Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
CaliAlpha

FFG Announced Restricted List

60 posts in this topic

The freeholder/dash deck was over the top good.  I mean the win percentage is outrageous.  Sith Control will perform better than before because of this, but with Knowledge and Defense coming out next week maybe Jedis can destroy the Sith (see what i did there).  I think this is good for the format, maybe dash with jedis might be a thing who knows.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those saying this was too soon, I wonder if you have played in a regional thus far. I played in a 30+ person regional already. The field was over 25 smugglers with the two restricted objectives. The other light sides were either sleuth scouts or random jedi/rebel decks that didn't get near top 8. This is horrible for the environment when all the players realize and know you have to all run pretty much the same decks to win. So this is far from a knee jerk reaction, ignoring regional results so far where this seems to be happening at all of them would be turning a blind eye to a problem.

Its no more of a blind eye than letting sith dominate all of last year was. Also the only 30+ regional thus far had at least two rebel decks in the Top 8 in Texas. Might want to check your numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know that's true. Remember playtesters test the whole cycle together not in packs. Perhaps these sets should have been released in 1 and 6 instead of 2 and 3.

 

But don't you think by this decision, that they didn't have an answer coming to fix them?

 

I am not in favor of restricted lists either (that's why I offered my experience playtesting SW CCG, both for Decipher and the PC, and Star Treck CCG), so I think the company should live with it until they do fix it. Problem with that though is that a precedent would have been set, "fix" cards that we don't playtest that well with another card. Here the list needed to be created and I don't complain about the choice. 

 

Remember players, if you complain, you better have a solution to the problem, otherwise you are just whinning (I would really rather say something else there, but I am being nice).

 

Also, you can thank the Texas Regional where I am. This was the tournament where we had enough people that have input in the game saw the mechanic for its ugliness that it is. I bet (I don't know) that is what sparked this.

Edited by Rogue 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All that this move does is force the community to deck build for about 3 days...things will settle and we will again have a small group of dominant LS and DS decks.  

The problem is that we didn't have a small number of dominant LS decks - there was basically one.  I played 5 matches at the regional.  I faced a total of 7 different LS pods.  Every single deck ran Dash/Freeholders/Han/Lando.  The last was one of the Falcon, Chewie, or Sleuths, depending on flavor and preference.

 

Settling down to a small group of dominant LS decks will be an improvement.

 

 

To prove a point the Regional winner in Tulsa, Tyler this last weekend played 20 games with the Freeloaders/Dash combo. We added any pod that was not used that often and the deck still won. We determined that anything with those two pods played right would win. The Sith deck couldn't do that.

 

There will be an abundant of Rebel and Jedi decks coming soon with Knowledge and Defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You don't know that's true. Remember playtesters test the whole cycle together not in packs. Perhaps these sets should have been released in 1 and 6 instead of 2 and 3.

 

But don't you think by this decision, that they didn't have an answer coming to fix them?

 

Or that they do! By adding it to the restricted list they can remove it. It's avoiding a card errata or reprint. This could be a temporary fix until the real one comes through.

 

Also it's good to know that Texas and Texas alone has a big enough impact on the game, we should all bow to you *sarcasm*.

Rogue 4 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought Sith was OP. Was it good? Yes, but it can only stall for so long, and it isn't winning games without giving the opponent a chance. At our store championship, I played my buddy twice with my speeder deck and mopped the floor with him while he used a Sith deck. Using Freeholders/Holding the Cards I never got close. I knew that Dial 6 was the best I could hope for, and anything past that was a personal victory. Can it come off? Yes. Will it? Who knows... To be honest I would have no issue with these sets together if you take away elite from Freeholders. To be able to theoretically play four, four health/elite/1Bunit/2Bblast/1Eunit/1Etactic for free. You have given one card the ability to come out and dominate the game. Now the likelihood of that happening is probably not good, but when you have four holding all the cards two of them probably isn't out of the question, and even with two of them, Mara can't kill one on one turn, the emperor would have to use all of his focus on one to just to lock one down, even some star destroyers wouldn't kill one. Take away elite and I'd be fine with them coming back, but without more sets that continue to make certain affiliations over powered just to counter that, I think this is the best thing we could have hopped for.

Edited by Goknights12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I imagine the situation was before the cards where released was that the playtester's did recognize the problem and was like holding all the cards and freeholders are really strong and that this should be looked out.

It makes me wonder if the whole cycle shouldn't be tested together. Or maybe they should let the testers test the whole cycle and then say, "Here are the cards we expect to release in packs. Build what you can when one Force pack is out. Now what can you build when two Force packs are out?" and so on. This isn't for the benefit of the testers catching things, but so FFG can see how the play testers build with a limited number of objective sets from that cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe they do that already, test them all together that is.

That's not what he said. he suggested it not be done that way at all times and sometimes it be done as packs. 

 

One thing to note is that even after testing this could be changed internally at FFG so while beneficial might not always have the desired results. 

Budgernaut likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the core problem is that this power combo snuck past FFG's quality assurance type checks.

Given that it did, the solution they;ve implemented seems to be the only one possible, but the situation should never have arisen in the first place.

Budgernaut likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that it did, the solution they;ve implemented seems to be the only one possible, but the situation should never have arisen in the first place.

This.

 

I think quibbling over exactly which part of the playtesting process failed is pointless - it seems like when most people refer to the "playtesters" they really mean the entire QA process.  On the flip side, some people seem to be getting very defensive towards the "playtesters" as non-FFG individuals, with associated counter-finger-pointing.

 

The entire testing/QA process failed.  That's what people are concerned about.  Trying to blame/defend specific elements of that process is missing the big picture that most players actually care about - specifically, how did something so obviously broken make it through the process?  In the end, where the actual blame lands does nothing to impact the actual problem here, which is a serious lack of faith in FFG's testing/balancing process for this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To those saying this was too soon, I wonder if you have played in a regional thus far. I played in a 30+ person regional already. The field was over 25 smugglers with the two restricted objectives. The other light sides were either sleuth scouts or random jedi/rebel decks that didn't get near top 8. This is horrible for the environment when all the players realize and know you have to all run pretty much the same decks to win. So this is far from a knee jerk reaction, ignoring regional results so far where this seems to be happening at all of them would be turning a blind eye to a problem.

Its no more of a blind eye than letting sith dominate all of last year was. Also the only 30+ regional thus far had at least two rebel decks in the Top 8 in Texas. Might want to check your numbers.

 

Sleuths which often use the Rebel Affiliation are not included in the random rebel decks as I mentioned them earlier. In fact I know one of the people who top 8'd with the rebel affiliation and it was indeed sleuths. If my sentence was confusing which I can see it as such I was not saying sleuths didnt get near top 8 just the random Jedi/Rebel decks. 

Edited by DOAisBetter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that they needed to do this (and they needed to do it, the game was insanely terrible right now) is a huge problem and leaves me very concerned about there ability to design cards in the long run.  These objective sets are in back to back pack, and it's not some unbelievable combo, the interraction is so obvious and over the top it's ridiculous, how any playtester did not build this deck first and realize how OP and NPE it is is beyond me, and gents, playtesting gets harder with a larger card pool, not easier, if they missed this in back to back packs, they don't have a playtesting process at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that they needed to do this (and they needed to do it, the game was insanely terrible right now) is a huge problem and leaves me very concerned about there ability to design cards in the long run.  These objective sets are in back to back pack, and it's not some unbelievable combo, the interraction is so obvious and over the top it's ridiculous, how any playtester did not build this deck first and realize how OP and NPE it is is beyond me, and gents, playtesting gets harder with a larger card pool, not easier, if they missed this in back to back packs, they don't have a playtesting process at all

 

Please read this: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16108-for-all-the-haters/

 

Myself, I think that Freeholders were good design to counter the perceived sith dominance. As TGO said, sometimes you have to push the limits. FFG just got a little over the top with Holding All the Cards.

 

Even Wizards of the Coast did not see the monster coming their affinity mechanic would create when the Mirrodin block was released. And you would think they do a lot of playtesting.

 

An solution has been implemented. So please stop complaining now and go play the game. It's great. Just a few minutes ago, I gave the Sith a serious beating with a pure Jedi deck running Moldy Crow proxies and Jedi Mind Tricks. I really like what the designers of this game are doing.

dan.roettgen, Conradj and Toqtamish like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The fact that they needed to do this (and they needed to do it, the game was insanely terrible right now) is a huge problem and leaves me very concerned about there ability to design cards in the long run.  These objective sets are in back to back pack, and it's not some unbelievable combo, the interraction is so obvious and over the top it's ridiculous, how any playtester did not build this deck first and realize how OP and NPE it is is beyond me, and gents, playtesting gets harder with a larger card pool, not easier, if they missed this in back to back packs, they don't have a playtesting process at all

 

Please read this: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16108-for-all-the-haters/

 

Myself, I think that Freeholders were good design to counter the perceived sith dominance. As TGO said, sometimes you have to push the limits. FFG just got a little over the top with Holding All the Cards.

 

Even Wizards of the Coast did not see the monster coming their affinity mechanic would create when the Mirrodin block was released. And you would think they do a lot of playtesting.

 

An solution has been implemented. So please stop complaining now and go play the game. It's great. Just a few minutes ago, I gave the Sith a serious beating with a pure Jedi deck running Moldy Crow proxies and Jedi Mind Tricks. I really like what the designers of this game are doing.

 

Free Holders is a good design, and a good answer to Sith, Holding the cards as a two of is the problem, and every card game had things escape playtesting at some point, but this is so obvious that I maintain the not catching that is very worrysome.  Like I said, I'll start playing the game again, cause it will be fun again now that the silliness is stopped via a restricted list, and I am fine with the solution, but there is no way anyone is going to convince me they have anything close to a robust Q&A process if this made it through in back to back packs, I don't consider myself good at this game, and it took me 5 seconds to build that deck once I saw the cards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free Holders is a good design, and a good answer to Sith, Holding the cards as a two of is the problem, and every card game had things escape playtesting at some point, but this is so obvious that I maintain the not catching that is very worrysome.  Like I said, I'll start playing the game again, cause it will be fun again now that the silliness is stopped via a restricted list, and I am fine with the solution, but there is no way anyone is going to convince me they have anything close to a robust Q&A process if this made it through in back to back packs, I don't consider myself good at this game, and it took me 5 seconds to build that deck once I saw the cards

 

 

Firstly, we don't have the rest of the Force Cycle. We've been told that the cycle is playtested as a unit. Possibly with the entire cycle in play, The False Report/Against All Odds decks successfully reduced the dominance of Sith Control in the playtest environment, but there were other LS decks that matched up well with the DS decks that rose to pick up Sith Control's slack, so the deck wasn't as completely centralizing in the playtest environment as it turned out to be in the wild.

 

Secondly, we've been told the packs are organized for release after the playtesting process is complete. So we really can't blame the people who playtested the cycle for this, at all.

 

Finally, Sith Control has been the deck to beat since the Core Set release. Not even the S&S Unblockable deck that everyone was complaning about a few months ago was enough to knock it from that spot. If, in playtesting, The False Report/Against All Odds decks were able to punish the Sith Control decks enough to break their metagame dominance, why wouldn't they want to make sure the deck had its components as quickly as possible, especially with a tournament season coming up? Unfortunately, FFG miscalculated how viable the counters to the deck were, and the deck became even more of a centralizing force in the metagame than Sith Control was before it.

 

No, this didn't "slip by" the playtesters. No, FFG did not blindly send these out there not knowing what they had unleashed upon the game. It was (appropriately enough) a gamble that the deck would shake up the metagame during the competitive season. And it did, just not in the way FFG wanted it to.

Toqtamish and dan.roettgen like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Free Holders is a good design, and a good answer to Sith, Holding the cards as a two of is the problem, and every card game had things escape playtesting at some point, but this is so obvious that I maintain the not catching that is very worrysome.  Like I said, I'll start playing the game again, cause it will be fun again now that the silliness is stopped via a restricted list, and I am fine with the solution, but there is no way anyone is going to convince me they have anything close to a robust Q&A process if this made it through in back to back packs, I don't consider myself good at this game, and it took me 5 seconds to build that deck once I saw the cards

 

 

Firstly, we don't have the rest of the Force Cycle. We've been told that the cycle is playtested as a unit. Possibly with the entire cycle in play, The False Report/Against All Odds decks successfully reduced the dominance of Sith Control in the playtest environment, but there were other LS decks that matched up well with the DS decks that rose to pick up Sith Control's slack, so the deck wasn't as completely centralizing in the playtest environment as it turned out to be in the wild.

 

Secondly, we've been told the packs are organized for release after the playtesting process is complete. So we really can't blame the people who playtested the cycle for this, at all.

 

Finally, Sith Control has been the deck to beat since the Core Set release. Not even the S&S Unblockable deck that everyone was complaning about a few months ago was enough to knock it from that spot. If, in playtesting, The False Report/Against All Odds decks were able to punish the Sith Control decks enough to break their metagame dominance, why wouldn't they want to make sure the deck had its components as quickly as possible, especially with a tournament season coming up? Unfortunately, FFG miscalculated how viable the counters to the deck were, and the deck became even more of a centralizing force in the metagame than Sith Control was before it.

 

No, this didn't "slip by" the playtesters. No, FFG did not blindly send these out there not knowing what they had unleashed upon the game. It was (appropriately enough) a gamble that the deck would shake up the metagame during the competitive season. And it did, just not in the way FFG wanted it to.

 

I'd rather think they did blindly send these out there then the alternative, which is the knowingly said lets create this significantly OP and NPE deck that we'll need to fix a month after we release it. There is no in between, they either saw in playtesting this was broken and let it happen, or they did not see it at all. 

 

If they playtest the entire cycle, not the sequence of release, then that is a flaw in the process they run, because it implies they are willing to have the meta suck for anywhere between one to five months. The fact that they "miscalculated" what this deck would do to the meta is what demonstrates they don't have a solid process, the individual playtesters are not the problem necessarily, I have no insight into the process FFG runs, my point is that the simple fact that the meta was allowed to be what it was between yesterday and 5 weeks ago, in the middle of the store champs and start of regional season, outlines they have significant issues in the end to end QA process

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the results from the last round of regionals, there are players who posted 70+% win rates with their dark side decks against fields dominated by this combo.  Perhaps the real problem isn't the pure power level of the deck but the high end of what it's capable of.  Given that, it's possible that design/development and/or playtesting did see the deck, but that in the playtest environment it didn't hit the insane opening enough times and was beatable enough the rest of the time that it got passed through (or passed through with changes that weren't quite enough).  But when it hits the wild and literally everyone at some tournaments is running the deck it becomes clear that the combo does happen too often (or that even happening rarely is proving to be too much for the meta).  That would explain why they didn't allow running a 1/1 split as I've seen some people suggest should have happened.  1/1 would make the crazy start still possible, though much less likely...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am opposed to the idea of a Restricted list in principle, I think this is one of the best ways to handle the current situation.  Particularly in that it is reversible, if (as I hope, and as some have said) the remainder of the cycle contains the solid counters needed.

 

I'm particularly glad at the speed with which they reacted, and forgive them any heavy-handedness involved.  I played in the Regional Championship at FFG's Event Center, where both sets made a very strong showing.  I faced them in three of my five matches and I believe they represented better than half of the top 8.

 

The tournament results are reason enough to put some measure into place, but every game where Freeholders were played was marked by an aura of resignation from both players.  Everyone I talked to who played these two Objective Sets, including the eventual champion, expressed disappointment over having to resort to using them to remain competitive.  This, even more than the effects on game results, is why I'm glad of FFG's decision.  It's not just the sets' power, but their effect on the community, that is the real problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may ask, are you in favor of errata or restriction?

errata makes the game sloppy in my opinion, so I am in favor of this restriction list because as others mentioned, they can come off the list.

 

Also, no one feels bad playing the Freeloaders. They want to win and they will play them because they are competitive. Otherwise, use your created minds and make something of your own (still almost impossible to do since we all have access to the same amount of cards).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may ask, are you in favor of errata or restriction?

errata makes the game sloppy in my opinion, so I am in favor of this restriction list because as others mentioned, they can come off the list.

 

Also, no one feels bad playing the Freeloaders. They want to win and they will play them because they are competitive. Otherwise, use your created minds and make something of your own (still almost impossible to do since we all have access to the same amount of cards).

 

Me?  Restriction.  I don't like that they had to do it, but it's the best solution available, and I too would be glad to see solid counters come out for the same reason.  Probably a good idea for a new thread actually, as far as what game mechanics could be introduced in future objective sets to mitigate this combo's effect.

 

As to the second part, people are obviously playing (and in many, though not all) cases winning with them, but that doesn't mean they can't "feel dirty playing them".  People are still fielding other Light Side lists, I used Rebel Characters and performed moderately well, and I came up against one deck of Jedi Characters and one of Rebel Vehicles, but the numbers speak for themselves as far as tournament results go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, no one feels bad playing the Freeloaders. They want to win and they will play them because they are competitive. Otherwise, use your created minds and make something of your own (still almost impossible to do since we all have access to the same amount of cards).

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and conclude that, since you can't read people's minds or hearts, you're not in much of a position to say what people were feeling when they played the Dash-Freeholder combo.  I certainly didn't enjoy playing them, and almost nobody in our local meta (~15 players or so) enjoyed it either (except my wife, haha).  Those "explosive starts" that would win on turn 2 didn't feel fun, even if you were the player who won.

 

It felt noticeably different from say, using Rogue 3 with Wedge and an Astromech Upgrade to get an early jump on your opponent.  That was much harder to pull off and could still go very wrong if not played properly.  Multiple HAtC + Freeholders + Outmaneuver + more Freeholders just felt stupid, and left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, in our area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the results from the last round of regionals, there are players who posted 70+% win rates with their dark side decks against fields dominated by this combo.  Perhaps the real problem isn't the pure power level of the deck but the high end of what it's capable of.  Given that, it's possible that design/development and/or playtesting did see the deck, but that in the playtest environment it didn't hit the insane opening enough times and was beatable enough the rest of the time that it got passed through (or passed through with changes that weren't quite enough).  But when it hits the wild and literally everyone at some tournaments is running the deck it becomes clear that the combo does happen too often (or that even happening rarely is proving to be too much for the meta).  That would explain why they didn't allow running a 1/1 split as I've seen some people suggest should have happened.  1/1 would make the crazy start still possible, though much less likely...

 

Yeah, but FFG has a business to run, and so they need to see past what the high-level players are doing.  They need more people to keep buying their product, and this Dash-Freeholders nonsense is exactly the kind of thing to drive away new players who don't have the experience to develop counters to it yet.  When there's a bazillion games on the market to choose from, it's easy for a new player who's still experimenting to conclude that the uphill battle of learning to play against something like the Dash-Holders (or to make an LS deck that works just as fast) isn't worth their time or money, and they'll just move on to something else.  Star Wars LCG is already a drop in the bucket compared to other games, and FFG just can't afford to lose more players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0