I am sure we all have found this game entertaining, the various interactions of dice, card, luck and bluff make the game just great fun as a game. Perhaps someone will point out that the game is taking a double dose of luck, as you need the cards and the dice to be on your side.

Remember that we're still dealing with an extremely limited card pool. I expect that there'll be just a few more strategies once that pool doubles.

21 minutes ago, Amanal said:

everything you do has to spend at least a turn at risk. Everything you can do, can be undone

Jango Fett would beg to differ....

5 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:

Jango Fett would beg to differ....

I think he falls into the back-to-back actions category, which Amanal mentioned. As time progresses we'll probably see a meta form around those rare-but-powerful effects that buck the general non-interactivity paradigm, especially as they continue to print similar cards.

11 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

I think he falls into the back-to-back actions category, which Amanal mentioned. As time progresses we'll probably see a meta form around those rare-but-powerful effects that buck the general non-interactivity paradigm, especially as they continue to print similar cards.

Your right but I really hope that these types of effects are not going to be used in the future, unless they print cards to counteract the effects, as mentioned the fundamental game play is back and forth with the chance to react to everything your opponent does.

Jango, Tactical Mastery and Rey + Holdout are all very powerful effects that break the reactionary aspect of the game and too many of these would be bad for the game in my opinion leading invariably in the future to decks that will be able to chain multiple actions together at once with your opponent a spectator to their own demise with no way of stopping it.

Rey and Jango break the mold in my opinion, as does Tactical Mastery, but Holdout Blaster and the other ambush cards feel different to me.

Playing Holdout Blaster and rolling in can actually give your opponent valuable information about the game state he can use to react to.

Another point I'd make is that stacking actions is only as good as the value you get from your actions. I've taken 6 actions to start the game, before my opponent took his first and collected 3 shields on Han, 2 on Rey, and 2 resources for my effort. That is not horrible, but considering my opponent started his turn with 2 shields on Jango and 2 resources, I only held a 3 shield lead at the start of his turn for 6 actions.

I really wish we were given a choice between 2 shields or 1 resource for losing the initial roll off. That would actually make the decision to go first more meaningful for both players. "I could pick my mediocre claim ability, or I could play a lightsaber on the first turn."

Jango Fett isn't even very good. The game is still pretty new though, and people are mistaking his flash for substance.

16 minutes ago, CBMarkham said:

Jango Fett isn't even very good. The game is still pretty new though, and people are mistaking his flash for substance.

While that may be your opinion of him you cannot deny that the potential of 4-7 uncounterable damage from him on turn 1 with a jetpack is not powerful, and certainly far more consistent than I would prefer (YMMV)

Any time you have something that makes your opponent not want to activate their characters regardless of what the rolls may be that is a significant impact on the board state that a passive effect that Jango is creating.

I see him as a real threat, and in the hands of a skilled player a daunting challenge whenever I face a Jango list.

I would be fascinated to know what you think are tier 1 Characters if you think Jango is not one of them.

Bala-Tik is the best in the game, currently. I'm also a huge Veers fan. Jango is.....fine, but I probably wouldn't run him. It's all about value and efficiency. Don't waste your time on speed.

Big Rey fan, tho. She will be amazing once more melee partners in other colors come through.

7 minutes ago, CBMarkham said:

Bala-Tik is the best in the game, currently. I'm also a huge Veers fan. Jango is.....fine, but I probably wouldn't run him. It's all about value and efficiency. Don't waste your time on speed.

Big Rey fan, tho. She will be amazing once more melee partners in other colors come through.

That's a stronge statement. I think you may need to explain yourself in a little more detail.

Too lazy. I know I'm coming off as an obnoxious, blow-hard, know it all now, but I think it's a negative side effect of having won 4 tournaments in a row, and never having lost a game of SW Destiny.....sorry.

Here's a link to my current list

http://swdestinydb.com/decklist/view/7223/generalvalue4xtournamentwinner-1.0

If you guys are interested in my deeper analysis, I'd be happy to elaborate with a long winded, blow hardy post, tomorrow. It's also possible I'm just a donkey who's been getting lucky so far, as my total lifetime game count is still quite low, but...I feel like my card analysis has served me well, thus far. /shrug

Yeah, that's a pretty low sample size to warrant the confidence, but solid analysis is always welcome.

FWIW, I see FO 'trooper / Bala / Sister being touted as an objectively solid deck, but it's not exactly dominating the Destiny scene. Other common archetypes are placing just as well or better, so maybe it's not such a great idea to dismiss them out of hand.

18 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

FWIW, I see FO 'trooper / Bala / Sister being touted as an objectively solid deck, but it's not exactly dominating the Destiny scene. Other common archetypes are placing just as well or better, so maybe it's not such a great idea to dismiss them out of hand.

That is a solid deck, if built correctly, but lots of people are filling it out with suboptimal cards. If the characters are good, but the you load the deck up with Tier 2 cards, you'll still run into some bumpy roads .

Well, yeah. I would just say there's a hyper-focus around here when it comes to characters, and less so with the actual cards that go into their decks. Again, it's a really limited card pool, which can stifle discussion because the strategies are less refined over all and generally pretty bland. I wouldn't underestimate the value of a little "flash" here and there.

I'm with you. Once we have twice as many cards to work with, we'll have four times as many deck building possibilities. It's gonna be great. Looking forward to seeing what SoR brings us.

2 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Remember that we're still dealing with an extremely limited card pool. I expect that there'll be just a few more strategies once that pool doubles.

I haven't forgotten, the next set will double the number of cards!!

But it won't just double our cards, it will create more variety in our Character Teams, Take Grievious now and he pairs with, well nothing much all that well. Next set and there are 11 other cards perhaps that could pair well with him. (OK He can't pair up with the Emperor now.)

Also, with more variety in the guns, maybe more melee choices and some extra events the rush-agro may find itself being matched by control-agro and mill-control or mill-agro decks. So you get an expanded range of deck archetypes.

So I think if we will have more than double the number of decks that could be played as viable competitive decks.

More characters will be fun, and they'll open up new opportunities for different pairings, but without more upgrades we'll effectively be looking at the same decks for any given color combination. I'm tired of being shoehorned into ranged upgrades for blue melee characters, or forced to run red if I want a dedicated ranged deck. Frankly, I'd like to see more conversation dedicated to actual win conditions beyond "bring as many dice as you can," because characters don't win you games by themselves and everything else shouldn't be an afterthought.

35 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

More characters will be fun, and they'll open up new opportunities for different pairings, but without more upgrades we'll effectively be looking at the same decks for any given color combination. I'm tired of being shoehorned into ranged upgrades for blue melee characters, or forced to run red if I want a dedicated ranged deck. Frankly, I'd like to see more conversation dedicated to actual win conditions beyond "bring as many dice as you can," because characters don't win you games by themselves and everything else shouldn't be an afterthought.

I agree with WW here, I know the colors are big into themes but I agree there needs to be more lines blurred. Right bow blue is kinda silly to try anything ranged, red is hosed for melee and yellow is actually kinda balanced but has WAY too many control cards. I'd love to see more light sabers in all colors, more guns in colorless or anything but red, and all colors becoming playable as a solo build and be good if not tier 1.

One thing I would like to see is someway to get some use out of supports that aren't Backup Muscle. I think a counter-tempo deck, where the action economy is so high that it can wait out an opponent and then once he has played 3-4 cards and maybe even claimed it can then push into action.

@Wonder WAAAGH I think with 170 more cards that should happen. I think this set will have been started in play test as the last set went into production. So there is always going to be one set lag between the cards and what we are doing with them. I think the next set will be expanding into the choice and decision points you have highlighted. I do hope each colour still has some specialisation that sets it apart, so I am going to disagree on the Light Sabers they should always be blue, but then red/yellow could get the Axes, Staves and Regular Swords that we see often enough. Which is just a thematic difference to what you want as the other colours get melee dice.

As for the comment on bringing more dice, most decks run 12-16 dice and 2 support and 10-16 events. I know I haven't, though you have raised my interest, but has anyone tried a deck with maybe 4-6 upgrades and just a whole mess of dice control and mitigation? Is this an issue because the game doesn't support going with a low number of upgrades or is it a player thing in that we aren't or haven't experimented with anything that extreme?

there needs to be a tourney circuit start up to find the tier 1 decks

3 hours ago, soviet prince said:

there needs to be a tourney circuit start up to find the tier 1 decks

World is in May isn't it?

10 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Well, yeah. I would just say there's a hyper-focus around here when it comes to characters, and less so with the actual cards that go into their decks.

So much this. Even as a guy new to card games, I don't understand why so many people don't spend more time on the cards in their deck over their character comp. You can see on YouTube that the majority of the characters we have can be played to success, if your deck is strong.

9 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

More characters will be fun, and they'll open up new opportunities for different pairings, but without more upgrades we'll effectively be looking at the same decks for any given color combination. I'm tired of being shoehorned into ranged upgrades for blue melee characters, or forced to run red if I want a dedicated ranged deck. Frankly, I'd like to see more conversation dedicated to actual win conditions beyond "bring as many dice as you can," because characters don't win you games by themselves and everything else shouldn't be an afterthought.

I've had discussions with friends and as much as we love the battlefield mechanic, we also feel they missed an opportunity. It would be much more interesting if battlefield cards also introduced an additional won condition on top of the damage blitz. Any thoughts? Doubt it would happen, but interesting to consider.

I think there's design space for that with events and supports, given the right circumstances. Maybe something along the lines of "Action: exhaust this support to put a counter on it. During the upkeep phase, if there are 10 or more counters on [card], you win the game."

9 minutes ago, Engine25 said:

So much this. Even as a guy new to card games, I don't understand why so many people don't spend more time on the cards in their deck over their character comp. You can see on YouTube that the majority of the characters we have can be played to success, if your deck is strong.

I've had discussions with friends and as much as we love the battlefield mechanic, we also feel they missed an opportunity. It would be much more interesting if battlefield cards also introduced an additional won condition on top of the damage blitz. Any thoughts? Doubt it would happen, but interesting to consider.

The battlefields push towards a win condition. They can also be a requirement to control to win with mill decks.