Jump to content

xchan

Members
  • Content Count

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I want to try this game out before judging it. The changes to deckbuilding and combat doesn't bother too me much and make the game play faster, which is great for mobile gaming. The removal of questing though (unless I'm missinterpreting the info) is a big change and I'm not sure one that I can get behind. I don't want to play a game that revolves entirely around combat, there are plenty of other game cards for that. Edti: Upon further inspection, it looks like they haven't removed questing entirelly. What they have removed is the defense value. Characters have strenght, willpower and health (which looks like previous hp+def stat). Willpower is used to "fight" locations, while strenght is used to fight enemies. No info on quests though. That's a nice way to look at it. It does seem to be LotR 2.0, whithout actually being LotR 2.0. It seems that location managment is quite different now, as there's no questing phase at all. They behave as enemies that we can "fight" at will, allowing us to remove them quicker. Will see how it works. In that train of thought, I'm wondering if we can adapt the Sauron's deck so we can make a competitive variant for our tabletop version (or if they will eventually release a "play as the enemy" mode for the digital app). They have introduced draw and resources for the encounter deck, which could be their way to prevent enemies showing up early in the game, improving on the quests pacing, but also opens the possibility to activelly pilot the encounter decks.
  2. Netrunner is the first LCG to hit rotation. They revisited the core set to reflect this. I guess that their rotation policy for L5R (and AGOT) will depend on how well it goes for it. They already said that they are listening on the rotation feedback to find the perfect system, so theres nothing set on stone yet.
  3. xchan

    Is this... an RPG or a tabletop game?

    That only means you dont need anything else tobplay it. It doesnt mean expansions wont be a thing in the future.
  4. xchan

    Six Packs In Six Weeks

    This was really surprising! Did FFG mention anything about their release schedule before? Are Deluxe Expansions mentioned for this game? I know a lot of CCG (and to some extend LCG) players complained about the LCG format and wanted to see bigger expansions and less releases a year so the meta could be established and stabilized for Kotei season. Do you think that FFG might be looking into it? We know that FFG developes each cycle at once and they just group the cards in small chapter packs for their distribution. If this special event is a success, how do you guys would feel about them repeating it for future cycles? If they release the cycles in 6 weeks, the preview season could be 2 month long, the released number of cards would be big enough to shake the meta completelly and then we would have 3 months for the it to stabilize. Isn't that better than the current motnhly release schedule that makes planning for the big tournaments harder, as the meta has less time to be established?
  5. I really hope it means a new cycle is comming and not some PoD quests and Nightmare ones. It would make me really sad to see the game end now that it's getting interesting. I don't mind a slower pace if it means they will keep developing new cycles for it.
  6. I'm not so sure about that. There are already a good number of cards that dont require a test to work and we are just half way through the first cycle. I dont see them stopping that in fear there might be decks that can exploit that. There will allways be some mandatory tests, but if I can eliminate most of the non compulsory ones, then the mechanics will become more tolerant for me.
  7. Well, that's what I'm doing when I mentioned I house ruled how commiting works. I commit them after I pull the token. They keep the additional functionallity, but I have bigger control over them. Less wasted "draws" than how the official rules work, which is exactly why the second functionality is usually implemented. And regarding Destiny, the game doesnt play like what I was describing. You know what your resources (your rolls) are before you take your actions. You dont go blind hoping you get lucky with the rolls and the cards you chose to play will actually work.
  8. It's not that I find it hard or easy, it's that I find it extremelly annoying. Everything in the game is a test and hence a gambling. It doesn't give me any kind of satisfaction having to guess the number on the chaos bag every action I do. I want to play with my cards and find synergies between them, not gamble them on dice rolls. I feel that most of the time my cards are just stat boost for skills to achieve the +2 threshold and their text could be blank for all that matters. That's not something I'm looking for on a card game. It leaves me extremelly unsatisfied. But I still have hopes though. The potential is there to make the game more consistent for me. There are cards that allow you to progress without testing (exhaust enemies, deal damage to deal, gather clues, etc.) and others that can make tests almost meaningless (those that lower the shroud on a location for example, or those that give you a boost when you fail to try to change the outcome). So in time, I believe that decks that don't rely on tests to progress will be possible. I found the Shadow sytem more enjoyable and fun. It has the power to surprise you and catch you off guard similar to how a real oponent playing against you would. A specific card can screw you up, but that's a risk you calculate and decide to take or not in a few ocasions. And even then, you have ways to deal with them after they are revealed (cancels). I understand why it had to go though, as it requires a lot of investment by the design team (balancing the effects of both the normal effect and the shadow effect, balancing the odds of pulling the card as an enemy or a shadow, balancing the number of shadow effects on an encounter deck, etc). How the encounter deck is contructed now is a lot easier and flexible from the design point of view. You can add or remove a card more freely and you don't have to add extra text or checks to make sure a card shows up as an enemy and not as a shadow. Still, I wished they had explored another option than just an uncovered random dice roll and see if you guessed the number that was going to show up or not. Absolutelly true. I come from the card games side, so I'm not that used to roll a dice to determine the outcome. If a competitive card game wants to use dice as their resources (Ashes or SW Destiny for example), they need to have ways to alter the outcome to mitigate the luck involved on the rolls (discard a card to reroll or change a die to a face of your choice), otherwise it feels like a completelly random experience. I don't see a Magik clone where the outcome of a fight is determined by rolling dice after gambling power ups prior to the roll ever making it. People will just quit after a couple of plays due to frustration.
  9. What's your problem with buying multiple Core Sets? I don't hear people complaining about buying multiple TCG boxes...
  10. True. My threshold for randomness is probably lower than most. I don't mind the swinginess of drawing shadow, encounter and player cards; tt's what makes card decks replayable. But adding the chaos bag was too much for me. It feels completelly gratuitious, more because failing sometimes has no meaninful impact besides losing your action or stalling your progress. I ended up house ruling how the commiting cards to a test work to make the game more enjoyable to me. But I know I'm on the minority here. I really can't wait for the card pool to be big enough so I can build a deck that allows me to complete the story without having to waste my actions on random tests. Just playing cards to deal with enemies and clues in a more reliable way.
  11. Failing to deal with an enemy (either by evading or fighting it) can snowball fast if you draw a second one next turn. You can't play recently acquired cards that would help you deal with them without eating the damage, and you will have to dedicate 2 of your 3 actions to deal with them, which another fail can mean game over. I think once the number of "fast" cards is big and diverse enough, that will stop being a problem; but right now, it's something that can happen and you have little power over it. - Did I burn an extra skill card on a low priority test? I don't know. Since the game is not deterministic, I can't know if that test was low priority and the card I was commiting would end up being burned. Maybe failing that test would have had other consecuences down the road that would have made me lose the game faster. Or maybe saving that card for a high-priority test would have ended up equally wasted as I would have pulled the autofail on that one. - Did you waste actions and resources building unnecessary board state? How can I determine what is unnecessary board state? Since the game is not deterministic, I have no way of knowing if that asset is going to help me win the next test or be useless. - Did you burn two actions and a Shortcut getting the Guardian in position to fight something, rather than just evading it? And what makes you so sure your attempt at evading it would have been more successful? Maybe you end up wasting 2 actions trying to evade the enemy and failing. Then you would have asked if evading was the right call and not using two actions and a Shortcut to move the Guardian. Like you say, because the tests are not deterministic, there's little to learn from a previous experience. You can analyse your gameplay and "conclude" that wasting said resource/action/card on that turn was a bad idea and what made you lose the game. However, you could replay the same scenario and do exactly the same thing and succeed when previously you failed due to passing more tests. The same concept of "low/high-priority" tests that you use show that there are some tests you need to pass. The existance of the autofail alone can just disrupt that no matter how well prepeared you think you are.
  12. This is something I also find quite discouraging. The interaction between decks and players is a lot less than it is in LoTR. There's no Ranged or Sentinel keywords, there's no shared equipment, there's no helping someone out with bad draws/resource managment, etc. All you can do is to commit cards to their challanges and that's only if you share a location with them, which I find quite underwhelming. From my experience, in AH players work individually towards a common goal, while in LotR players work together towards it. Sure, Guardians are getting some tools to expand on player interaction, but those are equally restricted, and force you to play one class. I'm also not a fun of the chaos bag system. Like Buhallin said, everything in the game is a test, and each test is like a dice roll. You can get lucky and hit the 20 awesome Crit roll or unlucky and roll a 1 when you most needed it (and die because of it). There's almost no luck mitigation cards outside some Survivor ones. The commiting cards system is just the standard way to help you out with tests, but at it's core it's pure gambling with your roll odds. Sometimes it pays of, others doesn't. That makes the game feel to random and less strategic to me. In LotR winning a scenario was like a puzzle. Part of it was resolved in the deckbuilding stage and the other part I figured out by repeating the scenario over and over. Each loss teach me some new stuff about the encounter deck and show what mystakes I made and what could I do to prepeare for them. In AH, most of the loses end up being because of bad pulls during tests. There's nothing more frustrating than getting killed due to bad luck, knowing there was nothing you could have done differently that would have altered the outcome. It's uterly thematic though, but it annoys the crap out of me.
  13. xchan

    Are we getting a new...

    I agree with Took. The game is just starting. I really hope that the next cycle is on the way, but if thats not the case and they are willing to keep the license for a bit longer, I wouldnt mind if they decide to go to the deluxe expansion route CoC took before ending it completelly.
  14. Not in a non randomized format that I'm aware of. And if so, can you just list them as an example to analize their schedules and production sizes? Thanks. Well, it's your opinion then. It's bad for you because you don't like to tweak your decks between tournaments. I can respect that. Just don't try to pass it as a fact. So what if you only want to spend $15? What options do you have then? Again, casual players are a big part of FFG revenue. They don't buy everything, they just buy whatever they feel like when they have the disposable income. Tripling the price of the products will only make them spend less, not more. It's like asking for Magik to remove their boosters as hardcore players only buy them in boxes (or singles) anyway.
  15. This has been public information for a while. Cards on a cycle are developed and playtested all at once a year prior to it's release (they are usually working 2 cycles ahead of the current one). So they could change the release schedule without altering the developing process at all. However, like you say, there's a lot of marketing (and production) factors we don't know about. It's the same old discusion about having to buy multiple copies of the core sets to get a full playset of the cards. People have asked FFG to release "full" games at a higher price but they won't do it as it will cost them money, as casuals are a big part of their players base. That's not to say FFG won't try to improve their products to a certain point (for example, the cuantity of wasted cards in a core set has improved since the Netrunner and LotR days). They are also exploring new deckbuilding options that would allow them to bring more cards to the players without changing the release schedule and system (max of 2 cards per deck, pot system, generals system, etc.). For as hardcore players, it doesn't matter if we get 1 big expansion at 45 or 3 at 15. We usually buy them all. But casual players are not so prone to do so. They might get a new chapter from time to time, usually if there is a card of a character they like from the books/backround and leave it at that. Like I said before, it's up to the players to find ways to work around that. There's nothing stopping us from developing some kind of torunament system that will fit our demands better. There was no rotation sytem in place when Netrunner started and FFG had to implement one after players asked for it. People say that 8 cycles is too long, so why not come up with new formats to show them other possibilities? We did that with the original VS System and created the Bring your own 2 teams or the Bring your own 2 sets format. Even the Moden Age (only the last 4 sets are legal) was first a fan made format. There's nothing stopping us from doing something similar for the LCG but us (and arguably the number of cards).
×