Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ColinEdwards

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  1. ColinEdwards

    Wizard's Quest strategies

    I hope so, I love the idea.
  2. I think "Hisu Mori Toride" is a really good example of what might make a cool tournament: Support Unicorn or Support Lion. Doesn't need to change the cards, but could affect the flavor text in the future. (I am not entirely sure the "winners choose the role" is a very good model - it tends to reinforce existing strong combinations and discourage experimentation. The current voting seems pretty flawed too.)
  3. I probably didn't explain myself very well; I was more thinking of having the choice of a role be something that influences the narrative (not just the choice of a clan.) (I don't think linking 'advantages' to winning tournaments is a great approach; if anything, the losing clans need something to boost them, rather than having the strongest clans choose first.) Just in terms of narrative; you can still have 'free-for-all' events; but not every event needs to be like that.
  4. This is just an outline of an idea, not anything fully thought out. I personally find the new multi-role stuff pretty confusing, and it doesn't really feel like it adds to the ongoing narrative I personally would like to see some more variety on the way roles worked and players affected the game. . Ideas for 'Tournaments' that make more sense than "for the next 3 months the Wolf clan is 'Keeper of Mud' and 'Seeker of Nothing' 'Crane' vs 'Lion' - choose either Crane (any role but Alliance with Lion) or Any Clan (Alliance with Crane) to side with the Crane clan, same for Lion The winner of the tournament decides whether Crane or Lion will take the stronghold! 'Keeper' vs. 'Seeker' - decide whether the Emperor will direct the (Unicorn?) clan to look outward for new allies or the direct the 'Phoenix' clan to focus on traditional magics (Unicorn can only be Seeker, Phoenix can only be Keeper ... all other clans must choose either a Keeper or Seeker role) 'Fire' vs. 'Water' - The shugenja of the Dragon want to summon the rains to alleviate starvation while the Crab attempt a scorched earth policy to hold back the shadowlands ... which policy will go forward? Pick a fire role or a water role and do battle! Those feel like meaningful events to me, build a connection to the story and give some context to build a deck around.
  5. ColinEdwards

    LotR and other LCGs rotation

    I think a rotation is pretty critical for long-term viability of competitive games: the initial buy-in becomes too much without it, and it's too many options for someone to pick up. For the same reason, I think having some 'pre-built' competitive decks for sale is important too. Being able to try a competitive deck for a lowish-fixed cost, gets new players into the game and without having to get their head around every card. None of that really applies to co-op games though.
  6. I feel that LotR works better for 1-2 players; Arkham for 2-4. I find LotR really rewards deck design; a lot of the outcome is determined before you start playing ... and there are just lots and lots of cards to use, which makes the design portion before you start playing more interesting. Some of the mechanics ( locations, for example ) tend to penalize larger teams, and the puzzle / deck-building aspect doesn't really translate to larger groups either. Arkham includes random draws from the bag, in addition to cards, which adds a lot more variance: something I find frustrating solo, but which adds a lot to the multiplayer game. (It feels like you have a 30% chance in any given game of getting crushed mercilessly by tentacles from outer space, 30% chance of succeeding so fast you miss the distinctive features of a mission.) In a multi-player game, some people are succeeding pulling off crazy combos, other are getting crushed and being forced to resign, but it smooths out the experience. The variation adds a lot of tension, but in a good way. I personally prefer LotR; but both are well-designed games with a lot of depth.
  7. ColinEdwards

    Another co-op LCG?

    The reason i was thinking about Battletech was that it lends itself thematically to a card game implementation. In the old board game, you would pick units by tonnage: you might have 190 tons to play with that you split across four mechs, so something like theat in LotR LCG. It also lends itself to the campaign play of Arkham: as you accumulate experience (i.e., like new cards to swap into a deck), you might also be accumulating damage and not fully restocking ammunition. To handle action efficiency, there is a concept of 'overheating': the more actions you take, the more heat you build up. Certain weapons ( particle beams, lasers ) might add extra heat. There might be options with the 'fog of war', you might send a light scout in to scout an area, but units won't engage until they see you. Finally, I love the idea of a game that is fundamentally co-operative, but also with a scrimmage mode. (To an extent, I wish they had gone this way with L5R: mostly progressing the story line with a cooperative campaign against the shadowlands, but allowing for clans to fight head to head as well.) It doesn't need to be battletech... most of those could work just as well with "Starship Troopers", "Robotech", "Space Marines" or any number of other franchises.
  8. ColinEdwards

    New To Game - What To Buy

    I would personally try a run through with a single core first, to see if you like the game. Play on easy, and consider allowing a second draw if you pull a 'bad' token. -IF- you enjoy the game, buy a second core and do it again, but with more strict rules. My feeling is the game is balanced around having access to two cores; stay with 'easy' mode while solo. Buy the scenarios in order after that. The more challenging levels are best left to multi-player... bad luck averages out over 3-4 people, but solo - it ends the game too quickly. I personally use a house rule you can swap out any 'new' cards into your deck for no exp cost. Older cards have to be purchased normally. Don't read ahead, the game is best experienced taking it as it comes. Easy mode is your friend at first; once you have an idea what is coming, bump it up a bit. The stand-alone scenarios are best played with friends, and when you don't know what is coming. #1 piece of advice: DON'T BE AFRAID TO HAVE DIFFERENT PEOPLE PLAY WITH SEPARATE CHAOS BAGS new players get easy bags... and let them make mistakes. experienced players get the hard bags to keep it interesting.
  9. ColinEdwards

    Another co-op LCG?

    I have some real concerns about the future of competitive LCG's: the buy-in gets insane. Initially, it's not bad, you buy a core set, maybe 2. The additions are a set of $10-$15 decisions. After a couple rounds of expansions, getting new people into the game becomes a huge challenge. Too many cards to get your head around, and the up-front cost is very high. The co-op games seem to work a lot better. Adding a new player into LotR - swap over to easy mode. Playing with a 7 y.o? sorted. Getting a new friend interested? sorted. Working with a theme deck ? sorted. Arkham LCG is even better - use the easy bag. Someone with a single core wants to join the campaign: sorted. I love how you can easily play with people who go all-in and people just testing thing out. I enjoy the both styles of games - but the co-op just feel like they work out better. Anyway, I'd love to see a "Battle-tech" co-op game (with an optional head-to-head mode). You pick a 'lance' of 4 mechs. Run them through a campaign, a set of linked scenarios that carry over. (I have some battletech-nostalgia, but really... the theme could be warhammer 40k, starship troopers, aliens vs space marines, robotecth, or just about anything.) You a are a mercenary company, hired into a campaign. You have some core units you enhance with extra armor/weapons, you recruit allies, you have special tactics. As you progress through the campaign, you get more experienced (like Arkham), but also build up damage. Please, please take my money.