Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ascarel

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I get that, but to me the T-Rex holds that crown! 😂
  2. So, how about Kang, huh? I. Cannot. Wait. I so wish we had this before the big box. This will probably replace Mutagen Formula as my go-to scenario whenever I want a one-shot, straightforward but flavourful game.
  3. I think another key to this answer is the Resource keyword, regardless of the text that follows it. It automatically implies that it cannot be used for another player, as generating resources can only be done for cards you play yourself.
  4. Can you guys just stop rating stuff and just enjoy the game? 😂😂😂 ADDED: This sounded more peremptory than intended and this is mostly said in jest. I mean, the Internet is made for arguing, but I'm just finding it delightful how universal it is that people always disagree so seriously on ratings.
  5. I think there is too much variance in this game to identify a single best combo. Each aspect involve play styles that are qualitatively different enough, this will make them the best only for specific match ups. Protection is for the longer game, and so is Justice. Both these aspects are very control-like, I think. If you like to blitz through without much of a longterm plan, play Aggression. Now I presume Leadership is the most versatile, as this aspect is feels kinda like a free pass to me (and this is why I don't care much for it), but even then if you don't draw what you need when you need it, the game can go sideways. I'd rather tell you to just play what you want to play. 😄
  6. My guess is that this card was designed early on and though we only get it now with the Dr. Strange pack, it predates the rulings on defense. For my part, the way I distinguish the two cases is that to defend is _active_ -- therefore you exhaust -- and (defense) is _passive_ because you are being attacked. I read (defense) as being (on defense).
  7. Got my copy earlier this week but only opened it yesterday. She's a blast to play, but once I noticed that her nemesis card is numbered 1/5 instead of 2/5 like all other sets before, I was finally at peace. 😂
  8. I really love Risky Business thematically speaking, and it's easy to make it harder -- that's what modular sets are for.
  9. Do write to FFG if you feel this is preferable, but look, you are adding words to the Rules Reference text now. The condition in the rules is specifically about doubling/halving modifiers. It says nothing about generic multiplier effects (which could be more than x2), let alone the per-player one. I mean, where does a +40 HP calculus for a 4-player game involve a doubling/halving modifier?
  10. Shouldn't you conclude that when you don't see the icon, you don't multiply?
  11. I'll offer a different counterpoint here, though it must be said right off the bat that my whole premise is that whatever I'm going to say below has no bearing on the validity of all the reasons why a 40 card deck is more optimal. Because it is. I get the numbers game, I really get it. I'm not a competitive player and for the life of me I never wanted to be one until I tried my hand at L5R, attending events and championships at different tiers up to a Kotei. With L5R I did decide I would "play" that game, so to speak. I wasn't so good but I met nice people along the way, so that was not a total waste of time. But anyway, when your endgame is a victory, you want that as often as possible, and thus every little thing you can do to increase your chances of attaining that makes total sense. Inescapably so. However, it is impossible for me to approach Marvel Champions as a numbers/efficiency calculus. I hope you guys manage to see my side of things when I say with utter seriousness that to me winning is not the point. Yes, it's fun to win, but when you win the game is actually over, you know? Which in a way is a kind of "loss", because what I actually enjoy is the way to get there. I love games for their narrative aspect. I play RPGs at "just the story" difficulty level. I know Marvel Champions is not as narrative-driven as other games, but I do find it successfully evocative, especially Mutagen Formula. I can feel the Green Goblin flying over, the hordes of corrupted citizens running all around, and all that. It's pretty fun. I want to play the heroes the way I want and create an overall "mind story" with what happens on the table. If I manage to win the game by playing it the way I intended, then cool. I got a cookie, and who doesn't like cookies? But that's not the first reason I sat down in the first place. I do not approach is a challenge, but as a story, and under this paradigm, the math-side of the game is almost painfully futile. So yeah... My decks are usually between 42-46 cards. It's not wrong. Fight me. 😁
  12. +1 on that! Now, I don't want to second guess too many of Boggs' direct answers, but if we combine the knowledge that they have about 2 years worth of heroes designed right now with his stated wish to design X-Men characters, it seems to me that there is nothing from that universe in the pipeline already, pushing any eventuality of it rather far down the line. That seems to apply to Fantastic Four as well. I'm not complaining, I have no stakes in this. 😛 Just observing what this would entail, at least on face value. Edit: I know he could lie so as to not spoil anything, but his answers seemed so genuine, it didn't feel like he was avoiding spoiling anything. That's my takeaway at least. Edit 2: I wrote this before watching the final minutes of the stream, and to me Bogg's more generic and evasive answer about Kingpin and Daredevil stands in stark contrast here -- they make me think they are in the pipeline already. Edit 3: Yeah in the end I guess that am second guessing alot here. 😛
  13. AH! Ok, well, I did not look at the cards and therefore I should have just shut up. Sorry. Thanks for the clarification, and this makes me happy.
  14. I have not looked at the spoiled cards but since everybody is talking a bout the She-Hulk ally, this made me think. On the one hand, I'm a bit miffed that his ally is She-Hulk, as I was looking forward to two-hand play with the both of them. I know that's not impossible, and that it just cuts off access to Hulk's signature ally, and that this topic was discussed at length with Spider-Woman and Captain Marvel. But at the time I didn't care much for this second pairing and I did not think I would ever play them together. With the two Hulks, now, this is a bit different for me (with regards to how/what I wanted to play). On the other hand, if in such a game the She-Hulk player dies, doesn't this allow the She-Hulk ally to be put on the table? Not that this helps much the remaining player, but I never realized the implication. 😄
  • Create New...