Jump to content

xbeaker

Members
  • Content Count

    467
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About xbeaker

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , 0, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That's the problem though. Nowhere does it say that unit gone => upgrade gone. Thematically, for example' the entire squad is under strict orders. That is why it doesn't matter who is issuing orders, or how far away they are each round for Strict Orders to apply. And in the classic "Do as the rules say, not as the rules don;t say" Nowhere we could find does it say that a unit removed from the battle removes it's upgrades. It says if a commander is removed, then you can't use their command cards. But not that their upgrades go away. And by virtue of that, there is a very strong argument that SO is still in play. It just so happens SO is the only upgrade I can think of that *could* be useful without the unit in play. I was just hoping someone could pinpoint a rule either way that we missed that would definitively show one way or the other.
  2. Also, you can only perform 1 attack action PER ACTIVATION, not per round. It is a key distinction which allows Palp to let units attack twice with Pulling the Strings. In theory if a unit has standby from DtG, and Palp is in play. They could get 3 attack actions in the same round. (standby, their activation then Palp's activation.)
  3. This came up in a game last night. If a commander with strict orders is defeated, does the card still function? My first instinct was no. But in reviewing the rules, we could find nothing that says the unit must be in play for the card to function. Since the commander with strict orders does not need to be the commander issuing the orders to function, it seems like the commander with the upgrade does not need to be in play for it to function.
  4. Both Rebel and Empire players should build a new army for act 2. Both are limited by any uniques killed in act 1. The Empire can build up to 950 points.
  5. xbeaker

    Downed AT-ST Act 2

    We are going into Act 2 this week and there is something I don't get.. What is the point of the Red player getting the 1 Victory at the start of each turn instead of just getting 6 Victory to start the game? I get that it is a defensive battle, and the red player gets the free points as their job is just to prevent the Blue player from scoring. But is there a reason the points are parsed out round by round? Is there a way to prevent the red player from getting their point?
  6. I made up a spreadsheet for this.
  7. Well, that much at least has been decided already. Only sanctioned store events will count. Were a deck effected by casual results it would be far too easy to modify a decks rating.
  8. I am a big fan of Dis/Shadow combos. I have a few of them, and what I believe to be my 3 strongest decks are all that combo. 2 are Dis Shadow Brobnar, 1 is Dis Shadow Logos. Martín the Allegedly Shadowy https://www.keyforgegame.com/deck-details/7fac3cba-5a19-468e-b94a-0deceed141d5 Christiansen the Thirsty https://www.keyforgegame.com/deck-details/33dcda60-04ea-4ba8-b1f0-49a5c02b56f7 Empress "Gray" Valiance https://www.keyforgegame.com/deck-details/8cf110b8-475e-4a51-9ca7-d76b3badac42 I don't have much play time with Empress "Gray" Valiance. I got her in a sealed deck tourney. I won 3 - 0 3 rounds of swiss. (small tourney obviously) the last player of the night was the only one who managed to forge even a single key against me. He was also the only person where I didn't have a strong Dis game. I can't say for sure if @Amanal and @Krashwire are correct about that being one of the best house combos because with so little time with the deck I can't be certain. Dis is the clear strength of that deck too, not Logos. But I will say that from what I have played, it may take the top spot in my deck list for sure!
  9. xbeaker

    Trading Decks?

    FFG is fine with trading decks based on everything I have seen. They even mention that chains stay with a traded or sold deck. So yeah, you can use a deck, then sell/trade it no problem. Though be sure the person who is receiving the deck knows if the Aember Shard has been claimed.
  10. If you want to play on www.TheCrucible.online you'll need to register your decks. It is a good way to get some practice, and if you are just itching for a game real quick.
  11. Ah, but you see there is also the counter argument. It prevents "an amount of damage", where the Shadow self absorbs all damage. It could go either way. As I said, I previously played it the way you describe, but in thinking about it, I changed my own mind haha.
  12. I said I agree with how you interpreted it. And that is how I have played it in the past. But the more I think about it, I think it was played correctly. It absorbs all damage, not overflow damage not prevented by the armor.
  13. I can't point you to the specific video, but I remember seeing something where they discussed chains and how if you sold or traded the deck, the chains would stick with it, potentially reducing its value. The also have mentioned the ebay listings and how outrageous they are. As they hold the copyright, I think they could get the Keyforge decks pulled from eBay if they had a problem with it. I could be wrong though. I'm not saying FFG has it in their business plan to feed a secondary market. But they seem pretty OK with it as a fact of life in this market. But opened decks at tourney do have one problem. When passing decks around it is very easy to lose cards. I was in a draft tourney at PAX (A lot of fun btw! ) and one of the players insisted we open the decks, not just read the backs. The Judge was not happy, and sure enough we nearly lost a few cards as people were quickly trying to read deck lists and pass decks around. I agree they should do what they can to limit fraud, but there are other options that are easier. I think yo misunderstood me here. I don;t think they need a second wrapper. Just put a black box on the plastic that already covers the deck inside the box. No change in manufacturing required. Just a change in the plastic. I'm a programmer in the printing industry. It's actually a pretty easy process. Yeah, no question here. Covering the QR code would have protected @Greenknight08 from losing Aember, but not from a deck that was opened, reviewed and replaced (I know this isn't assured what happened, but we are talking theoretical.) But a modification to the die which cuts the boxes would. Were the bottoms perfed in such a way that opening them would require damage to the perf, it would be impossible to reseal the deck in a convincing way. gluing flaps together is easy. gluing a perf back.. god luck! haha And again, this a very minor change to the production process. Dies are easily swapped out. They would just need to do some testing to make sure the perfs don't damage the integrity of the box under normal circumstances. I think flipping the archon should be a last ditch option. I really liked the draft tourney, and like the security that a plastic wrapped deck is complete.
  14. I agree this is an incorrect play of the applied damage. You should have soaked the damage leaving both the knight and shadow alive. That being said, there is a clear interpretation the other was as well that is plausible... As the armor is absorbing the damage, it is not adding damage to the armored creature. But the damage is still being applied in some form. The Shadow self it kind of an all encompassing ability. It doesn't specify damage tokens, just damage in general. It attracts ALL the bullets, not just the ones that would have pierced your armor. It wants to leave your armor undamaged too! I won't be surprised it FFG rules that the way the crucible is interpreting it is correct.
×
×
  • Create New...