Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Once you've registered and completed email validation, you'll need to reply to the thread in The Welcome mat before you gain full access to the site.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
VS System 2PCG info released
Topic Started: May 27 2015, 12:20 AM (25,986 Views)
Speedy92286
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
x_chan
Jul 16 2015, 02:39 PM
Speedy92286
Jul 16 2015, 01:27 PM
The problem with combining range and melee team attacking together is that if you are attacking a front row character without range the opponent is forced to stun back only your melee attacker. It can work but just makes team attacking and choosing who to stun back messy. It is a lot cleaner and simplier to have all ranged or all melee so this way cards can improve or not be affected by a certain kind of attack (Dodge on Red Skull will not work if you can combine melee and ranged attacks at once. I personally love the changes but it does take some gstting used to.
How does make it messy? You can only stun back characters without range. No matter where they are. There's no choice involved, so it should be a lot more simple.

Now it's messy, because like it's been said, characters with range can be striked back if they are in the front row. They are not range attacking even though they have range.

And regarding Red Skull, it would work perfectly. The character with range or in the back row would not be able to team attack him, so the attack would not be legal. What's the problem with that? Why do you say it wouldn't work?

I understand how it works now. Making team attacks from different rows was not fitting their self imposed distinction, so better remove them (it seems like a pattern, something is causing them troubles, better remove them then). That should have been a sign that the distinction was not good in the first place, and I haven't seen a power that wouldn't work without it otherwise. I already exemplified how the ones we know could have avoided that and kept the powers similar to what they are now, so they can still affect or alter some of them when they want to making all team attacks possible (which would be more flavourful).
Your versions would work but as I said, it would be messier than just melee attack or dodge. Maybe I am just biased and the new rules click better?

My thing is that I agree with UDE for not allowing team attacks from different rows because you then have to keep checking which character would actually be able to attack (if Red skull cannot be ranged attack then your 2 characters with range can't do anything) and abilities like Abomination would be slightly more annoying because his ability will only affect some but not all.

Could team attacking with different rows work? Well yeah, but this game is trying to be cleaner and leave little room for second guessing. I like it but I see why you don't
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BatHulk
Member Avatar
Elite Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
x_chan
Jul 16 2015, 02:39 PM
How does make it messy? You can only stun back characters without range. No matter where they are. There's no choice involved, so it should be a lot more simple.

Now it's messy, because like it's been said, characters with range can be striked back if they are in the front row. They are not range attacking even though they have range.
I think it makes it more flavorful. Characters attacking from distance (ie back row) can't be struck back by defenders unless the defender has Ranged. If they attack from the front row, then it is no longer a "distance" attack and can be struck back by any defender because they are 'closer'.

The mistake here was calling back row attacks 'Ranged Attacks'.

If they used a different term, then it would be more clear on how strike back works.

You really just need to think about it in terms of distance, if you are attacking from the front row, you can be struck back regardless, if you are in the back row, you can only be struck back if the defender also has the ability to combat from "distance".

Seems intuitive to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Psychotime
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oh hey, here's Hawkeye.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Speedy92286
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
He makes Rocket a lot more playable. If avengers and Guardians have more offensive cards, I see Team Rocket being a very viable option.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Psychotime
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Speedy I have no idea what you're talking about.

What about Hawkeye helps Rocket in any way?
Edited by Psychotime, Jul 17 2015, 12:51 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blues686
No Avatar
Elite Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
its a low cost as well as the ability to use a location from hand. all of this makes it quicker for rocket to level up
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Psychotime
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Sorry, that's a pretty broad criteria. He's just a normal character for this game.

Characters that can indiscriminately let you discard for effects are what Rocket needs. Not a card that lets you only discard 8/60 cards in your deck.

Hopefully there are some stronger plot twists that have discarding as a cost.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Speedy92286
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I meant that if you have both your red location and blue location cards in your hand and Hawkeye early on, you can go through your hand quickly. You draw 2 cards a turn and you have to put one down so any ability that lets you discard is going to help you accelerate through your hand fast.

And honestly, I would rather abuse Hawkeye's power early on anyway over saving tje red for Rocket because A) He can take out the opposing MC if Rocket is not able to (lack of blue location, you tried once this turn and failed, etx.) on turn 2 or whatever turn you play him, and B) He can take out ranged SC's that would either stun rocket on their attack or when you attack. His ability to take out ranged characters without being stunned helps you keep board control and helps Rockets aggressive playstyle.

If the avengers have any other decent plot twists I would say Guardians and Avengers would be a decent team up for Rocket since so far they seem to love their little guys (from what we have seen).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Psychotime
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

Interesting!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KardKrazy
Member Avatar
"'I've got a huge" Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Psychotime
Jul 17 2015, 05:11 PM
Posted Image

Interesting!
When combat is canceled does the attacker get to ready?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wallywest1988
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
KardKrazy
Jul 17 2015, 05:27 PM
Psychotime
Jul 17 2015, 05:11 PM
Posted Image

Interesting!
When combat is canceled does the attacker get to ready?
Thats my concern. Since the avengers have a plot twist that does the same thing. Is it reset or force field projection?

Seems like cancelling combat will be a pretty often occuring thing. A lot diff than old vs combat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BatHulk
Member Avatar
Elite Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
KardKrazy
Jul 17 2015, 05:27 PM
Psychotime
Jul 17 2015, 05:11 PM

Interesting!
When combat is canceled does the attacker get to ready?
I'm assuming the attacker does not ready or else the power wouldn't make much sense as the attacker would just attack Ant-Man again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KardKrazy
Member Avatar
"'I've got a huge" Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
BatHulk
Jul 17 2015, 06:04 PM
KardKrazy
Jul 17 2015, 05:27 PM
Psychotime
Jul 17 2015, 05:11 PM

Interesting!
When combat is canceled does the attacker get to ready?
I'm assuming the attacker does not ready or else the power wouldn't make much sense as the attacker would just attack Ant-Man again.
If "Cancelling" is equivalent to Force Field Projection from MVL and not Reset that is EXTREMELY strong..honestly to the point of unbalanced.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Speedy92286
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
KardKrazy
Jul 17 2015, 06:09 PM
BatHulk
Jul 17 2015, 06:04 PM
KardKrazy
Jul 17 2015, 05:27 PM
Psychotime
Jul 17 2015, 05:11 PM

Interesting!
When combat is canceled does the attacker get to ready?
I'm assuming the attacker does not ready or else the power wouldn't make much sense as the attacker would just attack Ant-Man again.
If "Cancelling" is equivalent to Force Field Projection from MVL and not Reset that is EXTREMELY strong..honestly to the point of unbalanced.
Agreed. This would make him and that plot twist way too good. However Ant Man being a 2/2 with a cancel ability does make 1 drops worth it. He has staying power. If other 1 drops are this good then I am happy because every team has a good turn 1 to play. If not then Ant Man ia indeed OP.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
x_chan
No Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
If Antman prevents attackers to ready, he is going to be spammed in all kind of decks. There's no energy or loyalty restriction in his power, and undercurving seems to be the best way, as the more protectors you have, the harder it will be to reach your MC.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Marvel Comics Character Images, Character Names and Card Text Copyright 2009 Marvel Characters Ltd. and/or Upper Deck Entertainment, LLC. DC Comics Character Images, Character Names and Card Text Copyright 2009 DC Characters Ltd. and/or Upper Deck Entertainment, LLC.