Obscene
-
Content Count
163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Obscene
-
-
46 Line of Sight says units must require line of sight to resolve ranged attacks and effects.
Kari's surge ability is done while attacking, but the language is definitely not there to explicitly say that the surge ability is an attack. The language, however, is there to say it is an effect. (1 Abilities)
It should be considered that Carrion Lancer/Death Caller and other similar effects would not have to say that they require line of sight to require line of sight. Consider them friendly reminders. The death caller ability would not be an attack either, where as fire rune is an attack.
Just to be explicitly clear, requiring line of sight is the default and not requiring line of sight would need to be declared on the card. -
Deathcaller is the MVP. I'm not sure if Necromancer is underwhelming in a meta where more units attack at different timing then the current one, because eventually you have to get a critical mass of attrition where your opponent just can't reasonably attack/remove enough reanimates to lower their VP standing. But even in that world the utility of Deathcaller will still probably out shine him.
Significantly increases the damage output of reanimates.
The Protector card if my interpretation of it is correct might be key in forcing Kari to dump damage into reanimates.
Raven Tabards is really good but not on this unit because you are still slower then anything else. Where it will be awesome is making a unit move faster into combat then an opposing ranged attacked. Like Oathsworn Calvary being able to use their largest move speed followed by the speed 5 one(at speed 4) to completely prevent themselves from ever being shot by reanimate archers, which is huge. -
I would expect the army of straight forward universal troops to beat to win more often then not against the army that relies on debuffing and debilitating enemy forces out of the gate.
Beyond that, I believe in house is testing is done with all of the initial product launches. -
I would assume that the current narrative would be detailed in the most recent dynasty packs and less of the over all card pool being reflective of every single character active in the setting.
Remember one of the major draws to the LCG model is the some what evergreen card pool and the affordable buy in structure for competitive play.
The only work around I could see for this is a new core set every 5 years, and I don't think that cost is worth preventing anachronisms in the game it self. -
I believe under no delays a rotation is a 5 year thing.
-
1 minute ago, kempy said:Honestly, looks like lead designer of competetive card games for FFG was always Eric Lang (Call of Cthulhu, original AGoT CCG, Star Wars, Conquest). Nate, Brad were just engineers that were/are responsible for individual card design and tweaks of Lang's designs.
I don't think Lang had as much imput on GoT 2.0, I could be mistaken, but to expect a radical skunk works departure from their signatory elements for a skunk works design philosophy would be a bit extreme. It would be them effectively throwing out the window of hundreds of lessons in lcg design.
-
That is my point mechanically comparing something like a clan structure to the keyword trait is a faulty comparison.
I believe certain things are reasonable deductions based off of FFGS previous games and the designers who have worked on them:
Tokens are more then likely in as a form of record keeping, whether it be economy or a win condition.
Hard factions are in with some cards being able to be splashed. Mechanically this has been done different ways with a loyalty symbol, a point value, an alliance matrix, or a separate card declaring the alliance. These could be combined in any of these ways.
Clans will have defining styles of play to list what they are good at and obvious holes in their card pool to show what they are bad at.
Keywords are used to create themes and sub themes among these play styles available to a faction.
I think looking at Conquest or GoT is a very clear indicator of FFG's design priorities for card games. While victory conditions, game play, turn architecture, and so forth can be mechanically very different, the previously mentioned things have been present and continuously refined to a greater product in all of FFGs card games. I think it is incredulous to expect such a departure from FFG's design history.
Also, I believe I read they announced at GAMA that Nate French and Brad Andres are the big names behind the game which is GoT and Conquest respectively. -
From a mechanical standpoint comparing LOTR keywords to something like a Clan in L5R is a straight up unfair comparison.
I would expect if the first deluxe expansion doesn't introduce a new clan you will get new ones till a rotation if you do at all. -
I'm not hating variance just to be clear, I inherently understand there is an amount of that does add fun to the game.
I think a randomly arranged deck of actions/options is the perfect amount. You still get to implement the options in the way you want, you get to include the options you wants, but random mechanics that can foil the best laid plans on a whim is upsetting.
I remember one time in a pretty high tournament match for a card game, I was searching for a specific out in my deck to handle my opponent. I stalled the game as long as possible while searching for one of the 3 outs. After an extremely long loss I picked up last the 8 cards in my deck and the 3 outs were in the bottom 4. It didn't really bother me, because sometimes it happens.
However, a turn 1 random discard effect that knocks out one of the reasons why you kept that hand is one of the most frustating experiences in the world.
Modern FFG LCG design seems to be clearly aware that to much variance is a bad thing.
-
Hearthstones flaws are not it's resource system.
It's the combat mechanics and their incessant desire to make extremely random but powerful cards who depending on rng can swing the game immediately.
Hearthstone is the ultimate lucksack game. Sure it's great for clips and casual play, but it's a disappointing game to take seriously. -
I'm okay with discard and choke mechanics as long as they balanced accordingly.
I really hate random discard though I feel they can completely undercosted by being able to pull an opponents out.
With static discard, at least you know it's appropriately costed for getting a less useful card, and a reasonable player can get around it by using his high value effects before they are forced to be discards from a lack of other cards. -
I think I am going to wait till the other factions come into play. Pretty busy at the moment anyways, so being able to dump time into playing would be quite low, and I think I'd much rather play elves.
-
If it is a 2 card limit you guys should honestly rejoice. It means your card pool will grow faster in the cycle packs.
I will say this, the worst thing about Conquest is how agonizingly long it took for factions to start to develop a decent card pool and deck variety to really appear. The constraints of having 7 factions with a 3x limit is pretty noticeable for the entire first cycle and really until the second cycle ends. -
You don't know if it's 2 cards a card per a core or not. Conquest had a ton of freaking cards in a coreset that were unique 1 ofs.
-
They want to keep details scant, FFG has been in the game long enough to know that a small known detail can be quickly taken to negative depths by a speculate fan base.
-
I don't even trust FFG's development time line like that. LCGs are notoriously inaccurate. It's a pretty much known fact that when the first pack of a LCG cycle is being shipped the rest of them are already in FFGs warehouse.
I believe all of the currently announced expansions will be in FFG's warehouse at the same time and will have a staggered release to not flood the market yet controlled to prevent the staleness of a limited model count.Budgernaut reacted to this -
I often feel games work best at the point values designed by the developers and not the ones the community works. I ostensibly feel that both warmahordes worked better at 35 points until the community pushed it to 50, and 40k worked better at 1250-1800 points compared to whatever its played at now. Games tend to breakdown at a higher scale then what they were designed for.
I also inherently dislike *super massive* style models, they tend to turn games into skewfests or they don't actually represent such a destructive weapon/beast. -
5 minutes ago, CrankyZerg said:I am still very disappointed that only two factions will be available at launch.
I think it will really hurt them in the short term. They are really going to have to push this game to get people to play until the faction they want comes out.
I know personally Im not going to buy anything until the Elves are released.
I think we might see the first elf release at gencon.
-
-
I had to go back and check if anything else got changed. The only other thing I noticed is that Oathsworn Calvary got a massive price decrease in their higher tier formations, which actually makes them very tempting.
-
The pure grindyness in Waiqar is pretty interesting. They can really just absorb a ton of attacks by having pretty decent defensive values/traits and then being able to use the blight tokens to reduce enemy damage output. Which normally, I'd say doesn't really mean that much, but considering how victory points are scored seems to be pretty effective.
-
Reanimate Archers got nerfed. They lost a hit modifier. Pretty big freakin deal. Still a really strong unit, but eases my suspicions of them possibly being oppressive.
-
-
3by2 Spearmen hit as hard as just about anything else. They also maintain their 3 threat bonus for 16 wounds which is a pretty fair amount.
Strong tactical flexibility that will pretty much always remain relevant from it's upgrade possibilities.
A point of criticism, just to be devils advocate, is just how important a *flexible* dial really is. Once battle is engaged your amount of viable actions become extremely limited and all the options on that dial become almost null.
Waiqar 200 points good success list.
in Runewars Miniatures Game
Posted
Protector doesn't care about line of sight like that because it cares about where the attack is coming from and what it could target.
The most directly obvious one: Space on the card.
Regardless, whether the card mentions the attack requiring line of sight is irrelevant; what is relevant is if the wording mentions the attack or effect ignoring line of sight. This is fairly clear from the very declarative statement in the rrg pg. 13 section 46: To perform a ranged attacked or resolve other ranged effects, a unit must have line of sight to its target.
This is a very linear statement and doesn't leave much room to interpretation. It is from this you know for a ranged attack or effect to ignore line of sight, the card text must state it.