Having been fortunate enough to dive into the initial release and find myself with (barely) enough cards and dice to make decks for four players, it got me to thinking:

What rules/guidelines might one follow, when building multiple decks, to aspire to inter-deck balance?

Friends to whom I want to show the game will not have their own stuff, obviously. In the event I can organize a four-player free-for-all, I'd like to do my best in engineering that everyone has a fair shot at winning.

You can see my four deck builds here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5aGQ6SI9MskYktFS1MzcVhqRXM

(I realize I'm breaking Finn's red-card rule with the Launch Bay and Survival Gear cards, but it's all I have for now.)

My thinking in building these decks:

• Rey and Finn have more Legendary cards because they have the lower character point total of the four.
• Jango, the First Order Stormtrooper, and the Tusken Raider have the fewest available dice since they start with more dice already on the table.
• Padme and Qui-Gon have the most available dice but the fewest Support cards.
• Kylo and Grievous have predominately Villain and Blue cards to take advantage of that specialty.

Now, I'll admit some of these decisions were intentional while others were a result of the limited number of cards and dice I currently possess.

Nevertheless, my goal as I get my hands on more boosters is to have four interesting, unique, and balanced decks to have on the ready.

I think I'm already off to a good start, as the few 2-player games I've managed to face off with have been really close with the games riding on different aspects of the decks each time, but I'd be really interested in what people had to say about these four builds in particular and balancing deck builds in general.

Thanks!

Deck building theory is still in a fairly fluid state, it seems. I've heard plenty of deckbuilding theories put forward with a great deal of authority, only to find them not really applicable to certain builds.

I think you're on the right track, as far as balancing your number of dice giving cards against the number of dice already on a character, but I'd remove rare vs legendary from consideration. IMO there are Uncommons and Rares that are flat out better than some legendaries, so I don't see that as a good way to judge anything but scarcity.

Padme and Qui-Gon don't seem like they should be about dice as much as results. If you have a support or event that gives you shields or resources, those are going to make sure you can get their abilities off more often, which may win you more games than simply stacking dice on the characters. (Unless those dice have good shield/resource/focus) results.

Jango starting with more dice on the table just says to me that he wants *even more* dice to shoot for that five-die roll as a reaction.


For general rules, I think staying between 10-15 dice is a good guideline. Events and Supports are important, but how important they are is going to depend a lot on your color distributions. Infamous is amazing in mono-yellow, for instance, but decreases in overall effect the more colors you mix in.

Considering building multiple decks with a single limited pool, I get caught up when I only have two copies of a card but I want it in two decks. I'd say start with one in each, play both, and see which deck wants more copies more.

As I get to this point, I realize I've utterly failed to provide the requested "guidelines for building multiple decks" More just a series of rambling thoughts in no particular order.

I hope they're at least marginally helpful.

Most certainly helpful. Thank you!

I was having a similar thought about the Legendaries: what few I have are "exceptional", but exceptional in their abilities along with their specialization and cost.

Launch Bay, for instance seems ridiculous (and maybe it is more than most), potentially resolving its single die and getting 5 (or more with a Don't Get Cocky!) Resources, Damage, Discards, Resource Destruction, etc. ... but it does cost 5 Resources to get it out on the table?

At the Fantasy Flight Preview Event's panel, Lukas Litzsinger stated something along the lines of the cards and dice being designed first, and the rarity designation being determined only after the full roster was established. Which is nice, in my opinion. Just because someone scored the "golden ticket" card doesn't mean he should win every game, after all.

The art is making the deck greater than the sum of its cards by combining abilities like you stated in your "ramblings" ... and again, I appreciate it.

I have the 2 starter sets and like 20 boosters and at this point I feel I have 2 decks that will play and do well. It's just me but I wouldn't ever think about building more that for at least 6 or more months. When there is more than 2 players, one always seems to get picked on and leaves with a bad experience. That doesn't seem like a way to get people interested ìn the game.

I have the 2 starter sets and like 20 boosters and at this point I feel I have 2 decks that will play and do well. It's just me but I wouldn't ever think about building more that for at least 6 or more months. When there is more than 2 players, one always seems to get picked on and leaves with a bad experience. That doesn't seem like a way to get people interested ìn the game.

Which is why I found it interesting that they didn't include rules for team games, to encourage protecting each other

I agree with your recommendation, ozmodon ... my plan is to play with friends individually (and I've gotten to two thus far), and then when we happen to all be together (and are all familiar with the game) try out a free-for-all.

I also agree with you, Funk Fu, that teaming up would be best. To have everyone identify an early threat and focus on eliminating it together would be frustrating for that player. Plus, even when one of the players falls out of the game, that player is still invested in their team and could could collaborate with the surviving player on their options and strategies.

But maybe - if I had four players and four decks - two two-player games might be best, with the winners and losers squaring off afterwards.

I initially assumed it was designed like a Netrunner with just two players squaring off.

Only upon discovering cards with the verbiage "all opponents" did I start wondering about games with more than two players ... why is 'opponents' plural? I only have one opponent. Unless ... oh look, rules for multiplayer.

I'd still be interested in giving multiplayer a try ...

To bring the topic back from the multiplayer to the deck-building side, however, I've seen the number 10-15 thrown around a lot in regards to the number of dice a deck might/"should" have ...

This seems like a lot to me. Even if you had three characters, each having a maximum of three upgrades, and having three or four Supports, that's 12-13 ... and that's me thinking dice-heavy.

Is the thinking accounting for those that might get disposed throughout the game? Or having more than you would use in a single game to not be left waiting?

As an thought exercise in extremes, what if one were to build a deck with a whole bunch of Supports that had an attached die? If they manage to afford it, turns toward game-end will be ripe with activation after activation after activation, right? There isn't a limit on the number of Supports a player may have in play, is there?

As an thought exercise in extremes, what if one were to build a deck with a whole bunch of Supports that had an attached die? If they manage to afford it, turns toward game-end will be ripe with activation after activation after activation, right? There isn't a limit on the number of Supports a player may have in play, is there?

No, there is no limit on supports.

However, each support activation takes an action, and that many actions means you'll never take the field, and never have initiative.

How important this is, is going to vary deck to deck, but I'd call most support-die heavy decks slow and cumbersome.

To bring the topic back from the multiplayer to the deck-building side, however, I've seen the number 10-15 thrown around a lot in regards to the number of dice a deck might/"should" have ...

This seems like a lot to me. Even if you had three characters, each having a maximum of three upgrades, and having three or four Supports, that's 12-13 ... and that's me thinking dice-heavy.

Is the thinking accounting for those that might get disposed throughout the game? Or having more than you would use in a single game to not be left waiting?

As an thought exercise in extremes, what if one were to build a deck with a whole bunch of Supports that had an attached die? If they manage to afford it, turns toward game-end will be ripe with activation after activation after activation, right? There isn't a limit on the number of Supports a player may have in play, is there?

No there isn't.

It depends on your playstyle. That method you would have to ride out the heavy blows of the upgraded characters pools of your opponents, to then out activate them as you trickle feed your dice pool from separate supports. You would also almost never claim the battlefield as your opponent would use up their actions before you, thus loosing the initiative