|
Post by therecanbeonlyme on Feb 21, 2008 11:33:37 GMT -5
If an imortal falls behind the curve the designe team will see it and help that imortal. For instance amanda is getting help with her WOC in the next set from what I understand. And they should. It's still quite unreasonable to try and convice everyone that all of the immortals will be competitive with one another. Thus far, the design team and playtesting have done a great job of closing the gap between the top tier immortals and those on the bottom. There are still several immortals that are cut about the rest.....pun intended. What is upsetting me is how this is being argued. Saying that generics won't be competitive is simply not true. A generic deck would probably do a lot better than some immortals since many of the named immortals are focused on a particular WoC and at any given time their cards can be inferior if another WoC gets made/improved. Generics have some flexibility that some named immortals do not. Then someone will say that only a small percentage of people even care about Generics.........well how many actually care about any particular named immortal? Some might not care about Amanda and think it's a waste of time to fix her. It just seems to me that this last batch of designer feedback is rather half-hearted and misleading. I was very light-hearted about generics and 2nd Ed. Sure I was upset to find out they didn't make it in, anyone who liked generics would be. But I adapted and moved on. I put in the playful jab here and there, but, I was perfectly fine with the decision not to bring back generic immortals............until I saw the lastest reasoning behind it. If this is truely why generics didn't make it back, then I think you made and inaccurate assessment of generic immortals and a big mistake.
|
|
|
Post by RusselMerchant on Feb 21, 2008 12:28:52 GMT -5
This is somthing that the designers have felt very strongly about. I admit I can see the place for Generics in the game. But I do not think they can be competative for the simple reason that their deck size would have them exausting to soon. Also the lack of support they would have, would make it almost a waste of space on a card sheet. On the boards there is a very vocal minority of players asking for this. That does not mean there is a silent majority even caring about the topic. Hell The designers cant even fit in all the imortals they want in a set. To think that they would add in fake imortals is asking alot.
From my perspective I would like to see Caleb, Tommy Sullivan and other interesting imortals that the designe team dislikes before I see a generic. Same thing goes with Grahm Ash and other nonepisode imortals (like the guy killed in the darkness episode or the two imortals killed by Xavier in his season three episode). Dont make them until all the imortals that had an episode get their personas.
|
|
|
Post by therecanbeonlyme on Feb 21, 2008 13:00:16 GMT -5
My rules are not set in stone, it's just what I chose to go with. I wanted it to be challenging for generics. I had originally set the the gem restriction at x3 x5 x5 x5 x5 x5. It could be put back to keep deck sizes uniform. Not sure what you are getting at with card space. Generics don't require a persona card........only rules by which to construct a deck. I do see your point of the other named immortals.......although I'd rather just have generic rules to represent those immortals and maybe have a tournament prize be one of the lesser immortals becoming a named immortal if you win a tourney with a generic immortal.
|
|
|
Post by RusselMerchant on Feb 21, 2008 13:14:02 GMT -5
ok I was thinking a generic persona card.
|
|
|
Post by therecanbeonlyme on Feb 21, 2008 13:23:34 GMT -5
Gotcha.
As much as I enjoyed playing the different generic personas in 1st Ed. I think they were a bad idea. I'm just looking for some vanilla Generic immortal rules.............but it's a no go so........on To Felice I hope, or wait until Season 2.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Small on Feb 21, 2008 13:57:06 GMT -5
BTW Felice was one my baby's, you will have fun with her.
|
|
|
Post by therecanbeonlyme on Feb 21, 2008 14:00:12 GMT -5
Gonna try my darndest........now I just need some cards. lol
Wait does that mean I have to play her extra cheesey?
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Feb 21, 2008 20:01:50 GMT -5
Um............I'd rather you just left it at playful banter. I imagine it's hard to constantly maintain playful banter about a topic that's been discussed to death, given a final ruling on, and still brought up over and over. It's got to be doubly hard when you're told you're screwing up by ignoring customers' rights to play what they want.
|
|
|
Post by thomaskolter on Feb 22, 2008 13:24:15 GMT -5
So as I see it I'm entitled to my opinion if I want to play Generic Immortals and have maybe some Generic Immortal Personas then I'm entitled to my opinion. And I for one feel like my desires don't matter frankly Generic Immortal Decks have an advantage I can use lots of basic cards. In 1e it made playing the game fun and I even had some little graphic art characters for different ones.
I had Catherine De'Castille who was a mistress of the Rapier. I had Leon "Homeboy" Washington the rapper turned immortal after a drive by that used thugs and other cheese to avoid a direct fight. And the dashing Deborah Fontaine a former student of Amanda that used evasions, jumps, ducks and her mentors low blow to good effect and was the wielder of a sabre. In a way I could make up a backstory and design my own immortals and had alot of fun doing that in 1e. All had little Persona backstories people could read as well.
So for me I take them snubbing them personally a bit its like what interests me and maybe others doesn't matter, you don't have to play them but they should be there. In my opinion as a long time Highlander player and fan I think I'm entilted to it.
Now on the plus side like I said the mechanics are fun and its a wonderful game overall and far improved, just the starter deck design and loss of the generic immortals kind of take away from it.
But if they are not in the game I guess unless they change their minds I'll have to live with it and hope for the best. Its a sahme though.
|
|
|
Post by RusselMerchant on Feb 22, 2008 14:13:58 GMT -5
Unfortionatly that is like saying I invented a color in magic and want play it, but the designers dont think the color teal is cool enough. Same with me wanting to play Caleb, the designers hate the cheracter and will not make it. But we must play with in the frame work of the game we are given.
|
|
|
Post by therecanbeonlyme on Feb 22, 2008 14:21:59 GMT -5
Yeah it sucks. Apparently there is some sort of light at the end of the tunnel in Season 2. Tim has mentioned on a couple of occasions that I "would be surprised." That could just mean that Luther will be awesome.....since I've made it blatantly obvious he was my favorite immortal from 1st Ed. It won't be a generic immortal, but, maybe there will be an immortal with a similar ability.
Richie will be in Season 2 so that should make you happy. He may or may not be similar to what he was in 1st Ed. so don't put all your eggs in one basket. With 40 playable immortals by the end of the year, there is bound to be someone out there that you'll like.
I do see your point about making up your own back story for your Generic Immortal and having fun with all the commons that get tossed in favor of the power rares.
In the meantime, try some house rules, and keep your fingers crossed for Season 2.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Small on Aug 1, 2008 18:50:05 GMT -5
Luther is awesome, you build him as a slow win build, with a huge punch at the end or, as a Fighter with a huge advantage on Attribute Checks, or take your head and parade around the tournament screaming like a mad man.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Small on Aug 1, 2008 18:52:02 GMT -5
Unfortionatly that is like saying I invented a color in magic and want play it, but the designers dont think the color teal is cool enough. Same with me wanting to play Caleb, the designers hate the cheracter and will not make it. But we must play with in the frame work of the game we are given. Caleb aint bad, he aint good, he just would rather marry is sister, who happens to be his mom. LOL Actually I wouldn't mind seeing Caleb, he is better then a lot of other season one immortals. Not to mention he would have a lot of ally hate...I love ally hate.
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Aug 3, 2008 9:11:07 GMT -5
Unfortionatly that is like saying I invented a color in magic and want play it, but the designers dont think the color teal is cool enough. Same with me wanting to play Caleb, the designers hate the cheracter and will not make it. But we must play with in the frame work of the game we are given. Caleb aint bad, he aint good, he just would rather marry is sister, who happens to be his mom. LOL Actually I wouldn't mind seeing Caleb, he is better then a lot of other season one immortals. Not to mention he would have a lot of ally hate...I love ally hate. I wonder why that is? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ;D
|
|
|
Post by mcknight on Aug 19, 2008 1:54:56 GMT -5
Ok the above section on the crystals stacking limits were what I was looking for. Thanks, Thorr. BTW, the Gen Con Dual decks look great. They were a bit pricey at $50 and limited me to one each, but it still should serve me well.
|
|