Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hyperion_pb

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lyon, Rhône-Alpes, France
  1. Corey is credited as "Executive Game Designer" though. It looks like many people from FFG gave a hand in this game.
  2. Many thanks for all that. From what I saw, the game will a a pleasant and different feeling from the older Decipher game, and also from various existing LCGs. This looks good!
  3. Incidently, after looking a little bit at Darksbane spoiler list, the Rancor vs. Redemption (of any other vehicule) is solved: its special capacity appears toi read as: "Force Reaction: after you refresh, destroy the lowest cost non-Vehicule in play"… Now, I don't see any issue with the non division of vehicules / characters. There are specific situations that are dealt with specific traits in the game. This is great! And this will definitely gives the game a different feeling from the old Decipher's SW game.
  4. It is a new game, published by KOSMOS in german at the same time (and others publishers in other tongues). I don't know which company has the original license. Anyway, there are some details, including a link toward the german rulebook, here : http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/126444/the-hobbit-card-game
  5. I also really like the idea; it means that you can begin to play from scratch at any point of the evolution of the game, without any need to go through a great amount of individual cards. This is good for casual gamers ; this is good to play with your own copy against friends who are not involved in the game on the long run ; this is good also because it forces player to think about how the play of the sets would go together (instead of trying to find one or two killer combos that will drive all the deck) ; this is good also because it puts more emphasis on play skill, instead of on available free time to build deck before play… Good article on the blog, by the way.
  6. dbmeboy said: The question is: will the "neutral" faction objectives still be tied to light side or dark side? I'm not sure we have enough information to do anything but guess at this point… We have some information: the core set is supposed to arrive with 117 cards for each side (not counting the "Attuned to the Force" cards). This is an indication that Light Side and Dark Side have different backs. Also, there should be two faction decks in this core set; however the count is not 60 * 2. It is easy to assume that there are only 19 Objectives and their associated pack of cards. I guess that it could be between 6 and 8 of the two faction per Side + some neutrasl + one or two additional factions that do not have a full deck. The 3 remaining cards could be the faction cards.
  7. About this only issue which bothers me, the fact that land-oriented personna or creatures could affect spaceships, the more I think, the more it seems to me that the simplest solution would be sound: let us have 2 possible (optional) traits, one "Land" and one "Space", and make a rule that prevents a "Land" unit/character/creature/whatever put damages to a "Space" card, and conversely, a "Space" card would be prevented to put damages to "Land" cards. If a unit has none of these two traits, it can affect all types of units. The two traits are to be understood as "exclusiveley Land / Space"; possibly, this could also prevent "damages" against Objectives having the opposite trait; or putting "focus" token (even though, for the last category, it is not necessary; for instance, it is easy to imagine that a "Land" spy or commando could disable for a while a "Space" fleet). The famous Rancor card would be "Land" and the different spaceships would be "Space" (not the fighters, as they can easily be on Land and, if committed ni the same battle as a Rancor, you have to assume that it has been tampled…) and that solves the "Rancor vs. Redemption" thing. I even would be glad that C3PO be "Land", or even Yoda so as to avoid him destroying the Coruscant fleet by himself. Reserving the "Land" and "Space" traits to units purely in this domain would also avoid the problem of the Decipher SWCCG: usual units can battle against any unit; only specific ones are restricted (and this is only against specific enemies). Would that solve this (perceived) issue ?
  8. TheRealLeo said: My interpretation of the posts above was that people wanted objectives that could be advanced, not destroyed. In other words, when they come into play, only the owner could cause them to leave play by advancing them, while the opponent could do nothing but hinder their completion. I was just saying that would be bad for the reasons I mentioned above. If that's not what was being suggested, then it wasn't quite clear. I think that the suggestion was to keep the possibility of destroying (or preventing) enemy objectives while having some of them which you can advance and complete for some bonus. The idea of the current design that you can (or even have to, for the Light Side) attack and destroy enemy objectives is sound andok for a Star Wars theme and should not be changed. The discussion is on two things : whether a kind of timer should exist for the Dark Side ; and whether the objectives should serve only as targets (for the enemy) and assets, or if they could also be completed in some way. For me, the best would be to keep the Dark Side timer (as it would put pressure to get the game going on), and to add this completion feature to objectives.
  9. For me, not being disturbed by the small asymmetry of the game, the pod deck-building system or the "Commit to the Force" thing, my main bad feeling about the demo of the game is about the Character vs Spaceships battles. Star Wars is by essence very thematic, and we should have thematic games… Hence, finding a way to have a battle which does not mixed Character battles and Space battles in a nonsense way, would be better. I also have problem with Rancor battling against Spaceships… My suspension of disbelief does not go that far. It's a good thing to avoid havind completely separate battlefields like in the SWCCG of Decipher, because it has many drawbacks (issues when both sides have decided one on a Space deck, the other on a Land deck; issues in mixed decks if you do not draw fast enough one type of the cards, and so on). I have no problem having Luke's card defeating an Imperial Star Destroyer: let's assume it was leading a squadron of X-wing! It's ok also to have Vader participates in a Space battle (as we can see him doing that in the movies). However, there should be some limits: some cards not able to destroy or affect others. I don't buy Yoda defeating the Coruscant Defense Fleet, or the well-known Rancor eating the Redemption… I hope that traits on the cards could be enough to correct this aspect.
  10. About the conditions for a Win, I have personally no problem with the difference between Light Side and Dark Side win conditions, and the slight asymmetry it provides (nothing like NetRunned though). Thematically, having the Dark Side win by default (because their influence is spreading with immense means across the galaxy) whereas for a win, the Light Side must strike a decisive blow at the heart of the Empire or defeat its main schemes to stop the DS and the Empire, feels right. Episode IV is all about the LS having to fight in an hopeless situation, only to "win" because of an audacious run against the Death Star. Episode VI plays rougly the same (with 2 parallels undertaking that should have no hope of success if it were not heroic undertaking: Luke in confrontation of Vader and the Emperor; The Rebel Alliance trying to destroy DS2). Hence, thematically, the DS victory counter is not bad. Gamewise, I hope that it would work so that it 's not a too great incentive for the Dark Side to remain on a defensive stance. I agree that I am not certain about the fact that winning the Force Balance gives DS a 1 tick bonus for their timer, is a geat incentive to win this Balance, and just keep the rest of the cards in defense, waiting for 6 turns to pass… I trust the designers to avoid this issue, as we all would like the DS to be also compelled to work out their own plans and assaults (clearly, in Episode V, the DS drive their own plans). However, I liked reading this thread because one of my first suggestions for design development was to have not only Objectives that count as targets for the enemy and resources (and assets) for your own side, but also (some, not all) Objectives that on can fulfill. In a previous post, I even proposed that a simple mechanisme would be to let a player make an attemps against one of its objectives, with the other side trying to thwart that. The ideas published above are good ideas! Anyway, having yet to see definite previews of the game, I will let the designers and playtesters do their jobs…
  11. MarthWMaster said: I really hope they're not expecting completionists to buy two of every Force Pack. That could seriously kill this game for me. Given 60 cards per Pack as in some of the previous LCGs, it means 10 groups (pods) of cards (5 per side ?). It should easily mean that there is room for duplicated groups in a given Pack. For instance, with 1 unique group and 2 duplicated ones per Side, that amounts to 36 new cards per Pack, which is already in the high range of new cards per Pack for a LCG. To avoid having too many new cards per Pack and still having a correct number of cards per Pack, I guess that duplicating non-unique pods should be the rule.
  12. Thinking again about the "pack" deck-building system (or is it "pod" ?), I like more and more this idea. On top of some aspects already discussed (access to the game made easier to casual players ; less time devoted to build decks, more to play ; possibly lower number of un-used cards), the fact that the themes can be build in the packs is good for this game, it would increase the thematic coverage -- an important feature for all Star Wars games!
  13. It's sure that, having more concrete details for FFG would help. On many forum, including this one, this future game is attracting a lot of negative comments because of the shift from last year demo and expectations (or beacuse of the "pack / pod" deck-building or the comparison with the Decipher SW CCG) that it does not deserve. It would be time for this game to attract positive comments based on actual news…
  14. Thanks for the new details about he expansion. This game was a little bit underrated and I hope that the expansion will beef it up so that it obtains the recognition it deserves.
  15. Mundane said: I think the pod concept sounds like it could be an interesting way to build a deck. I look forward to the previews to see how it works in practice. And there is nothing stopping you from doing traditional deck building in casual games with friends. Just house rule it that you can ignore the pod rules when building your deck. I stand on the same line. House ruling that one could use old-fashioned deck building is fine. On the other hand, I think it's a good idea to propose a new approach at deck building, a more constrained one where you need to learn to use every card -- even potentially weaker ones -- and find hidden synergies during play between reputed weak cards of different pods. I like that idea. If I can draw a parallel, playing a lot of wargames: there are Card-Driven Games out there where the set of cards is fixed once for all, and the metagame of how to use well these cards is actives years after the games were first out (I am thinking of "For the People" or "Empire of the sun", for instance). My feeling is thet the newly proposed game have the potential for an interesting metagame, combining deck-building metagame and use metagame (I hope what I say is understandable!).
  • Create New...