The rules might be simpLe. BUT the strategy can still be daunting. And it has been stated that the rules leaflet might be a bit ambitious as it does not cover it all. where the lcg has framework in the rules and build on that. it seems the leaflet Just is the framework and it needs to be more fleshed out. You do not get that from the starter, a couple of boosters and a couple of games.

THEY did not play much as the review also states wrong interpretation of rules. like the tie being a support not an upgrade. But Tom did state he'll Come back to it. I hope hè does and I think he'll be better informed and maybe not play with Sam hè is no longer objective because ccg is Just not his style

Pretty straightforward Miami Dice Vid. Tom liked it, Sam didn't like the model and said the game was forgettable. I am looking forward to this game. I hope it doest fizzle out and has some staying power

I really don't think this game will fizzle out. Game is easy to set up, no excess storage required and very quick games to play.

I've never seen a Miami Dice review before, but to be honest these guys seemed kind of amateurish. "This is the F-10 Rifle" *the image clearly reads F-11D*

Wow. You probably don't watch boardgame reviews then, because Tom Vasel is one of the most renowned reviewer there is. He's one of the biggest reference there is and even though I don't always agree with him, I like to watch his reviews before buying. I know what I like and his reviews are generally thorough enough that I can see if I'll like the game or not.

As for Sam Healey, what I get from his position is that if you don't like the CCG model, there is not something in this game that will make you buy into it. The game is good, but not good enough to fall into this money pit. Remember that they are reviewing boardgames. For a CCG or miniature player, investing 100$+ into a game might not seems like a lot, but for that same money, you can buy a lot of different boardgame that can be as much fun. So, from his point of view, it's not that the game is bad, it's just that he don't feel like you'll have enough for your investment. He did say that if someone ask him to play again, he would, just that he won't buy into it. And that's fair. People need to understand that if they get into this game, they will undoublty invest a lot of money into it. You don't just buy a starter and a couple of booster and that's it: You buy a starter, a couple of booster, then some more, then a new set come out, and you buy some more booster, and some more, and then some more, and a new set come out, etc, etc, etc. The money you'll put into this game can buy you a LOT of different games. So, from his point of view, the game is not worth THAT much money.

I watch Tom and Sam review Rebellion when it was due out, and a few top 10's. However, in general what they enjoy and like in games is a bit different to what I like and enjoy. As such I have found that I follow Shut Up and Sit Down, mix with a little Wil Weaton (Tabletop) and add a dash of Rodney Smith (Learn to Play). All in all I have found they have similar tastes to mine.

I enjoy Plaid Hat Games, Ashes Rise of the Pheonixborn, the dice mechanics and card play has been fantastic. But as an LCG it has a very slow release cycle, I feel it is only just starting to get a variety of card types that promote deck building. I like the Destiny version too, but here while I think it is simpler in the rules department I am not too sure that equates to being simpler to play.

In fact because Destiny doesn't have the card recursion of Ashes or Magic, I think you have to be more aware of the board state and possible card plays. What can your opponent do with 4 resources after you play a "Blah Blah"? In that regards I think the game is quite challenging and perhaps even more tactical because of that. I think there are a few card effects that if you are aware of them and you see the play developing you can counter their use, which also means if you know the cards you can pretend to be getting one ready for play.

What if you have the 5 Resources 3 non-unique characters and a card that you don't have to play, could you make it look like you are holding on to an Endless Ranks even though you may not be? Is that even a good idea?

I watch Tom and Sam review Rebellion when it was due out, and a few top 10's. However, in general what they enjoy and like in games is a bit different to what I like and enjoy. As such I have found that I follow Shut Up and Sit Down, mix with a little Wil Weaton (Tabletop) and add a dash of Rodney Smith (Learn to Play). All in all I have found they have similar tastes to mine.

My personal references are Shut up and Sit down and the Discriminating Gamer, because I generally share their taste (one exception was Rebellion that I think is getting better and better each time I play Vs Quinns that found that once you played 1 game from each side, there is no more surprises from the game). But still, it's nice to have a different point of view from time to time (one that is more in line with some of my friends, I try to find games that everybody will ejoy when I host my boardgame nights) and I like the components and rules breakdown from Vasel. Generally speaking, I prefer SUSD and DG because they're more about what the game feels like (SUSD X-Wing review is the best review of the game I've seen), but I also like Vasel because he's more about how the game plays.

What if you have the 5 Resources 3 non-unique characters and a card that you don't have to play, could you make it look like you are holding on to an Endless Ranks even though you may not be? Is that even a good idea?

And until I play several rounds of the actual game, I would not feel comfortable giving a definitive (opinion) answer to that strategy question.

Here's what I've found thus far. The here and now is more important. The liberal mulligan rule allows you to draw cards that are useful Round 1. By Round 2 you should know what cards you need to win and the ones you won't be able to play (or are not as useful). The cards that can't help you that round more often than not should be used to re-roll dice or be discarded at the end of the round to draw new and more useful cards. The game is fast and is over in 3 or 4 rounds. Because of this, I'm currently playing with the mind set of not holding on to cards and playing every card in a way that is useful now.

Back to the challenges of reviewing this game, yes the simplistic rules are deceptive. It's like poker; 5 minutes to teach, but a life time of strategy to learn. I gained the opinions I shared above from playing about a dozen games on Tabletop Simulator. They were not apparent to me from game one. This isn't the main issue of this Miami Dice review though. As stated, they clearly did not understand the rules of the game and judged it with a clear bias against CCG games. As a consumer, I am entitled to my opinions about CCGs. To be an unbiased journalist, I have to push personal feelings aside. I covered the sport of boxing for years and would often criticize a boxer's style in private with friends, but gave an unbiased account of their fight while ringside.

As I've stated before, I think this was a rushed review and Tom, the professional that he is, will go back to this game once it's been out a few weeks for a more complete review.

They were in a tough spot for this review. We all know that the starter deck game isn't the greatest and a bit unbalanced. When they did this review they had only two starters and 4 boosters.

Well FFG sent them the review set so it isn't entirely their fault that what they were sent didn't make the game look enjoyable.

Their taped demo with Team Covenant should have been overseen by the designer, not a volunteer that did not know the rules all that well. That led to a sloppy looking demo with multiple errors and confusion within it as the first look for many at the game.

And now they provide this group which, has the possibility to be inately hostile to the CCG model, a version of the game that will never look very good. Send them two starters and a booster box. Provide them a look into the distribution and the ability to do a bit of deck building. That won't alleviate the inate CCG hostility from the one host or the lack of preparation in regards to the rules, but at least there is a possibility of success. Where as there really isn't with starters and 4 boosters.

Makes me wonder why/when FFG will release their own game walkthrough, like the one for the Star Wars LCG (and it should include the same narrator).

They were in a tough spot for this review. We all know that the starter deck game isn't the greatest and a bit unbalanced. When they did this review they had only two starters and 4 boosters.

Well FFG sent them the review set so it isn't entirely their fault that what they were sent didn't make the game look enjoyable.

And this is twice FFG has poorly promoted this game with one of the media creators.

Their taped demo with Team Covenant should have been overseen by the designer, not a volunteer that did not know the rules all that well. That led to a sloppy looking demo with multiple errors and confusion within it as the first look for many at the game.

And now they provide this group which, has the possibility to be inately hostile to the CCG model, a version of the game that will never look very good. Send them two starters and a booster box. Provide them a look into the distribution and the ability to do a bit of deck building. That won't alleviate the inate CCG hostility from the one host or the lack of preparation in regards to the rules, but at least there is a possibility of success. Where as there really isn't with starters and 4 boosters.

Yeah those "rookie" mistakes start to add up and might lead to an early doom for this game. The fact that they provided reviewers not with enough content to showcase the customizability of the game is in my mind one big mistake and the reason why we haven´t seen a a full review video from Team Covenant. Because they want to sell this game and know that with the contents they have available they can´t showcase much outside of the content of the starter sets.

Regarding the content of the starter sets FFG made another mistake in my mind. Why not showcase the contents of a booster in the starter set? Every CCG I ever tried had some form of showcasing the customizability of the game in its starter (either by adding a Booster or random rares into the starter set). Granted they never really made it into the starter decks because of their randomness but they showcased awesome cards you wanted more of and went to buy a couple of boosters.

Another thing that bothers me is the fact that FFG developed the set and booster content without thinking of draft or sealed formats even though they realized that some people even wanted that format in their LCGs. WHY?... These formats especially drafts are great for low budget players or to bring more casual games to a tournament. And thus sell more boosters the main way FFG is making money with this game.

The last critical mistake in my mind is a game development mistake. They opted to make this a game targeting casual gamers and thus made the game really simple. Smart! but why the heck does it take so long to play? This game with its simplicity should take 5 to 10 minutes (15 most), where you chuck some dice beat down on each other and then after a short fun game you want to go again. Heck I lost due to bad rolls but hey this was fun lets avenge this defeat. But after the first videos rolled out I was baffled that it took 45-55 minutes. Granted this was when you had to learn the rules but it looks like it will take 25-25 minutes to play a match. And that in a game once one of your characters is defeated and you can´t kill of your opponents first character fast you are pretty much set up to loose. And can only delay the inevitable loss. Again ...why?

These mistakes look like they are easy avoidable rookie mistakes that shouldn´t have been made. I only can imagine that these mistakes stem from FFG haven´t made a CCG game in a long time.

I really hope that FFG adresses most of these mistakes with future expansions for the longevity of this game. The initial sales should be pretty good. The retailer I ordered my booster displays and starters is already increasing the price of the displays and starters (not giving that huge of a discount as i got when I ordered mine) which indicates usually that the product is selling very well for them. But once the initial hype for this game slows down the flaws must be mitigated fast to ensure healthy sales over the next few expansions.

They were in a tough spot for this review. We all know that the starter deck game isn't the greatest and a bit unbalanced. When they did this review they had only two starters and 4 boosters.

Well FFG sent them the review set so it isn't entirely their fault that what they were sent didn't make the game look enjoyable.

And this is twice FFG has poorly promoted this game with one of the media creators.

Their taped demo with Team Covenant should have been overseen by the designer, not a volunteer that did not know the rules all that well. That led to a sloppy looking demo with multiple errors and confusion within it as the first look for many at the game.

And now they provide this group which, has the possibility to be inately hostile to the CCG model, a version of the game that will never look very good. Send them two starters and a booster box. Provide them a look into the distribution and the ability to do a bit of deck building. That won't alleviate the inate CCG hostility from the one host or the lack of preparation in regards to the rules, but at least there is a possibility of success. Where as there really isn't with starters and 4 boosters.

Yeah those "rookie" mistakes start to add up and might lead to an early doom for this game.

I don't think we can call anything FFG does with the Star Wars IP rookie. They PLANNED to launched the game this way. This is probably years of game crafting and event planning. Who knows how far in advanced they already have planned?

I too wonder why they chose to launch this game the way they have. An incomplete starter? (20 instead of 30 cards?!?) No included booster (like other CCG often package with starter sets)? I too think it will be a mistake if FFG has not considered a draft format for this game, but if they have they just are not sharing it with us at this time. It will be interesting to see where they decide to take this game competitively. FFG clearly wants to stand out from day one as different and this has dangers and benefits. The chief danger is gamers will compare any CCG game to MTG and question why it isn't following the successful format. The benefit is, it's going to take something new to be the next king of the hill (or even establish your own hill). Copycats do not have a history of usurping the success of the models in-which they copy. Perhaps they have crafted a very different way to play this game in tournaments other than the standard draft and crafted deck formats that we've all grown accustom to.

That being said, I think we need to realize just how much we are speculating and confusing opinions for fact. FFG has clearly planned the launch of this game in a particular order. While it's fun to speculate and guess, let's realize it's just that and wait with excitement as FFG slowly pulls back the vale on this game and their future plans for it.

Team Covenant was given what they called a copy of each starter and a bundle of cards. They've stated that they've played an excessive amount of games, so that would lead one to believe they've been given access to enough cards to make actual decks, and even make adjustments. This is supported by the illusions they've made throughout their videos and multiple references to strategy that would not be possible to make if given such a small smattering of cards as other reviewers have. As such I don't believe it is accurate to state that TC hasn't done a full review due to lack of content available to them, but simply because they never intended to review the game as they aren't a review site.

Additionally I don't understand why a game with simple rules must play as a game without any depth to it, which is what you seem to have suggested should have been the goal.

FFG is not the company that's going to create a mindless dice rolling game that plays in 5-10 minutes entirely dependant on a bit of luck and not tripping over your own feet. That was never going to be in the cards for an FFG game, and why would we the fans ever want a collectible game with so little to it?

FFGs LCGs have been commonly criticized for their innate complexity. The basics of the games are often difficult to teach and pick up which creates issues of course. By contrast FFGs most succesful game (X-wing) is much more simple and much more easy to teach, but despite that simplicity has depth to it once you move deeper into the game. That appears to be what they are shooting for with Destiny. The turn structure is a simple you go I go structure, and the actions are few and easily understood. But what to do and when is more difficult and brings the game time up to that mark you describe. And I believe that is FFGs goal.

I honestly have no idea why you think it be a positive to create a game with no depth to it.

To be honest the best advertising is us, we are enthusiastic and like the game.

To be honest the best advertising is us, we are enthusiastic and like the game.

Oh wait, they don't.

To be honest the best advertising is us, we are enthusiastic and like the game.

I think you are correct in thinking this is FFG's thought process on this game. They've seem to have only chosen one critical voice (Team Covenant) to persuade and give special access to this game. They may have correctly guessed what the response would be from critics if they just blanketed out demos. Its good to have the big social media groups talking about your game (like Dice Tower), but they seem to already have a relationship with TC and have only committed major resources to them. From there, they may figure we the fans will then carry the true opening hype for this game.

Team Covenant was given what they called a copy of each starter and a bundle of cards. They've stated that they've played an excessive amount of games, so that would lead one to believe they've been given access to enough cards to make actual decks, and even make adjustments. This is supported by the illusions they've made throughout their videos and multiple references to strategy that would not be possible to make if given such a small smattering of cards as other reviewers have. As such I don't believe it is accurate to state that TC hasn't done a full review due to lack of content available to them, but simply because they never intended to review the game as they aren't a review site.

Additionally I don't understand why a game with simple rules must play as a game without any depth to it, which is what you seem to have suggested should have been the goal.

FFG is not the company that's going to create a mindless dice rolling game that plays in 5-10 minutes entirely dependant on a bit of luck and not tripping over your own feet. That was never going to be in the cards for an FFG game, and why would we the fans ever want a collectible game with so little to it?

FFGs LCGs have been commonly criticized for their innate complexity. The basics of the games are often difficult to teach and pick up which creates issues of course. By contrast FFGs most succesful game (X-wing) is much more simple and much more easy to teach, but despite that simplicity has depth to it once you move deeper into the game. That appears to be what they are shooting for with Destiny. The turn structure is a simple you go I go structure, and the actions are few and easily understood. But what to do and when is more difficult and brings the game time up to that mark you describe. And I believe that is FFGs goal.

I honestly have no idea why you think it be a positive to create a game with no depth to it.

please do not lay words in my mouth I didn´t say. I never said that the game should not have depth. It should have depth but it should also be played very fast (5-10 minutes). And no those two do not contradict each other.

I do know a lot of fast paced games that are simple to learn but have a lot of complexity and are hard to master.

Or they just give media creators preview stuff so they spam out spoilers and articles that don't have to go through Disney approval.

Or are you actually suggesting we aren't getting enough content for this game in the lead up to it?

Team Covenant was given what they called a copy of each starter and a bundle of cards. They've stated that they've played an excessive amount of games, so that would lead one to believe they've been given access to enough cards to make actual decks, and even make adjustments. This is supported by the illusions they've made throughout their videos and multiple references to strategy that would not be possible to make if given such a small smattering of cards as other reviewers have. As such I don't believe it is accurate to state that TC hasn't done a full review due to lack of content available to them, but simply because they never intended to review the game as they aren't a review site.

Additionally I don't understand why a game with simple rules must play as a game without any depth to it, which is what you seem to have suggested should have been the goal.

FFG is not the company that's going to create a mindless dice rolling game that plays in 5-10 minutes entirely dependant on a bit of luck and not tripping over your own feet. That was never going to be in the cards for an FFG game, and why would we the fans ever want a collectible game with so little to it?

FFGs LCGs have been commonly criticized for their innate complexity. The basics of the games are often difficult to teach and pick up which creates issues of course. By contrast FFGs most succesful game (X-wing) is much more simple and much more easy to teach, but despite that simplicity has depth to it once you move deeper into the game. That appears to be what they are shooting for with Destiny. The turn structure is a simple you go I go structure, and the actions are few and easily understood. But what to do and when is more difficult and brings the game time up to that mark you describe. And I believe that is FFGs goal.

I honestly have no idea why you think it be a positive to create a game with no depth to it.

please do not lay words in my mouth I didn´t say. I never said that the game should not have depth. It should have depth but it should also be played very fast (5-10 minutes). And no those two do not contradict each other.

I do know a lot of fast paced games that are simple to learn but have a lot of complexity and are hard to master.

Team Covenant was given what they called a copy of each starter and a bundle of cards. They've stated that they've played an excessive amount of games, so that would lead one to believe they've been given access to enough cards to make actual decks, and even make adjustments. This is supported by the illusions they've made throughout their videos and multiple references to strategy that would not be possible to make if given such a small smattering of cards as other reviewers have. As such I don't believe it is accurate to state that TC hasn't done a full review due to lack of content available to them, but simply because they never intended to review the game as they aren't a review site.

Additionally I don't understand why a game with simple rules must play as a game without any depth to it, which is what you seem to have suggested should have been the goal.

FFG is not the company that's going to create a mindless dice rolling game that plays in 5-10 minutes entirely dependant on a bit of luck and not tripping over your own feet. That was never going to be in the cards for an FFG game, and why would we the fans ever want a collectible game with so little to it?

FFGs LCGs have been commonly criticized for their innate complexity. The basics of the games are often difficult to teach and pick up which creates issues of course. By contrast FFGs most succesful game (X-wing) is much more simple and much more easy to teach, but despite that simplicity has depth to it once you move deeper into the game. That appears to be what they are shooting for with Destiny. The turn structure is a simple you go I go structure, and the actions are few and easily understood. But what to do and when is more difficult and brings the game time up to that mark you describe. And I believe that is FFGs goal.

I honestly have no idea why you think it be a positive to create a game with no depth to it.

please do not lay words in my mouth I didn´t say. I never said that the game should not have depth. It should have depth but it should also be played very fast (5-10 minutes). And no those two do not contradict each other.

I do know a lot of fast paced games that are simple to learn but have a lot of complexity and are hard to master.

Can you give at least one example of such card game?

Magic

Magic takes 5 minutes if one player scoopes off a bad draw. Otherwise you are looking at 15 minutes on the low end, not 5.

Magic takes 5 minutes if one player scopes off a bad draw. Otherwise you are looking at 15 minutes on the low end, not 5.

FFG is advertising this as a 30 minute game. I belive you are correct to argue against the idea that this is a simple 5 to 10 minute dice game.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/star-wars-destiny/

The review was like what I would expect from Cletas off the Simpsons

Magic takes 5 minutes if one player scopes off a bad draw. Otherwise you are looking at 15 minutes on the low end, not 5.

My experience begs to differ. I used to play a lot of magic back in school where we had 15 minute breakes. That meant we had around 13 minutes to play a magic match. Easily doable sometimes we managed two but that wasn´t the norm. We even were able to play 4 player FFA in that time limit. We tried a couple of 6 player FFA but that was dicey cause that usually took us around 20 minutes to finish a match.

MTG tournament rules give 50 minute rounds for a best of three match with the ability for extra turns after time is called. This suggests that Wizards believes there average game time to be in the 15 minute range. Are you actually suggesting you were able to finish a best of 3 match in a 15 minute lunch break? Or was that for one game?

More over I absolutely do not believe I was putting words on your mouth as to quote you "This game with its simplicity should take 5 to 10 minutes (15 most), where you chuck some dice beat down on each other and then after a short fun game you want to go again." That is a describing a game with very little depth.

MTG tournament rules give 50 minute rounds for a best of three match with the ability for extra turns after time is called. This suggests that Wizards believes there average game time to be in the 15 minute range. Are you actually suggesting you were able to finish a best of 3 match in a 15 minute lunch break? Or was that for one game?

More over I absolutely do not believe I was putting words on your mouth as to quote you "This game with its simplicity should take 5 to 10 minutes (15 most), where you chuck some dice beat down on each other and then after a short fun game you want to go again." That is a describing a game with very little depth.

It was one game in around 8-12 minutes, sometimes two, not a bo3. Also this was basically casual play, I would argue that tournament play takes a bit longer because you bluff stall intentionally more often.

Magic could be also described as a simple game where you play some cards and beat down aour opponents lifepoints.

Edit: Funfact: the german distributor lists the german version as 10-30 minutes playing time while the english version is listed at 30-60 minutes...

Except that isn't true of MTG if you are playing it on anything above a kitchen table level.