Jump to content

steelwulf99

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About steelwulf99

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  1. tallmike101 said: Well, we've definitely been playing the game wrong. I assumed it worked like Magic the gathering and every other card game I've ever played. I actually played her as the runner yesterday and I won, go figure.. although I also was using the draw a card each turn rule. Maybe I'll try to play her again as the corp with her NOT drawing. Thanks for the update, that may have been the problem afterall! Let us know how you go - I hope it works out for you like it did for my group
  2. tallmike101 said: Having only 3 clicks does not make things any easier either! This triggered something for me… my group felt the same way when we started until we realised we were making a huge mistake. The mistake was assuming the Runner got a free draw at the start of their turn. They do not. Runners are 4 actions per turn, any of which could be to draw a card. The Corp is 3 actions per turn, any of which could be to draw a card, and a compulsary draw. Once we figured that out the game got way better, and the Corp became lots of fun to play. The other tip is to recognise that ICE is just there to stall the Runner, the game itself is about bluffing; ideally you want the Runner to waste resources running when they have nothing to burn. If you just build one remote data fort and pad it with ICE you are just letting the Runner commit to a specific ingress route to deny you VP, and capture their own.
  3. Matias said: It's not so much a question of trying to avoid deck-building because it's hard. I have been playing CCG's for nearly 20 years, and are quite used to building decks. The things I'm trying to avoid are: 1. The decks being MY decks. I don't mind playing with a deck I designed myself. But my opponents (my wife and friends) are not going to play with decks they build themselves. I want to give them a chance to play with (or against) THE Shaper deck instead of MY Shaper deck. Having build both decks myself gives me an unfair advantage. 2. I don't want to use out-of-faction cards. Mostly due to concerns about theme, but also because I don't want to use the other decks for spare parts. I like having 7 fully functional decks. 3. The starter decks seems somewhat balanced against one another. I don't want to ruin that by rebuilding the decks. I get where you're coming from, particularly with point #1. As the only LCG/CCG player in my local player pool, I've had to struggle with this. Here's how I overcome it. 1. Expand your card pool so you can experiment. The 7 starter decks are satisfying you and your play group? Perfect - keep them as they are, and get a second core set. That, along with some expansions, will set you up to experiment. 2. To experiment with the expansions, take a starter deck from your second set, and remove a set of cards from it. That could be 1 card (Wyldside, perhaps), or 3 cards (Hedge Funds) - whatever. Replace those cards with an equal number of cards from the expansion. i.e. if the card you took out had two copies, you remove them both and you put back two copies from the expansion. 3. Be sure to stay like-for-like with regards to Faction. If you remove neutral, replace with neutral. If you remove Jinteki, replace with Jinteki etc. I reckon that'll meet your gamer needs for new toys, will give your players the opportunity to see new cards, and won't throw the game balance out of whack, nor will it kill the themes. It'll let you tweak, but it's nowhere near the realms of full-blown deck construction.
  4. BigBadBroloski said: The data pack came out… there is a full spoiler out there. This has been bugging me, so I just want to reply to get it out of my system. You say that more card spoilers would be a good thing. OK, that's fine, that's an opinion, as are the counter-arguments offered. In reality they are all expressions of individual viewpoints - the only facts available are: - Not all cards get spoiled before release - The company controlling the spoiler release has an established methodology which works for them, and which they adhere to There are no factual conclusions I can see which can be drawn from those premises (although some are more "right" than others; saying FF would be unlikely to change an established model which works for them is a pretty safe one, for example). Anyway, moving along. Once a data pack has been released, it has no spoilers. Everything is out in the wild, and able to be seen. So it has no bearing on if we should more, less, or the same spoilers in each data pack. TLDNR; rhetological fallacy - *** hoc ergo propter hoc
×
×
  • Create New...