A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

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

A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by Cam Solusar »

Was discussing this a bit in chat; this card is one that I've always thought is interesting:

Image

What if ASP/AJP only let you download battlegrounds that are related to sites/systems already on the table? Not sure what the "plan" is for these two, but this sort of mechanic could help us avoid shenanigans like HD v downloading the Endor system.


Camden Y, Southern California
BrenDerlin wrote:These movies aren't called Star Battles, yo.

User avatar
Aglets
Rules Advocate
Posts: 19294
Joined: January 14th, 2004, 9:08 pm
Location: Bel Air, MD

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by Aglets »

I like this idea a lot. :!:
Image
Rian Johnson wrote: I would be worried if everybody across the board was like "Yea, that was a good movie." It's much more exciting to me when you get a group of people who are coming up to you.....really really excited about it. And then there are other people who walk out literally saying that was the worst movie I've ever seen. Having those two extremes to me is the mark of the type of movie that I want to make.

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

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by Cam Solusar »

This would promote the idea of having lots of related locations on the table, too. Less 'stack of twixes' off in the corner of the playing area while both players pile mains at the battle plains or the 3/2 site. More move phase shannonigans.
Camden Y, Southern California
BrenDerlin wrote:These movies aren't called Star Battles, yo.

Kevbozzz
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 5257
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 3:13 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by Kevbozzz »

Interesting idea. That would limit the decks that play it pretty substantially. Something like ISB that wants to set up on Tatooine would have to find their first Tatooine location before they could pull the rest.

Random idea if you want to promote this sort of thing: you can pull any place for 2 force, per the current text, OR you could pull a battleground related to a battleground you already have for free. It is late and I have given zero thought to this idea which came up while typing this, so I'm sure it's terrible.

Cam Solusar wrote:More move phase shannonigans.
Heh.
Check out ShanCast, my SWCCG podcast! Past episodes can be found at www.spreaker.com/user/shancast, or via the Spreaker app (search for #SWCCG).

ImageImageImage
3MW0J8 wrote:If DBO comes back again I swear I will quit for good.
DDM wrote:All hail Kevin Shannon!! :rimshot
3MW0J8 wrote:holy balls KSBOOTMFY
Schele wrote:I guess you're not as bad as I thought you were.

User avatar
quickdraw3457
Multimedia and Special Projects Advocate
Posts: 25915
Joined: September 3rd, 2003, 5:10 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
GEMP Username: quickdraw

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by quickdraw3457 »

I like the related BG location idea. Would need tested but I think it would be an improvement over the old AJP/ASP.
Matt C. - Pittsburgh, PA
Image
Hunter wrote:quickdraw is right

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

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by qasur »

I too like the related-location idea, and I think KShan nailed a better version of it.

Some of what these cards are good for is pulling systems and sites not related to each other. His version gives a plus for sticking with related locations. And on the plus side, it also keeps decks that want to pull say the system turn 1 from being too fast as it will likely cost 2 Force, then free after that. A slower setup.

Corran
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2783
Joined: June 20th, 2004, 4:53 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio
GEMP Username: corran
Contact:

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by Corran »

Free seems power creepy. What about 4 for a site and 2 for related?
Check out Bad Deck Breakdowns, a Star Wars CCG Deckbuilding podcast, on the podcatcher of your choice or https://www.kendallcast.ninja
dvphimself wrote: https://www.twitch.tv/kendallcastnetwork/ is my favourite SWCCG channel.
seitaer wrote: Corran's streams are great, even if he likes the last jedi

jcb213
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1990
Joined: January 14th, 2007, 5:35 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by jcb213 »

What if it could pull a site related to a battleground on table or any battleground system?

What if you made the cost X, where X = the number of your icons on that location?
James Barnes

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

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by qasur »

Corran wrote:Free seems power creepy. What about 4 for a site and 2 for related?
That is terrible. Outside the few locations that can generate 3 Force, spending 2 was already a high cost. 4 Force for even a 2/1 would take two turns to break even. I would never play that card.

Plus we are talking about battlegrounds here. Interactive locations where system + sites will tend to match. There is something nice about that.

I have always felt it odd we have and want free non-bg pulling, but then we want heavily-costed bg pulling.

User avatar
quickdraw3457
Multimedia and Special Projects Advocate
Posts: 25915
Joined: September 3rd, 2003, 5:10 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
GEMP Username: quickdraw

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by quickdraw3457 »

jcb213 wrote:What if it could pull a site related to a battleground on table or any battleground system?
This is pretty good. I think free is not good though, even 1 force for a bg related to another location on table is pretty good. Just think of occupation/celebration potential.
Matt C. - Pittsburgh, PA
Image
Hunter wrote:quickdraw is right

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14883
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by Hunter »

Corran wrote:Free seems power creepy. What about 4 for a site and 2 for related?
Would rather see 2 and 1 than 4 and 2. I don't think going from 2 and 2 to 2 and 1 represents much power creep. Power creeping battlegrounds a little is healthy, in my opinion. (Notice I said "a little.")

Corran
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2783
Joined: June 20th, 2004, 4:53 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio
GEMP Username: corran
Contact:

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by Corran »

Hunter wrote:
Corran wrote:Free seems power creepy. What about 4 for a site and 2 for related?
Would rather see 2 and 1 than 4 and 2. I don't think going from 2 and 2 to 2 and 1 represents much power creep. Power creeping battlegrounds a little is healthy, in my opinion. (Notice I said "a little.")
Yeah, I was just throwing around numbers. My point is that free seems a bit OP. I'd be okay with 1 for related sites. 2 for any site is probably okay too, as it's how it's been forever.
Check out Bad Deck Breakdowns, a Star Wars CCG Deckbuilding podcast, on the podcatcher of your choice or https://www.kendallcast.ninja
dvphimself wrote: https://www.twitch.tv/kendallcastnetwork/ is my favourite SWCCG channel.
seitaer wrote: Corran's streams are great, even if he likes the last jedi

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by mikefrench »

so i'm gonna resurrect this thread, to talk about these cards.

these cards, and the suggestions made in this thread, could be great for the game. but i think the danger is, not making them strong enough. it's easy to think "sure, use 2 to pull a bg, or 1 to pull a related bg" and slap that on a card, but i really do not think that's a playable startable effect for the vast majority of decks.

so this is a hypothetical version of what i see suggested here, i'm sure rules would word it differently but that's not my strong suit.

jedi's/sith's plans

deploy on table. once per game, may use 2 to \/ a battleground. once per turn, may use 1 to \/ a battleground that's related to a location you own on table. immune to alter.

first, let's look at current options (post-reset) for pulling battlegrounds.

DS has

kuat drive yards v - 2 force, systems only
commander merrejk - free, systems only, not guaranteed pull chain (need to use adm piett + imp command since no endor shield anymore)
conduct your search - free, endor: back door only, also pulls blast door controls
imperial arrest order (combo) - free, only docking bays (also pulls non-bg docking bays for activation, and has good all-around alternate text)
mobilization points (combo) - free, only specific systems (a few non-bgs too), can be suspended by ls shield

what else is there? there isn't much that's open-ended. some objectives pull their own locations, tat: jabba's palace pulls a bunch of JP sites. i'm drawing a blank as to what else there is.

so the really solid options that actually see decent play are kuat drive yards v, IAO&SP, and conduct your search. kuat drive yards v, watto will often play to get the system, and any space deck often starts to pull their bgs (except something like TTO which needs the AO for direct damage and uses a pull chain off of imp command to get merrejk). IAO&SP will prob see a normal amount of play, it's just a great card that people like, and the fact that you can get a few 1/0s out of the deal is fine (plus it lets you search your reserve to check destinies or force pile).

let's compare a sith's plans (the hypothetical one above) to these 2 other current options:

kdy v: use 2 to pull any bg system, every turn. plus has a few other relevant bonuses, esp to a space focused deck. sith's plans can use 2 to pull one bg once per game, but after that can't pull any random system, and has to instead pull related battlegrounds. it also has no other relevant bonuses in any situation. it does have use 1 instead of 2, which is nice for the related bg pull.

conduct your search: for the decks that want this, this is literally the perfect card. the pull is free. it pulls a perfect site, a 2/2 that helps you activate and sets up a nice fat drain. it also pulls an effect that cancels both rebel barrier and blast the door, kid. the reason the pull being free is so crucial is that this allows very early significant pressure. if an opponent gives hd simply ONE icon (with ni chuba na v), you can expect vader at the back door (possibly with a saber if they want to play blaster rack v) turn 1, threatening a drain of 2-3, plus one sided visage damage. if hunt down had to use even 1 force to pull its preferred battleground, this would not be possible nearly as often. to contrast, sith's plans v would require HD to use 2 force, and they could pull any bg site (so they may get a slightly more preferable site), but they would probably not be able to use the related bg text, nor would they get to pull blast door controls. sith's plans just PALES in comparison to conduct your search when thinking about a deck like HD (plus, 1 out of 100 games, that random scout gametext may apply).

so to me, when you compare sith's plans (hypothetically) to the existing bg pullers, it's already not good enough to see play. i could MAYBE see a cr v hoth or tatooine deck play it instead of IAO&SP to get slightly better battlegrounds, or maybe an ISB deck using it to set up its planet locations. but isb already has access to KDY v if it wants to play a big blue style, and the old nightfall decks always seemed to just play a ton of random tat locations because they wanted the surprise factor of playing 3-5 locations all in one turn. i dunno.

i could do a similar look at LS options, but i'm guessing we'd see the same thing. LS probably has fewer ways to pull a battleground, but it generally wants to pull battlegrounds less often (which fits in with the flavor of the rebellion honestly). it has strong decks like WYS which already start and pull all the locations it would ever need. hidden base pulls systems, it would probably like to use a starting slot to speed itself up, but only allowing it to pull a system once per game would be somewhat of a drag, and probably not worth it. trm plays the battle plains, but it would prefer to just play 2x wesa to upload it anyway. trm might want to pull system in some matchups, so it might like to play a card like this, but i'm not convinced of that (and honestly that wouldn't be too powerful anyway i think).

so what i'm saying is, if you release this pair and it says something similar to that hypothetical text at the top (which is nice, balanced, reasonable text that lots of people have had good input to create), i just don't see it as being strong enough to do much of anything. i don't see it helping any specific decks, i don't see it filling a need. it's just not strong enough. that's why i think pairing it with the wokling activation text is the perfect solution.

first, it takes wokling/ni chuba na away from the decks that already have better access to activation and their chosen battlegrounds, like wys, hd, trm, bhbm and so on. if you notice, i just listed some of the best decks from the 2001/post-reset metagame. taking them down a notch is a welcome thing, in my mind. they already just take the best, most efficient cards and put them in a pile and play them (or in the case of wys, relies on an amazing objective with strong synergies). why should they get the best activation too?

second, it rewards the players that put out battlegrounds and gives other decks a chance to rise to the top. let's see what some of these other decks can do when we slow down trm and hd a tiny bit. let's see what swccg looks like when there's multiple related battlegrounds on the table in the majority of games. i think that would be a great game to play.

so i'd love to hear other people have some suggestions on these cards. i'd love to hear other people's suggestions on what the activation bonus should be specifically - i like any different number of options, from generation +1 if you occupy a bg, to generation +1 if you have 2 related locations on table, to generation +1 if you have 3 bgs on table. anything that isn't a blanket +1 to generation, functionally changing the rules of the game to give each player 2 personal activation (aka blatant power creep).
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
quickdraw3457
Multimedia and Special Projects Advocate
Posts: 25915
Joined: September 3rd, 2003, 5:10 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
GEMP Username: quickdraw

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by quickdraw3457 »

mikefrench wrote:these cards, and the suggestions made in this thread, could be great for the game. but i think the danger is, not making them strong enough. it's easy to think "sure, use 2 to pull a bg, or 1 to pull a related bg" and slap that on a card, but i really do not think that's a playable startable effect for the vast majority of decks.
A lot of what you say is good and I agree with, but not the above. I really think making a universally playable effect that pulls BGs is already strong enough. And if it's not playable in the vast majority of decks but still has something along the lines of "use 2 force to \/ a battleground," then it's doing its job perfectly. The minority of decks that would use this desperately need it (AOBS and ISB primarily, but admittedly not as many LS decks... yet).
Matt C. - Pittsburgh, PA
Image
Hunter wrote:quickdraw is right

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by mikefrench »

But most decks already have access to better cards that pull battlegrounds and have other benefits as well.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
quickdraw3457
Multimedia and Special Projects Advocate
Posts: 25915
Joined: September 3rd, 2003, 5:10 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
GEMP Username: quickdraw

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by quickdraw3457 »

mikefrench wrote:But most decks already have access to better cards that pull battlegrounds and have other benefits as well.
I know... so why is it bad to give the decks that DON'T have that something modest like this? If you made it a universal puller WITH a strong universal benefit, it just becomes power creep and auto include in many decks. Better to stick with the theory that if something can be played universally it should be weaker than the deck specific helpers.
Matt C. - Pittsburgh, PA
Image
Hunter wrote:quickdraw is right

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by mikefrench »

quickdraw3457 wrote:
mikefrench wrote:But most decks already have access to better cards that pull battlegrounds and have other benefits as well.
I know... so why is it bad to give the decks that DON'T have that something modest like this? If you made it a universal puller WITH a strong universal benefit, it just becomes power creep and auto include in many decks. Better to stick with the theory that if something can be played universally it should be weaker than the deck specific helpers.
it's bad to give those decks something modest like this because it won't do anything. those decks are already underpowered and outgunned by the tier 1 decks. giving them a bad version of what the tier 1 decks already have won't change that.

power creep isn't always an awful thing. power creeping battlegrounds is something i think the game desperately needs, and something that would make it a better game that was more fun that would attract more old players to come back. and i'm not convinced at all that this would even be power creep! like i've said, we've already seen WAY better, cheaper and more efficient ways to pull battlegrounds in the past (mon mothma v into endor for a few different decks, for instance - all free pulls, plus you get a character that your deck probably wanted anyway). this would just be more open-ended, which i do concede is powerful and unique, so that's why i like that this pull would be costed and conditioned (ie you can't do it without getting related bgs) and the generation would be conditioned too (tied to battlegrounds or occupying a battleground somehow).

the theory that if something can be played universally than it should be weaker than deck specific helpers, i completely disagree with. if you turn that around, that's saying that you can power creep deck specific helpers, and i just don't agree with that at all. what i mean is, let's take a balanced, universal card like menace fades. if that was a deck specific helper, could it really be more powerful? that's a crazy idea. so why do we have a principle that says that that should be the case? i've said elsewhere that we need to re-evaluate how we make deck specific helpers, and this to me is a perfect example of why...we have these seemingly obvious and innocuous principles that we use to make deck specific helpers that aren't necessarily correct. i do see that something that is open-ended should be examined with more care than something that isn't open-ended (which i think is what the principle you're alluding to is really saying), but that has NO bearing on power level. either the open-ended card is at a reasonable power level, or it needs its power level reduced through costing or conditioning (which often happens, with things like exceptions, which i would totally be fine with if the people in charge put them on sith's/jedi's plans v).

does that make sense? your posts are well put and i don't have a huge disagreement with you, hopefully that comes across. i think we're generally on the same side, i'm just trying to further illuminate why i think what i think.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
quickdraw3457
Multimedia and Special Projects Advocate
Posts: 25915
Joined: September 3rd, 2003, 5:10 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
GEMP Username: quickdraw

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by quickdraw3457 »

mikefrench wrote:
quickdraw3457 wrote:
mikefrench wrote:But most decks already have access to better cards that pull battlegrounds and have other benefits as well.
I know... so why is it bad to give the decks that DON'T have that something modest like this? If you made it a universal puller WITH a strong universal benefit, it just becomes power creep and auto include in many decks. Better to stick with the theory that if something can be played universally it should be weaker than the deck specific helpers.
it's bad to give those decks something modest like this because it won't do anything. those decks are already underpowered and outgunned by the tier 1 decks. giving them a bad version of what the tier 1 decks already have won't change that.
In this specific case, they're underpowered mostly (IMO) because they don't have a way to pull activation or BGs. If they had this, it would be a boost to the decks they haven't had before, so without extensive PTing who can say if they wouldn't be tier 1 decks? or at least competitive with them?
mikefrench wrote:power creep isn't always an awful thing. power creeping battlegrounds is something i think the game desperately needs, and something that would make it a better game that was more fun that would attract more old players to come back.
Attracting new/old players really shouldn't have anything to do with balancing the game. I don't think it is a reason to justify power creep. You say this specific type of creep is something the game desperately needs, and I don't necessarily disagree with that, but saying the game needs it because it could attract players is irrelevant.
mikefrench wrote:and i'm not convinced at all that this would even be power creep! like i've said, we've already seen WAY better, cheaper and more efficient ways to pull battlegrounds in the past (mon mothma v into endor for a few different decks, for instance - all free pulls, plus you get a character that your deck probably wanted anyway). this would just be more open-ended, which i do concede is powerful and unique, so that's why i like that this pull would be costed and conditioned (ie you can't do it without getting related bgs) and the generation would be conditioned too (tied to battlegrounds or occupying a battleground somehow).
Mon mothma v was definitely a problem for a lot of reasons, so whatever comes from this better not be as good as she was. Using that as a measuring stick is not the best comparison.
mikefrench wrote:the theory that if something can be played universally than it should be weaker than deck specific helpers, i completely disagree with. if you turn that around, that's saying that you can power creep deck specific helpers, and i just don't agree with that at all. what i mean is, let's take a balanced, universal card like menace fades. if that was a deck specific helper, could it really be more powerful? that's a crazy idea.
That card is balanced, but it's also near the top of the power curve. Obviously you can't make it a deck specific card that is better than it. A better analogy would be something that isn't very playable now, like... I don't know, Close Air Support (random thing that just popped into my head). You could change that to say if RST on table then you could also add 1 to your force drains at those sites. That would be an acceptable for of power creep limited to one decktype that needed a boost.
mikefrench wrote:so why do we have a principle that says that that should be the case? i've said elsewhere that we need to re-evaluate how we make deck specific helpers, and this to me is a perfect example of why...we have these seemingly obvious and innocuous principles that we use to make deck specific helpers that aren't necessarily correct. i do see that something that is open-ended should be examined with more care than something that isn't open-ended (which i think is what the principle you're alluding to is really saying), but that has NO bearing on power level. either the open-ended card is at a reasonable power level, or it needs its power level reduced through costing or conditioning (which often happens, with things like exceptions, which i would totally be fine with if the people in charge put them on sith's/jedi's plans v).
That is what I mean too, but it does have a bearing on power level IMO. You can't make something omg broken powerful because it's limited to a specific deck. SO you have to keep power level in mind. I don't think just giving costs to things always works, so we shouldn't just fall back on "yeah this is really good but let's just make it more expensive."
mikefrench wrote:does that make sense? your posts are well put and i don't have a huge disagreement with you, hopefully that comes across. i think we're generally on the same side, i'm just trying to further illuminate why i think what i think.
Generally, yes we both agree on this. But I just want to make sure a card like this is carefully considered and tested before released. I'd like to help out decks that could use a boost, while not just making the existing tier 1 decks a lot better too.
Matt C. - Pittsburgh, PA
Image
Hunter wrote:quickdraw is right

User avatar
chriskelly
Design Advocate
Posts: 22238
Joined: January 28th, 2003, 2:13 pm
Location: New York

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by chriskelly »

A general "battleground" helper would be nice. Let it pull them as you suggest and give it maybe one other battleground-related bonus (maybe combo it with that Wokling-suggested text, that you activate +1 if you occupy a bg or if you have related bgs on table? Non-EPPs are immunity to attrition +1 at your bg if a related one on table?), and if it's good enough to fit in most decks as a good generic 3rd effect would definitely help have some more bgs on table. Just thinking out loud...

User avatar
hyvee_doughboy
Member
Posts: 1678
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 8:44 pm
Location: Maple Grove, MN

Re: A Jedi's Plans/A Sith's Plans

Post by hyvee_doughboy »

Dang there's some long posts here :-) Just a quick comment:

It was mentioned that if the effects just pulled sites for 1 or 2 force (and nothing else), that it wouldn't make the cut in competitive decks. That's probably right. And that's probably fine. These cards act as huge helpers for people who like a lot of variety and want to venture off the well-travelled path with fun fred or one-off decks.

Even as-printed (not startable with the 3-effect start AND costing 2 per pull AND having no real useful other text), they made a lot of my decks.
Tom M. - Maple Grove, Minnesota

Post Reply

Return to “On Deck Discussion”