of players access to cards they are going to resonate with on some level, if not every cycle, at least every few cycles, while still providing cards that are useful in multiple deck types.
People can talk about how the books are all about the Great Houses, but they are about so much more than just that. They are about the Night's Watch and their duty to the wall, protecting the land from both the Wildings and the Others. Considering a fair amount of time is spent with Jon Snow not just A view point character, but one of the most popular, and obviously one of the central characters and main protagonists of the series, FFG would be remiss to ignore such an iconic setting and the friends and foes who fight over the wall. Casual players the world over would be wondering when they got a chance to re-enact the battles the book details.
This game is far larger than the competitive world so many of us think of.
What if things were reversed? 55 cards twice a year to explore all the interesting parts of Westeros that was not specific to the Great Houses. That could work I suppose since it would actually be about the same or more cards than the current scheme... though it does start to bring up other questions, such as how do you introduce and support new mechanics into the game if they are supposed to be only done so in these box sets? Would people buy the boxed sets if they only contained the theme cards. Lets face it, what is best for the game is for FFG to still see a nice profit from AGoT and thereby see worth in continuing to print cards. I'm a creative type, marketing was something I studied a fair bit in school. No company is going to make a product that does not look like it will turn a sizable profit. They would always be better off putting their time and resources in a project with better returns.
As to whether I would have told FATMOUSE to rein it in if he went so far as to start a thread titled, "Mono-theme Cycles are What Makes this Game Great" Yes I absolutely would have. You don't know me at all. I am a pragmatist. I believe in analyzing and critiquing things that I can actually see and prove before making judgments. I caution those who don't.
As to Finitesquare... *shrug* don't know him. His statements could be read either way. I certainly took them to be a case of he didn't think FM had to be a playtester to make his points, I didn't say that he did necessarily, but that is the only way he would know what is in the next set and without that everything is supposition. If it is supposition then I can ignore it as irrelevant to proving his general hypothesis unless he puts great stock in it himself. In which case it is good to point out that it is supposition, not fact and as such, there is no real point in addressing it, refuting it, or using it as support for an argument.
So then what we have is mono-themed cycles pushing the game in the wrong direction. Mono-themed cycles would be seasons. I don't agree that it was bad for the game. Generally speaking most people said there was not enough season tech for there to be competitive builds for each house... due to the amount of non-season dependent cards in the cycle. Shadows. Well again a large portion of the cards were not actually Shadow dependent, and a lot of the cards that did feature the Shadow crest did not interact with any other cards in or out of shadows, allowing them to fit into any pre-existing decks, and we saw further development of existing themes in that cycle some of which also had a shadow crest. Either way you count it, either King's Landing was not a mono-themed deck and is irrelevant to the discussion or it was and included support for existing builds and House strengths or offered new avenues of approach while still putting up a new mechanic and it is a refutation of the premise.
So lets take a look at Defenders of the North. We have Dire Wolf Support, Noble Support, Bara Rush Support, Greyjoy Discard support, Stark Defense Support, Martell Control support, Draw, attachment control, Targ burn, all without having to buy into the NW or Wilding deck type. This argument is looking weaker and weaker.
Brotherhood without Banners, with a few arguable Houses, the mono-themed trait support seems to have come out pretty good over all, opened up a new deck type with some interesting characters from the books and done so without forcing everyone to use the titular Brotherhood characters. Now if you dislike all the mechanics for the House cards I can see why you'd be peeved, but lets face it, those same cards could have seen print without the traits and had the same mixed reaction, but lacked any cohesive fluff to tie them together.
I have yet to see a mono-themed cycle that pushed the game in the wrong direction... but I do agree that ATfR was not the best of sets as far a number of good cards that didn't involve the season mechanic, and those that did being to restrictive for general use, and I agree that Wildings are much too strong. First Blood is a definite problem (though there are other cards that I'd have been happy being a bit weaker as well). I still don't see that as proof that mono-themed cycles are pushing the game in the wrong direction.
-
Hey, I call them like I see them. If he is going to stand by his statements and not refute those implications I have every write to call him on them. But you don't like me saying that someone is acting douchey, fine. His posts on this topic are derisive, opprobrious, unctuous, caustic, headlong, enervating, and yarrish. Is that better?
Tom, if you want FFG to take notice of something and address your concerns man... flies and honey, my friend, flies and honey. Also possibly pissing off someone employed full time in the industry you want to be a part of, who works for one of the biggest companies in the hobby gaming industry in the US, is probably not the smartest route to get from 'I'm trying to design a game on my own' to 'I design award winning games for a living.'
I'm guessing like most niche industries there is a fair amount of interaction between a lot of the companies, and a google search of a perspective employee has pretty much become par for the course these days. Is this what you want to pop up at your first interview for a game publisher?
-
I'm pretty sure a father can always legitimize his own natural born child and name him heir if he chooses. I believe the King and royal decree is the only way for a bastard to be legitmized by someone other than their father.
-
Mathias Fricot said:
Penfold, the issue is (basically) this:
Seasons came out, and everyone played them. If you didn't then you had a really hard time competing.
Shadows came out, and everyone played them. If you didn't then you had a really hard time competing.
Wildlings came out, and everyone played them. If you didn't then you had a really hard time competing.
Maesters is coming out. Do you think everyone will play them? Do you think it will be hard to compete with them?
I never used seasons, didn't see the need for it. Still won in my meta a reasonable amount in joust and melee. I'm certainly not the top player in that group, but I am above average.
I had a shadows deck, but it was not as good as my non-shadows deck. Unless you mean have no shadow cards in which case I did frequently have 2-6 cards with a shadow crest in most of my decks.
I'm still not using wildings or night's watch. The wilding theme is just annoying to me. NW too meh. I'm suffering against wildings in joust, but melee not so much.
I will probably play maesters since Martell is one of my main houses and they have a few maesters i really enjoy... but I doubt I'll hop on board full steam with an all maester themed deck unless it is cool. By that I mean interesting, fun, and competitive. That is where wildings fail. They aren't interesting or fun.
I should also apologize to FATMOUSE. My last post was much more dismissive and possibly condescending in tone than I was "saying" it. So for that. What I mean is that we disagree. I think your reasons for feeling that you can go out as far as you did make no sense to me and so I won't continue to try and discuss it, because I'm sure my stance and reasoning behind probably makes little sense from your POV as well.
I will happily continue discussing the other elements of your and everyone else's posts.
-
Am I really being unreasonable based on what the game has shown us so far? I don't think so. I also don't think it's wrong for me to express early criticism of this cycle, nor do I think it's wrong to do it on these forums.Sorry, you just lost all credibility in this argument for me with this phrase.
How can you feel that early criticism is warranted to this level when you have not even seen the contents of the first pack? I mean good lord this is the kind of crap that gets titled "nerd-rage."
I mean if you had said, "I'm disappointed to see another cycle themed on traits rather than themed on a broader Westeros concept" I could at least see your post as having a salient point. You instead practically condemn the entire cycle off a few spoilers put out by the marketing department with no knowledge what-so-ever about the contents of the cycle or the direction of development.
I'm not going to continue with this. You feel that based on two previous cycles based around a trait you know precisely how this one is going to turn out, ignoring that those two cycles varied from each other wildly. You could be right, but you don't know that and can't prove it. I'll wait until the cycle is released before I pass any judgments on it and how it is pushing the game in the wrong direction.
-
I fundamentally disagree. Comparing anything pre-LCG to LCG is flawed. The game is substantially different in design philosophy. Pre-LCG has more gold, search, and draw available to it and cards that were easy to trigger and had much stronger effects with little to no meaningful drawback. You just don't see those kinds of cards printed on a regular basis for every house the way it was in the LCG.
If the problem is specific cards get rid of those cards.
Sure restricting someone to 3 cycles of material is a way to limit degenerate decks, but it is also a way to to force the designers into a holding pattern of ideas. Every three cycles you need to have certain themes or mechanics revisited so each player can have the feedom to play what they want or you ignore it entirely and realize you can never include any real additional support for any theme. It all has to come out in that same 3 cycle block or for practical purposes you've missed your window.
I wouldn't want to design under those constraints. Whatdoes that do to FFG's bottom line? If I have a deck from a two years ago that hits on all cylinders why would I continue to collect other cards I know would not ever be able to be used in my deck?once I did decide that a new segment of cards had enough stuff for me to build a deck I liked better than what I am playing those cards become pretty worthless to me.
Does FFG start reprinting past sets in some sort of collectors box that lets the themes carry forward? Doesn't that in the end defeat the entire purpose of the segmented cycle format?
Meh. I'm not enthused by it all.
P.S. that previous post was directed more towards Rings. Sorry about the lack of quotation.
-
I don't see how someone could be pro-rotation which is banning entire cycles and against spot bans on the cards that restrict design space.
I mean what would be the point of banning something like House Dayne Knight? How does that in anyway give an old school Martell player from 2008 an advantage over a player from 2018?
Theoretically one could build a "best-of" deck, but the reality is that if cards are costed appropriately who could afford a deck full of 5-3 cost super character cards like the Viper, Beric, and Varys? When we end up with cards that become unbalanced because of the cost/benefit ratio then rotate that single card. Or the one which enables them to be played with minimal risk or investment.
The limited format also being discussed is beter than full set rotation, but At what point do you see this being needed and how many stes? Do we include the expansions in that? What about the Core Set.
-
@FATMOUSE - I disgaree. I like the themes and mechanics explored. I can have a deck that completely ignores Seasons and there were several cards in each house that was not involved with seasons that could (and did) find there way into decks. Same with KLE. CoA was interesting in the exploration of the effects of War on Westeros, but outside of a handful of cards significant portions of it doen't see play now. Why? Is it because it is no longer the new hotness?If so then that is our faults as players, not the development team.
Are you a play tester? Have you seen all the cards in the Maester cycle? IF so then you probably should have spoke up during play testing. If not then you have no idea how pervasive the theme is, how dependent the house cards are going to be on maesters and chains, and basically should just wait until you see what is actually released.
Just over a third of the cycle is either a Wilding or Night's Watch card or in some fashion interacts off those traits, including the Agendas and plot. I don't see that is really being that much of an issue especially when you look at some of those cards being reasonable cards to include in at least a couple of social decks not based solely on the Wilding/NW theme.
Now if you don't like the themes I get why they are an issue. If you are not a fan of the what they do, I get that. But the very fact they exist you feel is pushing the game in the wrong direction?
I can't agree with that. And it sounds like most people don't either. Implementation of something in a fashion you don't like, sure, but the concept is what you seem to feel is flawed (going by the title as your thesis statement and the post being your supporting evidence).
Intervention and Safe-House
in CoC Rules Discussion
Posted
Of course any effect that would make an insane character ready would also by necessity restore it. Nothing comes to mind that does that, but who knows what will be released in the future.