Jump to content

wishasc

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    37

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by wishasc

  1. Posted

    With my kid-centric life (4y/o, 8m/o), I think I'm going to sell myself out of this game.

     

    Is there a good marketplace to sell my collection?  I've traded things before on bgg, but not sure that there's much interest there for card games.

     

    Any ideas?

  4. Posted

    What am I missing...or is this set just not that good?

     

    Endless Reserves + 5x Vast Resources

     

    It seems like there must be something I'm missing here, but within the current pool of cards, how is this objective set useful?  The Objective seems to have such a narrow focus and Vast Resources seems to be very limited because multiple copies don't stack.

     

    Perhaps there are future cards that will make use of this, but I'm having trouble understanding how I would want to put this OS in a deck in lieu of any other OS.

  6. Posted

     

     

     Ok that makes sense now - sorry just took a moment to sink in =)

     

    The only card effect that the Executor is immune to are those that specifically say "target an emeny unit" - correct? 

     

    If it doesn't specifically say "target an enemy unit" then the Executor is not immune. 

     

    Am I understanding it correctly now?

     

     

    This is a common problem for LCGs/CCGs.  I don't mean this in a rude way, sometimes you have to stop thinking logically and read strictly what the cards say.

  9. Posted

     

    I've played 15 or so games of Star Wars as of yet and I'm enjoying it so far.
    However, when it comes to deck building, I find it rather odd that in order to build a multi-faction deck, it's best to choose the minor faction affiliation card to assure resources matching is not going to be a problem on turn 1, as well as being forced to only splash the minor faction to at most three objectives (because of the ability to choose 3 out of 4 objectives at the start of the match).
    Not only do I find it annoyingly non-thematic but it also can limit the player in a way he cannot choose a faction-limited objective set from his "main" faction. Keep in mind that I only got around 15 games under my belt (against the same opponent), but I'd like to know the reasoning behind this decision. Is it a balance thing? It seems only a crutch to me, limiting deck building for no good reason.
    I've played around with the idea of house ruling the affiliation cards, so that they can generate one resource of any faction of their respective side (light/dark). They are unique from other cards anyway, seeing how they're indestructible but only provide one resource I don't see this house ruling as game breaking. On the plus side, it would at least guarantee the player to play one card of any faction in a turn, as well as letting the player choose the faction he actually wants to be. I think this falls in line with the overall feel and fast pace of the game (being "mana screwed" is not really a thing by design in this game, I think). 
    However, I'd love some feedback on this idea by more experienced players than me.
     
    The other thing I dislike, also in conjunction with multi-faction decks, is the completely random nature of replacing an objective after it has been destroyed. I feel there should be some choice involved, they're objectives after all, and the game gives you a choice 3 out of 4 at the start of the match at least. So I'm thinking: Replacing an objective by drawing two and choosing one, discarding the other back into the objective deck. Implications, thoughts?  
     
    Any feedback is appreciated.

     

    I think being "mana screwed" totally is a part of this game in a similar fashion to MtG.  There are now plenty of cards to make a single-faction deck in six different flavors, but you're almost always going to be better off using a mix of two factions.  The balance between the number of objectives for each faction is a fundamental part of the game.

     

    I think you can make anything a house rule, but when you leave the house, you have to fix your decks.

    GroggyGolem reacted to this

  14. Posted

     

    From Nate:

    Ahh, yes. I answered a question about whether or not the two effects can be used in conjunction with one another. I overlooked the "to a minimum of 1" on Kuat Reinforcements. The reduction can only go down to cost 1.

     
    Just an error in what I thought was being asked, and because the card text was not in front of me when I replied.

     

     

    And then further clarification:

     

    Going one step further with this. Using a card with a built in minimum on it, like Kuat Reinforcements, implants that minimum regardless of the order.

     
    For instance, if I used Kuat Reinforcements once, it does 2 things: reduces the cost by 1, and implants a minimum of 1 as the absolute lowest that card's cost can be reduced to.
     
    If I had another, theoretical reducer that was an interrupt, that said something like "Reduce the cost of the card by 8," I could use it, but the "minimum of 1" would still be in effect, and I could not reduce any further.
     
    So the question of what comes first is moot, if any of the effects have planted a minimum, it must be observed.

     

    I agree with the whole timing interpretation that other reducers are in effect before Kuat's interrupt, but I don't think the card is saying that it could not be further reduced to zero by some later (not-currently-in-existence) interrupt reducer.

  16. Posted

    I think the point of capturing is that it's a less costly way to remove problematic cards from your opponent.  Some cards have the ability to capture something every turn (Z-95, Boba enhanced).  There's even an objective or an enhancement that lets you start discarding captured cards so they probably don't return.  Captured cards give bonuses to various cards.

     

    The downside of all this ability is that your opponent has a reasonable chance to get things back to his hand by destroying objectives.

  18. Posted

    1. I enjoyed the show.  I appreciate moments when you talk about an objective set and take a moment to read off the cards in the set.  While I'm familiar with every set...and could rattle off all cards of some of them.  I don't know them all and the little reminders are nice.

     

    2. I like to hear people talking about and playing different decks.  I think that the card pool is limited enough that there are a few deck constructions that are likely to stand out...but it's frustrating that forum-goers are so quick to dismiss every configuration that is not the one they use.

     

    3. Episode 6 doesn't appear to be listed in iTunes...at least not within Apples Podcasts app.  I'm not asking for a troubleshoot, just bringing to your attention.

  19. Posted

     

    I run 6/4 splits pretty regularly.  There's a 1/200 chance of getting resource locked out the gate.  I'll probably get screwed at some point, but it hasn't happened yet.

    but then you have the Times that you draw 3 of your lesser affiliated objectives and 1 of your main, so your stuck with a single resource for your higher represented faction. not an auto loss as with being resource locked, but can certainly put a damper on things. I was running the smugglers cavern deck for a while and I would get 3 S&S objectives and a single Jedi objective pretty regular and that really hurts when you need to put out multiple Jedi units/enhancements/events and only have a single resource.

    having said that, a 6/4 split is acceptable, just be prepared for a tough game every once in a while.

     

    That's been my issue.  Yes, there's a very low chance of not drawing any of your "main" affiliation objectives, but having just 1 resource generating of your main affiliation likely results in losing the game.  Considering scattered neutrals, 50% of your command cards may have to be played from a single resource.

  20. Posted

     

    To conserve space, I have usually done:

     

    Far Left:

    Affiliation card at the top, with yet-to-be-used objectives under it. Underneath that are my 3 current objectives. Below those is my discard pile, and below that is my command deck. So, on your image, imagine the objective deck under the Faction card, and the faction card above the objectives. 

     

    I like to have just about everything off to one side, because I hate when the play area feels crowded. I don't like to have things on both sides of where the main board is. 

     

    Nice work on the images. But, I am sure that most players have their own idiosyncratic methods. 

     

    I don't particularly mind how people arrange their cards, but I think that FFG should have a rule against using any tokens besides the ones that come with the game in competitive play. Things get ridiculous sometimes; I have seen people using poker chips, beads, Lego figures, etc. 

     

    Ever play against anyone that puts their enhancements up in front of their row of units? That drives me nuts, like it used to drive me nuts in MTG or AGoT when someone puts lands/locations above their creatures/characters. 

     

    Actually I recently bought red glass gaming tokes and they work a lot better than the focus tokens provided by the game. They are a lot easier to notice and to keep count of the different exhausted cards. Haven't found a good enough replacement for the shield tokens though. (the blue glass I found is too dark)

     

    I find that, while the tokens provided by the game look really cool, they are sometimes a bit hard to remove from the cards and they do tend to get unnoticed or confused with the overall art of the cards themselves.

     

    As far as using lego pieces as tokens, it just sounds ridiculous.

     

    I think that's a good idea and simple solution.  Focus tokens are just flat enough to be a hassle!  

  22. Posted

    Anyone know if there are any official playmats for this game?

     

    I´m not only looking for one with a cool looking star wars background but mainly one that will help you set up the different cards.

     

    Whenever I play the game there's always some confusion since some players like to keep their command deck one place and their locations another etc, etc.

     

    I found these two, but not in a good enough quality to print. But the setup design looks pretty neat.

     

    What do you think?

     

    There are files with the exact images you posted on BGG and they are high enough quality to print.  I just had them printed on card stock and laminated...so they aren't the cushy playmats; but the image I found on BGG was good for a large format with no pixelation.  I do a lot of real business at a local print shop and he printed them for free, but said he normally would have charged about $30 for them.

     

    They look extremely nice, not very useful.

  23. Posted · Edited by wishasc

    Well, I guess I'll have to concede that I was wrong to my friend. I'll still say that the rules seem to say otherwise to me, but who am I but one man, trying to make his way in this galaxy! ;) I'll make my argument one last time, using what I'm reading exactly quoted from the rules, in order, to provide clarity.

    I think that you are choosing to apply the part of the rules that you want, and disregard the rest.  I know that the attacking player automatically wins in your example, but that is not saying that the other steps don't happen.  This step still happens:

     

    After resolving fate cards, each player counts the number of Force icons on cards in his edge stack. The player with the higher total wins the edge battle and has the edge for the remainder of the engagement. In the event of a tie, the edge goes to the defending player

     

     

     

    Choosing not to apply that is like having two attackers left to strike in an engagement, but your opponent's engaged units have all focused to strike.  You still focus your two separately and there's an action window after each strikes.  You don't just ignore that because your opponent isn't going to strike between those two.

  24. Posted

     

    I think Alderaan's Promise set seems overcosted because Diplomatic Presence is a powerful card.  If you pair this set with Opening Moves (The first engagement your opponent declares during his conflict phase must be declared against a Yavin 4 objective, if able.)...and happen to put Diplomatic Presence on Opening Moves on the first turn, I think that your objectives cannot be attacked in combat.

    Not quite. The "if able" phrase keeps that lock down from working.

     

    I hadn't considered that...that makes more sense.  It seemed like too powerful of a combo, even considering the low likelihood.

  25. Posted · Edited by wishasc

    I think Alderaan's Promise set seems overcosted because Diplomatic Presence is a powerful card.  If you pair this set with Opening Moves (The first engagement your opponent declares during his conflict phase must be declared against a Yavin 4 objective, if able.)...and happen to put Diplomatic Presence on Opening Moves on the first turn, I think that your objectives cannot be attacked in combat.

×
×
  • Create New...