Jump to content

TwitchyBait

Members
  • Content Count

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TwitchyBait

  1. Eh. It’s certainly good but I wouldn’t say imbalanced. It only takes one creature which really isn’t that strong in comparsion to other cards that can remove several or even all of your creatures while your opponents board stays in tact. On top of this if you’re playing different houses taking control of those houses makes the card nearly useless without other cards that let them activate it. Lastly you can just kill your own creature to get it back. Lastly consider none of it gives you any aember and it’s only as powerful as what’s on the board when it’s played meaning there’s plenty of situations where it’s meh
  2. False: -The rebels where having supplies delivered somewhere outside of the city, possibly some kind of hideout. -A local port owner says the rebels docked their ship in his yard and he’s unhappy with the “future” promise of payment. He’ll gladly lead the imperials to the ship. Once arriving there a fragged looking ship secretly rigged to explode when the imperials get to close. True: -A local crime syndicate has eyes and ears everywhere and are loyal only to credits. They must have seen something and would be willing to hand it over for the right price or a favor. -A Local Bothan lost his son who was a contractor during a rebel bombing on an imperial facility that was being built. He’s heard one of the rebels was injured and got treated by a local vet who promised to keep the surgery on the down low. Being no fan of the rebels despite local pressures he’d gladly sell out the doctor for vengeance.
  3. No worries hard to convey meaning sometimes over mere text. I used to do it back in my early GMing days but not anymore. I typically reward it differently ie a player makes a rousing speech, a convincing lie, a charming line etc I throw a bonus die or two their way for the check. If the role playing doesn’t aid the context of a check I might flip a destiny point in the players favor.
  4. You asked how it makes it a punishment, the reasoning was everything was made slightly more difficult for an action they took (not coming) resulting in an optional consequence by the GM that put them behind the rest of the party you didn’t seem to like this answer or simply choose to ignore it and repeat the question. It’s obvious you’re just trolling so think I’m happily done wasting my time with you. Also talk about my straw man? I ever made an argument for you, you however lied repeatedly about me first suggesting I never answered and changed the subject because you didn’t like my answer then suggesting my original response was to someone it wasn’t then claiming I thought all GMs who thought differently where bad or evil when I never suggested such a thing. But sure ok you got me
  5. Ruling as in decision made by the GM, not rules. I openly said earlier if it works at your table then great, I’m more responding to the other poster now for constant misrepresentation of everything I say.
  6. Oh look another straw man, honest discussion that difficult aye?
  7. Again you either fail to read or you’re simply a liar which is it? I opened that first statement pointing out some people calling the act of giving out xp to absent players as “participation awards” then proceeded to say I believed THOSE tables where awful. Please lie some more because you don’t agree with me, harms me not at all.
  8. Again reading comprehension, try it sometime. “To begin with” No **** I responded to them AFTER they quoted me and took offense at my BEGINNING post.
  9. You got offended at my remark of some calling it “participation trophies”, that’s a judgment on others I was criticizing. If you don’t call it that then why exactly did you assume I was judging you when I had never quoted nor responded to you to begin with?
  10. Pot meet kettle, judging others calling it participation trophies while not wanting to be judged, sure ok then
  11. Also consider if she’s in a prison there’s plenty of scenes that can occur. Other prisoners can make interesting or even dangerous NPC’s. Are there gangs in the prison? They might want to fight or intimidate the fresh meat. Maybe a bounty they captured alive and turned in before. Maybe someone from one of the players past is imprisoned and can reveal details about then that Pc didn’t know. Perhaps the guards are corrupt and can transfer info to those outside for a cost, after all what better way for the party to get details like how many guards are on at what time, what cell block is the prisoner in, what are the internal defenses and response units during a break out, a lot of that is info easier gathered from inside than out, etc.
  12. Translation “dur dur repeat the same answer for me to ignore again, also irrelevant pizza”
  13. So the pizza analogy has nothing to do with anything I said. Cool then I’ll happily ignore your straw man. Its not me feeling a punishment, I explained how it had a measurable negative effect on the character, the fact that you choose to ignore that explanation is entirely on you. I didn’t say you said it would hurt the game, I asked how it would as a justification for imposing that ruling. Reading comprehension is important. You then proceed the ask the same question I’ve answered several times. If you’re going to play stupid you can gladly continue to do so by yourself.
  14. Math is math, no one ever said that die would effect every roll your character ever did. But if you’re just as effective in every check but miss that die in one check you are over all less effective, this lack of effectiveness increases the larger that xp gain becomes whether you wish to play stupid and ignore it or not. Period, that’s objective fact you ignore. Your pizza analogy is still meaningless, xp earns effects what that character can do in every session down the road and makes them less effective than they would be if they hadn’t received it. Similarly if you’re seriously going to stick with this idea that xp doesn’t translate directly into how effective a character is then awarding any xp period is meaningless, have fun with those party wipes as difficulty increases. You ask a lot of questions but answer none of mine despite me answering yours, typically the same one over and over. I’m not playing the “how dense can you be game”. How would giving that player the xp hurt the game?
  15. Well yes it’s entirely possible to dump your exp in different areas and be less effective in different areas you didn’t put that exp. Ie player who focuses 200exp on melee and stealth but has low agility and no ranks in ranged will be a worse shot than a starting character with high agility and ranks in ranged but that 0exp character will be far worse at melee/stealth let alone the plethora of talents and abilities and the character with the 200xp lead has. Math is hard objective truth, how someone feels has no bearing on it and the simple fact is that having more exp gives you more options, more dice and statistically makes you objectively more effective in general. Players are free to “feel” differently and whatever works at your table works at your table. But if we’re talking purely hard objective fact less exp = less ability
  16. You can disagree but math is math. Let’s go with the smallest die, a boost die. Not rolling it gives you a 100% chance of no benefit, rolling it gives you a 50% chance of no benefit. If you don’t get the exp to have an ability/rank whatever to roll that extra (or upgraded) die you objectively have worse odds on your rolls. That’s math, not opinion. Talents provide more options or more strain, you can happily claim those benefits don’t make a huge difference in small increments but saying they make no difference is just objectively false. Your pizza analogy is poor. As a GM as my players earn more exp I am able to reasonably tone up the difficulty of challenges. Present more difficult checks for more experienced missions. Ie first session it’s unlikely they’ll face a Sith but months in? Sure thats possible. This is basic GMing, the players characters grow stronger and more capable and thus to keep the story interesting they must face tougher challenges. If one guy misses a few sessions it might not be a big deal but for campaigns that go on for years suddenly the one guy that can always make it because he doesn’t have much going on else-wise he suddenly becomes much better at handling these challenges. Not having pizza doesn’t in any way effect how that players character can perform in contrast to the power creep. Again you’re free to not value these lower capabilities as punishments but as a direct decision of a players not to attend the GM is denying the abilty to keep up with the power creep as well as others and thus make that characters time more difficult. I feel that’s a punishment, a meaningless one that accomplishes nothing as keeping the exp doesn’t harm anyone and simple keeps the playing field negative. Why do you feel a player should be weaker than others who can attend more frequently and why is being present at all relevant as the character didn’t cease to exist? By this same logic a brand new player coming into an existing campaign should have 0exp and be just fine. Isn’t the lack of ability to play and have fun in itself enough of a lack of benefit?
  17. You have objectively been at a disadvantage, even something as a single rank in a skill, a single boost die etc objectively makes you stronger. It’s fine that you’re good with it and don’t mind, that doesn’t make it any less true that you are now functioning at a disadvantage. Also the game does have challenge levels, a group of characters starting at just racial exp isn’t going to be as good as taking on challenges as knight level players. The GMs job is to slowly scale up the challenges ie higher difficulty checks, more opponents with better gear and talents etc. There is simply no chart rating individual enemies as appropriate for players with certain accumulations of exp, yet the challenge creep is still there.
  18. I disagree it’s punishment in that having a life or obligations outside of the game will occasionally cause people to miss sessions, they are now less effective than every other player and the campaign grows more difficult for them than anyone else. That’s a negative gained via choice of the GM solely for actions and occurrences typically outside of the players control, ie a punishment. From the system it doesn’t make much sense anyways. The player character still exists, they’re still doing something even when not present even if outside the scope of the story. This isn’t DND where you get exp based on the challenge rating of fights, it’s meant as a narrative device that allows the characters to progress through a story and take on bigger challenges.
  19. You fall behind the rest of the group, you have an intrinsic disadvantage in comparison to every other player. I might understand it if players where blowing off sessions but I’ve never had that be the case.
  20. Personally I keep xp static because it just makes scaling encounters easier and Id rather not disinsentivise players with less free time. Our group all have jobs, some of us have families and setting a regular meeting time where everyone can always show is unrealistic. Besides if something need be represented by them missing the sessions it’s that they missed out on plot and/or loot. The party comes across a foe wielding a lightsaber? Guess who’s out of the running for manning it, the player that’s not there. I feel no need to further punish by withholding exp as the character didn’t really cease to exist and exp is not often reflected by the difficulty of fights or any particular challenge but rather is just used as a mechanic to slowly scale up the capabilities and thus challenges the players face. Im kind of shocked by the people calling this method things like “participation trophies”, yikes what an awful table to be at where you treat it like a job instead of what it is, a game to hang out and have fun with.
  21. No prob glad I could help. It prevents people from just spamming + wins to make the deck look like it’s better than it is I guess as the casual win entries don’t show up to anyone else
  22. Not enough info. The app records 2 kinds of win/losses. The first is those you can manually enter with the +/-, is it that that’s missing? The second is the competitive wins losses, the ones that show up which you can’t edit. These are only shown when you compete in chainbound events. So if you’re not competing in Chainbound it won’t record wins at other non-Chainbound tournaments. Might that be the issue?
  23. We rotate sealed, archon mostly and occasionally other formats. The thing is even with Archon it’s still way different than other TCGs competitive scene. I mean you for one can’t truly net deck since no two decks are the same, the best you can do is try and get a deck that has similar popular cards but the chains from Chainbound mean you’ll likely not see that deck appear at more than a few events and if it comes to more it’ll either be so chained as to be weak or never really that strong to begin with. This keeps the game fresh even at the competitive level because decks that dominate only do so for a short time do to chains and there’s really no reliable way of copying them as the best you can do is pay a ton for something close online and even then it’d equally get chained up. If anything casual play is going to see more powerful decks stay played repeatedly and copied as they’re not accumulating chains when they win in that kind of play.
  24. I dont know the casual scene doesn’t seem nearly as popular as the competitive (where I am at least). Chainbound is what gets our stores active and that is only done in person so online play wouldn’t harm that aspect. For those that play near me crucible for example is just used to test out decks so we know what to bring to Chainbound turnoments.
  25. Yeah, well there's not a ton of direct aember generation but you have x2 Hunting Witch (not sure it fully accounts for that when you can play a ton of creatures once the combo rolls out and get a huge boost as a result) similarly it doesn't control aember much or kill creatures much so basically it's only good because of that one combo otherwise it would be a bad deck but the combo saves it because it only needs to happen once to win or get you so close to winning you'll win the following turn and thus SAS has a hard time catching that since it involves playing the same cards over and over again in the same turn multiplying their value where as normally without that specific combination those cards wouldn't be nearly as useful. So basically it's giving cards a singular value when the combo allows for you to play them several (up to six) times in a single turn thus inflating their usefulness during, but only during, said combo and I believe that's just one of the things the SAS system isn't able to catch.
×
×
  • Create New...