dbmeboy said:

So pretty much a cross between the House card in AGoT, in that it has the turn order etc, and the capital board in Warhammer, in that it provides resources.

So im confused I have been scanning the threads and trying to figure out this deck buidling and pod thing so please explain it to me

How it sounds is you choose 10 objectives that each have 5 pre set cards and then you build the rest of these decks around these pods so you get like 10 total cards you get to choose to add please explain or send me to a demo video or something

Cause Game play sounds great but deck building sounds really bad if they want any kind of tournament scene to develop

Jvirtue55 said:

Thats bascially it.

Although you might make the choice to include the pod based on any of the 6 cards, not just the objective. So if you want to include Luke in your deck there will be 4 other normal cards and an objective that you will also have to include. Do that 10 times and you have your deck.

Jvirtue55 said:

I don't understand the rationale, here. Yes, it diminishes the impact deckbuilding will have in tournaments, but isn't this something that is often mimicked or adopted from others anyways? I admit, I've been out of the CCG scene for ages, but I kind of assumed that the impact of the Internet on CCGs has been similar to wargaming list-building in that regard, which I'm much more familiar with these days.

So there are fewer legal permutations of decks available. As expansions come out, there will still be plenty of deck builds to experiment with, you'll simply be doing it in broad strokes rather than miniscule tweaking. If we end up seeing, say, thirty objectives per side of the force (which is only enough to accommodate one "pure" faction build per faction), that's still 76 million combinations of 10 objectives (and that's not counting potential duplicates!) to evaluate.

And that's assuming we don't ever see more than three hundred and sixty unique cards for this LCG.

Is that less customizable than if we didn't have the set-based deck building? Of course it is. Is it overly constraining? I don't think it necessarily must be. You'll see more duplicate decks as people figure out good synergies, but adding expansions will make that a constantly shifting landscape so the metagame shouldn't stagnate; and it ultimately shifts the measure of performance to place greater emphasis on play strategy, which I don't think is a bad thing, either, provided the system can support depth there.