Jump to content

Kaleithel

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kaleithel

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 09/09/1980

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cesena, FC, Italy
  1. Yes, sorry. I typed too fast... The Punisher has indeed 9 wounds. That's not the point I wanted to underline. I'll try and explain: the reason for this kind of nerf has to be an answer to overpowered starship, fact that results in a stagnant tournament meta. As Ynot correctly notes, the winning tournament lists are many, and quite different. This probably means that, after all, there wasn't such an unbalance among the different ships, when adequately moved and managed in-game. This is the first point. The second point is: even if there is such an unbalance, it is likely limited to one or two ships. In this case, maybe, we can assume that their problem is the excessive resilience, which leads to an anomalous capability to retain their point value while suffering a lot of wounds. The same amount of wounds, if applied to other ships, bring to the opponent a lot of victory points. That is, a VT-49 Decimator that costs, let's say, 50 points, needs 16 wounds to be destroyed, whilst one less wound would only take it to 1 remaining hull, awarding no victory point in the old rules. Conversely, 15 wounds are sufficient for killing 5 base Tie Fighters, with a cost of 60 points. This might seem unfair. It's true, you have to consider the agility value, that, in the previous example, makes the difference. We are confronting a large ship with 0 agility with 5 fighters with 3 agility. That said, killing the Decimator could nevertheless take an excessive time and I can understand the frustration of a player who gets no points while hitting and damaging this ship (or a YT, or a Slave) a lot. However, with the recent boost given to bombs, agility has lost some efficacy (and I have learned this at my own expense). BUT - third point - consider instead a more close comparison. Aggressor VS Tie Punisher. The latter only has 1 agility, but has a lower cost and one less wound. It resembles more a Firespray from this point of view, maybe. The point is, the difference among a Punisher and these two large ships is minimal. Why should be treated in such a different way, victory point-wise? Please think about the resilience of two Aggressor in a meta populated by bombers (K-wing and Punishers). I find a lot of reasons for not fielding the two robots in such an environment. Remember, also, that the 50% even includes the upgrades! Moreover: why nerfing every large ship, if the problem is only limited to some of them?
  2. The rule for the large ships (50% points for 50% suffered hits) is totally absurd. They should have modified it with a system based upon the number of total wounds (shields + hull). Let's say that a ship with 10 or more wounds (we could call it "armored" as a reminder) awards the opponent with the 50% of its point value if he manages to (at least) halve its wounds at the end of the game. The actual rule (while reasonable, if we consider ships like Decimator or YT) only hurts miniatures like the Aggressor, while awarding no point for damaging beasts like the new Tie Punisher.
  3. The rule for the large ships (50% points for 50% suffered hits) is totally absurd. They should have modified it with a system based upon the number of total wounds (shields + hull). Let's say that a ship with 10 or more wounds (we could call it "armored" as a reminder) awards the opponent with the 50% of its point value if he manages to (at least) halve its wounds at the end of the game. The actual rule (while reasonable, if we consider ships like Decimator or YT) only hurts miniatures like the Aggressor, while awarding no point for damaging beasts like the new Tie Punisher.
  4. Hello guys, Having played a little CoC when it still was a CCG, I am now trying to resume this wonderful game. At the moment, I only own a single Core set and the revised edition of Secrets of Arkham. Anybody can give me any suggestion for building two balanced decks using only the cards I own? (We really like mythos factions, but we are of course open to everything ) Thanks in advance for every kind advice you can provide!
  5. Remember that rotating and reprinting a part of the rotated stuff would accomplish both objectives, working effectively as an extreme restricted list while greatly reducing the amount of cards in game. The main goal would be to carefully look to the removed sets and choose to reprint in the 2.0 core set the 10-15 cards which can be useful for balancing the new format (such as the anti-shadows cards you are referring to). Unfortunately, I agree with the point that many problems are derived from the most recent cycles: that's, in fact, due to the long-term anti-rotation policy. For this reason, FFG has to print cards which are subsequently more and more powerful. A good, well-timed and clever rotation policy could avoid this and prevent similar problems in the future.
  6. I play AGOT since Valyrian edition (CCG), and recently have started to think that rotation is pretty much needed, for many reasons. Here there are some of them: Balancing and simplification: the Restricted List is way too long and variable across the months. FFG could shorten it a little by cutting the gigantic card list available (not only because the rotation would directly eliminate some of the restricted cards, but also because some of the non-rotated cards would have their power balance modified by the rotation itself). This would simplify very much restrictions and additional rules. Variety: FFG is almost forced to print new cards which become slightly more and more powerful than the older, sometimes "masking" this evidence with some malus (i.e. the Prized keyword, which sounds a little like a softened Doomed mechanic from Winter ed.). Rotation would put an effective limit to this trend. New player appeal: as many of you have already pointed out, new players can (and in fact are) discouraged by the quantity of available cards. This is true not only because of the initial money investment (a player of MTG would laugh hysterically), but also because of the number of cards a new player must learn to play competitively. This said, I feel that a right way to approach the rotation problem would be cutting down some cycles and the old core set (which is 80-85% obsolete) and reprinting a 2.0 core set, which could include some of the rotated cards. In this way, a new player could start with an updated pool of useful cards, while old players would already own every allowed card. This wouldn't exclude the possibility of some vintage-style tournaments with every card from the LCG, but I think these should be the exception, more than the rule. My 2 cents.
×
×
  • Create New...