Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Caliber42 in Yuuzhan Vong and others as factions Anyone?   
    I'll pass on the Vong and leave my utter dislike of them at that.
    I'll personally be surprised if we see a third faction, and if they do I'll have to jump on board the pirate theme, but even that seems sketchy to me. Time will tell.
  2. Like
    attrition2 reacted to RobotMartini in The New Houses!   
    Honestly, I almost prefer the idea that some traditional houses only exist as 'support factions.' Give Frey a faction, with all the bells and unique whistles, but give them no 'Loyal' cards and no house card. (just the support of Frey agenda) As a stand alone box any faction can use for support, Nate & Co wouldn't have to worry about fitting Frey cards into CPs or how it would work with rotation.
    Support-only factions is a pretty simple way of side-stepping the auto include problems we were having with Neutrals. Still lets Brotherhood, Essosi/Free Cities, NW/Wildlings and Frey present unique and cross-faction themes, without letting players make rainbow 'greatest hits' decks that are thematically silly or OP.
    Gives a lot of room for FFG to release one-off deluxe boxes each year too
  3. Like
    attrition2 reacted to JonHook in Star Trek LCG?   
    A Star Trek LCG could be cool. If it followed the Warhammer: Invasion model, the capital board could be the player's starship. The ships could have several zones that need to be managed. 
  4. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Bomb in Card Backs   
    I know that with card sleeves, the card backs do not matter so much, but I've always felt like Plot cards should have a unique card back so that they can easily be identified when being face down.  So many casual games have results in mixing these cards with decks by accident when they do not belong together.
    Does anyone think that cards that don't go in the same deck may have unique card backs?
    Plots, agendas, etc?
  5. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Ratatoskr in What should I do with all my 1st edition LCG cards when 2nd comes out?   
    I find this a tad unfair. When they switched from the CCG to the LCG, they did keep the old backs, and cards were usable in a Legacy format (that hardly anybody ever played btw).
    Now that they announced that 2nd edition rules and timing would change sufficiently to render the two editions incompatible, I don't think they should be blamed for introducing new card backs. In fact, I think they *should* introduce those, to avoid confusion.
    For people who'd like to try to establish a unified card pool despite the mechanical differences, there's always opaque sleeves.
  6. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Ratatoskr in The upsides of getting a second chance   
    I'm very much against reducing the deck size for tournament decks. If anything, I'd be for *increasing* it. I'd like to see more variance, both in deckbuilding and in game play.
    With a smaller tournament deck size, the number of cards that will see actual play will be even smaller, and the number of those never leaving the binder will be even bigger. The effect that we'll see ever the same decks and can reliably predict the vast majority of cards in them will be more pronounced.
    In game play, smaller decks will have a bigger focus on pattern execution. They will be more like well oiled machines. Games will be more one-sided and less swingy, and there will be more NPE.
    In short, smaller decks will reward the better deck builder, bigger decks will reward the better player. Bigger decks are also more luck dependent, but I can live with that.
    The bigger deck size is the reason why so many people say DWDW decks are so much fun.
    Personally, I'd hate a min deck size of 50. I'd love a general 70 or 75 card min deck size, but that doesn't seem likely. If I can't get that, please leave it at 60.
    If one CS doesn't provide enough cards for several tournament legal decks, that's not a problem. Never was much of an issue with the 1ed CS.
  7. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Nick Demus in What should I do with all my 1st edition LCG cards when 2nd comes out?   
    I can't understand why people would say that. There is a world outside tournaments. I´ve NEVER played in one. I exclusively enjoy gaming with people from my area by simply inviting them to my home and having a good time playing whatever we want to. Both new and old games. Both cooperative and competitive games. It works wonderfully well without referees, because we´re just friends who want to have a good time. Try it. Nobody forces you to throw away your 1st edition cards. If you enjoy the game so much, who's gonna keep you from playing it?
  8. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Grimwalker in What should I do with all my 1st edition LCG cards when 2nd comes out?   
    Rotations come and go, but swag is forever. 

    Dollars to doughnuts: House Cards, Playmats, deckboxes, and power tokens will continue to be usable and sought-after.

    I just hope they keep "15 power" as the win condition, as all the promo power tokens out there come in that quantity.
  9. Like
    attrition2 reacted to AvatarPrime in If you are making the Core set cards not 3x...   
    I don't think that's correct. Princes of the Sun and Kings of the Sea are 60x3.  

    Point taken, but that isn't the case for everyone. In my opinion, a buy in of three core sets can often be a turn off for new players. As I said before, I don't have an obvious solution to offer, but I still think it's a problem worth bringing to the table. The move from CCG to LCG helped address similar problems, and that happened rather than everyone just saying, "Yeah, it sucks, but that's how it is." and leaving it at that. Just because no obvious answer jumps out at us within the span of a few forum posts doesn't mean there isn't a better solution.
    Anyway, my point was to bring the thought here so that the development crew might see it and give it some thought. That's done, so I'll not press the point any further.
  10. Like
    attrition2 reacted to AvatarPrime in If you are making the Core set cards not 3x...   
    I feel like we're arguing about two different things.
    I don't expect the core set to be "complete" and leave no incentive for further investment in the game line. That's what expansions and chapter packs are for. I would like the core set to be built similar to the chapter pack model -- provide a limited number of options, but do not necessitate a second or third purchase in order to fully take advantage of them.

    I understand that there's a more difficult balance to strike with the core set. If it simply provided 3x a limited number of cards, it wouldn't stand as well on its own. At the same time, if it contains one copy of a card that players will be expected to have three of in their deck, it swings too far in the other direction, forcing players to invest $120 and end up with a lot of useless filler just to cover their basics. This was part of the reason for the move from CCG to LCG.

    I personally don't know the best way to solve that problem, but I think it is a problem that should be addressed. Maybe the individual house expansions could include 2x or 3x copies of important house cards from the core set. There are a lot of ways to tackle the problem while still leaving players with plenty of incentive to buy more products.
  11. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Two_Hands in If you are making the Core set cards not 3x...   
    Assuming 3x of the cards +1 of each house card in the core would mean only 10 cards for each house. Probably not going to happen. I don't mind buying more than one core set, but uneven distribution annoys me. 1x of each, 30 cards for each house, seems like the best option. They can make that playable out of the box, and at the same time those of us who want complete playsets don't end up with lots of wasted cards. 2x is the next best option. Mixed quantities like in the 1e set will really, really disappoint me.
  12. Like
    attrition2 reacted to dlawson in Thinking Outside the Box: On Card Game Graphic Layouts   
    Okay, so I don't know if this is the right place for this, but I have this card game pet peeve and a second edition of AGoT seems like a good excuse to start a discussion about it! So, here goes:
    I hate the graphic layout that everyone uses for competitive card games. I have never played one where the card art wasn't crushed into a little box, taking up around a third of the card's total real estate, surrounded by a bunch of wasted negative space. And I don't get it. Well, I mean I get it: Magic cards have looked like that since the 80s and nobody wants to stray too far from the great grandfather of competitive card games. It's an instantly recognizable look and people are comfortable with it—and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
    But I think it's time that someone decided to do justice to their artists and rethink the way card layout is designed and implemented. And, given that FFG produces and commissions the highest quality card art in the industry, bar none, it seems like they're an ideal candidate to mix things up a bit.
    Well, all right, they've already done that. Sort of. Take a look at Android: Netrunner's promo card layout:

    And compare with the regular version:

    The former centrally showcases some fantastic art by Wylie Beckert; the latter showcases a lot of empty space and some cool border design (and also half an illustration by Henning Ludvigsen). What is weird to me is that the regular card manages to look both cluttered and empty at the same time, at least when compared with the elegant, richly colored, open design of the promo card.
    So what I would absolutely love to see is an FFG card game that does justice to the beautiful work created by their resident and freelance artists. It doesn't have to be exactly like the Netrunner promos—I do understand that certain issues arise when you have longer ability text. But card games (and gamers) shouldn't have to settle for slightly tweaking the Magic graphic design formula forever. It's time for something better.
  13. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Toqtamish in Disappointed...   
    40k art is dark. It's a grim dark setting.
    Play the game first.
  14. Like
    attrition2 reacted to DreadStar in Oh My GOOOOOOOOOOOD! (er, force. Whatever)   
    Empire at war ? It comes from Star wars rebellion!!! Much better game!
  15. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Mikael Hasselstein in Why is it OK for Armada, but not X-Wing   
    I'm not sure I find it more acceptable. I've resigned myself to the sliding scale in X-Wing, and I'll probably resign myself to the sliding scale in Armada.
    What I might not resign myself to is if the scaling is arbitrary. A sliding scale suggests that FFG is doing its homework. Strangely, that really matters to me. I just feel ... dirty... giving money to a gaming company that disrespects the gameworld that I love.
  16. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Norsehound in Other Ships: Speculation   
    The Yuuzan Vong will not be made.
    I'm thinking FFG is going to concentrate on the Galactic Civil War here. It's proven the most popular period of Star Wars lore and just about everyone agrees with it. When you get into Vong and prequel ships, fans tune out and there's not as much that would be wanted out of that.
    So, the various denominations of Star Destroyers, some of Fractalsponge's death wedges (perhaps?), some of the obscure starships from the Rebellion computer game maybe?
  17. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Blackgryphon in Other Ships: Speculation   
    For the ships that FFG should not make....   Klingon Battle Cruiser, Borg Cube, etc....
  18. Like
    attrition2 reacted to vadersson in Scale... so close   
    Just to weigh in on the discussion, I really wish they would keep the capital ships to scale with each other.  Even if they have to have "classes" that are different scales, at least try and be consisant.  That is one thing that killed the old WOTC Starship Battles game (aside from poor quality and simple rules) was that ships were totally inconsistant.  The Falcon was almost as large as a Neb-B.  
    I really wish FFG would use their attention to scale from X-Wing for the larger ships too.
    (And I am very sad to see that the Medium Transport and CR90 were different scales in X-wing.  I thought they were to scale with each other at least...)
  19. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Norsehound in Armada, a consolation Prize???   
    I imagine this game was made to appease the capital ship fans who wanted a slice of the X-Wing pie. Not of course by jamming a huge ship down our throats and calling it a star destroyer, but crafting a game that serves capital ships with the respect their due in their own playing field. It's just unfortunate that it's so expensive... but at that price point my expectations are high for it to perform.
    I want to know how expensive the expansions will be. I'm still excited for the release, but if the expansions peak over $30 then my enthusiasm might dampen some.
  20. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Thalomen in How do you feel about the look of the minis?   
    I agree with that line of reasoning. I'm not opposed to a consistent sliding scale for ships bigger than ISDs or MCs. or smaller than the Nebulon-B size ships. I'm just hoping that those mid range ships are as in scale since they would be the main stays of most fleets. SSDs? Sliding scale for sure, I get that and support it. Same for fighters and Falcon up to corvette size ships. The capital ships in between though can and should be a single consistent scale.
    Having said that, being a miniature modeler from way back, I'll make corvettes that are in scale if I have to! lol
  21. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Thalomen in How do you feel about the look of the minis?   
    Not to be argumentative, but I can and do expect it. If the ISD is the size of the Corvette in X-wing, it could easily work. Then the smaller ships would be a couple inches long at least. Most capital ships are larger than the corvette. The scaling between the Nebulon-B and VSD looks about right to me. I think thats a very reasonable expectation.
    I just do not want comically out of scale models. For me, part of the joy of the game is the visual display. I want something that looks as appealing and true to the movie universe as possible. If Im going to spend the cash, I want it to be worth it. And part of that to me is correct and reasonable scaling.
  22. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Kahadras in I feel like I've been waiting for this game all my life.   
    I've been waiting for FFG to take this step since GW ditched Battlefleet Gothic. Two thumbs up IMHO,
  23. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Darth Ruin in I feel like I've been waiting for this game all my life.   
    Ever since Hasbro Star Wars Micro Machines (I had the full set) and Action Fleet and the Star Wars RPG, I've wanted a decent Star Wars fleet miniatures game. The terrible Fleet Battles series didn't quite cut the mustard. Given how amazing X-Wing has been, this looks to be absolutely phenomenal. 
    Finally I can cross the Imperial T with my Ackbar slash.
    Thanks to the bright minds at FFG! 
  24. Like
    attrition2 reacted to Snowhive in What theme to come next from FFG in the LCG format?   
    A Coop Star Trek LCG would be great - perfect if you can it play solo.
    But I think that Wizkids have the Star Trek license... So we can hope!
  25. Like
    attrition2 reacted to mulletcheese in The future....   
    If that new star wars capital ship game was instead set.in the TI3 universe, I would be all over it.
    Forever tempted to use TI3 as a campaign system but stopped by knowing that it would take half my life to complete.
  • Create New...