I have to agree with several posters that the amount of information provided regarding the game has been to minimal, especially in this instance to Dice tower so it’s a little rough to throw them under the bus on a few rules issues when there seems to be the same questions coming up and no initial feedback from FFG at this stage obviously.

However having said that when one of the reviewers goes into the review with a heavily negative stance on the distribution model of a game that has ZERO impact on the gameplay, and still casts it aside your probably best simply dismissing any of his comments.

One of the points that has been raised before to a lesser extent that I would like to point at is that the game (with the currently spoiled cards) seems to lack any cards or effects that will claw you back into the game once you get behind, especially if you lose a character early, reducing your potential output and having no way of getting it back save for endless ranks, means that a lot of games will actually be decided once one of the heroes goes down. Maybe I'm wrong (I hope so) and maybe there are some more cards yet to be revealed that can pull you up to level terms if you are behind but the inherent nature of the back and forth nature of the game mechanic prevents this in my oppinion.

Of course Dice being what they are can alleviate that and the super generous mulligan rule both at the start and at the end of each turn may go some way towards balancing things but I guess we will have to wait and see.

One of the points that has been raised before to a lesser extent that I would like to point at is that the game (with the currently spoiled cards) seems to lack any cards or effects that will claw you back into the game once you get behind, especially if you lose a character early, reducing your potential output and having no way of getting it back save for endless ranks, means that a lot of games will actually be decided once one of the heroes goes down.

It is interesting but this comment made me think of Power Grid, which if you don't or can't do exactly what you have to in the first 3 turns can leave you playing a game for 90-120 minutes and all you are is a warm body, you won't win the game but you can't leave without spoiling the game for everyone else.

With Destiny I am not too sure yet. Is this a problem if you play single dice versions of your characters? So you have more characters, does losing 1 character when you have 3 or 4 hurt too much? If you do find yourself in a losing position can you just shuffle and start again?

One of the points that has been raised before to a lesser extent that I would like to point at is that the game (with the currently spoiled cards) seems to lack any cards or effects that will claw you back into the game once you get behind, especially if you lose a character early, reducing your potential output and having no way of getting it back save for endless ranks, means that a lot of games will actually be decided once one of the heroes goes down.

It is interesting but this comment made me think of Power Grid, which if you don't or can't do exactly what you have to in the first 3 turns can leave you playing a game for 90-120 minutes and all you are is a warm body, you won't win the game but you can't leave without spoiling the game for everyone else.

With Destiny I am not too sure yet. Is this a problem if you play single dice versions of your characters? So you have more characters, does losing 1 character when you have 3 or 4 hurt too much? If you do find yourself in a losing position can you just shuffle and start again?

One of the points that has been raised before to a lesser extent that I would like to point at is that the game (with the currently spoiled cards) seems to lack any cards or effects that will claw you back into the game once you get behind, especially if you lose a character early, reducing your potential output and having no way of getting it back save for endless ranks, means that a lot of games will actually be decided once one of the heroes goes down.

It is interesting but this comment made me think of Power Grid, which if you don't or can't do exactly what you have to in the first 3 turns can leave you playing a game for 90-120 minutes and all you are is a warm body, you won't win the game but you can't leave without spoiling the game for everyone else.

With Destiny I am not too sure yet. Is this a problem if you play single dice versions of your characters? So you have more characters, does losing 1 character when you have 3 or 4 hurt too much? If you do find yourself in a losing position can you just shuffle and start again?

Don't forget about powerful support cards like the AT-ST, TIE Fighter, and Black One that bring the serious hurt!

Yes powerful support cards will mitigate the loss of a character a little bit, but don´t forget that a 3 upgrade character rolls 4-5 dice with one action while you usually can only roll one support die each action (there probably will be a event that lets you roll multiple support dice).

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

looking at the Legacy format I would disagree, but regardless I doubt that it is possible to play a bo3 in Star Wars Destiny in 50 minutes...

Yes powerful support cards will mitigate the loss of a character a little bit, but don´t forget that a 3 upgrade character rolls 4-5 dice with one action while you usually can only roll one support die each action (there probably will be a event that lets you roll multiple support dice).

I am not great at theorycrafting a deck, rather a bit more hands on. So I mean this question exactly as a question.

So let me preamble my question: We have played 3 turns, so each of us will have had the chance to spend 6 resources. So you may have played a 1 then a 2 then a 3 and have 6 points worth of cards in front or you. Meanwhile I may have played a 3 and then later a 3 cost support. I also have 6 points of cards in front of me. Now, ok, this is a very sweeping generalisation because it doesn't account for creating extra resources or playing disruption effects.

So, as a pure hypothetical: Who is the player with the advantage here?

Now, as I wrote that the following question occurred to me, the game like many is affected by luck, luck of the draw and luck of the dice. Now, if we are each fairly even, would there be that much a difference in the relative strengths of our game state? If one player is significantly so far ahead perhaps he has better figured out how to play those cards, use those dice and perhaps should be ahead? Now, there is always going to be an extreme but just about any game suffers when one player is significantly luckier than the other.

Yes powerful support cards will mitigate the loss of a character a little bit, but don´t forget that a 3 upgrade character rolls 4-5 dice with one action while you usually can only roll one support die each action (there probably will be a event that lets you roll multiple support dice).

I am not great at theorycrafting a deck, rather a bit more hands on. So I mean this question exactly as a question.

So let me preamble my question: We have played 3 turns, so each of us will have had the chance to spend 6 resources. So you may have played a 1 then a 2 then a 3 and have 6 points worth of cards in front or you. Meanwhile I may have played a 3 and then later a 3 cost support. I also have 6 points of cards in front of me. Now, ok, this is a very sweeping generalisation because it doesn't account for creating extra resources or playing disruption effects.

So, as a pure hypothetical: Who is the player with the advantage here?

Now, as I wrote that the following question occurred to me, the game like many is affected by luck, luck of the draw and luck of the dice. Now, if we are each fairly even, would there be that much a difference in the relative strengths of our game state? If one player is significantly so far ahead perhaps he has better figured out how to play those cards, use those dice and perhaps should be ahead? Now, there is always going to be an extreme but just about any game suffers when one player is significantly luckier than the other.

This is a very hypothetical question that probably won´t happen in game. To make this comparison we have to assume that we will have both identical starting characters and starting dice. I also assume that each upgrade/support we play will have a die associated. So lets look at this turn by turn:

x represents the starting number of dice for both players:

Turn 1: I play my first upgrade. You can´t play your 3 cost support. so I can roll x+1 dice you only x dice.

Turn 2: I play one upgrade, you play one support. I roll x+2 dice, you roll x+1 dice.

Turn 3: We both play one 3 cost card. I roll x+3 dice, you roll x+2 dice.

By turn 3 I have rolled 3*x+6 dice, you 3*x+3 dice. In theory I should also need fewer actions to roll my dice and activate them than you, thus getting to claim the battlefield more often. So in theory I should have a numeric advantage over you. The question is now are my 3 dice that much stronger than your 2 that I can kill one of your starting characters before you kill one of mine? So that I can roll x+3 and you only (x-y)+2?

In reality I doubt that a similar situation will ever happen, because its a dice and card game and both are very luck dependent. We also know that there are cards to make upgrades and supports cheaper/to cheat them into play. I think it would be very rare that both players have spent an equal amount of resources by turn 3....

I´m not entirely sure what you want to know with your second question. I assume you want to know if luck can compensate a skill/experience level in this game? Even though I think a DDS is more luck dependent than a pure CCG. A player with a higher skill level will always have an advantage over an inexperienced player due to deckbuilding (we know desitiny has a lot of cards that reduce the luck factor of the dice roll) and knowledge of the game.

One thing I think is interesting how players inherently believe that an elite version of a character is inherently superior. Investing more points into an elite character can actually be more damaging then given credit, for if you lose them you lose 2 dice + upgrades.
I would also call any concerns for balance, simply whiny, No one has seen enough of the game/pool/meta for it to develop. I do believe there is a certain point of learning to deal with things/mitigating them, compared to outright calling it unfair.
I know I have seen quite a few cards with guardian that allow you to redirect attacks or effects that straight remove dice. The problem is, these are all control elements and control is almost always an inherently defensive playstyle. With that in mind, I beckon you to think how you can defend against something if you do not know what it is. This is almost exclusively why in every cardgame where Aggro is king at the start of a cycle/rotation until a control strategy can develop to counter it's critical plays. Food for Thought.

I´m not entirely sure what you want to know with your second question. I assume you want to know if luck can compensate a skill/experience level in this game? Even though I think a DDS is more luck dependent than a pure CCG. A player with a higher skill level will always have an advantage over an inexperienced player due to deckbuilding (we know desitiny has a lot of cards that reduce the luck factor of the dice roll) and knowledge of the game.

I think you got it.

I think having two "game systems" dice/card draw you have two places where randomness can affect the game, as with a CCG just the draw or a dice game like King of Tokyo you just have to worry about the dice. I do feel that upon thinking about it, the luck of Destiny seems about on par with any other 60 card CCG.

With fewer cards and a higher draw limit, you probably will see about a good percentage increase in the probability of drawing a key card, even with the two card limit. Add to that the game does not have resources you are required to draw, so you neither end up getting too few or too many. In say Magic you can easily under draw lands and never get enough creatures or draw so many creatures and not enough land your deck crashes and burns.

Your dice are probably going to be somewhat more random, I think here, you want to have at least some idea of probabilities. As to ensure you understand the risk/reward that each dice represents. Also, understand that if you aren't getting the results you want consistently then perhaps you are taking too much risk with the dice. Which is to say you aren't being unlucky, you have taken dice that just aren't as reliable as you want.

As such good play, good deck building and good dice management will win games.

Yes powerful support cards will mitigate the loss of a character a little bit, but don´t forget that a 3 upgrade character rolls 4-5 dice with one action while you usually can only roll one support die each action (there probably will be a event that lets you roll multiple support dice).

I am not great at theorycrafting a deck, rather a bit more hands on. So I mean this question exactly as a question.

So let me preamble my question: We have played 3 turns, so each of us will have had the chance to spend 6 resources. So you may have played a 1 then a 2 then a 3 and have 6 points worth of cards in front or you. Meanwhile I may have played a 3 and then later a 3 cost support. I also have 6 points of cards in front of me. Now, ok, this is a very sweeping generalisation because it doesn't account for creating extra resources or playing disruption effects.

So, as a pure hypothetical: Who is the player with the advantage here?

Now, as I wrote that the following question occurred to me, the game like many is affected by luck, luck of the draw and luck of the dice. Now, if we are each fairly even, would there be that much a difference in the relative strengths of our game state? If one player is significantly so far ahead perhaps he has better figured out how to play those cards, use those dice and perhaps should be ahead? Now, there is always going to be an extreme but just about any game suffers when one player is significantly luckier than the other.

After playing 3 turns of identical characters, card draw, and dice rolls. There will be ALOT of variance, who activating what in what order will change the mind of the other player. Who uses card X for a re roll and who uses it for its effect. Who claims the battlefield first. All this plays factors into variance and strategy. But if we take away the complete mirror draw, Why Would you think by turn 3 you will have a chance to spend 6 resources? (WHOEVER CLAIMS THE BATTLEFIELD FIRST GETS TO GO 1ST NEXT ROUND sry for caps) There are abilities that destroy resources and cards that add resources. This game is asymmetric so asking a symmetric question to me doesn't make much sense even though you addressed that I felt the need to state it again.

As for the chance element, I will tell you to try this, play the same person 10 games and count the wis and losses and then switch decks and count the wins and losses after another 10 games. If one player is winning 80% of the games, what does that tell you about "luck"

As for the chance element, I will tell you to try this, play the same person 10 games and count the wis and losses and then switch decks and count the wins and losses after another 10 games. If one player is winning 80% of the games, what does that tell you about "luck"

Or one deck winning 80% of the time.

This game is asymmetric so asking a symmetric question to me doesn't make much sense even though you addressed that I felt the need to state it again.

I´m a bit confused here... Why would you say Star Wars Destiny is a asymmetrical game?

All players have the same same actions available to them and the same win conditions. To me that is very symmetrical.

This game is asymmetric so asking a symmetric question to me doesn't make much sense even though you addressed that I felt the need to state it again.

I´m a bit confused here... Why would you say Star Wars Destiny is a asymmetrical game?

All players have the same same actions available to them and the same win conditions. To me that is very symmetrical.

While the game has options, such as deck building, this game is symmetrical. All players are subject to the same rules and have equal access to all components of the game. Android: Netrunner is an example of an asymmetrical game.

This game is asymmetric so asking a symmetric question to me doesn't make much sense even though you addressed that I felt the need to state it again.

I´m a bit confused here... Why would you say Star Wars Destiny is a asymmetrical game?

All players have the same same actions available to them and the same win conditions. To me that is very symmetrical.

While the game has options, such as deck building, this game is symmetrical. All players are subject to the same rules and have equal access to all components of the game. Android: Netrunner is an example of an asymmetrical game.

You guys are correct I shouldn't have used that term. I was attempting to point out it is not mirror gameplay. Even with the same cards and heroes the rolls on the die, the order which cards come up, etc. change how each player would play the same scenario.

As for the chance element, I will tell you to try this, play the same person 10 games and count the wis and losses and then switch decks and count the wins and losses after another 10 games. If one player is winning 80% of the games, what does that tell you about "luck"

Or one deck winning 80% of the time.

Even in that instance, doesn't seem like luck it would go with the better deck is winning no?

As for the chance element, I will tell you to try this, play the same person 10 games and count the wis and losses and then switch decks and count the wins and losses after another 10 games. If one player is winning 80% of the games, what does that tell you about "luck"

Or one deck winning 80% of the time.

Even in that instance, doesn't seem like luck it would go with the better deck is winning no?

Not sure I understand what you're trying to say, but I was saying that if one deck wins 80% of games, regardless of who's playing it, it's not luck -- it's a better deck.

As for the chance element, I will tell you to try this, play the same person 10 games and count the wis and losses and then switch decks and count the wins and losses after another 10 games. If one player is winning 80% of the games, what does that tell you about "luck"

Or one deck winning 80% of the time.

Even in that instance, doesn't seem like luck it would go with the better deck is winning no?

Not sure I understand what you're trying to say, but I was saying that if one deck wins 80% of games, regardless of who's playing it, it's not luck -- it's a better deck.

thats what I'm saying as well!