Jump to content

xchan

Members
  • Content Count

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About xchan

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

411 profile views
  1. But at the same time it will give you more unique cards to combo with the aspects and neutrals. Cards that no other hero will have.
  2. Sure, and when the time comes, he will be dropped, but right now, there are few cards I would consider better than him.
  3. Use him as a resource? Having the option to play Nick doesn't mean you have to play him every time you see him. If there are better cards in your hand, you play those. If not, you play Nick and enjoy his versatility.
  4. Marvel issued a merchandise ban for those properties because of the film dispute. An artist that did some work for the game said that F4 and X-Men were off limits. I don't know how true his claim is, but knowing how Marvel ban affected things like toys and videogames, I find it likely. The ban might be lifted now that they have the movie rights. Im sure X-Men and F4 will show up in MC, but I don't expect them soon.
  5. Those are quite far away. Remember that FFG has content planned for years in advance, while Disney buying Fox is a relatively recent event. I wouldn't expect X-Men or F4 for a couple of years.
  6. No, they are max one in play, not per deck. I like Nick Fury's draw option, but I can see why others might not find it that appealing.
  7. I really hope reprints are not a thing. If they feel the need to add some cards from the core set to make the hero decks "playable" out of the box, I would be really disappointed. The game is designed in a way that there are no must include cards like mana in Magic or locations in VS 2PCG. It would make no sense to me to include reprints in MC hero packs. Sure Nick Fury and Avengers Mansions might look strong, but they can always be substituted by other similar cards. Not all decks need to include the same 5-10 cards to make them viable. And for God's sake, if reprints do happen, they better not be the crappy resource cards. Those are pretty bad cards, that I don't want extras of, specially the aspect ones.
  8. Except class and subclass are determined by your investigator. You don't choose them. You can't mix and match classes at will, the same way you can in LotR or aGoT. If you want to mix Survivor cards with a Rouge subclass you have only one choice of an investigator (and then, experience might prevent you from mixing the interesting cards altogether. Same as Loyalty). I don't see the depth in that... I mean, you are simplifying MC's deckbuilding saying Spiderman's Justice deck will be almost the same for everyone; but at least we have 4 different decks for hero already, one for each aspect. If you apply the same oversimplistic logic to Arkham, then there's only one possible deck for each Investigator. Zoey will always run a «cookie cutter» Guardian build and that's it. Zero variation, zero depth. With that point of view, how come 4 options don't offer more depth than just 1? Having said that, we all know that there are different ways to build each Arkham investigator even though their classes are predetermined. The same will be true for each aspect. There will be multiple Spiderman Justice builds in the future, I'm sure of that. With more cards aspects will offer more options. There will be able to focus on allies, events, or locations; not to mention the extra layer of deckbuilding resources offer. We will be able to create a Mental focussed Protection deck to abuse Black Widow, or an Energy focussed Protection deck to abuse Captain Marvel Cosmic powers. Or create a mix of energy and fist (what's the name of it?) to abuse Tenacity, etc. I don't understand why you are so set on ignoring all of this.
  9. I agree that the release schedule makes building around aspect cards pretty limited, but luckily for us, there's no restriction on how little we can run of them. We can choose 20 neutral cards and just 5 aspect ones to round up our decks. I feel that, for the first few years, aspects won't be the detrimental part when deckbuilding but neutrals (+ hero, obviously). Also, there's a 4th deckbuilding theme no one has mentioned yet: resources. In the future, resources might end up being an important part of our deck. Take Carol Danvers for example. Her charge up cards want energy resources, so, when building decks for her, we might want to pick those that give us that resource type over others, even if the effects of the card are less optimal. Or Peter Parker, who generates a mental resource per turn. We might build our decks around that and include as many mental demanding cards in our decks (like ally Black Widow). There is defenetely depth in the deckbuilding. I would say, a lot more than Arkham (which is pretty limiting with both the class combination and the experience system reretricting our decks). What we are lacking is cards. That will change over time.
  10. My only wish is that they would speed things up. At 6-8 heroes a year, I feel it will take forever to see some of my favourite characters. New Mutants, X-Force and X-Statics will probably never make it... Even the Inhumans (new or old) feel less likely to show up...
  11. I'm not a fan of the resource cards. They are too one dimentional and the economy boost they provide is not strong enough. I much rather have Avengers Mansion or Helicarrer as my economy staples over those. They have a cost, but they are recurrable and more flexible. Even if drawn late game, they seem more useful to me than any of the current resource cards. My decks will most likely have 2 Mansions, 2 Helicarrers, 1 Nick Fury and 20 cards among the remaining aspect/basic cards. Anything that draws cards will be a must include for me, as draw is a way better resource engine.
  12. I meant, their core sets shouldn't require multiple copies of to get a playset of the cards; as in, I thing FFG did good for Champions by giving us full playsets in a single core. That's how all coop LCG should have been. Competitive ones is another story, and Im perfectly fine with the current approach of 1x of most the cards. It gives a bigger card pool to build decks from the start, even though 120 is a tough entry point.
  13. The rules do, and I don't play alone. I could adapt the rules when solo playing, but then, I rather play LotR or Sentinels (or Champions when released). Those give me more satisfaction.
  14. I think it all depends on the game. Coop games like this, Arkham and LotR shouldn't require more than 1 core for full playsets. Competitive LCG, I kinda prefer them to. I rather have more options from the start to generate a decent meta than fewer cards. I don't think aGoT or L5R would have worked with a core set of 350 like this one. It wouldn't be enough for building a playable deck for each faction, let alone allow for deckbuilding. That's not what you want for competitive games.
  15. You were buying 3 cores to try out an LCG? That's dedication out there!
×
×
  • Create New...