Jump to content

backupsidekick

Members
  • Content Count

    169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About backupsidekick

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

889 profile views
  1. Another way that the end game could be changed is this: time is called, active player is player A, completes their turn. If the game does not end, player B gets to play out their turn. If the game does not end at the conclusion of player B's turn, player A is allowed to forge a key if possible, if this is their 3rd key, the game ends, if not, player B then gets to forge a key if possible. The simple change of having players forge their last keys in turn order prevents the player B situation you were describing where they no longer have any pressure to stop player A, just simply out generate them. I agree, knowing that your last turn, if you are tied for keys, you don't have to stop the other player, you just have to have more aember to win. Player B gets a completely different win opportunity than player A gets since if both players are tied for keys, player B ONLY has to have more aember. Player A had to stop player B from forging, while still having the most aember. (except for Shadows) most houses EITHER control aember, or generate aember.
  2. So my story for Silverther, Navigator of the Stadium won the Archon Short Story contest and I was sent 2 decks. One of the deck was none other than Silverther's Cousin: J. U. Airor of the Cautious Colosseum. Now, as many of you may, or may not know, the Silverther's and the Airor's have been at arms ever since the whole pro-archon events back in 1212 XG, the year of our great lord Xylio the Great. You see, there was a bid for where the games would be held, Silverther Stadium, or Airor Colosseum. In the end, of course, the Silverther's won out the bid, with a much larger facility with better foods, cuisine is always something people miss when they are novices in the industry. Either way, thank you @WonderWAAAGH for holding this competition. Below are the deck lists for the 2 decks that were sent to me. https://www.keyforgegame.com/deck-details/f342bf6d-cdec-41af-a232-2fa71838b671 https://www.keyforgegame.com/deck-details/df3a7f28-c261-45bb-9321-51cf5d1830d7
  3. Is it a bad time to bring up the siege unit champion upgrade card for Lord Vulun'thul and all of our excitement for that unit?
  4. Shadows steals, the easiest and most effective way to stop an opponent from forging a key, and Dis disrupts the game. The third house is choice of preference, I like the fun things Mars does, some people will prefer big creatures in Brobnar, or card draw and hand size of logos, Untamed does a great job at aember generation. No one likes Sanctum though.
  5. Equal terms is both players starting with 6 cards. First player does this after playing their first card on, basically, turn 0 since it's not a full turn. If first player does not mulligan, then their hand state doesn't change from the first card they play, to their first full turn, basically they are playing part of their hand, then the rest of it on their first real turn. When player 1 starts with 1 chain, they drop it when they draw cards, and even if they don't mulligan they will then draw new cards into their hand at the end of their first turn. That doesn't normally happen on turn 1, normally you play the rest of your cards on your next turn. Due to drawing that card at the end of the first turn of first player, the only hamper of chain 1 is limiting the very first card to a selection of 6 cards instead of 7, but that isn't a major handicap in any way, and has no lasting result. Player 2 starting with 1 chain limits the first full play to a selection of only 5 cards which is a bigger impact, or 4 cards if they mulligan. So 1 chain for player 2 is much worse than 1 chain on player 1. With 2 chains, player 1 will drop both of them before they take their first full turn because of their hand size being reduced by the first chain below the draw threshold. This isn't normal without taking a mulligan for first player to be below the draw threshold so drawing on turn one will only happen about 50% of the time, maybe less. Since you would draw (regardless of if chains let you or not) you will drop a second chain before taking your first full turn, meaning at the end of player 1's first full turn they will have a full hand of cards. Player 2 will start with 1 less card, and still have 1 less card going all the way into their second full turn with 2 chains. Player 1 needs at least 1 more chain than player two for the chains to have equal impact on the game in regards to impact to full turns, OR (and this is my personal thought) player 1 doesn't drop a chain at the end of turn 1, since it's not a full turn. I know this will never be official, but I think it would make chains more reasonable. I know there is reason to say I am wrong, this is just the opinion the other players in my store came to in regards to chains and player 1.
  6. I had the same thoughts about speeding up adaptive and came up with a simple solution for 1 game rounds that includes chain bidding in a simplified format.
  7. We tried this format at our local store last night and found that this was a VERY fun method of play. There will need to be some tweaks, but it's due to the chains system rather than the format. When we ran the format last night we had 7 chains to bid each round and 2 chains were added as a winning deck. Once both players picked their deck, we reduced chains to the lowest value, so if I picked a deck with 7 chains and my opponent chose a deck with 4, My opponent would actually start with 0 chains, and I would start with 3. The issues we had were that chains didn't do very much in the way of disrupting the game, and it's because of how many chains you shed by the end of the first turn, and what I feel is first player advantage when it comes to shedding chains. When you start the game, if you have chains you draw one less card and shed a chain before the game begins. When you take your first turn, you also shed another chain, so the first 2 chains are gone at the end of turn one. For all formats with chain bidding, this is crucial to know. First player sheds a chain when they draw their cards, meaning they draw 6 cards instead of 7. Then, when they play their one card, SINCE THEY ARE NOW BELOW 6 CARDS, THEY SHED A SECOND CHAIN. The first player has shed 3 chains by the end of their first full turn, and this is a HUGE BENEFIT! Typically the only way a player will draw a card on their very first turn as first player is if they mulligan, but since their hand size is reduced by chains they are guaranteed to draw cards after their first play which means they will shed a second chain during this turn. I personally feel that knowing who will go first would have an impact on how many chains I would bid because of this interaction with chains and the first turn rule. After our first play, all players enjoyed this format thoroughly and we will be using this as a regular format. We are going to continue to tweak the rules of this format to work for our group, but bidding chains was not difficult when each player was limited to how many chains to bid. There were a lot of 3/4 bids, but there were some 5/2 bids, and higher when an opponent simply knew one deck would be stronger against their own decks, but all bidding took less than 1 minute to complete and then get playing. All players enjoyed the added strategy of both bidding on opponent's decks, and then picking which deck to play based on how many chains they would begin with, but all added rules only increased the enjoyment of the format. What we are going to try the next time we use this format is instead of reducing chains at the beginning of the game (7 chains against 5 reduces to 2 chains against 0), we are simply going to say that whatever chains your deck has on it will start with that many. I have attached a PDF for TO's to use in their events, very basic explanation of rules on the sheet, and 2 circles that will need to be filled in for house rules on how many chains to bid and how many chains will be awarded for a win with a certain deck. I will continue to update this file going forward as this is only version 1.1, and tongue in cheek, it's named freemium after the whole loot box fun we've had here in the forums. Please, if you have recommendations for tweaking the format, or this sheet, let me know, otherwise enjoy!
  8. I have been trying to modify the third turn adaptive format so that chains are bid at the beginning of the first game, rather than the third game. Here has been my thought process and where I am currently and I would like community feedback on specific numbers and how it might/might not work. TLDR at bottom. First, if chains are bid at the beginning of the round, you can play single game rounds instead of three game rounds. This will help players experience more decks, and not spend as long battling between the same two decks, both of which I personally view as a positive. This would be the first change to adaptive, and will completely veer away from adaptive format, so I would call this format something like pay to play, which is a stupid name so, whatever someone come up with a better name. Second, if chains are bid at the beginning of the round, I think casual players will suffer the most due to inexperience with new decks. For instance, if the round begins and both players get to look at the decks and then bid for which deck is more powerful, my opponent may think my deck is more powerful, I might think theirs is, my opponent bids 3 chains to use my deck, I bid 2 chains to play their deck and then what? What if the deck should have 12 chains, and mine none? Who decides, and isn't this all speculative and opinionated anyway? This is why I think simplifying the chain bidding process for this format to a specific chain limit and also including two decks in the setup should be used for this format. So, how would this work: each player brings 2 decks to the event and is given a set number of chains to place on your opponent’s decks each round. Let’s use 7 chains as an example. I look at both of my opponents decks and divide the 7 chains I am allowed between the two decks however I see fit. Could be balanced with 3 and 4, or all 7 chains on 1 deck, however I personally feel my chains will be best spent, and my opponent does the same thing. Once we have both decided which deck we will pay to play, we reduce our chains to the lowest number possible (if my opponent's deck has 3 chains and my deck has 5, my opponent is reduced to 0 chains to start, and I start with 2. The point isn’t to have everyone starting with chains but to balance the game). These chains will NOT carry over from round to round. Now, why not bring a deck you love and a deck that you hate and just plan on playing the strong deck with max chains, and you spread the chains you are given each round to minimize the impact? Starting with 3-4 chains isn’t horrible if you have an amazing deck. To solve this dilemma I came up with the following solution: Each round that you win, the winning deck gets a set number of additional chains to encourage playing the other deck. My original thought is that it gets 1-2 chains. Swiss seating will mean that winning decks will play against winning decks so the additional chains won’t severely hamper the winners, but will make them think twice about bringing one strong and one weak deck but rather trying to balance their decks. If you keep playing the same deck over and over again, by the 4th round you could have 4-8 chains on the winning deck, and your opponent could place an additional 7 chains on the same deck. 0 chains on one deck, or as many as 15 on the other will make you think twice about what you are playing. I have also considered that these chains will fall off each round that you don’t use the deck, but it might be hard to keep track of, so lower number of permanent chains might be better than a high number of chains that drop off later. I think chain bidding is a great balancing concept, but could be very hard to incorporate without some easy parameters. Adaptive gives enough information about both decks to allow the players to bid appropriately, but it takes so long and rushes the best round (in my opinion). The goal of this format is to limit rounds to 1 game (goal met), make bidding chains easy for all players (goal met), and allow players the actual power to impact a powerful deck appropriately (goal met). The most problematic part of this format is the very first round if someone has a powerful deck, as that one will only have 3-4 chains maximum to start if the player is wise. TLDR; new format, bring 2 decks, place a set number of chains (community input appreciated) on each of your opponent's decks that drop off at the end of the round, winning deck gets chains added to the deck to encourage players to use/bring two good decks rather than 1 powerful deck and a throwaway deck.
  9. Here's what I gather from the post, and I completely agree that Adaptive is flawed in its current state: The part that makes adaptive fun is you get to find out if it is the player or the deck that is better. If one player wins two games, they are the better (or luckier) player. If after two games each player has a win, that deck is most likely a stronger deck (or again lucky, but luck can't really be mitigated). The issue is the third game in this format. Single game rounds are 35 minutes when you know the deck. Sealed rounds are 45 minutes each meaning it is expected to take longer to play a deck you don't know. By this math the adaptive rounds should be 2 hours 5 minutes, not 90 minutes. Only getting to play against 2 opponents, which doesn't really give a good tournament, is 4 hours, for a card game. I play in the middle of the week regularly so 4 hours is a long commitment to basically be playing twice. Yes I will have the opportunity to get in 4-6 games, but the reality is that I've seen only 3 decks, including my own, in that time. What I see as the bigger problem, is the chains are introduced in the final game, which is regularly going to be rushed and the round will be ended in the middle of the game. If there is a deck that is powerful, and you get to the game where you have bid really high chains to be able to play the powerful deck, it is really defeating to win by current amber state, or lose for that matter. The final game that is supposed to be the definitive answer to who is the better player, is rushed to an end. In bigger tournaments, where it is expected I will play all day, I think this is a great format, but the time needs to be addressed so the third game isn't rushed. Maybe play each game in a set of 35 minutes so that the final round always has 35 minutes available to play.
  10. If you use the KeyForge website, the name Eriksson always has Brobnar as one of the houses, and if we are trying to be specific, I believe the one card in Brobnar that all of the decks with Eriksson in the name have in common is "Warsong" card 018. However, strangely enough, I can't find a correlation with the word "Raider".
  11. Silverther staggered through the entry way, the sun blinding as it fell through the open skylight, the cheers of the crowd deafening and pounding in his ears. The last Brob lite was probably the one that did him in. What was he to do, though? Last night was a raucous going away part for Tabris, the brews were flowing and everyone was having a grand time, but he had tickets to attend the games today and he wasn't going to pass these great seats for a little hangover. That little hangover, turned out to be a little bit of a problem, nothing the hair of the dog couldn't handle, so Silverther started early that morning with some brews he got from Charette hoping that would relieve some of the tension, but to no avail. The vendor served him his 5th, or 9th Brob lite, and by now the stadium was spinning. Fortunately this gave the positive impact of relieving the pounding in his brains turning his wise mind into Logos test goo. "pard'm me finm spur, bud, cerd you pont me in'd derectn of 103? I semd loss my place 'n I ned go back to'm seat". Silverther couldn't be bothered by the rudeness of this silent amigo, regardless of the fact that it was an easily recognizable cutout of Noddy, he gave it a hard shove as he walked away. "Fine, 'f you be no hep, then I'fin my way onmyown" Silverther wandered down one aisle, and then the next. He found the restroom, fortunately just before it was too late, unfortunately it was also the concessions stand and he had defiled all of the remaining assorted cooked meats. At one point, one of the attendees of the game pointed out that Silverther was breaking the rules. Although he had tried his best to make sure he wasn’t bothering anyone, he still missed the sign on the entry that stated that all guests need to adhere to a strict 500-1000 word minimum and maximum so as not to be escorted outside. Silverther paid the sign no attention, and before the day was up he was just short of the word count by nearly 200 words! Although this wouldn’t have been much of a problem under normal circumstances, this was a championship game, and the stakes were much higher. When someone pointed out to him that he was far too short on words, he decided that he would correct his actions so that he could enjoy the game further, if he could ever locate his seats. “Thak you s’much mr. Awyn, I ha no idea I wuz breakin’ a rules, an I cood ‘ve missed out on this great fun time. I din mean to ruin anyons day, jus tryin a have good time. You tryin have good time too?” Mr Awyn moved along. He meant no harm, he simply wanted everyone to enjoy their time at the championship, and everyone to have fair access. Mr. Awyn was a good man, or person, or however Awyn identified theirself. Alas he was unable to identify his seats before the game ended. When the security found him passed out cuddling one of the giant stuffed Niffle apes in the merchandise booth they kicked him out and gave him his now prominently known name: "Silverther, the Navigator of the Stadium"
  12. I think the secondary market will help support this game, and the idea of local trading. If you don't get the 3 houses you want, trade with someone that wants the houses you have. I'm guessing online retailers will have partially opened decks where maybe you pay $15, but you get to choose the 3 houses for your deck. True, this eliminates the true unknown factor of the game, but if you really want to own a deck you choose, there will be options besides just strictly blind buying. your second point of playing a crappy deck, maybe? Or maybe they will design more middle of the road cards so there isn't huge swings in card balance? I haven't seen all 350+ cards yet so I don't think its fair to assume there will be tons of crap cards. the third point, you're also assuming that there will be massively powerful cards, instead of middle of the road cards. Since this game isn't about deck building, there is no need to push the collectibility of the game and encourage players to buy tons of cards to get the really good ones. I'm guessing part of the balance issues in collectible games is self inflicted by the manufacturers knowing they want better cards that players have to chase and spend more money on. As far as having a deck banned... isn't that what you wanted from your third point? I don't know if you're concerned about a deck being banned or not banned. But lets go with you thinking both will happen and both are bad, I really think that if the manufacturer went to the length of banning an entire deck, it would have to be incredibly broken to the point that no errata could fix it. I can't possibly fathom a situation where no one in game production had the comment "what if there is a player that really likes there deck and they learn how to play it well and win a bunch of tournaments?" and now their system is just going to auto ban anyone who wins. Since these decks have a custom hero on the back of the deck, what if they create some hall of heroes where any deck that has won a significant number of tournaments enters in the hall, gets retired, and the player gets honor for their deck? Would it be too ridiculous if the tournaments prizes were a new deck since your deck might face retirement? And again, this is worst case scenario of FFG just banning decks that win instead of reviewing the deck contents to see if the card combo is creating some unfair balance in the game that they need to tweak. Your last comment, if all I have to do is spend $10 for ALL OF THE PLAYERS OF THE GAME to know that MY DECK IS AMAZING AND RECEIVED BAN STATUS, yeah totally worth it. I'm guessing, and this is a wild guess, that if FFG went to the length to ban the entire deck and say that it is illegal in its entirety you can never again play it, first maybe they'd send another deck or compensate in another way. The reality is that could you imagine the stock nightmare of stores receiving semi-blind boxes where the outside showed which of the 3 houses were included? There are 35 different boxes if there is a set order for the houses (mars always displays to the left of all other houses...) and there would be 210 different boxes if the order in which they display is random (Mars can appear to the left or right or Dis, etc). Store's displays would be getting messed up, if there was a more popular house then those would sell before the others and the store would sit on boxes of houses that were less favorable. Stores would try to order specific houses that were low stock. Players would get upset if their local store didn't get the houses they wanted. The printing for the boxes themselves would all be unique and increase production costs. Total blind boxes is absolutely in the favor of the store. If you really want to play this game and you really want to get the houses you prefer, I'd recommend just picking up a deck on the secondary market. It's hard to believe that this game would be the only competitive game with absolutely no secondary market. But really, if you want specific cards from Magic or any other CCG, you have to either buy a ton of blind boxes or look online for someone selling individual cards, this would be no different.
  13. While looking at the new Homebrew Dwarves, I considered the following, what does "ignored" mean in relationship to "revealed"? If I reveal a modifier that does not match the stance of the action, it is "ignored" which is different than cancelled which according to the rules reference 15.1 "A game effect cannot be resolved if it is triggered from an action of modifier that is canceled", but there is no mention of "ignored" as for triggering additional game effects. Point is, if a modifier is ignored, is it still revealed for purposes of further game interactions? It isn't cancelled, and obviously ignored means you don't perform the given modifier, but is it still considered revealed? For instance, File leader allows you to perform an attack if your command tool is revealed with an attack showing. If the wraiths had their modifier set for the red attack (and were able to take the upgrade), and an initiative 3 blue march, would the be able to perform the attack if someone collided with them later, or does "ignored" not simply mean not taken, but also cancelled as well?
×
×
  • Create New...