Mattr0polis said:

Mattr0polis said:

Well, the first difference that springs to mind is that they have a choice about that one or two card change. The second point is that sometimes everyone is playing the current popular deck and someone arrives with something outside of the normal meta. Your saying that you can achieve the same thing with these PODS. But can you? You might take different cards but they may not be great against the Uber build, you are assuming that the non used PODS are perfect for defeating the Uber build. We dont know that at the moment. I also said earlier that there will be 1-2 viable decks for each faction. So once you remove those combo's whatever is left is probably dregs.

All we want is the OPTION to micromanage our decks, we do not want to deny you the use of a pod system.

dbmeboy said:

Subjective. For my group it does mean more play.

But I do agree with you about it not saving cards from not getting played.

These are my feelings in a nutshell.

Jivewookiee said:

We both are doing a lot of that, my friend. You or I both have no clue yet how balanced these pods will be or if they will lead to uber builds or balanced play with a good meta.

Right now it's just a lot of calling for or against modifications to something we don't even have the full picture on yet.

As an avid aGoT player, I love the nuances of deck building and often stress over 25% of the individual cards in a deck. The thought of building a deck in groups of 5 seems odd.

It will mean that the game will be more heavily skewed to favoring players that are strong tactically and strategically when it comes to game play. And obviously it will not favor innovative deck builders. If the pods are well balanced though, hopefully the "optimal deck" won't be so obvious.

On the other hand, consider this…each chapter pack in Game of Thrones offers 20 different cards, 3 copies of each (for a total of 60 cards)

Each chapter pack (or whatever they will be called in Star Wars) should have 10 different objective cards, and the 5 cards that go with each objective. Perhaps they won't go exactly in that direction and they may double up on the objective cards that are not "limit once per deck". Basically the point I'm making is that you should get more individually unique cards in each monthly chapter pack. As well, consider this….10 new objectives per month….120 new objectives per year just from chapter packs….60 new Dark side objectives and 60 new Light Side….seems like plenty of diversity for deck building options…granted some will be faction specific, but it still seems like a lot

Mattr0polis said:

Mattr0polis said:

I dont care how balanced the PODS are. As a concept they limit what could be achieved without them. I think the CONCEPT of taking 5 cards with no choice just to get Luke is foolish. I dont need to assume, because the POD system has been explained.

Dobbler said:

I see what you are saying. But each of the PODS in the Noun Packs will only work with the cards in that Noun Pack. Otherwise it goes against everything that the LCG model was built for. Picking up 3 different packs from 3 different cycles should work. So we will never see another POD for the Luke in the boxed set, we will be stuck with whatever they attach to him in the core.

Now if they do away with mandatory PODS they can put up builds online etc like they do with LotR.

We are fighting for an answer that solves both groups problems. I dont see why anyone would be against that.

Jivewookiee said:

The main reason, is that you instantly split the tournament scene into two separate groups (pod-ers and non-pod-ers). This would not be productive to maximize turnout for the game.

Mattr0polis said:

Is the same not true for co-op vs. PvP play? A decision has been made there, but still there is the desire for a co-op variant of the existing game.

Jivewookiee said:

I don't understand what you are saying here at all. Why would PODS only work with PODS from that pack? That's not how the other LCGs work at all.

Mattr0polis said:

Mattr0polis said:

I would assume (there is that word again ) that people who really want PODS are not the tourney going crowd, if they are allow both, if you choose to shackle yourself with a limiting system you really cant be pissed that some one without those constraints having a better deck.

PODS are at the very centre of there being a way to make deck building easier. I like to think they are that stepping stone between playing precons and building a full deck without PODS.

At the end of the day it comes down to one single thought.

WHY NOT HAVE BOTH?

I, in no way wish to deprive you of PODS, but you seem to insist that I will like them or we havent got enough info yet. So I say again.

WHY NOT HAVE BOTH?

Dobbler said:

As I saw it, the LCG model was intended to promote the idea that all you NEED is the Core Set. Any Noun Packs you choose to buy are not based on the idea you need the whole cycle. That they are all stand alone expansions.

Yes if you get the whole cycle you have the benefit of thematically supported rules. But it is not mandatory.

Thus each Noun pack objective can only reference the cards in that Noun pack.

Jivewookiee said:

No, that isn't even close to true. If you want to be a consistent high level competitive/tournament player you need access and understanding of all of the cards in all of the chapter packs. It is quite often that a grouping of cards from one cycle interacts well with a grouping from another cycle.

If you want to play for fun, all you need is the Core set. I expect Star wars to be the same. If you want to play competitively, you better buy each monthly chapter pack and each expansion.

Besides, once you get to the point of having over a hundred PODS you might as well be making a deck in the normal way. So in a few years the whole POD concept becomes moot. You will still be building your deck from hundreds of cards

Mattr0polis said:

Mattr0polis said:

I'm confused on how your group would function such that deck building would take away from play time. Do you plan to only build decks when you're all together and could otherwise be playing?

Dobbler said:

Dobbler said:

Its exactly what it is. If you want to be super competitive and buy all the Packs do so, I will be. But the idea that you can grab a pack at random and be able to use it is at the very heart of the LCG model

Jivewookiee said:

While in theory that is true, in practice it is not.

For instance, there are often cards in Game of Thrones Chapters packs that reference Summer or Winter that are newly released. Some even require that it be Summer or Winter to work fully. Yet the primary cards that create summer/winter were first released in packs in 2008.

In general cards within a cycle (6 monthly packs) work well together. But often to get the most use out of a particular card, you need another card from another pack.

Is it possible to play with every card from a pack as a stand alone pack? Sure. But some of the cards might be useless.

Ok there are exceptions, But if we end up with enough PODS it makes the concept of PODS obselete. PODS are designed to help with deck building but when that process becomes complicated to the level of making a normal deck.

Any rules like Summer/Winter should have their rules on the website. The game needs to retain the grab a pack and play element, but also needs to be a deep experience for those of us who like deck building

Jivewookiee said:

PODS are designed to help with deck building but when that process becomes complicated to the level of making a normal deck why not just always use the make your own deck method from the start. Or both, but not just PODS.

EDIT: forgot to finish a sentence

From all the scuttlebutt I've heard, the Objective + 5 card system of deck building is already a fundamental design concept that was used when balancing the Core set cards. I have an immensely strong feeling that there is nothing that can be said or done that will change that fact.

Why the capitalization of the word PODS? Whenever I see that, I think of Portable On-Demand Storage, and it gets confusing. Let's just call them pods.

In fact, the more PODS they put out will make it MORE difficult to deck build than doing free form. It is a terrible idea. And it must become an option rule.

Dobbler said:

It might work for a year, but then it will fail and loosing a lot of customers in the process.

You might be right and this is a fools errand, but I have to at least try

Dobbler said:

That is…grossly unfortunate. The idea of it being a necessary element of the game, leads me to think that some cards are going to be deliberately inferior to compensate for stronger cards existing in the same pod, and that just smacks to me of cheap design.

MarthWMaster said:

I agree, its lazy and a cheap cop out of actually having to make balanced game. That aside. What the is the problem with doing both? Why do you insist on it being PODS? Surely both can be acheived.

Pod Players) Use PODS

Builders) just build the deck