LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

User avatar
agnos
Member
Posts: 8526
Joined: February 20th, 2008, 2:27 pm

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by agnos »

The problem is not and never will be the built in Squad. The problem was always the redundancy and power level. We could pull the pilot or the ship which ended up being mostly immune and drawing 2+ BDs. The "opportunity cost" of not being able to play other Boba's or Lando's didn't matter. Having a ability <4 pilot pulled by an ITA<4 ship who draws if unable to otherwise is fine even if the ship or pilot is semi-pullable. It might be too good for Xwings or Intercrptors because of the cannons but likely would be fine otherwise.

To be clear, the problem with SoF/LL was deploy 8 (5 with scum) ITA<9 Maneuver 7 that draws 2 BDs, etc. That was the problem. The power level of the cards was super broken even if they didn't pull each other.

Sidenote: I think the "opportunity cost" argument has been used to justify a number over the line cards. It should probably be removed from any heuristic for creating balanced cards.


Image

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

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by JarJarDrinks »

agnos wrote:The problem is not and never will be the built in Squad. The problem was always the redundancy and power level. We could pull the pilot or the ship which ended up being mostly immune and drawing 2+ BDs. The "opportunity cost" of not being able to play other Boba's or Lando's didn't matter. Having a ability <4 pilot pulled by an ITA<4 ship who draws if unable to otherwise is fine even if the ship or pilot is semi-pullable. It might be too good for Xwings or Intercrptors because of the cannons but likely would be fine otherwise.

To be clear, the problem with SoF/LL was deploy 8 (5 with scum) ITA<9 Maneuver 7 that draws 2 BDs, etc. That was the problem. The power level of the cards was super broken even if they didn't pull each other.
word
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

TB
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 4120
Joined: July 8th, 2010, 8:10 pm

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by TB »

I loved the build In pull mechanic. Giving splash space a little efficiency optimization like that was a great addition to the game IMHO. Super fetts were just a bit too good, that's all.
Results:
European Championships 2014 - 3rd place
European Championships 2013 - 8th place
Toola Regionals 2013 - runner up
European Championships 2011 - 5th place

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

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Corran »

agnos wrote:The problem is not and never will be the built in Squad. The problem was always the redundancy and power level. We could pull the pilot or the ship which ended up being mostly immune and drawing 2+ BDs. The "opportunity cost" of not being able to play other Boba's or Lando's didn't matter. Having a ability <4 pilot pulled by an ITA<4 ship who draws if unable to otherwise is fine even if the ship or pilot is semi-pullable. It might be too good for Xwings or Intercrptors because of the cannons but likely would be fine otherwise.

To be clear, the problem with SoF/LL was deploy 8 (5 with scum) ITA<9 Maneuver 7 that draws 2 BDs, etc. That was the problem. The power level of the cards was super broken even if they didn't pull each other.

Sidenote: I think the "opportunity cost" argument has been used to justify a number over the line cards. It should probably be removed from any heuristic for creating balanced cards.
This.

Also, if people are so worried about All Wings combo, give the ship a permanent pilot or stick it on a capital ship.
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

User avatar
agnos
Member
Posts: 8526
Joined: February 20th, 2008, 2:27 pm

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by agnos »

TBH, I actually think the Paellaeon/Justifier combo was strong, fair and good. It's actually something I'd like to see return.
Image

User avatar
imrahil327
Tournament Advocate
Posts: 30782
Joined: July 3rd, 2006, 3:51 am
Location: San Diego

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by imrahil327 »

agnos wrote:TBH, I actually think the Paellaeon/Justifier combo was strong, fair and good. It's actually something I'd like to see return.
You don't think there are too many restrictions (no other capitals, no Endor)?
Image
Hunter wrote:Sebulba's W-L record is like...Always and 1. Tebow's is nowhere near that percentage.
allstarz97, about M:TG wrote:I feel like Michael Jordan playing baseball.

User avatar
agnos
Member
Posts: 8526
Joined: February 20th, 2008, 2:27 pm

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by agnos »

imrahil327 wrote:
agnos wrote:TBH, I actually think the Paellaeon/Justifier combo was strong, fair and good. It's actually something I'd like to see return.
You don't think there are too many restrictions (no other capitals, no Endor)?
The restrictions could be ok so long as you have both (ship and pilot) available; it would probably just be worthwhile to have it tested without them at least see how powerful it is with Endor Shield pulling the Admiral to pull the Ship. My guess is if you had it not work with Endor Shield (instead of with other Caps/Endor) it would be ok. There was good reason to play it in a variety of decks despite the restrictions. It was surprisingly good in Rops, Spice, Walkers and a number of other decks despite the restrictions. The only capitals you ever really wanted to play with it were BiHTv or Conquest v. I think too many people discounted how strong the combo actually was because of how severe the restrictions seemed when in actuality the restrictions were far less bad than most imagined.
Image

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

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Hunter »

quickdraw3457 wrote:
JarJarDrinks wrote:Just take Hunters argument for the PoA mechanic and apply it here. It's fine to do but when u combine it w/ other powerfull stuff, it becomes bad and OPed.
Aw man, I made that post in the PoA discussion and hunter takes the credit for replying "x4" to it :(
I was x5. But JJD is probably referring to the post where I said this:
Hunter wrote:Okay, so this text is not a horrible mistake, in a vacuum. Some cards could (and some cards do) have text like this without being problematic.

EVEN on a character (or weapon for a character) that draws battle destiny alone, this text would not necessarily be a major issue.

What makes the text a problem on Luke is that he's a main character who has matching lightsabers that create forfeit = 0. When he has easy access to those type of weapons, and can then add a destiny to power on top of it, he becomes too efficient as a beatdown machine.

What makes the text a problem on Galen's Lightsaber is that Galen's forfeit cannot be reduced. When he has that text, and can then add a destiny to power on top of it, he becomes too beatdown-proof.
I've said things like that about Luke and Galen a few different times, over the years.

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

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Hunter »

macgyver221 wrote:Just for you, hunter.
Meh. The official Warya Signal looks like this:

Image

But okay, close enough.

I don't see a need for ships/pilots that pull the other half of the combo. If you want a guy and a ship that pair up, we've got Combat Response/Squadron Assignments for that. If you want a guy IN a ship, we've got those too. That covers all your bases, you don't need this hybrid option. Design & Development are not used to the task of trying to properly balance this new way of doing things. So if you're going to create this new way of doing things, there should be a good reason for it. Otherwise you're just making the job tougher for no real benefit.

Do we need this new way of doing things? Or can we get by with just traditional matching pairs and guy-in-ship combo cards? I think it's the second one, so I don't think you give D&D extra work to do, by saying "gimme this new mechanic, but make sure you balance it properly!"

Blarg
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 3469
Joined: January 12th, 2010, 11:56 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Blarg »

The reason is that it makes forfeiting in space much more interesting than with permanent pilots.

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

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Corran »

The other reason for it to exist is it's a fun, flashy, new design space that isn't that different from what's already around. If design can't balance new mechanics like this, the game will become stale and die off. I'm not even saying that the cards need to be great. Print a version of Biggs or Wedge that pulls his own ship and is comparable in power to the SE matching pilots and a version of a dark side semi-main that does the same.
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

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

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Cam Solusar »

I saw it mentioned earlier that there was a dearth of Squadron Assignments decks in the last couple years and that the reason for this was due to Lando/Lady Luck existing. I don't believe this is correct; the reason there haven't been many LS Squadron Assignment decks is because of decks like HD v and Assassins that absolutely shut down LS space with little/no interaction.
Camden Y, Southern California
BrenDerlin wrote:These movies aren't called Star Battles, yo.

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

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Hunter »

Blarg wrote:The reason is that it makes forfeiting in space much more interesting than with permanent pilots.
That's an argument for matching pairs, not for matching pairs that pull the other half of the combo. If the self-pulling pairs get into decks, it will likely be because they are more efficient than they should be, relative to the traditional matching pairs. Getting that balance right won't be easy, because there is so much less experience in trying to find it.
Corran wrote:The other reason for it to exist is it's a fun, flashy, new design space that isn't that different from what's already around.
If it isn't that different from what's already around, then why do we need it? Like I said, we've got the bases covered already.

Your opinion is that the self-pulling pairs are "fun" enough that it is worth handing the extra work to D&D.

That's fair. I just do not agree with you.

My opinion is that the benefits of the self-pulling pairs (compared with the other ways of doing things) are not worth handing that extra work to D&D.

User avatar
puck71
Member
Posts: 12897
Joined: February 17th, 2008, 8:59 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN
GEMP Username: puck71

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by puck71 »

So the reason they're bad for the game is because they're unnecessary?

I totally have that opinion about stuff like missions and setup icons, but this is an example of something new that is "unnecessary" but if done right can add some interesting dynamics to the game. Maybe they'll never be able to do it right (they certainly didn't with the Fetts) but I don't think that's necessarily a reason not to try.
John Anderson
Proofing, Tournament Committee, GEMP Team

macgyver221
LS Region: Dagobah
LS Region: Dagobah
Posts: 6588
Joined: June 7th, 2006, 10:36 pm
Location: Reno
Holotable username: Macgyver221
GEMP Username: macgyver1

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by macgyver221 »

imrahil327 wrote:Having exactly one of each for each side is not going to spell the death of Combat Response
In the proposed base set, we already have ships that pull their own pilots.

- Errant Venture
- Booster in Pulsar Skate
- Elis in Hinthra

The more of these we add, the more we devalue the matching ship mechanic.

User avatar
imrahil327
Tournament Advocate
Posts: 30782
Joined: July 3rd, 2006, 3:51 am
Location: San Diego

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by imrahil327 »

macgyver221 wrote:
imrahil327 wrote:Having exactly one of each for each side is not going to spell the death of Combat Response
In the proposed base set, we already have ships that pull their own pilots.

- Errant Venture
- Booster in Pulsar Skate
- Elis in Hinthra

The more of these we add, the more we devalue the matching ship mechanic.
Now you're moving the goalposts, as none of those have the problems you mentioned earlier in the thread such as AWRI combo.
Image
Hunter wrote:Sebulba's W-L record is like...Always and 1. Tebow's is nowhere near that percentage.
allstarz97, about M:TG wrote:I feel like Michael Jordan playing baseball.

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

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Hunter »

puck71 wrote:So the reason they're bad for the game is because they're unnecessary?
They're unnecessary and they're tricky to balance. Trickier to balance than the Missions and Setup Icon cards you mentioned, which you could normally treat as simple Effects, for those purposes.
puck71 wrote: I totally have that opinion about stuff like missions and setup icons, but this is an example of something new that is "unnecessary" but if done right can add some interesting dynamics to the game.
I don't really find the dynamics to be that interesting, compared with the difficulty in getting them "done right." I'm not saying "Self-pulling pilot/ship pairs must never happen again!", I just don't think the concept brings enough pizzazz to warrant the potential complications. But that's a pretty subjective topic, so Design will just have to use its own judgment, when deciding whether this mechanic is worth bothering with.

User avatar
stevetotheizz0
Member
Posts: 5599
Joined: January 10th, 2012, 11:43 am
Location: Philadelphia, Pa

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by stevetotheizz0 »

This combo gives a decent ship pair (that is pullable with AWRI) to decks that are heavy on the ground but still want something to go into space. The ability to pull them with AWRI/mirror lets you get them out faster. The ability to add extra pilots, and forfeit Lando/Boba without the ship gives you the possibility of some resilience in space, allowing more of a presence in this theater. Adding a BD means if you commit more characters to get above ability 4, you get 2 bds and can use that AWRI lost for a spin. This is a legitimate token space package. You can take this and supplement it with Wedge in Red Sq 2, or Bossk in Bus etc, but those other character in ship one card combos dont cut it on their own.

The balance between space and ground never quite felt completely even. Its not enough to just say that you are either forced to start sqad assignment, or play the character in ship combos if you want to play space. This means overcommitting, or just putting the bare minimum into your deck. It leads to unbalanced decks geared towards ground or space, but never quite both. And in a world where you need to satisfy battle plan, this isnt good for the game. It slows things down and forces the action to either take place in one theater, or as a drain race.

Having one decent option for both sides, makes games more interesting an d fun. Decks can battle in space back and forth and are not limited to either quick strikes with ZiMH and then retreat when they get ability > 6. Or try to cloak until you cant cloak no mo'. As MAtt H-T mentioned, loading these up and having forfeitable peices gives you some staying power which means more battles can take place later.

Furthermore playing a space focused deck like WYS or HB isnt really fun when the other side doesn't really have the capacity to at least threaten with a token space presence. In fact ground decks vs space decks used to be the most boring matchups I could think of.

If these cards came back they wouldn't be OP considering the other ships that exist for both sides:

Executor and Home 1 - Very high deploy, but the immunity is off the charts.
ZiMH and Maul's Ship
HCF
Even Artoo-R5 "The best card in the game. Considering most cards an in your reserve deck for most of the game, and this is the best card when its there."

Of all of these, 4/5 are pullable in some fashion. The list from here is steeply downhill in terms of "interesting"

Grathrax
Reflections Pack
Reflections Pack
Posts: 156
Joined: June 12th, 2004, 12:17 am
Location: VA
Contact:

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Grathrax »

Semi threadjack....

In all honesty, if we need better ships, it would be nice if there were more quality capital ships that didn't suck. It blows my mind that most star destroyers are less capable than starfighters with unique pilots (whether it is permanent dude-in-ship or a matching pair). Most SDs lack immunity or the ability to draw battle destiny on their own. I'd rather have the Fetts on the ground with the SDs crushing in space. I get that we have KDY(v) in the base set, but the fact that you need a supporting card to make ISDs usable when you don't to make super slave I work is just backwards to me.

aermet69
LS Region: Toola
LS Region: Toola
Posts: 5576
Joined: July 14th, 2009, 2:16 pm
Location: Denmark (Toola)
GEMP Username: aermet69

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by aermet69 »

I think this is a really tough discussion because I don't ever want to see anything near the Slave 1 package again. This was the primary reason for me to want a clean-up and support a reset. I can see how a self-pulling ship could enhance Squassin play as well (being able to put two ships in play on one turn) but as soon as a self-pulling ship gets better than what you can pull with Squassin, it becomes a problem imo.

I could see a starfighter for each side, whos primary ability was pulling itself and have basic immunity etc. but nothing else.

Like:

Scimitar 1
Text: May reveal from hand to take Major Rhymer from Reserve Deck; reshuffle; and deploy both simultaneously. May add 1 pilot. Immune to attrition < 5.

Major Rhymer
Text: Adds 3 to power of anything he pilots. May be revealed from hand to take Scimitar 1 from Reserve Deck; reshuffle; and deploy both simultaneously.

That could help get some space on the table along with other ships... but adding abilities that make other matching ships obsolete seems like a wrong move.
- Casper Jørgensen
aermet69 - Member of Team Copenhagen
"Team Copenhagen never dies. They just go to the bar and respawn."
~UK National Champion 2011. ~Worlds 2012, 10th place. ~German Nationals 2014, Runner-up. ~European Champion 2014. ~Toola Regionals 2015, Runner-Up.

Post Reply

Return to “On Deck Discussion”