Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
khadorstrong

Not understanding Deck Building

Recommended Posts

Ok, so the game rules are pretty simple. I get those…however I am completely lost on how to build individual decks. 

As far as I understand it, lets say Im playing Jedi…
I pick A Hero's Journey… I then include 

Luke Skywalker, 
Twi'lek Loyalist
Jedi Lightsaber
Trust your feelings
Darobah Training grounds…..

Now lets say I want to add another Luke Skywalker, can I? Do I have to add another Hero's Journey to my Objective set? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the rules, it seems that you:

1) Pick 10 objectives. And pick the 50 cards that go with it.

You can include 2 copies of objectives unless it's stated otherwise on the ojbective which could allow you to built a deck I guess with 5 different objective * 2 = 10. I would then assume that you have to include the corresponding 25 cards * 2 = 50 cards also.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I haven't played and honestly as a long time deck builder it felt kinda lame.

Who knows maybe it's interesting but the idea of having to include 5 crap cards because I want another copy of Han Solo is not something I necessarily like.

It's certainly simplier to deck built since you have 100 times less choices. I would even suggest it will make the game more enjoyable for people that like to deck built to some extent but feel it's too complicated once you factor in hundreds of cards.

It create an new concept where you don't judge cards you judge packages. So maybe Han is the best card but it's not the best package so it kinda suck overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eprieur said:

Who knows maybe it's interesting but the idea of having to include 5 crap cards because I want another copy of Han Solo is not something I necessarily like.

You automatically assume that the cards that come with Han are crap. Why does everyone do this, when arguing against the deckbuilding aspect of this game? There is a huge assumption that the cards that come with the perceived good cards are perceived to be crap. I really do hold out to my assertion from months back that, left to your own devices, you'd more often than not include those cards that come with Han anyway - just because it's now prescribed that you include them, they are assumed to be crap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spalanzani said:

eprieur said:

 

Who knows maybe it's interesting but the idea of having to include 5 crap cards because I want another copy of Han Solo is not something I necessarily like.

 

 

You automatically assume that the cards that come with Han are crap. Why does everyone do this, when arguing against the deckbuilding aspect of this game? There is a huge assumption that the cards that come with the perceived good cards are perceived to be crap. I really do hold out to my assertion from months back that, left to your own devices, you'd more often than not include those cards that come with Han anyway - just because it's now prescribed that you include them, they are assumed to be crap. 

I think he intended to mean cards that *could* be crap. Wheter they're good or not, the fact that you are forced to use them if you want a better chance to draw Han is sometimes seen as a downside of this game. I myself find it a streamlining of deckbuilding for people who don't want to have to deal with the intracacies of specific card combinations of a game with a significantly larger card pool like AGoT. It also helps counteract the more tactical feel of the game by balancing good cards with some that are indeed crap. I certainly disagree that the 5 other cards would be defaulted to with, say, a Han inclusion. That's like saying "yeah, you can put in whatever sets you want from all the force packs and core set, but left to your own devices, you'd more often than not include the objective sets in the starting faction decks in the rulebook anyway - just because it's now prescribed that you include them, they are assumed to be crap." I think the objective set selection feels a bit more like sqaud planning in X-Wing than deckbuilding in MtG or the like. But that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, lets look at the cards that come with Han.

 

Questionable Contacts - Objective with 5 health, 1 Resource. Can transfer damage from your units to enemy units so long as they survive the fight.

Cloud City Casino - Enhancement providing 1 Resource.

Crossfire - Event that lets you give a unit ANY combat icon you want.

Swindled - Pay 1 to return a cost 2 or less unit to your opponent's hand.

Twi'lek Smuggler - 2 cost Unit, 1 Health, Unit Damage and Tactical icon.

 

None of those cards are bad. Questionable Contacts and Crossfire are flat out GREAT.

 

Obviously the Han Solo comment was just an example, but still. Actually look at the pods and you'll see that they aren't just filled with crap you don't want.

 

Its also not even close to a Steamlining. You can say "Oh, if I want Han I have to take these" but in reality its "Does this whole pod work with my other pods?" So you have to compare a whole 5 card spread with your existing 45 cards. That isn't simplification, its just a different form of decisions you have to weigh.

Hell, Han might not even be your goal. A couple Swindleds could totally turn a fight. Crossfire could be absolutely crazy. But the fact is, that's what you need to balance--not "Do I want Han? but "How will this whole pod synergize?"

 

I find it funny that its all the "Serious" deckbuilders who are simplifying the situation. Oh, they just want the one card..well..why the hell are you building your pod-based deck based on single cards? You need to find whole pods that work together, and that's the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

part of the challange yes, however that doesnt automatically make it a good thing. I find it to be a bit different, not terrible or anything of that nature, but we will have to see when expansions come out how they all interact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anyone commenting on this new way to build decks being good or bad are getting ahead of themselves. We don't know how it will really work because this is a new way to build and the car pool is very limited. Building decks in AGoT is great because the card pool is so large. If we just had a core set for that there aren't a lot of options. 

 

One thing I will say is the simplifed way to build a deck will make it easier to get new players into the game. AGoT is so large that it can be a bit daunting for new players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ulairi said:

I think anyone commenting on this new way to build decks being good or bad are getting ahead of themselves. We don't know how it will really work because this is a new way to build and the car pool is very limited. Building decks in AGoT is great because the card pool is so large. If we just had a core set for that there aren't a lot of options. 

 

One thing I will say is the simplifed way to build a deck will make it easier to get new players into the game. AGoT is so large that it can be a bit daunting for new players.

 

Yes, its nearly impossible for a new person to enter game of thrones and do well without paying out their arse!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eprieur said:

It's certainly simplier to deck built since you have 100 times less choices.

I know I'm jumping back a bit in the conversation, but I wanted to address this a little bit.  While it is true that you'll have less total decisions with the objective set deck building, each of those decisions is much more complicated.  Sure, it will be easier for someone to throw a deck together quickly, but high-level deck building will still be plenty involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Budgernaut said:

khadorstrong said:

 

so is there NO limit? If I want to include 7 of the same objective I can?

 

 

 

You are limited to 2 of each objective set, barring those that explicitly say on the objective "Limit 1 per deck."

 

where does it say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

khadorstrong said:

Budgernaut said:

 

khadorstrong said:

 

so is there NO limit? If I want to include 7 of the same objective I can?

 

 

 

You are limited to 2 of each objective set, barring those that explicitly say on the objective "Limit 1 per deck."

 

 

 

where does it say that?

Page 28, right column, very top of the page:

 

Any objective set may be included twice in a constructed 
deck unless its objective card states “limit one per 
objective deck.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the card pool was as large as AGoT, there are orders of magnitude more permutations of decks in AGoT. That makes deck building inherently more complex and involved. Sure, the element of obligatory inclusion factors in an entirely different range of considerations, but it's kind of obviously simpler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's all have this laid out. Clearly this game is in its infancy and thus we will have to see how the deckbuilding plays out in the long run. I'm a high level agot player ( whatever that means) and I find deckbuilding in star wars far more difficult and complex. Here's an example. Let's say in agot thee is one card that causes my deck a problem. I can include an answer for that card. Let's say in star wars a prevalent card causes my deck issues ie the blaster emplacement. Now the obvious answer is to play tear this ship apart which targets enhancements. However to add two copies you have to retool the entire deck. Now I can see how that might turn some off but it is certainly a lot more difficult than adding in 2 newly made lords to handle some troublesome locations. So far I'm really liking this unique approach to deckbuilding. I'm not saying I like it better than the traditional way but thus far it has certainly been interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok, so clearly we have fewer decision points, which each of which makes a bigger impact on the game, but part of this mechanic has deeper game implications.  The baseline idea, is that in a game with loosly fixed resources (minimum 4, max about 7), the cards resource costs **do not perfectly reflect their power**

I will repeat this.  Cards of the same cost are not the same strength, and this is explicitly ballanced via the set mechanic.

 

Yoda:  

Elite (Remove 1 additional focus durring refresh)

Tactics, [unit Dmg], [Objective Dmg].

for *each* enhancement on Yoda: [unit] [Objective]

5 Force Icons.

2 HP

All for the low, low cost, of…

 

3.

 

Freaking 3.  Get lucky and you could play that twice on your first turn if he wasn't unique.  Besides.  5 force icons?  It'll destroy any Edge battle you throw him in.

 

The set mechanic requres 4 other cards in your command deck.  The limit two means 2 yodas and you've got 20% of your deck built.  But this serves a really good role.  If the set mechanic wasn't in place, then, sooner or later, you'd have nothing but Luke/Obi/Yoda vs Vader/Palpatine.  There would be no reason for Stormtroopers or Y-Wings in your deck, because all the big names have a much more bang for your buck.  You can fix this (sort of).  Water him down, but then who wants a sucky Yoda.  Up his mana cost, but then your Objective/Resource system is broken because no one can afford to play him.  I suppose you then up the number of resources per objective, but then that furthers the "little guys suck" angle.

 

In a game where you can be drawing 6 cards a turn, and you throw half your hand every turn into Edge battles, there is plenty of room for cannon fodder.  Trust me guys, there is a method to all this.  This is a brand new game (with growing pains), and I'd rather see something different than play Magic the Gathering with a Star Wars lisence.  The resources are tight enough that you can always do something, but you can never do everything, and drawing Vader really is exciting.

 

Btw, tonight Yoda sent a ripple through the force to distract Palpatine (tactics) so a Jedi Loyalist could strike him down while his attention was elsewhere.  It was super cool.  If you haven't played it yet, give it a try (or three… it takes a few games to get comfortable).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

signoftheserpent said:

I respect them for trying something new, however since you are not going to be relying on traditional multiples of cards (even with 2x a given objective) you are much more likely to suffer from bad draws, particularly in a resource based game.

 

You go through far more cards in Star Wars than AGoT. It's very common in AGoT for me not to see all of my cards, in Star Wars it's very common for you to run through most of your deck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

signoftheserpent said:

I respect them for trying something new, however since you are not going to be relying on traditional multiples of cards (even with 2x a given objective) you are much more likely to suffer from bad draws, particularly in a resource based game.

I've suffered bad draws in this game FAR less than I ever have in MtG or any other card game I've played. Like the guy above me said, you go through cards so fast that bad draws don't have nearly the impact they do in other games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many things to answer:

-By all crap, I was kinda exagerating. Maybe some of them are good or even great, but like I said, it's clear that Han is a power card and the chances that he is paired with cards of the same power level is slim to none.

-The argument that all decks will eventually lead to Han/Leia/Yoda if you remove the restrictions is flawed. This all depend on the game mecanics and how they build the cards. You can look at multiple games and check if the statement is true. Exemple:

1) Star Wars Decipher the original SW game was all about the "Mains". For multiple reasons, but one of the big reason was that non main cards were in general, ****. Especially the first expantions then it got slightly better. Fodders existed also but were mostly non generic. Exemple, Red 6 was the best fodder ship due to it's destiny of 6. Wedge was incredibly strong for a cost 2 character with a destiny of 4 and +3 piloting power, etc. Compared to that you had stormtroopers with destiny of 1, 1 power an 2 forfeit that were mostly unplayable.

2) Then they redid the game with nearly the same mecanics with Wars CCG in 2004 and balanced things differently. Unique cards were still very strong but in general it was better to have 1 unique only + non-unique due to deployment restrictions of uniques. They were strong, but not dominant like they were in sw wars ccg. Generics had strongs stackable effects and the 6 "vader" deck didn't make much sense.

They also avoided mega synergy cards that become just too good when you have them all together, examples would be in the old set how Vader + Tarkin + Vader Light's Saber + sense/alter + cards like I have you now, etc, all stack and synergize on vader.

Basically don't make mega combo like that, make sure the generics cards are strong enough based on their cost, etc, and you can avoid the pitfalls.

In the current game you can compare red 2/red 5 vs xwing. At first glance it seem ok since the x-wing only cost 1, provide at least 1 fighting icon and got 2 lifes versus red 2/5 costing 3 (and in the case of red 5, only having bombardments icons).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...