Discussion for ASM

User avatar
RybackStun
Member
Posts: 1680
Joined: February 22nd, 2013, 12:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, California
GEMP Username: RybackStun
Contact:

Discussion for ASM

Post by RybackStun »

Putting up the thread for discussion on ASM. Will post here myself when I'm more awake, feel free to discuss.

This is a deck I'm very passionate about, which is why I decided to get on this train earlier rather than later.



User avatar
Shewski
Retired Advocate
Posts: 27782
Joined: December 17th, 2002, 1:23 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by Shewski »

Love it, thanks for following the guidelines. Good example of a first voting post.
Mike Tomashewski

User avatar
WiseMarsellus
Member
Posts: 17423
Joined: February 26th, 2007, 9:33 am

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by WiseMarsellus »

i'm passionate about it as well, in that i don't like it very much. some problems with it

1. it does too much. mains platforms i think are usually best when minimalist. hunt down is great minimalist design. does its damage thing and gets out of the player's way. trm, same thing. combat to an extent. profit. asm is the opposite, it has an extremely wordy flip mechanic, followed by multiple functionalities on the 7 side.

2. it also features an array of unpalatable characters like galen and grievous, who if they return will hopefully do so without text preventing their forfeit being reduced, and without full immunity for grievous.

3. aforementioned wordiness. quick, where can you find the text that docking bay transit with the prisoner is always free? what about the text that says where ls can and can't move the prisoner? stuff like that.

now, i'm not opposed to rereleasing the theme asm, and capturing the insidious prisoner storyline from the movies in the form of an objective. but i really hope it significantly differs from the asm that we see currently
tom kelly
Image Image Image Image
check out my youtube page for swccg video content, and my twitch for swccg live streams!

User avatar
JarJarDrinks
Member
Posts: 26223
Joined: November 4th, 2003, 10:01 am

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by JarJarDrinks »

WiseMarsellus wrote:now, i'm not opposed to rereleasing the theme asm, and capturing the insidious prisoner storyline from the movies in the form of an objective. but i really hope it significantly differs from the asm that we see currently
x2
dx_37 wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 12:12 pm
I would be all for a reset if I get to be on the reset team
"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
- Bill Maher

"How you play the game is important. But for me, it's about if you win or lose."
- Derek Jeter

AnakinSolo
Retired Advocate
Posts: 15934
Joined: December 4th, 2002, 4:03 pm

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by AnakinSolo »

JarJarDrinks wrote:
WiseMarsellus wrote:now, i'm not opposed to rereleasing the theme asm, and capturing the insidious prisoner storyline from the movies in the form of an objective. but i really hope it significantly differs from the asm that we see currently
x2
count me in
Well, Bye.

User avatar
qasur
Member
Posts: 5326
Joined: February 25th, 2009, 11:33 pm
Location: Gulfport, MS

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by qasur »

First, I am fine with the side-7 damage.

Second, although Profit pulls characters, they are not mains. I am not sure this deck should have a OPG pull of Grievous/Dooku.

Third, just cut down on wordiness. With both WHAPv and ASM gone together, a returned version can be made at the same time without handicapping D&D to make it work with WHAPv (or Palpatine).

One such way would be to have Insidious Prisoner be placed out of play if WHAPv on table at start of game and any reference to it target "[V] Palpatine" instead.

Fourth, to go with losing the mains-pulling, have ASM pull [presence] droids instead with no immediate-pull on flip side.

Fifth, with power creep reduced, you don't need the limiting text.

Sixth, the psuedo-tunnel vision was the extra that is no longer needed. Just more added to the objective to incentivize you on the flip. I would rather see a forfeit bonus to presence droids.

Just my opinions.

caldred
Member
Posts: 1625
Joined: July 12th, 2010, 10:55 am

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by caldred »

MAVanDriel wrote:
JarJarDrinks wrote:
WiseMarsellus wrote:now, i'm not opposed to rereleasing the theme asm, and capturing the insidious prisoner storyline from the movies in the form of an objective. but i really hope it significantly differs from the asm that we see currently
x2
count me in
x4

Honestly just adding "your force drains at (Blockade Flagship or Invisble Hand) sites are cancelled" and allowing LS to move the prisoner to another site on Coruscant would improve the realism and the playing experience against the deck.

Maybe some of the back-side bonuses could be reworked a little (esp. with no Atrocity in the game), so maybe it's just "if you occupy 2 battlegrounds in your control phase, opponent loses 1 force." Force pile search is probably ok, and immunity limiting might not be necessary if new guidelines are instituted.

User avatar
RybackStun
Member
Posts: 1680
Joined: February 22nd, 2013, 12:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, California
GEMP Username: RybackStun
Contact:

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by RybackStun »

I wouldn't be opposed to the Objective being reworked to be less wordy, but two things absolutely need to stay with the card.

The Deploy from Reserve for -2 of Dooku or Grievous and the pull a card from force pile and opponent chooses to allow it or lose 2 and drop it to used.

The ping damage is in an interesting spot. ASM puts a lot of locations on the table (bare minimum 3, but more likely 5) and can't really transition itself away from protecting Sidious. At MOST, with it's own locations, ASM deals 3 ping damage, but that's only if your opponent allows you to control those three sites. Ping damage on top of drains can end up being a lot of damage, but that's the punishment for not engaging your opponent.

I'm cool with removing the forfeit cannot be removed text on Grievous (I've recently dropped Galen from the deck and it runs so much better, so his text doesn't matter to me atm) but the Immunity text is just fine. It's not like were talking about The Emperor or Yoda here who are stupidly hard to hit with a weapon, You only need a 6 for Weapon destiny to hit Grievous. The immunity protects the driving force of your deck from getting wiped out by some scrub that pulled a tracked 4 (or non-tracked 4, I've seen it happen) and clears the site with very little effort.

If the objective is rewritten to be too different from its current form, then it loses what makes the deck incredibly fun to play. An avenue to do something fun from the movies, and force your opponent to come to you to stop you from completing your goals. Isn't that really what Star Wars is all about? The Dark Side forcing the Light Side to react to them?

User avatar
JarJarDrinks
Member
Posts: 26223
Joined: November 4th, 2003, 10:01 am

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by JarJarDrinks »

I want the whole profit-esqe-ness of the objective to go away. DOn't stop drains for either player anywhere and don't allow LS to start a Jedi.

And don't allow them to hide @ a 1/0 site.

The DS player deploys it's dudes and starts escorting. LS deploys and tries to stop em. That's it.
Last edited by JarJarDrinks on August 1st, 2014, 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dx_37 wrote:
October 2nd, 2019, 12:12 pm
I would be all for a reset if I get to be on the reset team
"Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking."
- Bill Maher

"How you play the game is important. But for me, it's about if you win or lose."
- Derek Jeter

AnakinSolo
Retired Advocate
Posts: 15934
Joined: December 4th, 2002, 4:03 pm

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by AnakinSolo »

the incredibly inelegant location choices for both cor and inv hand should go
Well, Bye.

User avatar
RybackStun
Member
Posts: 1680
Joined: February 22nd, 2013, 12:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, California
GEMP Username: RybackStun
Contact:

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by RybackStun »

qasur wrote:First, I am fine with the side-7 damage.

Second, although Profit pulls characters, they are not mains. I am not sure this deck should have a OPG pull of Grievous/Dooku.

Third, just cut down on wordiness. With both WHAPv and ASM gone together, a returned version can be made at the same time without handicapping D&D to make it work with WHAPv (or Palpatine).

One such way would be to have Insidious Prisoner be placed out of play if WHAPv on table at start of game and any reference to it target "[V] Palpatine" instead.

Fourth, to go with losing the mains-pulling, have ASM pull [presence] droids instead with no immediate-pull on flip side.

Fifth, with power creep reduced, you don't need the limiting text.

Sixth, the psuedo-tunnel vision was the extra that is no longer needed. Just more added to the objective to incentivize you on the flip. I would rather see a forfeit bonus to presence droids.

Just my opinions.
Second - Profit also pulls up to 5 characters all game, ASM pulls 1 character once.

Third - It'll be interesting to see HOW they do this if they do indeed choose to do so

Fifth - It still helps against stuff like Home One, Mace, Yoda, and Qui-Gon. All of which are likely to be faced in the Reset Format.

Fourth and Sixth - If all of this text is changed to Droids, it ceases to be a deck about grabbing Palpatine with Grievous and moving him to the ship and more about flooding the table with Droids. If you want that type of deck, Invasion is more than playable. The Tunnel-Vision text is also more than just Tunnel-Vision, it's a secondary mind game mechanic all of it's own. It'd be a shame to lose something like this.
caldred wrote:
MAVanDriel wrote:
JarJarDrinks wrote:
WiseMarsellus wrote:now, i'm not opposed to rereleasing the theme asm, and capturing the insidious prisoner storyline from the movies in the form of an objective. but i really hope it significantly differs from the asm that we see currently
x2
count me in
x4

Honestly just adding "your force drains at (Blockade Flagship or Invisble Hand) sites are cancelled" and allowing LS to move the prisoner to another site on Coruscant would improve the realism and the playing experience against the deck.

Maybe some of the back-side bonuses could be reworked a little (esp. with no Atrocity in the game), so maybe it's just "if you occupy 2 battlegrounds in your control phase, opponent loses 1 force." Force pile search is probably ok, and immunity limiting might not be necessary if new guidelines are instituted.

Cancelling the drains at the ship just takes if from a "Yay I'm here, now let's see what else I can do to force my opponent here" to "Why am I even doing this?" Also moving the prisoner to another site on Coruscant is what WHAPv is about, so that's where that type of mechanic and text should stay. Getting Sidious 2 sites away from the Flagship is more than enough to force the Dark Side into a standstill. If you fortify his site with good characters DS has to spend a LOT of resources to clear out the site and move back.

The only problem I have with this text: "if you occupy 2 battlegrounds in your control phase, opponent loses 1 force." is that 1 damage is literally nothing in this game. Stacked up sure, but it'll take way more turns than necessary to make that type of text effective.

User avatar
RybackStun
Member
Posts: 1680
Joined: February 22nd, 2013, 12:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, California
GEMP Username: RybackStun
Contact:

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by RybackStun »

MAVanDriel wrote:the incredibly inelegant location choices for both cor and inv hand should go
What would you suggest then?

AnakinSolo
Retired Advocate
Posts: 15934
Joined: December 4th, 2002, 4:03 pm

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by AnakinSolo »

I would suggest using one of the cor docking bays. Having your objective get "split" by the other player is a part of swccg. deal with it.

Having inv hand instead of blockade flagship resolves my concerns there.
Well, Bye.

gogolen
LS Region: Coruscant
LS Region: Coruscant
Posts: 11290
Joined: May 2nd, 2005, 3:52 pm
Location: Somerdale, nj
Holotable username: gogolen
GEMP Username: gogolen

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by gogolen »

The deck should have its own unique sites, now that the PC is ok with creating new card titles.

Grievous should never be completely immune to attrition and you should not be able to get him out of the deck.
Image

PC Store Manager
Kevbozzz wrote:I agree 100% with Gogolen's responses.
Now streaming games on Youtube & Twitch- please subscribe to my channels- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjqwgj ... Xu5T9vp4AQ
Twitch- https://www.twitch.tv/gogolen

NEW & RETURNING PLAYER ARTICLES- https://forum.starwarsccg.org/viewt ... 32&t=50486

User avatar
RybackStun
Member
Posts: 1680
Joined: February 22nd, 2013, 12:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, California
GEMP Username: RybackStun
Contact:

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by RybackStun »

gogolen wrote:The deck should have its own unique sites, now that the PC is ok with creating new card titles.

Grievous should never be completely immune to attrition and you should not be able to get him out of the deck.
Why should Grievous never be able to be pulled from the deck?

gogolen
LS Region: Coruscant
LS Region: Coruscant
Posts: 11290
Joined: May 2nd, 2005, 3:52 pm
Location: Somerdale, nj
Holotable username: gogolen
GEMP Username: gogolen

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by gogolen »

RybackStun wrote:
gogolen wrote:The deck should have its own unique sites, now that the PC is ok with creating new card titles.

Grievous should never be completely immune to attrition and you should not be able to get him out of the deck.
Why should Grievous never be able to be pulled from the deck?
Does HD pull Vader? Does Profit pull Luke? Does Combat get Maul or Qui-gon?


No they don't. Objectives should not pull main characters. Maybe a supporting character or something, but not the main guy the deck is designed around.
Image

PC Store Manager
Kevbozzz wrote:I agree 100% with Gogolen's responses.
Now streaming games on Youtube & Twitch- please subscribe to my channels- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjqwgj ... Xu5T9vp4AQ
Twitch- https://www.twitch.tv/gogolen

NEW & RETURNING PLAYER ARTICLES- https://forum.starwarsccg.org/viewt ... 32&t=50486

User avatar
Cam Solusar
Member
Posts: 16871
Joined: November 23rd, 2002, 7:57 pm
Location: Sunny Southern California

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by Cam Solusar »

It could be argued that the \/ of Grievous/Dooku was a necessary mechanic when you allow the LS player to start the game with a Jedi on the table. If the Jedi text were removed then it would be far less necessary for the deck to have the download.
Camden Y, Southern California
BrenDerlin wrote:These movies aren't called Star Battles, yo.

User avatar
RybackStun
Member
Posts: 1680
Joined: February 22nd, 2013, 12:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, California
GEMP Username: RybackStun
Contact:

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by RybackStun »

gogolen wrote:
RybackStun wrote:
gogolen wrote:The deck should have its own unique sites, now that the PC is ok with creating new card titles.

Grievous should never be completely immune to attrition and you should not be able to get him out of the deck.
Why should Grievous never be able to be pulled from the deck?
Does HD pull Vader? Does Profit pull Luke? Does Combat get Maul or Qui-gon?


No they don't. Objectives should not pull main characters. Maybe a supporting character or something, but not the main guy the deck is designed around.
TIGIH Starts Luke, CCT can start Iggy, MWYHL pulls both Luke and Yoda, BHBM Deploys Emperor from reserve at -2 cost.

All of which are Decipher objectives. So let's try this again.
RybackStun wrote:Why should Grievous never be able to be pulled from the deck?
To be less of a jerk about this, if the only way to keep the Grievous and Dooku pull is to remove Grievous's Immunity to Attrition from the Quarters text, then I'm fine with that compromise.

User avatar
qasur
Member
Posts: 5326
Joined: February 25th, 2009, 11:33 pm
Location: Gulfport, MS

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by qasur »

I disagree. It is not a compromise. It is not needed at all.

I suggested focus on droids because other than Dooku and Grievous, the ship was manned by tons of droids... and Grievous kept throwing more droids in front of them.

User avatar
RybackStun
Member
Posts: 1680
Joined: February 22nd, 2013, 12:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, California
GEMP Username: RybackStun
Contact:

Re: Discussion for ASM

Post by RybackStun »

qasur wrote:I disagree. It is not a compromise. It is not needed at all.

I suggested focus on droids because other than Dooku and Grievous, the ship was manned by tons of droids... and Grievous kept throwing more droids in front of them.
But the Droids weren't moving Palpy. Grievous was. That's the whole point of the deck.

If the locations get changed from what they are now (IE removing the 1/0) then this deck can get EASILY blown out without the Grievous/Dooku pull. Even if they were to remove the Jedi start on Prisoner, LS could drop a scrub or two, battle, clear out the site and then Palpy is back at the quarters when LS moves him.

Again, if you want to play droids, Invasion is there.

Post Reply

Return to “On Deck Discussion”