power creep is a helluva drug - SPOILER - Set 11

[fungineer]

As a QMC fanboy I think this is super helpful. Like SUPER helpful. However, on average I really dislike the tendency to set up automatically that is happening a lot.

QMC already had that setup. This just adds consistency.

Okay. I meant automatically AND consistently...

In that case, agree to disagree.

I just can't understand the mindset that increasing the luck factor in a decks early game set up is a good thing.

I think it depends on the situation. If a deck has to pull xyz or it just loses, adding that variance feels mean, but there is something to playing TRM and not knowing whether you'll get the JCC, Boss Nass Chambers, or both. I've resigned myself to being wrong, but I do wish more decks had the chance to have an explosive start with the trade off that it won't happen every game.

I agree a lot with aermet here. The trend both in legacy and in later D and D designs has seemed to be to make the game more consistent every time its played. It's true that not finding the right card when you need it, or having a "bad matchup" makes a deck less fun (and more likely to lose), but when it gets to a point where you can always get whatever you need ("tutoring" cards) or what opponent does doesn't really matter (this card) things start to get stagnent, which is worse for the game overall imo. Seeing qmc avoids battles all the time, it's no surprise some crave for more of that.

To the credit on this design I do appreciate that's its once per game and that (usually) opponent can cancel. That's is something I like. Agree wording is wonky... I still doubt many or any will play original, but what do I know, at least there's an appearance of choice.

Granted...with thread titles about creep when presenting a card, it should be no surprise some things it does to much (and others crave for more of it). I'm not sure if its merely on the "I liked/didn't like" legacy line or just presentation.

[Cam Solusar]

I'm definitely disappointed that we didn't get something more along the lines of the old cc celebration/urchins combo.

[CRG]

+1 to fungineer/aermet. Don’t like the automatic nature of it. QMC should miss on that pull once in a while.

Do like the opg battle cancellation text.

[chriskelly]

But why should it miss some of the time?

It is a slow deck to begin with, having poor luck set it back another turn doesn’t seem very fun.

[vhstapes]

Is there actually an argument FOR higher variance going on in this thread? Star Wars IS pull chains. Having a deck get completely hosed once in awhile because it activated one of its pieces is one the most incredibly unfun, obnoxious things about SWCCG, and should be considered a bug of the rules, not a feature.

IMHO, of course

[JarJarDrinks]

IMHO, of course

It completely boggles my mind how someone could have any other opinion.

[rsersen]

It is a slow deck to begin with, having poor luck set it back another turn doesn’t seem very fun.

Having a deck get completely hosed once in awhile because it activated one of its pieces is one the most incredibly unfun, obnoxious things about SWCCG

x2, and glad to see this being the prevailing sentiment about LS decks that are already slow to set up. Looking forward to the MWYHL helper(s) that will stop me from whiffing on Yoda or Daughter or a site or Great Warrior on my first turn, because that is also not fun. Thanks!

[Darth_Link]

Take all tests, yoda, leia turn 1 from under your starting effect into hand?

[DerekChng]

I thought variance happens all the time with most decks, why should QMC be treated better?

e.g. You have missed Insurr/IAO pulls with docking bays because you activated both (or started both in hand), Luke's Lightsaber was activated when you have LSJK, EOPS activating Endor Shield on first turn, thus denying you 2 admiral pulls right away and giving your opponent 2 icons on their first turn, plus countless other scenarios etc.

[fungineer]

But why should it miss some of the time?

For the same reasons the LMFBM thread is so long....not everyone wants the same thing.

To be honest the and/or itself doesn't really bother me (example the DS Walker location that was v'ed I think was a weird design when YMSYL should have just been errata'd). It's just that with this, not only did some feel we should fix that, but combine it with something else...

[alex-1]

Absolutely great card and needed for QMC. I love the function of taking Harc and his ship into hand before activating and still have the deploy for -1 each. QMC is so vulnerable at the start of the game so this will really help there. Great concept!

[Cam Solusar]

But why should it miss some of the time?

It is a slow deck to begin with, having poor luck set it back another turn doesn’t seem very fun.

QMC is SWCCG jazz. The fun is adapting to the rough situations you find yourself in and digging solutions out of your force pile. This card is auto-tune.

[quickdraw3457]

So for the anti variance people, at what point would you say it's not enough variance? Should players just be able to start the game with harc+overseer on table? Should HD just be able to start a Vader on table if opponent gives them 2 icons? Should trm start with an extra twix? Should any deck with a designed setup just automatically start with whatever it is? Where do you draw the line?

This has always been a game about variance. As pull chains increased over time, people always complained about it becoming too automatic. This shouldn't surprise anyone that players still complain about it, it's old news. Players should have more creative avenues available other than always getting the cards deemed necessary for setup by design. Much of the skill in the early game is being able to adapt to different situations, such as if you can't find a card. Do you draw more, or leave your Force pile? Do you abandon it and go for some other strategy? If every version of qmc has the same ideal setup, and if that setup is baked into the starting cards, and you extrapolate to each other deck, then the first 2 turns of every game become the same. Then why bother playing those turns? Just start the game at turn 3. (not literally, this is why I asked at what point is there not enough variance). But this kind of thing I also think definitely stagnates the game. And it's a big reason why we are seeing the early game of swccg completely disappear (this and insane activation numbers).

[JarJarDrinks]

But why should it miss some of the time?

It is a slow deck to begin with, having poor luck set it back another turn doesn’t seem very fun.

QMC is SWCCG jazz. The fun is adapting to the rough situations you find yourself in and digging solutions out of your force pile. This card is auto-tune.

[JarJarDrinks]

Oh wait I think I get it. If QMC becomes a playable deck then that may cut into LMFBM's dominance and you'll have to find something else to spend your waking hours complaining about.

[JarJarDrinks]

So for the anti variance people, at what point would you say it's not enough variance? Should players just be able to start the game with harc+overseer on table? Should HD just be able to start a Vader on table if opponent gives them 2 icons? Should trm start with an extra twix? Should any deck with a designed setup just automatically start with whatever it is? Where do you draw the line?

At what point would you say it's too much variance?

Obviously you examine each situation separately. Though I'm convinced that some people here haven't actually played a game using QMC if they think the swing between missing and getting the harc pull is acceptable.

[quickdraw3457]

So for the anti variance people, at what point would you say it's not enough variance? Should players just be able to start the game with harc+overseer on table? Should HD just be able to start a Vader on table if opponent gives them 2 icons? Should trm start with an extra twix? Should any deck with a designed setup just automatically start with whatever it is? Where do you draw the line?

At what point would you say it's too much variance?

Obviously you examine each situation separately. Though I'm convinced that some people here haven't actually played a game using QMC if they think the swing between missing and getting the harc pull is acceptable.

You definitely have to examine each situation separately, but they influence each other on the whole. If one deck becomes automatic, it sets the standards for others to be competitive. Perhaps this is being given to qmc now because decks like Diplo and ebo are so automatic that qmc needed a boost to be more reliable to stay competitive. And this happens over and over again until every viable deck has this, hence why I asked you what is an acceptable level of variance.

You also aren't giving people enough credit when you say they can't have played qmc before. Other players like things other than you do. You can't just say they're wrong. I think what they're saying is not "qmc shouldn't have this reliability" but rather "no decks should have this reliability."

[alphabeta]

IMHO, of course

It completely boggles my mind how someone could have any other opinion.

This is quite a condescending comment, to say the least
Unless it is meant as a joke, but I fail to see it

[Cam Solusar]

Carrulli posts some very good general points. I'll talk about QMC specifically.

It's all about taking steps to obtaining that controlled board state. There are two early game scenarios that involving the system that make things difficult for you. One is not getting Harc out first turn. The second is risking Harc getting blown out after you deploy him. The deck can already play around these things, though. You play plenty of barriers, probably alternatives, so you have things that can protect Harc. You also want to be playing cheap characters so that you can flip early. My ideal setup if I'm looking at a rough space situation is probably to flip ASAP by Harc to system, two cheap guys to sites, download the DB, land Harc, then move him and your other characters over to the corridor. Then your force pile is opened up and you're in a good spot for setting up your counterattack.

Where I would say Qmc actually struggles is this midgame segment, where it's riding the line between using its force pile pulls for mitigating damage and setting up its own board control. It doesn't have enough punch right now to face the faster, cheaper strategies that DS has at its disposal. In legacy the deck had lady luck for splashable space, and cc celebration & all my urchins let you leverage a cheaper character base for retrieval similar to how scum and villainy. That would be fun to have available again. If we're trying to emphasize more of a power card build like xanth enjoys playing, I think a card like kebyc v legacy would be fantastic.

I've played QMC more than any other deck in my playing career. I'd be happy to help discuss this productively in a way that will get us a good helper card. I think this one misses the mark.

[aermet69]

So for the anti variance people, at what point would you say it's not enough variance? Should players just be able to start the game with harc+overseer on table? Should HD just be able to start a Vader on table if opponent gives them 2 icons? Should trm start with an extra twix? Should any deck with a designed setup just automatically start with whatever it is? Where do you draw the line?

This has always been a game about variance. As pull chains increased over time, people always complained about it becoming too automatic. This shouldn't surprise anyone that players still complain about it, it's old news. Players should have more creative avenues available other than always getting the cards deemed necessary for setup by design. Much of the skill in the early game is being able to adapt to different situations, such as if you can't find a card. Do you draw more, or leave your Force pile? Do you abandon it and go for some other strategy? If every version of qmc has the same ideal setup, and if that setup is baked into the starting cards, and you extrapolate to each other deck, then the first 2 turns of every game become the same. Then why bother playing those turns? Just start the game at turn 3. (not literally, this is why I asked at what point is there not enough variance). But this kind of thing I also think definitely stagnates the game. And it's a big reason why we are seeing the early game of swccg completely disappear (this and insane activation numbers).

I'm glad you posted this. This is much better than anything I could put into text. I'll add that I also like that variance is part of deckbuilding. You obviously always attempt to reduce variance, but finding the balance is the interesting part. Is playing double Harc/Overseer worth it to be more consistant, or am I okay with not finding him in 1-2 games out of 4? These are interesting and important (imo) decisions to make at the deckbuilding level.