I imagine that there'll also be some potential downsides to controlling Hoth as well. It's Hoth, after all, it can't all be rainbows and puppies, it's a frozen ball of death. There will probably be some trade-offs, strengths you gain from controlling Hoth counter-balanced by weaknesses the planet exposes.

I find that somewhat doubtful. Challenges presented by Hoth will more likely be represented by the dark side player's cards; to wit, The Desolation of Hoth itself, belonging to the Sith faction.

alpha5099 said:

Go ahead. Tell me my tauntaun will freeze before I make it to the first marker. I dare you!

MarthWMaster said:

That's certainly possible, but it seems to me that, at least from a thematic perspective, there HAS to be some built-in draw back to running a Hoth deck, it can't all just be negative effects from your opponent's deck. For the reason that what then happens if the Dark Side isn't running any Hoth tech, either because they don't want to or because most of the tech is in a faction they aren't playing? It's not like you can just bunker down on Hoth and reap the innumerable benefits of the planet, it's a harsh, frozen, desolate world. I would hope that there're some vulnerabilities to committing to Hoth, even if the benefits might outweigh the drawbacks.

Perhaps the Hoth objective sets do not all complement each other equally, such that to build a deck using exclusively Hoth objectives, your build ends up having less synergy with itself than if you were to deviate on some objectives that were more in line with what you wanted your deck to do. As a result, a Rebel player may have a firm hold on Hoth that is immune to Imperial entanglements, but he is unable to do much with it, since his deck is pulling him in different directions despite having a unified objective theme.

AshesFall said:

I'm really hoping that the Hoth synergy they're going for isn't too gimmicky. I would hate it if after the first 3 or 4 force packs the game boils down to nothing but hoth decks for the next year.

MarthWMaster said:

That would make a lot of sense, and be a much nicer way of handling this issue than merely "players must limit the number of Hoth objectives in their deck to five" or some arbitrary number. You may have ten Hoth objectives there, but that deck is going to be a frozen hell to play.

Oh, and bravo on using "to wit" earlier!

Now that the spoilers are out and people are building decks, I went back and reread this article and was surprised at how much better I understood it. There are some really neat concepts here!

But I've also been thinking about the distribution of cards. This article explains how they will have 10 objective sets in each Force Pack, with 2 limited sets and 2 each of the other 4 sets. That's 6 new sets in each Force Pack. The core set has 36 different objective sets. At the end of the Hoth Cycle, we'll have 36 sets that come from that cycle. That means we have just as much diversity in the core set as we do in a complete cycle! Contemplating this made me really glad they chose to put more diversity in the Core rather than trying to double everything up. Granted, if you want a complete set, it's $80 for complete cards from the Core and $90 for complete sets from the Hoth Cycle, so the cost isn't too different. Well, the Core is an even better deal when you consider all the tokens you get in addition to the cards. But I guess my overall point is that knowing that the diversity in the core is equivalent to that in an entire cycle makes me super excited to get my hands on it.

Not to mention the two deluxe expansions we're to see in the near future, eh Budgy?

qwertyuiop said:

Yes! Those too! It'll be interesting to see how many different objective sets and how many cards total we'll get in those expansions.

I'm hoping that The Balance of the Force will not contain cards that can only be used in multiplayer, but will instead have more cards like "Cruel Interrogations," that suggest multiple opponents, but can be played just as easily in a two-player game. Or cards for the light side that have additional effects when played in multiplayer but are still usable in two-player. That would be ideal, I think, so that players could use the same deck for both formats if they wished.

MarthWMaster said:

I agree. That would be ideal. My gut feeling, however, is that about half of the objective sets will be virtually useless except in multiplayer, while the remaining half will be dual-purpose. Hey, at least with an outlook like that, I'll be pleasantly surprised if they're all usable in normal matches.

But I've also been thinking about the distribution of cards. This article explains how they will have 10 objective sets in each Force Pack, with 2 limited sets and 2 each of the other 4 sets. That's 6 new sets in each Force Pack. The core set has 36 different objective sets. At the end of the Hoth Cycle, we'll have 36 sets that come from that cycle. That means we have just as much diversity in the core set as we do in a complete cycle! Contemplating this made me really glad they chose to put more diversity in the Core rather than trying to double everything up. Granted, if you want a complete set, it's $80 for complete cards from the Core and $90 for complete sets from the Hoth Cycle, so the cost isn't too different. Well, the Core is an even better deal when you consider all the tokens you get in addition to the cards. But I guess my overall point is that knowing that the diversity in the core is equivalent to that in an entire cycle makes me super excited to get my hands on it.

I hoped that the cards of the objectives sets in expansions will not be the same at all than the ones we found on the Core Set. More Target of Opportunity ou Twist of Fate will be bad, I think.

Budgernaut said:

Same here. It's not an exact parallel of course, but the Time of Champions chapter pack cycle for AGoT featured cards that were only usable in the melee format, and so much of that cycle now lies useless for me as I only get to play joust. If they make it more like Warhammer, where multiple opponents are forever suggested, sometimes very strongly, but keep cards usable in one-on-one games, I'll be a happy chap

Thinking about it, though, the core box does state this is a game for 2 players, so Balance of the Force will only be an official variant. Surely, to my logic at least, if it's classed under the release of the LCG, then all the cards should be playable by 2 players alone? Does that make sense?

spalanzani said:

I'm sure all cards in the MP expansion will be "playable" in 1v1. They just might not be good. Any card that says "all opponents" or "each opponent" will have to be weaker than it otherwise would be if it only targeted one opponent. That weakness will be offset in MP by hitting multiple people, but will just make the card not as good in 1v1.

Or they can go the WHI route and make cards like Offering to Hakarti that are good in 1v1 and stupidly powerful in MP.

Most likely the MP rules will just be modifications to the standard rules. For instance they could up the number of Objectives the LS must destroy, limit the LS players to only 1 engagement per player per turn, increase the DS player's hand size, increase the DS player's objectives in play, etc. None of the would require special cards or needing to really worry about balancing a card for MP vs 1v1.

I was wondering if maybe the DS player (assuming he's the solo guy) wouldn't have to worry about resource matches. Just a thought.

houjix1138 said:

Even with only those modifications they still need to worry about balancing a card for MP vs 2P. In 2P, A Dark Side card that says "each opponent discards a card" is the same as one that says "target player discards a card". But the first wording is a lot stronger in MP. You'd want the "each" wording to cost more in MP than the "target" wording, but you have to pick only one cost, so the card ends up being either a little too cheap in MP or a little too expensive in 2P.

I also hope the MP rules will be more substantially different than just scaling up some numbers. Even if you just multiplied everything for the DS player by the # of LS players, it would still be an advantage to the LS players.

Budgernaut said:

TERRIFYING!

Or perhaps he has five or more objectives in play instead of three. This would effectively accomplish the same goal, and also give him the seemingly infinite resources that the Empire wields in the films. The Rebels will very likely need to destroy more than three objectives in order to win the game.

Entropy42 said:

It's only going to matter if MP becomes more than just a casual format.. If they never intend to run any sancitioned events that are MP, I'd rather see cards balanced with regards to single player and the occasional card slip through that is slightly over powered in MP.

houjix1138 said:

While that might be true in general, in the set that is specifically for introducing multiplayer I suspect they'd err on the side of underpowered in 2 player instead of overpowered in multiplayer.

I think it would be very interesting to see events that are structured around multiplayer. Though I think it would work best if LS teams were arranged ahead of time and remained consistent throughout the event, to keep shenanigans to a minimum (not to mention this would prevent decks from interfering with each other's use of unique units).

In addition to the narrative arc that follows the Battle of Hoth, this cycle also features a number of objective sets that expand upon core themes for the Jedi, Sith, Scum and Villainy, and Smugglers & Spies affiliations.