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 »

aermet69 wrote: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.
My only recommendation would be that they have a second pilot or passenger slot. I think that these would be fine. Even if you play the AO for added immunity lower base power could make up for it.


Image

User avatar
darkjediknight11
Communications Advocate
Posts: 22926
Joined: April 17th, 2005, 5:26 pm
Location: Chicago
GEMP Username: djk11

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by darkjediknight11 »

Yawn. Boring and unplayable.

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 »

darkjediknight11 wrote:Yawn. Boring and unplayable.
Boring, yes. But far from unplayable. Senate would love a ship like that as would Deal and Rops. IE would probably love it too. Hell Watto would even love a ship like that. TRM would likely love it as well. You have to remember that the format will be far, far slower than it is now. Just because a card is boring doesn't mean it's bad.
Image

User avatar
darkjediknight11
Communications Advocate
Posts: 22926
Joined: April 17th, 2005, 5:26 pm
Location: Chicago
GEMP Username: djk11

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by darkjediknight11 »

It's not unplayable because it's boring. It's unplayable cause it doesn't even draw battle destiny on its own. There's dozens of better options for those deck slots

aermet69
LS Region: Toola
LS Region: Toola
Posts: 5583
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 »

Make it draw on its own. Whatever, the idea was just not to give them any additional powerful text. If all they did was fetch eachother and draw on it's own (if unable to otherwise) and some immunity I think they'd be fine. Could have a pilot or passenger slot as well if needed.
- 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.

User avatar
darkjediknight11
Communications Advocate
Posts: 22926
Joined: April 17th, 2005, 5:26 pm
Location: Chicago
GEMP Username: djk11

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by darkjediknight11 »

that would make it playable

still rather boring though.

User avatar
dorshe1
Member
Posts: 8422
Joined: June 13th, 2013, 3:57 pm
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Holotable username: dorshe1
GEMP Username: dorshe1
Contact:

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by dorshe1 »

darkjediknight11 wrote:that would make it playable

still rather boring though.
Give it pullable, draws one battle destiny otherwise, and some senate hate.

So the LS would be - immune to attrition <X (where X = 5+opponent's characters at Senate)

Thanks!
Image

User avatar
JarJarDrinks
Member
Posts: 26227
Joined: November 4th, 2003, 10:01 am

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by JarJarDrinks »

Yeah, I mean. I don't think we need to come up w/ the gametext. Just an agreement that built in squassins is fine as long the text is kept under control.
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

User avatar
stealtheblind
Member
Posts: 2063
Joined: February 9th, 2004, 2:20 pm
Location: NJ
GEMP Username: shaw67193

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by stealtheblind »

Game text as well as destiny number. I get that Lando UH being a 3 is probably related to having him compete with maintenance Lando, but having both him and the ship at 3 seems a bit silly given how strong the combo is once on table, in addition to the mechanic itself.
Gregory Shaw

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

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by qasur »

Built in squassins is just power creep. The ships have no room for much text without losing key things, like capacity or immunity. Super Slave 1 ended up having the actual ship text on the characters. I think it is lazy design, much like EPPs.

Hari Seldon
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1289
Joined: May 9th, 2010, 6:46 pm

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Hari Seldon »

Did people really fall in love with this mechanic so much? I guess I was not aware of that. The mechanic itself is not bad in a vacuum, but it's too hard for design to make work in my opinion. You can't have the ships/ pilots be better than matching pairs that would require squadron assignments or combat response or we are right back at pre-reset idiocy. And if you make the power level and text appropriate, I can't see them being much better than what is already available with the "such and such in ship" cards.
allstarz97 wrote:...and thematically, as everyone is referencing on this thread, why are people not mentioning the part where mace windu is crying like a little *, gets his hand cut off and then gets thrown out a window?

macgyver221
LS Region: Dagobah
LS Region: Dagobah
Posts: 6589
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 »

Hari Seldon wrote:Did people really fall in love with this mechanic so much? I guess I was not aware of that. The mechanic itself is not bad in a vacuum, but it's too hard for design to make work in my opinion. You can't have the ships/ pilots be better than matching pairs that would require squadron assignments or combat response or we are right back at pre-reset idiocy. And if you make the power level and text appropriate, I can't see them being much better than what is already available with the "such and such in ship" cards.
Thank you for saying in one paragraph what I couldn't say in 4 posts.

If you want matching ships, play squassin. Make a good lando/luck that you squassin for. Same with slave I.

For the rest, make good ships that fall into already established design space. There is plenty of room to explore. See the post on star destroyers for a good starting spot.

Corran
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2796
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 »

Hari Seldon wrote:Did people really fall in love with this mechanic so much? I guess I was not aware of that. The mechanic itself is not bad in a vacuum, but it's too hard for design to make work in my opinion. You can't have the ships/ pilots be better than matching pairs that would require squadron assignments or combat response or we are right back at pre-reset idiocy. And if you make the power level and text appropriate, I can't see them being much better than what is already available with the "such and such in ship" cards.
In short, yes. I really think the mechanic is cool, and it's one of the things that got me excited to play SWCCG again after a really long hiatus.
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
Aglets
Rules Advocate
Posts: 19311
Joined: January 14th, 2004, 9:08 pm
Location: Bel Air, MD

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Aglets »

I don't think I've chimed in on this thread yet...........

I think the mechanic is fine in small doses. What I don't think is good is when the mechanic leads to cards that are far above the power curve (super slave I).

I think lando in lady luck was borderline OP.

If the power level is toned down some I think there is a place for some useful splashable ships that do this.
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.

Tyrith
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 286
Joined: January 29th, 2009, 10:35 am

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Tyrith »

From a power level perspective, Boba Fett, Prepared Hunter + Symbol of Fear seem borderline okay - the combo lets you Watch Your Back for a 7, which is a bit much, but besides that it just draws one destiny and is immune <5. Versus BFiS1 (v) you get 1 more hyperspeed and 6 more forfeit on a separate card, but you also have to use another card and that the combo might not always meet up. Boba Fett, PH also has useful text on the ground, but it's situational. The two cards together seem pretty balanced.

Jango, however, is just a broken card and blows the whole thing up. I'm also not sure that Slave 1, SoF needs to make Boba -2, and it definitely doesn't need to make them both -2. But if Jango Fett, The Assassin didn't come back, you could bring back the other cards more or less as-is and it wouldn't take over the meta.

Lando, Unlikely Hero is the same thing - it's the fact that he consistently adds a BD that makes the whole package broken. If the destiny adding text just made it so that he draws if unable to otherwise, the whole package is fine, and has some trade-offs that make for actual deckbuilding choices for decks that aren't going to play Squadron Assignments but play more space than just HCF.

TLDR - Adding battle destinies consistently and having overly high immunity is what makes the space packages pre-reset stupid. Otherwise, the built-in Squadron Assignments can make for versatile cards that create actual choices.

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 »

Hari Seldon wrote:Did people really fall in love with this mechanic so much? I guess I was not aware of that. The mechanic itself is not bad in a vacuum, but it's too hard for design to make work in my opinion. You can't have the ships/ pilots be better than matching pairs that would require squadron assignments or combat response or we are right back at pre-reset idiocy. And if you make the power level and text appropriate, I can't see them being much better than what is already available with the "such and such in ship" cards.
Yes, it would be difficult to find the right balance in power level. Ideally they would fit somewhere between permanent pilot ships and "true" matching pair ships, but that's easier said than done. I think the mechanic has potential to help decks that can't dedicate to go all-out matching ships, but want a little more than just the EPP ships. You also have to try to keep the self-matching pilot/ship a little better or at least the same as two separate ships. It's definitely a tough line to find.
John Anderson
Proofing, Tournament Committee, GEMP Team

User avatar
Darth_Link
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 8486
Joined: May 24th, 2011, 4:43 am

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Darth_Link »

I really like the mechanic, but agree that S1 was/is way too strong.

One way to take those cards down a notch is to only allow the character to pull its ship (and not vice versa). I think it's cool that Lando can go get his ship, but it makes a little less sense that the ship can go get his Lando...

This would remove the pull chain of AWRI->Ship->Lando
Emil W. Sweden
ImageImage

Hayes
LS Region: Kashyyyk
LS Region: Kashyyyk
Posts: 4732
Joined: February 22nd, 2009, 1:58 am

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Hayes »

Darth_Link wrote:I really like the mechanic, but agree that S1 was/is way too strong.

One way to take those cards down a notch is to only allow the character to pull its ship (and not vice versa). I think it's cool that Lando can go get his ship, but it makes a little less sense that the ship can go get his Lando...

This would remove the pull chain of AWRI->Ship->Lando
Agree. One sided pull is far less power creepy.

gogolen
LS Region: Coruscant
LS Region: Coruscant
Posts: 11293
Joined: May 2nd, 2005, 3:52 pm
Location: Somerdale, nj
Holotable username: gogolen
GEMP Username: gogolen

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by gogolen »

Hayes wrote:
Darth_Link wrote:I really like the mechanic, but agree that S1 was/is way too strong.

One way to take those cards down a notch is to only allow the character to pull its ship (and not vice versa). I think it's cool that Lando can go get his ship, but it makes a little less sense that the ship can go get his Lando...

This would remove the pull chain of AWRI->Ship->Lando
Agree. One sided pull is far less power creepy.
I would also agree with this, just as long as cards like Sonic-v don't get designed that pull the guy :)

Draw the guy, match for the ship is reasonable in small doses.
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

Hari Seldon
Booster Box
Booster Box
Posts: 1289
Joined: May 9th, 2010, 6:46 pm

Re: LadyLuck/Slave I are bad for the game

Post by Hari Seldon »

Darth_Link wrote:I really like the mechanic, but agree that S1 was/is way too strong.

One way to take those cards down a notch is to only allow the character to pull its ship (and not vice versa). I think it's cool that Lando can go get his ship, but it makes a little less sense that the ship can go get his Lando...

This would remove the pull chain of AWRI->Ship->Lando
Very good idea! This would help tone down the power level of these, plus so many characters are pilots that the ship would still be live card in most cases, just not quite as good.
allstarz97 wrote:...and thematically, as everyone is referencing on this thread, why are people not mentioning the part where mace windu is crying like a little *, gets his hand cut off and then gets thrown out a window?

Post Reply

Return to “On Deck Discussion”