Jump to content

Demas

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Demas

  1. Let's not forget the strength of the Star Wars brand and how much excitement over that franchise is going to grow as we approach Episode VII. Telling people they can buy into two nostaglic childhood loves- Star Wars and Magic: The Gathering- without having to worry about the chase of rare cards? That's going to bring people to the game in droves when the marketing for Episode VII actually ramps up.
  2. Also Heroes & Legends and Secret Guardian, to get more mileage out of the units you play!
  3. Force Phase [page 14] The Force phase consists of the following two steps, always taken in this order: 1. Force Commitment 2. Force Struggle -- That means after any units are committed to the Force, but before the Force struggle is resolved / decided. The player cannot elect to commit another unit after suffering the effects of Make Your Own Luck, because you've moved on to the second step of the phase.
  4. Damage [page 21] When a card receives damage, place a number of damage tokens on it, with total value equal to the amount of damage received.When a card has a number of damage tokens with value equal to or greater than its damage capacity, it is immediately destroyed. Damage in excess of its damage capacity is ignored.
  5. Zach is one of the owners of Team Covenant, a game store that promotes several of FFG's offerings and do invaluable things for the community like provide commentated tourney videos on youtube. You might see him run the deck on their Twitch channel archives or Tuesday live stream, or just ask him one of these forums / email / social media. My understanding is he mostly plays the deck in order to get the Achievement of having Han, Luke, and Leia all in play at once, but he's still the person I see actively play Leia more than any other.
  6. Zach Bunn plays a Leia deck with some frequency so maybe ask him. I have a "I'm Outta Here" joke deck basically built on the synergies of leaving play... it plays surprisingly smoothly (for a tri-color deck) and nearly every other thing you do triggers a combo... but it's a lot of spinning your wheels... you're pulling off all these incidental combos that don't win you the game. Your deck appears more focused so it should be more viable.
  7. Yeah, might as well cite the hearsay (upon hearsay) more precisely... it is #301 and starts about 46 minutes in. The podcaster spoke with FFG's Senior Vice President of Communications and Digital Business Steve Horvath regarding concerns over the Disney purchase when Horvath stopped him to reassure him: "We're good, we're solid, our license is intact. We are constantly talking with Leland and Pablo about different things... the relationship with Lucas Film is intact, it's not going anywhere." (again, hearsay, but as direct a comment as we have for now) The podcaster then editorialized that with on-going product- particularly the RPG with on-going story modules- the material ought to be considered Legends irrespective of whether it actually receives the banner or not. From a legal standpoint, I wouldn't worry... generally sophisticated IP licenses are built with an understanding that the licensor (the granting party) can change (as these are corporate entities that can be bought, sold, or assign rights and property) over the life of a license... Disney buying Marvel didn't dissolve or change the terms of Sony's license to Spider-Man or Fox's license to the X-Men, for example. The caveat is if the license itself includes some editorial control in the licensor (and, for IP, they often do) and they choose to exercise it or exercise it differently... but the Legends announcement should only reassure you that there's an option to proceed rather that suspect their hands would be tied.
  8. ForceCast episode #301 (I think, it was a recent one), one of the hosts (who also co-hosts the Sabacc Table, geared around Star Wars related gaming) mentioned running into a FFG exec or editor after the announcement who assured him that the license is intact and their relationship with LucasArts as strong as ever.
  9. I believe one of TheForce.net's podcasters ran into a FFG exec / editor after the announcement who assured him their licensing deal is intact and all products would continue to go forwards and their relationship with Lucasarts is as strong as ever. The podcaster editorialized that all FFG games should be considered new material produced under the Legends banner even if they don't ever actually bear that brand (especially the RPG modules which extend the story; compared to the cardgame / X-Wing which just draw from Legends). A statement is premature until Disney / Lucasarts tells them what they want done. Until then, it should be business as usual and the main impact, if any, is if they get that banner. In a way, it would be a good thing to get it because then they could draw from Legends unfettered and without worry about stepping on the toes of the Story Group's canon.
  10. Yup. Page 24 - Some reaction and interrupt effects may also be forced, making the execution of such an ability mandatory Page 25 - Forced. While most card abilities are voluntary, some interrupt and reaction effects are preceded by the word “Forced.” Such effects must be resolved immediately whenever their specified trigger occurs as described in their effect text. [emphasis added]
  11. For transport, Lowepro EX 120 is routinely on sale for $5-$10 and is over-built to protect 3 standard Ultra-Pro deckboxes (or 5+ decks if bound with Hugo's Amazing Tape) with plenty of room in the accessory pockets for tokens. If I need to carry more decks (usually if we're playing Netrunner too), the Stanley 10 ($12-$20) holds 14 Ultra-Pro deckboxes (16 if you exchange 4 small bins for 2 of the double-sized bins); plenty of extra room for tokens, sleeves, etc. For home storage, I rely on a binder for unsleeved cards and cardboxes for sleeved cards. The binder is for browsing and indexing, the cardboxes are for quick building and teardown.
  12. It's not an edge battle and is being revealed only for the value of its force icons (so this reveal does not trigger General Crix Madine's ability). Thus a Fate Card's action would not be resolved.
  13. Listened to the latest one reviewing Lure, spoiling Hoth Gambit from Knowledge & Defense, and reacting to the new FAQ. Good stuff, keep it up. Regarding the FAQ, some threads that might be of interest... In the third post, I parse out how LS enhancements are affected by Join Me (you obviously don't need to memorize the list, but it's useful to see examples): http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/15075-join-me/ In the fourth post, FFG's Nate confirms that you can still damage a Trust Me objective with four damage already on it (to destroy the objective but NOT to cancel an effect) under the new FAQ; a nuanced interaction that might not be immediately clear from the FAQ's emphasis on what you can't do (You CAN'T pay a cost for an effect that won't happen EVEN IF you pay the cost; you CAN try to pay a cost for an effect that COULD happen IF you COULD pay the cost, even if actually CAN'T pay the cost... dizzy yet?). http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/15415-trust-me-w-four-damage-and-the-new-faq/
  14. No problem, the best reaction example for a future ambush participant is a tweak on DS's Backstabber..."After this unit enters play during an engagement, it may be a participating unit on your side."
  15. It depends on the unit. For now, any unit drop shipped by the Falcon during an engagement is not a participant. However, in the future there may be a unit with text similar to Kyle, Cloud City Operative, Bothan Spy, or Admiral Ackbar that allows it to join an engagement as a participant later, upon entering play.
  16. You'll notice "Temporilly" is misspelled. I believe Erik was trying to say, "in terms of timing", "of or relating to timing", or "temporally", the word "When" occurs before "After." Hope that clears it up.
  17. The False Report is a Reaction, not a Forced Reaction, LS has the option to decline using it if it flips and would mess up their board.
  18. Agree with everything said, just as a further parenthetical, the undamaged Executor "cannot be targeted by enemy card effects", and the above explanations address targeting... I just what to highlight that targeting is permissible if not dealing with "enemy card effects." For example, resolution of Tactics Icons is an enemy effect, but it is a framework effect, not a card effect (for Tactics, the word "target" only appears in the rulebook). The placing a shield token on the Executor via Sabotage in The Snow or removing a focus token with Motti would be a targeted card effects, but not enemy ones.
  19. I was listening to Geoff Engelstein's Ludology GameTech segment on the Dice Tower podcast recently and he raised a mechanic which I would love to see somehow employed in a game, and could probably find a place within Star Wars. He called it Liturgy & Antidosis; the elemental example given was Player 1 having the freedom to divide a pie in two any way she likes, with the understanding that Player 2 has the freedom to elect which player gets which portion. I can already think of half-a-dozen ways to apply that which could be interesting... it's a mechanic that would tend towards a balanced mean but also show the impact of wild imbalance.
  20. So far, "initiate" has been limited to effects throughout the rules and the cards (well, card- new Dash). I completely get where you're coming from- hence my first interpretation- but if you read the heading for the 6 steps (FAQ page 7), it says "Effect Resolution." Additionally, the first step arguably limits initiation to effects: "can the card be played, or the effect initiated"... it doesn't say, "can the card to be played be initiated, or the effect initiated". I'm not saying you're wrong to equivocate playing a card with deployment, but then that's awkward titling by FFG- implying deployment is an effect, when you were told otherwise. Either way, you're carving out an exception- that deployment isn't an effect (in which case, Step 1 should have been written- "can the card be played OR the effect initiated" tending to indicate that an effect is something different / distinct from deployment, while still under the subtitle of Effect Resolution) or that deployment follows its own steps which are substantially similar to Effect Resolution, but which- so far- excludes the term-of-art "initiated." (which seems to be how they wrote it... "can the card be played, or the effect initiated, at this time" where "effect initiated" is a parenthetical describing the playing of a card under the Effect Resolution subtitle... which is completely consistent so-long-as "the card be played" is not a reference to deployment which you were told is not an effect). All that said, it REALLY doesn't matter, unless and until FFG makes a card that references "initiate" with respect to deployment, so I don't really take a position on it since it's all theoretical at this point.
  21. Basically, although deployment is an action, this characterization is mostly for the benefit of timing. Deployment does not involve the SW terms "initiated" (FAQ 3.5, page 4) or "effect". Therefore Signal Jam does not apply to framework deployment (which is not an "effect"). (In other words, revealing a unit to be deployed initiates the effect of moving that unit into play in common English... but in Star Wars terms, "initiate" only applies to "effects" and "effects" do not include framework unit deployment.) However, if there is "deployment" by card-effect (whether directly or indirectly), Signal Jam would likely work against that (and the card to be "deployed" would likely return to the hand). For example, the H&L objective, Secret Guardian, Kuat Reinforcements, Sith Holocron, etc.
  22. I agree with TGO. I liked their LCG podcast so much that I powered through their Inside-The-Force podcast as well. You can cynically look at it as summarizing Wookiepedia entries, but the other segments, production value, and their upbeat attitude makes it easy, enjoyable listening. They wrestle with the LCG rules sometimes, but even the Team Covenant guys occasionally do when they're doing pack unboxings, so no biggie. Their most recent podcast had me- without malice- yelling at how stupidly strong / broken their proposed objective sets would be, which was fun. I think there was even a pretty clever mechanic in one or two of them.
  23. Discarding the unit goes beyond the effect of deployment. The effect of deployment is to pay resources to move a unit from the hand to the board. Since there is no discard involved, cancelling would not cause the unit to go to the discard but instead back to the hand. An analogous situation is on Page 16... spells out how a card is played... first it is revealed, then the resources are generated, then if the resources are insufficient, the card cannot be played and it returns to the hand. Since Signal Jam says, "When an action . . . is initiated", that could mean the timing must be at the reveal (page 24, "Interrupts may be executed when the specified triggering condition occurs"), but before the resources are generated (and if they already have been, as a matter of etiquette, you allow them to take back the generated resources; otherwise, all games would be bogged down by asking "Any Interrupts?" after the reveal of every card to be played) because the Action of Deployment starts with the reveal of the card. Page 16 tends to imply then that the card would return to the active deploying player's hand. However, if the card returns to their hand and no resources have been spent... what would be the point of "canceling" that action? You'd be down a powerful card and resource and they could simply deploy the unit again. Therefore: Either units can't be cancelled meaningfully (as in the above interpretation) OR "initiated" doesn't mean at the literal first step of the deployment and simply means "not completed (by virtue of playing an interrupt)"... in which case, Signal Jam simply returns the unit to their hand, but they still have to pay the cost for the unit, if able.
  24. Yep, page 13... Deployment of a unit or enhancement is an action.
×
×
  • Create New...