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

Thoughts About the Legends Cycle - Report Playtesting Feedback Here

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1
StarWarsLCGCouncil

StarWarsLCGCouncil

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

As mentioned in our earlier thread, we want to get feedback from people who have had the chance to play with the Legends Cycle cards distributed by Colby.  

 

If you have tested them, let us know what you think.  We want to hear your feedback on things such as:

 

Do you like the theme for the cycle?

 

Are there cards that seem too powerful?

 

Are there cards that seem too weak?

 

Are there potentially broken combos that you've come across when looking at things in conjunction with the existing sets. 

 

Etc..

 

 Please post any feedback you have in this thread so the Star Wars LCG Council Design/Development Team can consider that information as we best decide what to do about the cards. 


  • Rio and CoDameron like this

#2
Rio

Rio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2215 posts
I think the Jedi objective that searches for a pilot or enhancement needs to be tamed down. Resupply Depot aside, the ability to grab Jedi Temple and start with your force resource is extremely powerful.

#3
Thaliak

Thaliak

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 379 posts

I'll have an easier time convincing my friends to playtest  the new cards if there's a deadline for submitting feedback or a tournament that uses the cards. Does the Council have a sense of how long it wants to gather feedback before making changes?



#4
StarWarsLCGCouncil

StarWarsLCGCouncil

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

I'll have an easier time convincing my friends to playtest  the new cards if there's a deadline for submitting feedback or a tournament that uses the cards. Does the Council have a sense of how long it wants to gather feedback before making changes?

Fair question about the time frame.  We are in the process of discussing the best way to do this and will post something ASAP.  


  • Rio and Thaliak like this

#5
Rio

Rio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2215 posts
Interactions I think should be looked at, and tested to asses power.

Double Cross at Nar Shadda and Jabbas reach, His High Exhaultedness, Vader's Army, IGD, The Reawakening

Conceled Heritage and Resupply Depot, Pyre, Crow, BTS Luke, Pilot Han, Hobbie, Rex

Engineered Suffering and anything with Bounty in it

The Power of the Valley seems super good in standard Jedi

These are things that stuck out to me upon first glance.
  • yodaman and StarWarsLCGCouncil like this

#6
StarWarsLCGCouncil

StarWarsLCGCouncil

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Here's what we plan to do initially for feedback on the Legends Cycle

 

We know people already have tested the cards, but we're not sure how many.  If you're willing to be a part of the process, please try to give initial  feedback by Oct. 15.  Tell us if you think some cards are too good.  If some cards need to be upped in power.  If things seem fairly costed.  If there are combos which look like they could be a cause for concern down the road.  Etc..

 

Our plan is to take that feedback, make changes based on that input and then ask people to do some more testing based on those changes.  

 

We will repeat this cycle a couple of times depending on the input we get before finalizing things. 

 

Our goal is finalize things with the set by no later than the end of 2018.

 

Thanks in advance to everyone who's willing to help with this and give their input.  We look forward to seeing what people think. 



#7
CoDameron

CoDameron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts

Here's what we plan to do initially for feedback on the Legends Cycle

 

We know people already have tested the cards, but we're not sure how many.  If you're willing to be a part of the process, please try to give initial  feedback by Oct. 15.  Tell us if you think some cards are too good.  If some cards need to be upped in power.  If things seem fairly costed.  If there are combos which look like they could be a cause for concern down the road.  Etc..

 

Our plan is to take that feedback, make changes based on that input and then ask people to do some more testing based on those changes.  

 

We will repeat this cycle a couple of times depending on the input we get before finalizing things. 

 

Our goal is finalize things with the set by no later than the end of 2018.

 

Thanks in advance to everyone who's willing to help with this and give their input.  We look forward to seeing what people think. 

 

I think it should be obvious that I would like to be a major player in the post-playtesting of this cycle as well. I have looked at some of the interactions above, and have my own opinions about them. I think there is a very delicate line between powerful and broken, and that line can be stretched a little further in a pod-based card game. For the most part, pods and interactions like Valley and Suffering/Bounty don't just break the game with the niche interaction (personally, I think that the Suffering/Bounty play is the weakest hyped interaction I have heard complaints about - Suffering/Hunted is MUCH stronger because it actually stops them from striking sometimes especially with Evir out; Suffering/Bones is strong too).

Honestly, cards / pods I wish had more testing haven't been mentioned here, so that's a good sign as to the power level of the cycle. If anyone has questions about the general/specifics of the design/playtesting, feel free to ask. 


  • doctormungmung, Rio and sdrewthomson like this

#8
CoDameron

CoDameron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts

Honestly, cards / pods I wish had more testing haven't been mentioned here, so that's a good sign as to the power level of the cycle. If anyone has questions about the general/specifics of the design/playtesting, feel free to ask. 

 

(Points to whoever can guess the cards / pods that I think are OP)



#9
Rio

Rio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2215 posts

Here's what we plan to do initially for feedback on the Legends Cycle
 
We know people already have tested the cards, but we're not sure how many.  If you're willing to be a part of the process, please try to give initial  feedback by Oct. 15.  Tell us if you think some cards are too good.  If some cards need to be upped in power.  If things seem fairly costed.  If there are combos which look like they could be a cause for concern down the road.  Etc..
 
Our plan is to take that feedback, make changes based on that input and then ask people to do some more testing based on those changes.  
 
We will repeat this cycle a couple of times depending on the input we get before finalizing things. 
 
Our goal is finalize things with the set by no later than the end of 2018.
 
Thanks in advance to everyone who's willing to help with this and give their input.  We look forward to seeing what people think.


Is there anyway we can push the date back? Maybe end of October? I really haven't got many games in TBH and would like to. I understand if not, time is important. :)

#10
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3914 posts

Is there anyway we can push the date back? Maybe end of October? I really haven't got many games in TBH and would like to. I understand if not, time is important. :)


Oct 15 is not the final date. It reflects our first review feedback and make changes if indicated point. Testing will continue beyond that until likely close to the end of the year.

#11
scwont

scwont

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 850 posts

I'm still playing catchup on the official cards so I'm unlikely to do any meaningful playtesting before the deadline. I've finally had a proper read though all the cards though and there are some cool ideas in there, and some sets that look very promising to build around.

 

Theme isn't normally my primary concern, but since it was one of the items for feedback: I'm afraid a big portion of this cycle does little to inspire me. So much of it is obscure, or repeats of existing characters (sometimes both: 2 Corran Horns in the same cycle?). There are exceptions: the bounty hunter pilots provide a very different spin on those characters and add a big boost to Scum Pilot/Vehicle based decks. The unique Bothan I like even though I don't know who they are, because I like having a Bothan-focused set.  Even though I haven't read the Thrawn books myself, they are significant non-movie (ex-)canon so Palleon and Wild Karrde feel like they fill in gaps that have been waiting to be filled for a long time - but it's a bit odd when they are the most recognisable names in their respective factions across the whole cycle. Likewise, I gather Yun completes a set of characters that some people have been waiting for.



#12
sdrewthomson

sdrewthomson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts

Question about Warlord Zsinj. (Reaction: After this unit resolves a strike, place 1 focus token on each damaged participating enemy unit.)

 

Was his effect intended to be a targeting effect? Obviously it isn't worded as such, but I'm asking for a friend. I tried using his reaction on a couple of damaged piloted Fighters and my friend pointed to Heroes of the Rebellion (Your piloted Vehicle units cannot be targeted by enemy card effects).

 

The way Warlord Zsinj is written, Heroes of Rebellion doesn't stop him. No question in my mind there. My friend was just wondering if that was an oversight in the design. I think it's strong, but not overly powerful, since you can play around it, and there are plenty of official cards that don't target anything with their effect. (Janus Greejatus is a perfect example of a card with a similar ability that also doesn't target.)



#13
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3914 posts
I can’t speak to original design intent, but most if not all similar effects in the game do not target.
  • sdrewthomson likes this

#14
CoDameron

CoDameron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts

Yes, his ability does not target and is not stopped by Heroes. Janus is a perfect comparison effect.

 

Zsinj is one of the pods that I think is on the powerful side. It is trying to give the generic Navy pods a little more variety in their mains, but man is he efficient. His objective is strong too but plays into the standard "navy is bad at edge" theme. I think he is best in a 7 card sith engine. 


  • sdrewthomson likes this

#15
CoDameron

CoDameron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts

Soooo, I see that October 15th came and went with little discussion outside of this. Does anyone want to talk about the pods they find troublesome or balanced or fun to play with? I would love to get a dialogue going (constructive or just for fun).



#16
dbmeboy

dbmeboy

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3914 posts

Soooo, I see that October 15th came and went with little discussion outside of this. Does anyone want to talk about the pods they find troublesome or balanced or fun to play with? I would love to get a dialogue going (constructive or just for fun).

Yeah... we as a council are not large enough to test things ourselves.  We'd love to hear feedback!


  • yodaman likes this

#17
sdrewthomson

sdrewthomson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts

I don't feel that I've played with it enough for my experience to be relied on as anything close to resembling "playtesting", although I have played with almost every objective set at least once. My impression is that there are no massively overpowered pods (although there are a lot of good ones - and that's a good thing), and there are some pods that just don't feel strong enough to warrant inclusion in decks over other official sets. I honestly don't have any suggestions for changes.


  • dbmeboy, Rio and yodaman like this

#18
yodaman

yodaman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2743 posts

I do remember in one of the Council discussions we had before we announced to the community that we wanted feedback, some Council members expressed  concern about a few specific cards (not entire sets) potentially being a bit OP as currently phrased. 

 

There were a few different cards that came up, but the only one I specifically recall at this point was the objective Concealed Heritage.  Being able to search for any enhancement or Pilot without paying a cost to do that search seems like it has the potential to be extremely abusive in the right deck, even though the card would go to your hand.   Specific enhancements that I remember being mentioned were Echo Caverns, Resupply Depot, Funeral Pyre, Luke's Saber, and Hobbie. 

 

Personally, I could see either adding some kind of cost to do the search such as having to focus the objective or putting more of a restriction on what type of enhancements or pilots you could pull to hand to tone it down just a bit in an effort to preempt any really abusive combo.



#19
CoDameron

CoDameron

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts

There were a few different cards that came up, but the only one I specifically recall at this point was the objective Concealed Heritage.  Being able to search for any enhancement or Pilot without paying a cost to do that search seems like it has the potential to be extremely abusive in the right deck, even though the card would go to your hand.   Specific enhancements that I remember being mentioned were Echo Caverns, Resupply Depot, Funeral Pyre, Luke's Saber, and Hobbie. 

 

Personally, I could see either adding some kind of cost to do the search such as having to focus the objective or putting more of a restriction on what type of enhancements or pilots you could pull to hand to tone it down just a bit in an effort to preempt any really abusive combo.

 

I wouldn't mind discussing Concealed heritage and why I think it's completely fine, despite being stong for early game consistency. 

 

First off, I will get the obvious arguments out of the way. First, you flop the objective before seeing your hand, and therefore get to guarantee a strong t1 start. Still, you have a chance of drawing into your trump enhancement(s) from the get-go, so essentially, this card provides no additional utility that you deck couldn't already do. Compare this to any off the other "great" objectives - MTFBWY, Gamor, Spark, Trust me, Asteroid sanctuary - all of these cards add another dimension to your boardstate in the early or mid game, whereas Concealed is blank after the flop. 

 

Second, who says that a deck that tutors its favourite consistency card or a t1 main is a bad thing? It only works T1 and it doesn't actually increase your hand size. Further, the set doesn't come with incredible targets, only a decent pilot and a sub-par enhancement, so it encourages branching into other strategies (rather than just being a 2-main brown pod you play over Tra Saa). 

 

Finally, the elephant in the room is that its an objective, and those are by nature inconsistent. You can't guarantee that you see it every game, but in the games you do, it is either smoothing or improving your t1 plays. Since it's Jedi (as opposed to Rebel), maybe this objective will take the bulky fighter deck and speed it up a turn? Is that so game-breaking? Compared to other cards we have, I say no; In a vacuum, I also say no. If you have a problem with this consistency card, you should take a look inside yourself and ask if your problem actually lies with Resupply depot and the Echo Caverns. 

 

 

Now, if you have a problem with Jedi Reflexes (Brad), you can come and say it to my face. That card is really good but it ain't broken.



#20
yodaman

yodaman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2743 posts

I wouldn't mind discussing Concealed heritage and why I think it's completely fine, despite being stong for early game consistency. 

 

First off, I will get the obvious arguments out of the way. First, you flop the objective before seeing your hand, and therefore get to guarantee a strong t1 start. Still, you have a chance of drawing into your trump enhancement(s) from the get-go, so essentially, this card provides no additional utility that you deck couldn't already do. Compare this to any off the other "great" objectives - MTFBWY, Gamor, Spark, Trust me, Asteroid sanctuary - all of these cards add another dimension to your boardstate in the early or mid game, whereas Concealed is blank after the flop. 

 

Second, who says that a deck that tutors its favourite consistency card or a t1 main is a bad thing? It only works T1 and it doesn't actually increase your hand size. Further, the set doesn't come with incredible targets, only a decent pilot and a sub-par enhancement, so it encourages branching into other strategies (rather than just being a 2-main brown pod you play over Tra Saa). 

 

Finally, the elephant in the room is that its an objective, and those are by nature inconsistent. You can't guarantee that you see it every game, but in the games you do, it is either smoothing or improving your t1 plays. Since it's Jedi (as opposed to Rebel), maybe this objective will take the bulky fighter deck and speed it up a turn? Is that so game-breaking? Compared to other cards we have, I say no; In a vacuum, I also say no. If you have a problem with this consistency card, you should take a look inside yourself and ask if your problem actually lies with Resupply depot and the Echo Caverns. 

 

 

Now, if you have a problem with Jedi Reflexes (Brad), you can come and say it to my face. That card is really good but it ain't broken.

 

Well, the math does enter into this consistency aspect.  Rather than comparing it to other "great" objectives, I'm looking at the objective compared to other search mechanisms. 

 

Let's just look at the search aspect because if you draw the card you want in your opening hand, whether you draw a search card or are able to search for the card via the objective, doesn't really make a difference. 

 

As everyone probably knows by now, the probability of getting at least 1 copy of a 2x objective on the opening flop for a 10 objective deck is 2/3 or about 66.67%. 

 

If you have 2 copies of a search card in your deck, the odds of getting at least one copy of one of that card in your opening hand, including a mulligan is about 40.3%.  

 

So  the odds are much better for flipping up one of those 2 Concealed Heritage objectives on your opening flop than it is for drawing 1 of 2 search cards in your opening hand (including mulligan). 

 

Another aspect to remember here is that if you actually get the search card rather than the card you want in your opening hand, then it's going to involve a cost to play the search card.   So in addition to looking at odds you have to consider what other similar search cards do and their cost and/or any restrictions. 

 

You're paying 2 for YYSY or Improvised Tactics to put Yoda or a Spectre unit into play. 

 

You're paying 1 for Ready for Takeoff (which only searches the top 5 cards) or Jabba's Summons to take Pilot cards or a Bounty Hunter to hand.  

 

You can search your deck for an enhancement when you play Momaw Nodan for 3 and put it into play, but he's in a Limit 1 objective set and the enhancement has to be non-limited Smugglers or neutral. 

 

If you compare Concealed Heritage to the objectives that search - 

 

You have to focus Journey to the Swamp or Impersonating a Deity to put a Creature or Ewok into play with a cost of 3 or lower (so there's a restriction). 

 

For Superior Numbers, you don't have to focus the objective, BUT it is Navy only and you can only put a Fighter unit into play. 

 

For Fearsome and Foul, you don't have to focus the objective BUT it is a limit 1 objective and you can only search for a Creature unit and put it into your hand. .  

 

I may have forgotten another search card and, if I did, I apologize.  It's been a busy past couple of weeks on my end.  My point is every single one of those other search cards I mentioned above has an extra restriction or cost that doesn't exist in Concealed Heritage.  That's why I think there may need to be one.