But don't you think there is a still some skill in finding the pods that work best together? Or for finding which pods will help you against the current meta? Yes, you don't get to figure out what 60 cards you want that work the best together, but you get to figure out which batches work good together, which ones are worth taking even if it means a couple subpar cards, which ones are horrible together, etc.

There's still a lot of skill here. It's just not what we're used to. Basically, we must unlearn what we have learned.

 Im happy with it being an OPTIONAL rule. This is one of the reasons I started this thread. It cannot be the default. We need to stop this NOW before it goes live. Having a list of the cards that form the SLOT online or even in the force packs is fine by me, a series of web articles on how to include new cards from the Force Packs would also work.

Please FFG, gives both sides of this debate the option to play the way we want.

Mattr0polis said:

Choosing the best combo of ten cards from a twenty card pool is tremendously easier than 60 cards from hundreds+ cards. 5 Hours after the release of a Force Pack the net will have a rough idea of what to use and what not to. Give them a day and the new "optimal" build is done.

It takes so much away from the game

 Mattr0polis said:

There is indeed skill involved. I'm not disputing that. But I think that completely overhauling the most core mechanic of collectible card gaming is a mistake. AEG revealed their stand-alone game Smash Up at GenCon, which is being marketed as a "shufflebuilding game," in which players select two prebuilt decks from a set of 8 in all, and simply shuffle the two they've chosen together to form the deck they will play for the game. While that works for something that is understood from the get-go as a party game, I have the conviction that it is wrong for a game that attempts to bring collectible Star Wars gaming back. But with that being said, I can absolutely appreciate the pod system as an optional mechanic, to allow for that same party experience, so long as it doesn't interfere with my chosen and well-loved way of playing CCGs and LCGs.

I would also argue that, with all due respect, Yoda is the wrong person to quote in support of a deckbuilding system that, as has already been mentioned, will make the game tremendously easier to build decks effectively for. Yoda doesn't beat around the bush when training Jedi. That guy is hard-core gaming at its finest. He'd never choose the quick and easy path of pod-based deckbuilding.

I'm also curious if any card gamers arguing against this have tried card games like Summoner Wars. That card game has some ridiculously limited deck building rules: 18 common units (no more than 10 of any unit), 3 champions (no duplicates), 3 walls and 9 spells that are tied in a batch to your summoner, and everything has to match your summoner's faction, except for up to 6 can be mercenary faction.

Point being, it's real limited and I thought I'd absolutely hate it, but what it does is let you spend less time building and more time actually playing the game. And there is still a TON of cool deck choices you can end up making, along with your opponents. The game is ridiculously good and gets a ton of high level players showing up at their tournaments.

Anyway, I'm don't want to tell people how it should be, but I'd persuade to at least try it first or a similar game like Summoner Wars before calling for an absolute change or boycott.

 I cant seem to edit on these forums soo….

I dont think even going online will be needed. I feel confident that most players will be able to figure it out themselves in no time.

Mattr0polis said:

Ive played Summoner Wars and to compare it to a full blown CCG/LCG is not accurate at all. Its a ten minute mini game. Also this sentiment you keep bringing up about "More time to PLAY!" doesnt ring true to me. Its not like I invite friends to my house, then we spend 2 hours deck building, then we actually play.

Everyone arrives with their deck done….and we PLAY

Jivewookiee said:

And then I know what batches are likely to be in your and many other's decks and can counter with 'optimal vs. those' batches.

How is this any different than high level Magic play? For that you see basically the same deck list 4 or 5 times out of the top 10, with them all switching out like only 1 spell or creature for a different one.

 I agree with jivewookie. Simplifying deck building doesn't mean more time to play, it just means that I won't be able to spend as much time/have as much fun building different decks. It won't even achieve the goal of preventing cards from never being played. Now instead there will be blocks that aren't played instead of cards. 

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.