12 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

Nah, without playtesting, we'd get a mix of overpowered and useless cards.

And what is the difference to now?

Just now, Ignithas said:

And what is the difference to now?

Why are you playing this game, then?

Just now, Khudzlin said:

Why are you playing this game, then?

Because I like the game mechanics and the lore and I am certain that the game balance will improve, especially with such a vocal community.

15 hours ago, Soshi Nimue said:

They really should change it. Instead of giving player 2 +1 fate at the start of the game, they should just give each player 1 fate after they pass, instead of just 1 to whoever passed first. After the first turn, give the fate to whoever passed first as normal.

This would actually balance it a lot better - as +1 fate during the first dynasty is WAY more powerful than 1 fate afterwords... So even if player 1 passes first the game isn't balanced by this, combined with the fact that player 1 turn 1 has no opportunity to gain fate from a ring and we can see why no one likes going first turn 1...

What's the point of giving each player 1 fate after they pass? If you're going to do that, you might as well just give them 8 at the beginning instead of 7 rather than 7 now, and 1 later.

51 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

Why are you playing this game, then?

One can like a thing and still be critical of its flaws.

3 hours ago, Hituro said:

I dislike it, and I really hope they don't do it again.

A pack a month means that you have a decent number of games to try each new card in, and a feel for how it changes the environment. A pack a week, at my current rate of play, means I sometimes struggle to have played at all before the next set of cards turn up. It feels like as soon as a pack arrives I have to be online ordering the next one. It isn't like CCG boosters, which I might have bought at the same rate, but at a time (and quantity) of my choosing, it's just a deluge, and by the end of it I think I'm going to feel like I bought a rather overpriced boxed-set with 6 times the postage cost and a lot of excess packaging.

I understand why they did it, but I pray that they switch to monthly packs, and that they take a good long break before they do. I need time to assimilate and play (and my wallet needs a rest as well). If they kept on with weekly packs indefinitely I'd have to quit.

I wish they had just dumped all 6 packs on us day 1. This "brand new environment that lasts a week" crap is getting old.

Alternatively, they should have spoiled everything on day 1 and released at their current rate. That way we can at least proxy the full environment immediately.

This trickle of spoilers and trickle of cards is trying my patience.

4 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

What's the point of giving each player 1 fate after they pass? If you're going to do that, you might as well just give them 8 at the beginning instead of 7 rather than 7 now, and 1 later.

Because the game would give the first player to pass 1 bonus fate. Rather than giving that only to the player who passes first on the first turn, I would give it to each player on the first turn. This would negate any real player 1 / player 2 advantage. The turns are already simultaneous, so there is little advantage to being player 1 anyway. Buying the same number of characters, first player has the first chance to pass. On the first turn this is about all the advantage player 1 has as there aren't any rings with fate on them, and not enough characters to really do much unless they're sacrificing turn 2 board state for an opening rush.

Since the primary bonus for being player 1 is reduced to gaining an extra fate IF they pass first the game designers decided to give player 2 an extra fate in beginning the game. The problem with this is that player 2 gets this fate at the start of the game - meaning they have 8 fate for the dynasty phase. While player 1 can pass first easier player 2 can still pass first to grab the other fate opening the game 9 fate to 7... a pretty sizable disparity that player 1 can't make up as there aren't any rings with fate on them. This doesn't balance the advantage so much as it shifts it, player 2 is preferred much more than player 1 for this reason. The advantage actually carries over as that player is then first player on turn 2, reinforcing their advantage by being able to pass first easier and being able to have first choice of rings once they've received some fate.

For these reasons I feel giving player 2 a bonus fate before the game starts is more advantage than player 1 had for going first. If they simply gave both players 1 fate after each player passes on the first turn instead of giving it to only the player who passed first it balances this part out and leaves the rest of the game as is.

Why not just give them both 8 fate to start the game? why not just give them both 10? My point is not to give more fate to start the game - but to address the actual imbalance of being player 1, turn 1.

Then why simply not giving the second player an extra Fate at the beginning?

BTW, going first supposedly lets you take the more desirable ring and declare the first conflict, thus letting you set the pace for the first dinasty phase.

On 11/29/2017 at 0:49 AM, Fu Leng said:

I agree as long as the deluxe is balanced and not favoring one clan as rumors are suggesting!

I don't mind a single clan-focused deluxe like GoT, as long as that box is meant to focus on a theme, and cards to help the other clans against that theme. Maybe a focus on monks/kiho/tattoos for a Dragon box, and then a set of cards to help the others deal with them, alongside a card to reinforce the main play style of that clan (sacrifice/defense for Crab, honor/dishonor for Crane/Scorp, etc)

It very much depends on the deck and strategy which is best, but personally I prefer going first. Opportunity denial can be very big in this game. If you can shut down your opponent's "while attacking" characters during your attack, that can really set dominance. I tend to break provinces on turn I am first player. Easier to go all in and force and opponent's hand or give them a chance to under commit.

I'm not enjoying the pack a week model really. I do like that they did it to increase our card pool initially, but as a standing way of doing business, I wouldn't be thrilled.

I do like the suggestion above though that maybe every 6 months we get a box set that contains the entire cycle at once. I'd be completely on board with that.