Thanatopsis said:

The fact that even identical cards will have different set numbers does make this somewhat annoying. But I'm willing to see where this additional information will take the game. As cards are played, both players will have access to the same information. To use a flavor example, Darth Vader was fully aware that Luke Skywalker was active in the Rebellion, but it still took the Sith Lord over three years to find him.

Thanatopsis said:

Well, unless you have Looking for Droids out or Dark Alliance in your hand, it's going to be hard to play that Boba Fett without The Bespin Exchange out.

houjix1138 said:

Touche!

I picked a wretched example… with the current objective sets there is no resource match available without The Bespin Exchange being in play.

Thanatopsis said:

Well, you could use the S&V ID for a guaranteed resource match, but then you're letting your opponent know what you're up to.

 Conversely, if you're playing a single affiliation, you might choose a card belonging to one of the other two affiliations in order to throw your opponent off. This will become a bigger deal once the factions are more fleshed-out down the road, but you could make your opponent think you're playing a sneaky, methodical Scum & Villainy deck, when your plan is to go right out the door with an Imperial rush.

I still don't think this is actually going to be a terribly big problem for most people. I mean, it already happens in other card games - I've mentioned in this thread already that I play AGoT and Warhammer, usually playing Targaryen and Chaos in each respective game. And yet I know the card abilities of almost every Stark and High Elf card as well, so when I see my opponent play one card, I know what combo he is setting up or intending to play or whatever, and can play accordingly. This is no different to seeing an objective and knowing what your opponent has in his deck. In fact, unless there is a deeper level of synergy between objectives than I have yet seen, there is a bigger danger in revealing certain AGoT cards because sometimes, from playing just one card I can know there will be anything between four and about twenty other cards that work alongside it, allowing me a greater degree of clairvoyance. For example, if I see Winterfell Kennels come out, I know there will be about thirteen other cards, between one and three copies each, in that deck. There are certainly more than four cards that work in combo with that one card. 

This is, I feel, symptomatic of the unfair criticism that has been levelled, unfairly, at this deckbuilding system from the very start. "You assume too much". For example, let's take The Endor Gambit. Within this pod of five player cards, you have two vehicles, and two cards that benefit vehicles. The objective also benefits vehicles. It also comes with a fate card that is a pretty good bonus to the edge battle. While you may or may not have wanted to include that fate card, it's a pretty good card to have anyway - certainly not something that you would call "crappy". The odds are, if you were including a vehicle or two, you'd want the three other cards to go along with them, anyway. If you're not including vehicles, then there is nothing really in this pod that you would otherwise want to include. The pod becomes a nicely focused little set of cards, and it's not the only one. Every pod that I have seen so far in full has got a nicely-rounded flavour to it. It isn't a case of having one good card and four really bad ones that come with it. 

I'm a bit skeptical of how useful such a fake-out strategy could be. I mean, the major complaint against the objective set system is that it forces you to take cards you don't want. Including cards that aren't part of the central engine of your deck, just to potentially gain some small psychological edge, is going to dilute your deck far more than the pod system ever could. I suppose there could be decks that might make such a bluffing strategy work, but I think they would be few and far between. You'll almost always be better off including more cards that actively feed into your deck's mechanics, I just don't think "Haha! You thought this was a Jedi deck, but no! This is a Han deck and now you're screwed!" will be a move you could pull off all that often.

alpha5099 said:

I tend to agree. I may be totally off-base, but it seems to me that this game will move too fast, and you'll have too much at stake to work on setting up such a bluff. This game really appears to favor players who get their decks working quickly, rather than setting up some elaborate plot. But, I won't say these statements are for sure true. These are just my perceptions. I'll have to play to see how it really works out.

Budgernaut said:

Oh, this game is going to be fast. Maybe a turn or two slower than Warhammer, but you'll see more than 25% of your deck, too.

It's nice, being able to see a decent cross-section of the deck you spent so much time and effort putting together. With the rapid turnover of cards resulting from the edge battles, I'll be curious to see if playing 11+ objectives becomes a real thing.

After looking at the low, low force icon count of the imp navy (shouldn't have been surprised, really), going over 10 objectives might not be a horrible idea since you'll be pitching more cards to win edge battles.

MarthWMaster said:

I personally think it will be, for tournament play. The game is very card intensive, I wouldnt be at all surprised if players went through 5-6 cards of their hand every single turn. There are probably, and will if anything be more in the future, cards that draw cards. Seeing as an exhausted deck is a loss condition, I dont think anyone wants that risk if a game goes to the wire. Also, I think decks could become stronger for it. Yes, a slimmer deck means more chance to draw that one powerful card. A doubled up objective allows double superlasers/devestators/vaders/lukes etc, for when something goes wrong and that essential character dies.

It will be interesting to see what happens, and what becomes the "conventional wisdom".

Budgernaut said:

The speed of this game is something that slightly worries me, I must admit. Hopefully we'll see something like the next Warhammer cycle, which is introducing more intrigue and stuff into the combat phase, hopefully slowing it up and allowing for more set-up pay-off. Although the dark side dial is still there of course. But then it won't be beyond the realms of possibility to imagine seeing cards that slow that up, too.

I'm just musing out loud here…

spalanzani said:

With out a doubt since there's already a card that "slows" the dial. 

Decoy at Dantooine - Interrupt: When an objective you control leaves play, decrease the Death Star dial by 1 (to a minimum of 1).

Now that's simply offsetting a triggered advance instead of the standard one, but anything that can slow it down is in the LS favor.  And since it's an interrupt it will even effect when it's destroyed itself.

Aahzmandius_Karrde said:

Aha! I hadn't seen that one yet. Very thematic card title too, I like it already