46 minutes ago, Xelto said:

Aren't mansion and helicarriers limited to one per deck?

And I'm in the "Nick Fury is optional camp. The cost-to-return isn't there, much of the time.

No, they are max one in play, not per deck.

I like Nick Fury's draw option, but I can see why others might not find it that appealing.

I think using Nick to Draw is good for someone like Iron Man or Black Panther who really need to dig to find certain cards early. Maybe an appealing option to accelerate decking yourself with Black Panther to get your For Wakanda cards back. For other's it's a less value play considering cards are resources so you payed for Nick to see a new hand effectively, which has some value. though it's hardly explosive value. It helps if you paid for Nick using alternate means like Web Shooters, Peter Parker, Pepper, Helicarriers... or if you have a bunch of 2 or three resource cards in your deck like in Black Panther's set or Carol's set.

I'll throw in with the "Fury isn't all that" side. Four resources is a LOT, and if you use his draw to replace the cost you're turning one resource into a single attack or damage sink before he goes away. I was sitting with him several times in demo games and there were much stronger options in my hand.

The opportunity cost for playing cards in Champions is much higher than it was in LOTR. It's not just the resources, you have to give up playing everything else in your hand for the turn. Maybe that works out, maybe it doesn't. Honestly, he feels like he'll be a trap card more often than not, as you hold on to him waiting for that otherwise-bad hand to throw him out. During that time he'll just be reducing your draw.

High cost cards are generally considerably more punishing in Champions than most other games. You can't save up for them, you're basically going to be digging for combos with the double resource cards, and from what I saw the temporary nature of allies makes it tougher to build a large board state. It's one thing with Gandalf to decide that you're in a good spot so you can only play him this turn - everything you got out previous turns is still there. Is Fury going to be good enough to be the only thing you do in a turn, and is it worth not advancing your limited board state for him? I'm not sold yet, at all.

Okay, so how about this revised deck core:

15 hero cards

5 resource cards

1-2 hellcarrier and 1-2 mansion

16-18 cards of choice.

6 hours ago, Buhallin said:

I'll throw in with the "Fury isn't all that" side. Four resources is a LOT, and if you use his draw to replace the cost you're turning one resource into a single attack or damage sink before he goes away. I was sitting with him several times in demo games and there were much stronger options in my hand.

The opportunity cost for playing cards in Champions is much higher than it was in LOTR. It's not just the resources, you have to give up playing everything else in your hand for the turn. Maybe that works out, maybe it doesn't. Honestly, he feels like he'll be a trap card more often than not, as you hold on to him waiting for that otherwise-bad hand to throw him out. During that time he'll just be reducing your draw.

High cost cards are generally considerably more punishing in Champions than most other games. You can't save up for them, you're basically going to be digging for combos with the double resource cards, and from what I saw the temporary nature of allies makes it tougher to build a large board state. It's one thing with Gandalf to decide that you're in a good spot so you can only play him this turn - everything you got out previous turns is still there. Is Fury going to be good enough to be the only thing you do in a turn, and is it worth not advancing your limited board state for him? I'm not sold yet, at all.

Its not just the 1 resource for attack. You draw 3 new replacements. This means more options, and the ability to get to your very good cards. Also with double resources you can be card neutral.

Maybe, but what did you spend to play him? Not good cards? What are those doing in your deck. He's fine and has plenty of flexibility to his design. He's just not the bomb card Gandalf was in LOTR.

So far I've found myself gravitating toward no helicarriers and 1x mansion Supertoe. It feels like alot of the heroes already have a suitable solution for resource acceleration. That said I could see an argument for helicarrier if you were trying to play a bunch of high cost cards like for instance Nick Fury (and maybe even trying to get more out of the guy using Leadership cards to ready or recur him). I would agree right now 5 resource cards unless you are making a super low cost curve deck. I might consider getting rid of the "power of" cards if I don't have a good amount of 2+ cost aspect cards.

Keep in mind some heroes are definitely richer than others. Iron Man, Spiderman and Black Panther have both draw and resource acceleration in their card sets. Tony can accelerate his resources but also needs to spend reoccurring resources on his boots potentially so that's a consideration. Carol has lots of draw acceleration and card filtering, but no resource acceleration. Also she wants to spend alot of resources to Energy Channel. She-Hulk can damage herself to draw, but also wants to spend cards on Legal Practice and she has no resource acceleration. I think all that means these decks are gonna gravitate toward different neutrals or different cost curves.

I’m certainly willing to try Nick Fury a bit. He is very expensive, but he’s also very flexible. I don’t think he’s badly priced since he essentially gets to do 3 things before leaving play:

- one choice of draw 3 cards (situationally useful, will depend on your hero / deck), remove 2 threat from a scheme or deal 4 damage.

- one choice of attack or Thwart for 2.

- tank one big attack for someone (as he’ll ready before the Villain turn and he’ll go at the end of the Villain turn anyway).

I don’t think all that is bad, particularly as it’s quite bespoke and modular to your current needs...

14 hours ago, phillos said:

Maybe, but what did you spend to play him? Not good cards?

This. Sure, maybe you've got a hand full of junk that you can dump and the cycle ends up being good. But that's an awfully combo-tastic setup.

There are certainly times when he'll work well with the rest of your (useless) hand, but that doesn't seem like something you want to plan for. Sure, Fury can let you get to your very good cards - but he's just as likely to show up in a hand full of already-very-good cards, and what do you do with him then?

Another difference here is that if I have a Gandalf but no resources to play him yet, there's no real cost to just holding him in my hand. In Champions holding onto a card has a very real cost to it as you reduce your draw every turn until you use him.

2 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Another difference here is that if I have a Gandalf but no resources to play him yet, there's no real cost to just holding him in my hand. In Champions holding onto a card has a very real cost to it as you reduce your draw every turn until you use him.

wait whattt

You draw up to hand size each turn?

I retract all former statements about resource cards they suck ***

4 minutes ago, Supertoe said:

wait whattt

You draw up to hand size each turn?

I retract all former statements about resource cards they suck ***

LOL. Knowing the rules can indeed change some evaluations

I disagree that they suck though. Assuming a two cost card, it means you give up one card to pay the cost instead of two. Looking at someone like Captain Marvel, that leaves you 3 cards in your hand - which is enough for another two cost. They're not universally awesome because you can't split the resources. So you can't use a two-resource card to pay for two different 1-cost cards. But especially when you get into 3 and 4 cost, if you're only getting 1:1 resources from your cards you're giving up a LOT of your hand. A 3 cost with a 5 hand size basically means that you can only play that single card.

I don't think they're auto-include by any means, but if you want to run more expensive cards they're going to be important.

All these threads make me laugh (not at anybody, mind you), because I think there are enough subtle changes in Marvel Champions that I think people are going to have to really re-evaluate conventional wisdom.

Discarding cards to be resources makes the math different.

Drawing up to your hand has all kinds of implications. On resources, yes, but also on how we evaluate card draw - since heroes can go through their deck two or more times (and definitely at least once), card draw seems mostly valuable to "combo" decks. Decks that are looking for specific pieces. I think "moar good stuff" decks might forego a lot of card draw.

Marvel Champions is still a card game, and so the math hasn't changed, but the rules of thumb we've derived from the math of other games isn't going to carry over to here, I don't think.

Card draw becomes even more important in this game. Every card drawn isn’t just another step closer to a combo or the possibility for a key card, it’s also resource acceleration. It’s more like a deckbuilding game. Draw as much as you can every turn, combo or not.

29 minutes ago, gokubb said:

Card draw becomes even more important in this game. Every card drawn isn’t just another step closer to a combo or the possibility for a key card, it’s also resource acceleration. It’s more like a deckbuilding game. Draw as much as you can every turn, combo or not.

This is true, but I found there are a lot of other considerations built into the game. Captain Marvel and Black Panther both have card draw options (Marvel on her character, Black Panther through a card) that rely on being in Alter Ego mode. Maximizing that sounds great, but one of the things I found is that being in the right mode during the villain turn is critical, and you can't always maximize those mode changes.

But generally, yes - draw is also resources in addition to the choice, and it matters a lot.

2 hours ago, Supertoe said:

wait whattt

You draw up to hand size each turn?

I retract all former statements about resource cards they suck ***

Yeah now you understand why I was poo poo-ing Helicarrier before. It's a less good Mansion, but it is slightly cheaper. Also you can only use that resource to play cards and not to pay for card effects. So it's hardly the auto include it might be in a different game. When you are playing Marvel Champions it really feels bad to not play your whole hand either for their text or for their resources each turn. So holding onto things until you can afford them from turn to turn is sort of disincentivized in this game. It kinda reminds me of Keyforge in that respect. Your hand is constantly dumping out and refilling each turn.

Something else that's an interesting nuance in this game is the mulligan rule. You discard cards you mulligan just like in AH:TCG. So they don't get shuffled in your deck making it easier to dig for stuff. Though the real change in Champions is you don't shuffle those cards back in after you finish resolving the mulligan. So when you discard those cards you know you aren't going to see them again until you cycle through your deck the first time.

19 minutes ago, phillos said:

Yeah now you understand why I was poo poo-ing Helicarrier before. It's a less good Mansion, but it is slightly cheaper. Also you can only use that resource to play cards and not to pay for card effects.

Yeah, but when I get a card from the mansion, I'm just as likely to be discarding it to pay for something else. Helicarrier just cuts out the middleman. It goes into essentially all my decks, along with mansion.

23 minutes ago, phillos said:

Yeah now you understand why I was poo poo-ing Helicarrier before. It's a less good Mansion, but it is slightly cheaper. Also you can only use that resource to play cards and not to pay for card effects. So it's hardly the auto include it might be in a different game. When you are playing Marvel Champions it really feels bad to not play your whole hand either for their text or for their resources each turn. So holding onto things until you can afford them from turn to turn is sort of disincentivized in this game. It kinda reminds me of Keyforge in that respect. Your hand is constantly dumping out and refilling each turn.

Something else that's an interesting nuance in this game is the mulligan rule. You discard cards you mulligan just like in AH:TCG. So they don't get shuffled in your deck making it easier to dig for stuff. Though the real change in Champions is you don't shuffle those cards back in after you finish resolving the mulligan. So when you discard those cards you know you aren't going to see them again until you cycle through your deck the first time.

You don't discard cards you mulligan in Arkham. They get set aside, then shuffled back in after you draw your new hand.

12 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

You don't discard cards you mulligan in Arkham. They get set aside, then shuffled back in after you draw your new hand.

Exactly. Read my post again. I say you shuffle them back in in after the mulligan resolves in AH. You don't in this game.

12 hours ago, Xelto said:

Yeah, but when I get a card from the mansion, I'm just as likely to be discarding it to pay for something else. Helicarrier just cuts out the middleman. It goes into essentially all my decks, along with mansion.

You lost flexibility by doing that though. I'd always go Mansion first if picking between the two cards and only include helicarrier if I thought I still needed more acceleration. Though consider that is 7 resources of just ramp cards which is probably about a turn of potentially doing nothing with your hand and this game is fast. In solo that Rhino scenario only needs 7 threat for you to lose. That can easily happen in a couple turns of you drawing your bigger hand size and playing ramp cards as your alter ego. So there are definite risks to slow playing in this game.

2 hours ago, gokubb said:

Card draw becomes even more important in this game. Every card drawn isn’t just another step closer to a combo or the possibility for a key card, it’s also resource acceleration. It’s more like a deckbuilding game. Draw as much as you can every turn, combo or not.

Bearing in mind that going through your deck does carry a negative impact, iirc they mentioned this in the FFG Live game.

4 hours ago, Buhallin said:

LOL. Knowing the rules can indeed change some evaluations

I disagree that they suck though. Assuming a two cost card, it means you give up one card to pay the cost instead of two. Looking at someone like Captain Marvel, that leaves you 3 cards in your hand - which is enough for another two cost. They're not universally awesome because you can't split the resources. So you can't use a two-resource card to pay for two different 1-cost cards. But especially when you get into 3 and 4 cost, if you're only getting 1:1 resources from your cards you're giving up a LOT of your hand. A 3 cost with a 5 hand size basically means that you can only play that single card.

I don't think they're auto-include by any means, but if you want to run more expensive cards they're going to be important.

Lol, yeah, this is what we get for only having some bad iphone photos of a rulebook to go off of.

I get what you're saying though, depending on a cost curve they can be situationally useful. Although I'm not sure we'll see too many higher cost curve decks, at least in the early going. Seems like you are giving up too much if you use an entire hand to play one or two cards instead of four.

1 hour ago, phillos said:

Exactly. Read my post again. I say you shuffle them back in in after the mulligan resolves in AH. You don't in this game.

You lost flexibility by doing that though. I'd always go Mansion first if picking between the two cards and only include helicarrier if I thought I still needed more acceleration. Though consider that is 7 resources of just ramp cards which is probably about a turn of potentially doing nothing with your hand and this game is fast. In solo that Rhino scenario only needs 7 threat for you to lose. That can easily happen in a couple turns.

I read your post again. It says,

3 hours ago, phillos said:

You discard cards you mulligan just like in AH:TCG.

That's the part that's not right. "Discarding" a card has a specific meaning in Arkham, which is important for things like weaknesses, so the distinction between the rules saying to set aside the cards vs. discard them does matter.

10 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

I read your post again. It says,

That's the part that's not right. "Discarding" a card has a specific meaning in Arkham, which is important for things like weaknesses, so the distinction between the rules saying to set aside the cards vs. discard them does matter.

Yes you are technically correctly, but it makes little difference in this discussion where we are talking about the differences between the two games since weaknesses are not a common variable. In Arkham it tells you to specifically set aside the weaknesses as you deal your hand anyway which is separate from the mulligan-ed cards, which you also "set aside". So either way you look at it you arrive at the same location since the cards just get shuffled back.

In any event the cards are just discarded without shuffling back in Champions, which is pretty significant and was the point I actually wanted to make here.

1 hour ago, phillos said:

Yes you are technically correctly, but it makes little difference in this discussion where we are talking about the differences between the two games since weaknesses are not a common variable. In Arkham it tells you to specifically set aside the weaknesses as you deal your hand anyway which is separate from the mulligan-ed cards, which you also "set aside". So either way you look at it you arrive at the same location since the cards just get shuffled back.

In any event the cards are just discarded without shuffling back in Champions, which is pretty significant and was the point I actually wanted to make here.

I think all @Vlad3theImpaler was saying was that you said [paraphrasing] "the Marvel and Arkham mulligans are the same"

And he was simply correcting you because they're different.

Marvel = discard the cards you don't want, then draw back up.

Arkham = set aside the cards you don't want, then draw back up, then shuffle set aside cards in.

2 minutes ago, jonboyjon1990 said:

I think all @Vlad3theImpaler was saying was that you said [paraphrasing] "the Marvel and Arkham mulligans are the same"

And he was simply correcting you because they're different.

Marvel = discard the cards you don't want, then draw back up.

Arkham = set aside the cards you don't want, then draw back up, then shuffle set aside cards in.

no I was saying the exactly opposite. That's why I told him to reread it.

On 8/11/2019 at 10:46 AM, cheapmate said:

Does anyone else feel FFG should have not used aspects like justice or leader, but used teams or factions, like Avengers, SHIELD or Marvel Knights?

Constructing a SHIELD Iron Man or an Avengers Spider-Man would seem so much cooler than constructing a Spider-Man aggression deck

So, is the rule on the aspects that any given deck can employ cards from, at most, one aspect? Ie no Justice/Protection mixing?

Just now, Derrault said:

So, is the rule on the aspects that any given deck can employ cards from, at most, one aspect? Ie no Justice/Protection mixing?

Yes, only one aspect per deck. No mixing. Though, I imagine that is a design space they will explore in the future for some hero.