Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Endor cycle!

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
233 replies to this topic

#21
someguy11

someguy11

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 572 posts
I like that scum gets a positive enhancement. Maybe sith will as well to make tremayne's set better. Seems like they have learned how to make better sets. Internal synergy to the max with Han's set. Also, these new missions seem to fix the problem of much of the hoth cycle.

#22
RedSquadronK

RedSquadronK

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 278 posts

I love pretty much everything in this preview. The only thing I'm not thrilled about is more Ewoks (they're fine, but I wasn't craving more).

 

Mission cards seem like they'll open up some very interesting strategies and avenues of attack. I love those big flashy effects! Very interesting that they count as normal objectives as well.

 

DS Counter Stroke will be a great option to have. Scum getting more upgrade cards seems like a cool direction (especially if they continue with effects targeting characters without attachments).

 

I have super high hopes for this cycle. In general the quality of the design has been improving, so I could see this cycle being really fantastic.


  • thedaffodilfish and Fayde like this

#23
pantsyg

pantsyg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2690 posts

I like that scum gets a positive enhancement. Maybe sith will as well to make tremayne's set better. Seems like they have learned how to make better sets. Internal synergy to the max with Han's set. Also, these new missions seem to fix the problem of much of the hoth cycle.

 

I'm wondering what Missions will do to objective composition. Presumably you won't want to have a ton of missions in a deck, as they do nothing for you until you can destroy them and the ones they previewed have only one edge pip.


  • Fayde likes this

#24
RedSquadronK

RedSquadronK

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 278 posts

Also there are 3 new fate cards in the cycle?! We'll have so many different types of fate cards by the end of the cycle!

 

Also also they're bringing back NEUTRAL OBJECTIVES!!! My dream of an all-neutral deck is alive again!


  • KennedyHawk and TheNameWasTaken like this

#25
someguy11

someguy11

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 572 posts
The neutral is a mission, probably from a scum objective

#26
Utinni

Utinni

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 516 posts

The neutral is a mission, probably from a scum objective

From the article

 

"Three new fate cards add new tension to every edge battle and neutral affiliation objective sets return for both the dark side and the light side."


  • TheNameWasTaken likes this

#27
Zouavez

Zouavez

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

I'm so happy they are focusing on Endor for this cycle because it will make my Tribal Ewok deck so much better :D



#28
tierdal

tierdal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2344 posts

OH MY LORDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD (vader)

 

 

OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

 

 

*happy dance*



#29
IdeYoshiya

IdeYoshiya

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 593 posts

The wording on some of these cards is poor. While it's obvious what is meant by "out-of-faction," there are no such thing as factions in this game, per se, while there are affiliations. Also not sure why they decided "engaged with" is better than "engage/engaging." Am I marrying my characters off to my opponent's objectives now, or what? Finally, I really wish they'd developed a new template for mission cards, beyond the presence of a cost icon and the "Mission" type line. Or just eliminated the resource icon itself, since nobody's likely going to want to play one that gives their opponent additional resources anyway. Otherwise these look exactly like neutral objectives and it's going to confuse people, especially newer players.

 

Gameplay-wise though, it looks cool. It's about time we got a Rebel Han who does more than skedaddle. And to be clear, I do very much like the concept of mission cards, just not the visual execution. I've always felt like "objectives" should be things you are trying to do, not destroy. Missions fill that conceptual void for me, and I look forward to playing them.


  • Zouavez likes this

#30
Utinni

Utinni

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 516 posts

 Also, a bit of confusion which might just a problem with the wording in the article, it says "but during your deployment, you can pay their deployment cost to play them as objectives under your opponent’s control." So if it is under your opponents control, they should be able to choose if the reaction goes off or not, and moreover, most say "enemy", which would be the player that actually played the card and thus make a negative reaction to actually deploying the mission.

 

Regardless of whether I am reading how the printed words would interact according to current game rules, I'm sure it will either be clarified or fixed somehow to interact how they intend it to interact.

 

I assume the reason for the wording in the article is that there will be some objective that can actually generate resources, so  the "controlling" player can use them as resources (i.e. DS Mission with 1 resource being used by LS to play cards) .


  • IdeYoshiya and Zouavez like this

#31
someguy11

someguy11

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 572 posts

From the article
 
"Three new fate cards add new tension to every edge battle and neutral affiliation objective sets return for both the dark side and the light side."


Totally missed that line. I better read it again to see what else I missed.

#32
tierdal

tierdal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2344 posts

Im just putting it out there now but...

 

Hey X , I think I left my X mission on your side of the table, can you check your deck and see if you have it?

 

:) 


  • scwont, Zouavez and BakaMatt like this

#33
stubobj

stubobj

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

 

 Also, a bit of confusion which might just a problem with the wording in the article, it says "but during your deployment, you can pay their deployment cost to play them as objectives under your opponent’s control." So if it is under your opponents control, they should be able to choose if the reaction goes off or not, and moreover, most say "enemy", which would be the player that actually played the card and thus make a negative reaction to actually deploying the mission.

 

Regardless of whether I am reading how the printed words would interact according to current game rules, I'm sure it will either be clarified or fixed somehow to interact how they intend it to interact.

 

I assume the reason for the wording in the article is that there will be some objective that can actually generate resources, so  the "controlling" player can use them as resources (i.e. DS Mission with 1 resource being used by LS to play cards) .

 

Maybe control goes back to the owner as soon as its destroyed allowing you to use the reaction? Its not very clear though thats for sure.



#34
Utinni

Utinni

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 516 posts

Maybe control goes back to the owner as soon as its destroyed allowing you to use the reaction? Its not very clear though thats for sure.

Yeah, I guess that makes enough sense



#35
Solaris

Solaris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1241 posts
Wow, so many things to like about this new cycle! New card type, new versions of awesome characters (Han, Emperor, Ackbar, etc), new Exector and Home One... I just hope it will indeed arrive in the 4th Quarter because I don't want to wait until 2016 to play this.

#36
theChony

theChony

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts

We don't have actual rules yet, but I bet Missions will behave slightly differently from Objectives. But I've been waiting for a new card type like this, bringing more theme and excitement back to the game. I can't wait to play Plan of Prophetess, luring gullible little Yoda over to the dark side! Very exciting preview, hopefully there are no delays.

 

I also cringed and wondered at that "out of faction" choice of words. 



#37
FuzzyWookiee

FuzzyWookiee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts

So maybe we have learned to be more patient with them on card design. Still need to fix the cards that come out and really tilt the game in one's favor, but it does seem they have a plan. 

 

Now to fix the problem of cards coming out regularly.......



#38
tierdal

tierdal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2344 posts

You know what this means? Given enough blast - Navy can actually win earlier now. 4 objs on the board (1 being a mission)


  • Crouton, scwont, doctormungmung and 1 other like this

#39
FuzzyWookiee

FuzzyWookiee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts

 Also, a bit of confusion which might just a problem with the wording in the article, it says "but during your deployment, you can pay their deployment cost to play them as objectives under your opponent’s control." So if it is under your opponents control, they should be able to choose if the reaction goes off or not, and moreover, most say "enemy", which would be the player that actually played the card and thus make a negative reaction to actually deploying the mission.

 

Regardless of whether I am reading how the printed words would interact according to current game rules, I'm sure it will either be clarified or fixed somehow to interact how they intend it to interact.

 

I assume the reason for the wording in the article is that there will be some objective that can actually generate resources, so  the "controlling" player can use them as resources (i.e. DS Mission with 1 resource being used by LS to play cards) .

 

 

opponent's control, but still your card. Maybe that is the key



#40
BobaFett

BobaFett

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3037 posts
I don't see what the big deal is with the faction wording. I use that term all the time, they are factions after all.


So does the New Han Solo effectively let's you strike an objective twice on a turn and also be able to do 4 engagements in a turn. Also, of your attacking a mission, does that allow a 4th engagement per turn?