Jump to content

ScottieATF

Members
  • Content Count

    2,982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ScottieATF

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Philadelphia PA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Allowing a situation where you start playing a card in order to get a card in your discard that you'll then use with an effect to pay for the card you are currently already paying for is going to be the more prone to future issues then forcing payment upfront in one uninterrupted by itself bundle. Also the interpretation that all of your resources go out at once for payment isn't a unique thing across CCGs or LCGs. FFG is prone to putting themselves in long term untenable situations but I think you have what would be an issue for them moving forward reversed in this case. Having Potts use a card currently being used to pay for the card being paid would be akin to an effect in Destiny giving you a resource when you spend 3 or more playing a card, playing a 4 cost card with 3 resources, geberate a new one off the effect and finish paying. That would he a messy thing to have. In this case it's as simple as none if the cards hitting the discard for Potts to recognize before the total bill has been paid.
  2. You made this thread, nobody sought you out for your opinion on the subject. If you didn't want that opinion to be challenged then why post it on a forum unsolicited?
  3. If that's FFGs read on what occured then they are flat out putting their head up their own butts. I demoed the co-op they previewed at Gencon alot. As a result I had a chance to talk the developers that were soliciting feedback. The feedback I and others gave was that they were just giving us an LOTR reskin. Now sameishness is always something leveled at FFG when they make a new game. And it's normally not a criticism I level at them. They have a style and the borrow some mechanics sure, but I don't think that makes the games reskins of each other. But the SW co-op was so similar to LOTR that my then LOTR playtest partner and I were immediately able to blow through all the scenarios they had to demo on our first run through them. Luke was a reprint of Core Legolas. And this was a common sentiment of those that we played and talked with that Gencon They laid an egg with that one and it's a shame if internally they don't have the perspective to understand that they just missed with the game, not the overall concept.
  4. It's almost like it's in no way exploitive at all.
  5. Yeah but by not doing so people can't assess the accuracy of what your saying. Because we don't know what you're referencing. You could be making an apples to apples comparison or an apples to tomatoes comparison. We as third parties can't respond to either agree with or rebut your comparison because we have near zero context to work from. Like where do they make products at. What's the price point. What's the scale of their production. What's the reach of their distribution. Etc.
  6. Why are you not naming the game you're referring to?
  7. It would but people would likely balk at the increase in prices.
  8. I don't post too much on this particular forum so you most certainly can't call be part of some sinister cabal of forum posters. You spent multiple pages making factual incorrect assertions trying to couch them as your opinion. When people told you that no 2+2 does not equal 5, you accused them of trying to stifle your opinion. Accusing you of trolling in this thread is other people giving you the benefit of the doubt on your posts.
  9. By not having invites pass down what you are encouraging is the exact type of behavior you are worried about. It encourages people to opt out of playing in top cut games because why would they want to deny invites to other people? This is doubly true once it goes invite only. You're going to have alot less climactic tournament ends because people are just going to concede games rather then burn invites. Now before you call that collusion, it isn't. Legion isn't a big community, people are going to be aware of if their opponent doesn't have an invite. There doesn't need to be any conversation for a player to concede so that their opponent gets the invite. FFG has also already stated their collusion rules as written aren't what they intended and they are looking to rework them as they are currently unenforceable.
  10. You just don't see it in single issue sales, which is an area in decline across the board. Ms. Marvel has sold best in trade and digital formats since her introduction. Which shouldn't be that surprising since she's a character introduced in 2014. That she would be consumed in a different format then character from the 60s shouldn't be a novel concept in anyway.
  11. And if they didn't accept it meekly you would do what exactly? Assault someone? We are talking about ethics here and this is the type of stuff you want to post, physically intimidating people at an event?
  12. Organized Play has already acknowledged that the way the Collusion rules are written does not accurately define what they would consider Collusion. What they have now is not remotely enforceable.
  13. What advantage are they gaining? They've already advanced. Matt Holland has also indicated that the section on collusion will be revisited as it current iteration isn't enforceable.
  14. In your rush to unnecessarily get on a soapbox did you not stop to look what characters are included in the box. Are you really trying to say that they didn't include staples in their core set when 4 of the 5 characters have had 1 or more billion dollar solo movies; two of which are Iron Man and Spiderman. The core set is all staple characters, except for 1. So honestly what are you even talking about in that regard?
  15. Eye of Agamotto, but yes it isn't the Infinity Gem. Just like the Cosmic Cube (Tesseract) isn't either.
×
×
  • Create New...