Really enjoyed the recap :) I fully agree with you on the capture mechanic, they're all massively overcosted and underpowered. This is especially in comparison to general removal like you have POTDS which can defeat any unit for three, consdiering you arent removing any units an equivalent capture should be cheaper than that, but there isn't even a capture card that can deal with leaders? Like aside from dryden or rellentless pursuit there is no real pay-off to playing capture cards. From a card design perspective I'm personally really worried about seeing un-interactive strategies being pushed. I'm thinking of mill from set 1 and now hand-destruction which became more popular with the red decks in set 2. Like for the end of the set 1 meta to see a discussion of how many restocks you needed to avoid being decked out I thought was just depressing. And now the hand control stuff that just aims to stop the opponent from being able to play anything is in the same boat. Trading card games in my opinion are at their most fun when its centred around how you interact with what your opponent plays. We don't really have too many outright floodgates at the moment (Rellentless aside, and then there are stun cards like frozen in carbonite and imprisoned) but seeing cards like pillage, vigilance etc which aim to stop the other player from playing anything is worrying consdiering we're only two sets in. I really hope we see a shift in card design towards more interactive and pro-active gameplans which focus on how I am actively going to try to win the game and play my own deck rather than how I'm going to stop my opponent from being able to play theirs or participate at all moving forward.
Thanks for the compliments I am a little confused with what you call "un-interactive" strategies: Mill by itself is not interactive or not interactive it depends on how it's implemented. Vigilance is indeed not interactive since you cannot really interact with it, however the new car Satine Kryze definitely is, as she gives an ability to units which can be attacked and defeated, she is therefore very interactive. So I don't think mill by iteslf is the problem it all comes down to how it's implemented. Then you mention frozen in carbonite which is nothing more than just a removal, are you suggesting that card games should not have removals? Because that would make the game EXTREMELY un-interactive. Pillage is another weird example, discard is very interactive it allows you to interact with strategies that don't rely on board presence to win the game. How are we supposed to fight against a player that doesn't rely on units to win the game in a game without counterspell if we don't have discard? Removing discard would make the game less interactive. It seems that your definition of "not interactive" is "anything that prevents you from developing your game plan" Then you're not using the right word, what you meant to say is that you don't like control cards. If the game only has proactive strategies and there is no way to prevent the opponent from developing his plan (control), then the game becomes extremely un-interactive. Pro-active strategies are nice but they are not the only way to play the game, reactive strategies that aim to prevent you from developing your game plan are absolutely essential and that's why every single card game has some to a certain degree.
@@Thorrk_THT I think you make some really fair points, and I do agree that you need to be able to answer threats in order for the game to be balanced since as you say without that the game wouldn't be interactive at all. Reading your answer I agree that frozen in carbonite is a bad a example and removal is important in the game. I think for me the three main things I'm concerned by in any card game (speaking as a former yu-gi-oh player) are deck out, blind hand destruction and floodgates. Esentially where the game is turned into solitare and one player sits depressed watching the their oppoent with no option of answering or responding. Right now we don't really have floodgates in the game in a true sense so they are less of an issue (for now). I completely agree that there is at a present a big difference between Satine Mill and Vigilance Mill and the reasons you point out are fair. I suppose in the context of card design and where the game is heading I am concerned about a strategy that aims to deck someone out being a thing because similar to vigilance when that goes off there is nothing for the opponent to respond with. We do have some recovery and recursion cards, but nithing that was enough to prevnt vigilance mill being a prevalent threat at the end of SOR format where as I said previously people were genuinely discussing how many restocks were necessary. And if it gets to the point where deck out can be done consistently and efficeintly then it would be close to functionally the same as a vigilance. I'm not suggesting that's where we are, far from it, but I do worry it's where we could be going and it'll turn into Runick Mill or some equivalent (if that's a poor reference I apologise). I apologise if you feel my interpretation is that anything that disrupts a gameplan is un-interactive as that's not my intention. I think well thought out counters and meta calls are really interesting and add a lot to any card game. If anything I'd like to see more like either an 'aura' type effect that can protect from events on a one time basis sort of a like a sheild but for a an effect rather than being restructed to damage solely (adding a new key word at this stage might be difficult, but i'd like to see it go further than speciifc cards like tie phantom and Shadowed intentions) as without a way to respond I think we saw at the end of set one the removal heavy strategies were very powerful as it wasn't any one leader that general gameplan was incredibly prevalent. I do stand by what I said about pillage however. To me pillage is not interactive as there is no option for the opponent the other player to respond to it. I don't see the difference between pillage and vigilance mill functionally in all honesty? Pillage is not targeted removal which I have no issue with, you are blindly and randomly ripping cards out of the opponents hand and hoping that it disrupts them and lowers their ceiling. There is nothing targetted about it, I accept there are stronger times to play it than others and that tehre is thought that goes into playing it but it is the closest thing to blind hand destruction and I'm sorry but that's not something I'm in favour of. I think this is the imortant diference between pillage and cards like Bazine or spark of rebellion. I'm in favour cards like that which can be used to answer to a targetted and specific threat sort of like removal aimed at the hand ratehr than the board. But blind hand destruction like pillage I consider differently. It's strong, I'd recommend playing it depending on the meta and we've seen aggression decks playing it get results. But if we're talking about card design and philosophy then blind hand rips and hand destruction are something I'm very wary of. Without the addition of some sort of 'aura' type protection effect or counterspell option to address cards like that I do consider it 'un-interactive'. I hope that maybe helps clarify some of my previous comment.
@@markmcdonald7381 First of all I will reassure you that SWU will NEVER becomes like Yu Gi Oh even if FFG tried (which they won't). The back and forth nature of SWU makes the game very interactive by nature. Yu Gi oh is simply too different of a game than SWU. Glad we can agree on the rest so let's talk about pillage: I am once again confused: Pillage is a piece of interaction by itself it allows you to interact with what your opponent has in hand. Remove pillage and you have less opportunity for interactions. You can very much interact with pillage, you can play in such a way to keep some spare cards so when pillage gets played it does not discard your key cards. However you can't really interact with spark or bazine so I don't even understand why you would prefer those type of discard over pillage. I ask you the question again: how is red supposed to interact with decks that don't rely on the board to win the game without hand disruption? I guess you could give red selective discard as well but that's supposed to be a yellow thing and different color should have different asset. I understand that you don't like pillage but it's a very important card for the game Pillage and vigilance-mill are not even close to be the same type of cards. Mill is a pro active win condition (sometimes it can disrupt but it can also help the opponent depending on what is milled), hand discard is disruption.
@@Thorrk_THT My issue with Pillage as I said is that the discard is random and blind. It can not be used to answer a specific threat a la spark of rebellion or Bazine. This might be a result on occassion, but the player using it can't control that. It is used it seems primarily to randomly lower the ceiling of the oponent and quite literally hope that stops them. You aren't targetting a threat, you're crashing the ceiling of the oppoent and, I don't mean to be disparaging but I feel it's accurate, quite literally hoping that stops them. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I still don't see how it's different from vigilance in that you can't interact with it when played? I'm in favour of something like a counterspell mechanic to allow for this or aura to protect from it, but as it stands currently and moving forward it doesn't seem to be on the horizon. So I suppose your point about red dealing with hard control or decks that paly minimal units outside big win conditions is a different question than I initially brought up, but I have my own thoughts. Firstly red is generally the most aggressive archetype and can outrace most other aspects on pure damage quickly (in general terms, I'm not claiming this is absolute) so going for the base and winning the damage race is an option. Secondly, there are other discard cards which I've said I have no issue with and others in aggression. Force throw trades the effectiveness of the discard for effectiveness of removal depending on the player targetted for the discard. Forced Surrender is a card advantage swing that also acts as a draw card and is a higger cost can lean towards a different gameplan and could be interesting if red control becomes more viable (red has some of the best draw cards in the game and yet most see little play), I believe cripple authority also does this with the intention of being played against ramp decks though this has seen little play to my knowledge. All of these differ from pillage. And then finally without sounding patronising I suppose I would ask should every aspect alone be able to address every gameplan as effectively? To me this is why you would combine red with another aspect in order to expand the card pool when you're deckbuilding. Otherwise why have aspect restrictions at all? I'm not saying you couldn't have it so that every deck has access to every card in the card pool, but it'd be a fundamentally different game. With respect I think we may have to agree to disagree on this, and also this goes beyond me simply 'disliking' pillage. I have a fundamental issue with that type of blind and random hand destruction, and if you look at other card games like yu-gi-oh that kind of thing can get really toxic really quickly if left unchecked without erratas or banlists. Maybe this is my own philosphy, but in card games with so much inherent variance I like to have as mcuh within my control and influence as possible so deckbuilding witn cosistency and mind and generating card advantage, valueand 'plussing' are the things that appeal to me in a card game. seeing chaotic and blind minuses do not. I also still don't see how you as an opponent facing it can answer pillage any more easily than you can vigilance mill. In both cases you firstly as you mention do your best preventitively both in deckbuilding (including restock) and in technical play by say trying to stay at three cards or more if you suspect it's likely to be played. But beyond that you are left hoping they don't hit something critical and it is blindly out of your control. And to come back to my initial point from my first comment, from a card design perspective seeing blind hand rips is not something I'm pleased to see or excited to play with and I hope this does not increase in prevalence.
I think your comments are fair. I’m more concerned about the prospect in four months that Twilight of the Republic might get a similar or worse score in terms of weak mechanics (coordinate), bad legendaries or low impact on the meta.
We will see. but maybe a ban of Boba will help set 3 having bigger of an impact on the competitive scene. But for casual players, I think it's obvious that set 3 is going to be more appealing so that's a good thing.
I agree with all your points. I definitely have more hope with this set as in general leaders seem to have more potential. Now just waiting that Bobba is finally banned 😁
Just wait till next set when you stick Bobas armor and Phantom Tie effect on your Boba leader when you deploy. Get your bamboozle and power failure stocks. (Though bamboozle just slows it down cause it bounces them not destroys them)
Set 2 nearly killed my interest in the game. Unpacking legendaries worth 5 euros sucks. Kinda on the edge now, you think set 3 will be better? I dig the clone wars theme tho.
The legendaries are not that strong either in set 3, I think even less than set 2. BUT, they are way more iconic, which can affect the vallue by a lot.
Amazing recap! It's very nice to think back about the set 2 experience! The thing that bothered me was that after an incredible first set, the cards just felt week and not as exciting as cards of the first set like Cunning, Luke, U-Wing, Vader, Avenger, Superlaser Blast, Palpatine... All cards that were great to pull and felt good to play. It wasn't just bad, Bossk, New Han saved the day but it was not good enough imo. Basically what you called the power decreep. The third set does seem a lot more interesting from a deck building perspective, with many great leaders, so looking forward to that. Could you do a similar video as a preview for set 3?:)
@Thorrk i think your review was spot on. My rating is 3/10 because most of the Legendaries were unplayable and capture pretty much failed in constructed. There were some good things in this set for sure, but the Legendaries should have been more playable and either make capture better or remove it completely ro support the others. Personally, i think it would be flavorful if there was a place like a jail to drop captured cards off at. Might be cool, maybe not though. I have some similar fears for set 3, but i hope im wrong.
With regards to Legendaries I certainly agree. I feel like there were 10 exciting Legendaries in Spark with 15 that were at least ok. Shadows had 6 exciting and 10 ok ones with 6 bad compared to one bad in Spark. My initial thoughts have 9 exciting Legendaries in Twilight and 15 that are at least ok ... maybe all 16 will be playable either competitively or in thematic fun decks that are not bad.
I don't think this set was bad as much as it is building. Set 1 had to capture people's attention and create a competitive field to ensure the game was picked up by players so it naturally had to have a high ceiling with a lot of playable cards. Set 2 was setting up some new mechanics, introducing new decks but also has product that will improve more over time and not straight on release and decks like hero boba can change with each set but needs the cards worth playing to be played and a meta that works into. Decks like hondo/lando are ok now but with more smuggle cards in the future, those decks will increase in power. Set 2 didn't need to be incredibly playable, it just needed to add some new features and shift the meta a little and it did that. People expecting a whole new meta every single set need to play a bandai game and then realise that power creep in every set sucks! Set 3 I feel will just expand on this, it isn't about to revolutionise the way the game is played to knock all the previous meta decks off their perch, it will change some things up, introduce the new mechanics and exist, the only thing really knocking boba/sabine away is a ban or errata.
ok couple of things here: - In any media if you set up expectations with something and the "sequel" does not meet that expectation it's not a good thing no matter how you look at it. - Each expansion has to do both, be good by themselves AND build for the future and I don't see why those are mutually exclusive. and btw you have no idea if this expansions is building anything, Smuggle and bounty might not be revisited by FFG anytime soon who knows, you are speculating here. Beside it's kind of a cheap excuse to say "this set is not good because it's building for the future" every set is building for the future obviously. - I don't expect a whole new meta for every set, it depends on how many cards the new set adds compared to what's in the game already, in this case, set 2 DOUBLED the size of the card pool so yes I was expecting a much bigger shift. Also keep in mind that set release on SWU is slower than in other game (which is a good thing imo) but it also means that we need each of those sets to be more impactful, there is nothing worse than realizing that the new set changes nothing and that we are stuck with it for an other 4 months. - I agree that excessive power creep is very annoying but I would argue that power decreep is far worst for 2 major reasons: -It makes the meta extremely stale and boring -It makes people no want to buy the new sets, it's a horrible business strategy that will kill the game profitability. Say what you want about power creep it has not prevented Yu GI Oh from being one of the most successful card games in the world. I would much rather have an expensive but successful game than a boring one that dies in 2 years for lack of sales. Obviously their is a middle ground but if given the choice I would choose power creep over power decreep ANY DAY. - Set 3 needs to do both .... introduce new mechanics, new archetype AND makes it so those archetype have a significant impact on the meta. What's the point of even making new archetype if they have no chance to comepeting against existing tier 1 decks?
@Thorrk_THT yugioh is also celebrating their 25th year of the game...due to the banlist and the way the game went in the early days, it was a different card game, it didn't have decks built the way they are now and they had a lot of the same 25-30 cards in early builds until around 2005 with exodia and hand control being typically the same sort of builds prior to 04/05. The problem isn't set 2 being so far below set 1 as much as too much of the game is below boba, and with armour he just became worse, he isn't just powerful but gatekeeps the meta which prevented set 2 from getting out there and set 3 has a similar issue if boba is just unchecked throughout it as well. I do agree the legendaries were somewhat worse but the fact that maul, wrecker, palps return, chewie weren't legendaries and some others were definetly impacted on that occurrence. If people are only buying because they see a ROI and not because of the potential for the future of the game then that's a terrible vision for a hobby as it is...games take a while before the begin becoming ridiculously expensive or they also don't get off the ground because why would I spend 500-1000 on a swu deck when I can spend the same on ygo or mtg and know that games sticking around?? People need to understand the game is building and that can take time, if people don't have the patience and that kills the game then that sucks, FFG need to do a banlist to fix the boba issue 100% and I think we'd see the game become a lot more open but again, that's not that set 2 is inherently bad as much as boba is busted.
@@callumvaughan-floyd7711 You forgot to say that Boba was under control in set 1 and that set 2 is what exacerbated the issue (same for Sabine). So yeah it's partially set 2's fault if Boba is busted. Most people don't buy cards for ROI they buy cards to play with them, if cards are bad they won't play with them it's as simple as that. You take the problem on the wrong side, assuming there is no supply issue, if a deck is worth 500-1000 euros it means the game is insanely popular, it's a good problem to have believe me, it doesn't mean that you can't have more budget friendly decks that are just as powerful just like we have right now. Take your time is not a good philosophy, most card game dies within the first year of release, year 1 is the most important. People have no patience not because they suck but because they have alternatives and limited time, there are plenty of other games to play. The card game market is saturated and very competitive you can't afford to fuck around.
@Thorrk_THT I wasn't here for set 1, from what I was told though boba green was still an issue set 1, but we also didn't have this level of competition set 1 from what I've seen...as boba wasn't dominating the 1-4ks earlier in the set, it only really started destroying the meta in the PQ season this last month. Assuming that doubling the cards results in a 50/50 split isn't necessarily feasible either...there will always be a meta and due to the popularity of certain colours and decks, the cards that synergise with them will be what we see more of. People taking advantage of the secondary market doesn't necessarily point to how popular a game is, just how much people are willing to pay with supply and demand taken into account. Set 2 wasn't as good as set 1 but certainly don't think it was a flop, I think the competitive scene was still a lot of fun to play, it just needs some adjustments and we'll see even more opened up, if this game fails I feel it'll be due to mismanagement of the game, not from the product we get
Set 2 was fun, a bit underpowered in comparison, but typically that's the norm. The increased pricing from distributors hurt those who crack boxes and expect to break-even or make a profit though. Set 2 had a much more interesting meta in comparison, with more interesting deck builds due to the larger pool, although control might need a bit of love as it's fallen off pretty hard. Overall this game has attracted a lot of new players which is great, but I've seen some pretty poor takes and expectations in comparison to TCG norms. I'm excited for Set 3 overall for some new builds and cards.
Really? I'm the exact opposite. Set 1 decks just had cards for the sake of cards in constructed, and the limited format at our shop had an incredible amount of games go to time for sealed in Set 2. Draft was ok for Set 2, but nowhere near Set 1 level of fun.
Honestly I'm worried about set 3 being the same, coordinate seems underwealming like capture was and there is a massive amount of filler cards and under powered cards,i feel like they are too conservative with most of the cards and only a few are powerful like with poe and krayt dragon in set 2.
Sophomore efforts in a lot of media often fall short. IMO Shadows followed that trend. I think it was a mistake to not go straight into the Clone Wars to keep the hype train rolling and end year 1 with Shadows.
Yeah the theme of the set was defo on a weaker side on what people love about Star Wars but maybe it would have been smart to keep this weaker theme for when the game is more established (and it's not like we didn't have our dose of Bounty hunters and smugglers in set 1). With that being said this doesn't tell the whole story, and I am pretty sure the theme of the set would have been fine if only they didn't commit the mistakes I explained in the video.
In terms of "convoluted mechanics" we must mention Hunter (leader). Dear lord, who was thinking that's a good idea for ability :P . thankfully it was outlier. Capture sadly is extremely overprized for being basically glorified "no good to me dead". My "favourite" card is The Mandalorian Rifle. How many restriction can you put on card and also make it overcosted ? As someone who started playing with Shadow of Galaxy, and who didn't played at all in SOR it felt miserable at time. All the cards I need to my decks were from SOR, which is still unavailable, and prizes are extremely inflated because of that. I found my niche with Cad Bane , but let's be honest, he's not even close to the top leaders.
@@Thorrk_THT I hear that since I started playing. Regardless it didnt help with experince of this set, getting blasted by cards you do not have access to.
Indeed my rating would be different if Boba wasn't that dominant but sadly set 2 is highly responsible for that situation so it's only natural that it impacted my rating of the set. Boba or not Boba, there are too many failed archetypes in this set and legendaries being unexciting for competitive and casual players is a big No No
Bucket heads on stream said ECL is more of a problem. lol Boba Fett singlehandedly made me lose interest in set 2. People told me I need to get good and I decided to try Boba Fett myself, I did and literally dominated in a very unhealthy way and just lost interest. Just did not feel fun. I'm hoping Set 3 can somewhat be a bit more diverse and fun.
Yeah, I actually debated the Buckethead host about Boba in a friendly debate (it's at 2:08:26 of that video if you want to check this out: th-cam.com/video/T1JkUU5zwtw/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=TaketheInitiative). I also find it hard to believe that people still think that ECL is a problem after how little it sees play. If Boba's dominance is the only thing that bothers you, luckily it's an easy problem to solve. Considering the overwhelming evidence we have, I have faith that it's only a matter of time until it is solved.
yeah this added ambush is powerful in Sabine, but boba greens play nowadays more often 30 than ECL and all the other flavors of boba are also meta-relevant so I think it’s not a base that’s the main issue now
not as fun as the first one. felt less interesting in cards types. and also the system in the way they where put in the packs. and also to much disney wars caracters. not a set ill buy more of.
You're right, my channel is mostly based on competitive but in this video I make several points about elements that are relevant to casual players too: - The theme of the set being on point. - Legendaries being underwhelming for both casual and competitive. - Smuggle and bounty being strong but also FUN mechanic to play with.
He said the theme and flavor of the set was great though, but he's right re: his overall assessment, even in a casual format like Twin Suns the capture mechanics are terrible, and the legendaries for the most part are not good in casual formats either. We currently don't have aggregate data for decks played in non-competitive formats, so competitive gets more of a focus. Beyond that, it's still a game where there's a clear winner, so using what data we have to assess how much the cards help decks win is totally appropriate. I'm saying this as someone who primarily plays Twin Suns right now but has top 8'd all three of the competitive events I've attended.
![Answering the Most Common SET 2 Rules Questions! [Star Wars Unlimited]](/img/n.gif)
Really enjoyed the recap :) I fully agree with you on the capture mechanic, they're all massively overcosted and underpowered. This is especially in comparison to general removal like you have POTDS which can defeat any unit for three, consdiering you arent removing any units an equivalent capture should be cheaper than that, but there isn't even a capture card that can deal with leaders? Like aside from dryden or rellentless pursuit there is no real pay-off to playing capture cards.
From a card design perspective I'm personally really worried about seeing un-interactive strategies being pushed. I'm thinking of mill from set 1 and now hand-destruction which became more popular with the red decks in set 2. Like for the end of the set 1 meta to see a discussion of how many restocks you needed to avoid being decked out I thought was just depressing. And now the hand control stuff that just aims to stop the opponent from being able to play anything is in the same boat.
Trading card games in my opinion are at their most fun when its centred around how you interact with what your opponent plays. We don't really have too many outright floodgates at the moment (Rellentless aside, and then there are stun cards like frozen in carbonite and imprisoned) but seeing cards like pillage, vigilance etc which aim to stop the other player from playing anything is worrying consdiering we're only two sets in. I really hope we see a shift in card design towards more interactive and pro-active gameplans which focus on how I am actively going to try to win the game and play my own deck rather than how I'm going to stop my opponent from being able to play theirs or participate at all moving forward.
Thanks for the compliments
I am a little confused with what you call "un-interactive" strategies:
Mill by itself is not interactive or not interactive it depends on how it's implemented. Vigilance is indeed not interactive since you cannot really interact with it, however the new car Satine Kryze definitely is, as she gives an ability to units which can be attacked and defeated, she is therefore very interactive. So I don't think mill by iteslf is the problem it all comes down to how it's implemented.
Then you mention frozen in carbonite which is nothing more than just a removal, are you suggesting that card games should not have removals? Because that would make the game EXTREMELY un-interactive.
Pillage is another weird example, discard is very interactive it allows you to interact with strategies that don't rely on board presence to win the game. How are we supposed to fight against a player that doesn't rely on units to win the game in a game without counterspell if we don't have discard? Removing discard would make the game less interactive.
It seems that your definition of "not interactive" is "anything that prevents you from developing your game plan" Then you're not using the right word, what you meant to say is that you don't like control cards.
If the game only has proactive strategies and there is no way to prevent the opponent from developing his plan (control), then the game becomes extremely un-interactive. Pro-active strategies are nice but they are not the only way to play the game, reactive strategies that aim to prevent you from developing your game plan are absolutely essential and that's why every single card game has some to a certain degree.
@@Thorrk_THT I think you make some really fair points, and I do agree that you need to be able to answer threats in order for the game to be balanced since as you say without that the game wouldn't be interactive at all.
Reading your answer I agree that frozen in carbonite is a bad a example and removal is important in the game. I think for me the three main things I'm concerned by in any card game (speaking as a former yu-gi-oh player) are deck out, blind hand destruction and floodgates. Esentially where the game is turned into solitare and one player sits depressed watching the their oppoent with no option of answering or responding. Right now we don't really have floodgates in the game in a true sense so they are less of an issue (for now).
I completely agree that there is at a present a big difference between Satine Mill and Vigilance Mill and the reasons you point out are fair. I suppose in the context of card design and where the game is heading I am concerned about a strategy that aims to deck someone out being a thing because similar to vigilance when that goes off there is nothing for the opponent to respond with. We do have some recovery and recursion cards, but nithing that was enough to prevnt vigilance mill being a prevalent threat at the end of SOR format where as I said previously people were genuinely discussing how many restocks were necessary. And if it gets to the point where deck out can be done consistently and efficeintly then it would be close to functionally the same as a vigilance. I'm not suggesting that's where we are, far from it, but I do worry it's where we could be going and it'll turn into Runick Mill or some equivalent (if that's a poor reference I apologise).
I apologise if you feel my interpretation is that anything that disrupts a gameplan is un-interactive as that's not my intention. I think well thought out counters and meta calls are really interesting and add a lot to any card game. If anything I'd like to see more like either an 'aura' type effect that can protect from events on a one time basis sort of a like a sheild but for a an effect rather than being restructed to damage solely (adding a new key word at this stage might be difficult, but i'd like to see it go further than speciifc cards like tie phantom and Shadowed intentions) as without a way to respond I think we saw at the end of set one the removal heavy strategies were very powerful as it wasn't any one leader that general gameplan was incredibly prevalent.
I do stand by what I said about pillage however. To me pillage is not interactive as there is no option for the opponent the other player to respond to it. I don't see the difference between pillage and vigilance mill functionally in all honesty? Pillage is not targeted removal which I have no issue with, you are blindly and randomly ripping cards out of the opponents hand and hoping that it disrupts them and lowers their ceiling. There is nothing targetted about it, I accept there are stronger times to play it than others and that tehre is thought that goes into playing it but it is the closest thing to blind hand destruction and I'm sorry but that's not something I'm in favour of. I think this is the imortant diference between pillage and cards like Bazine or spark of rebellion. I'm in favour cards like that which can be used to answer to a targetted and specific threat sort of like removal aimed at the hand ratehr than the board. But blind hand destruction like pillage I consider differently. It's strong, I'd recommend playing it depending on the meta and we've seen aggression decks playing it get results. But if we're talking about card design and philosophy then blind hand rips and hand destruction are something I'm very wary of. Without the addition of some sort of 'aura' type protection effect or counterspell option to address cards like that I do consider it 'un-interactive'.
I hope that maybe helps clarify some of my previous comment.
@@markmcdonald7381 First of all I will reassure you that SWU will NEVER becomes like Yu Gi Oh even if FFG tried (which they won't). The back and forth nature of SWU makes the game very interactive by nature. Yu Gi oh is simply too different of a game than SWU.
Glad we can agree on the rest so let's talk about pillage:
I am once again confused:
Pillage is a piece of interaction by itself it allows you to interact with what your opponent has in hand. Remove pillage and you have less opportunity for interactions.
You can very much interact with pillage, you can play in such a way to keep some spare cards so when pillage gets played it does not discard your key cards. However you can't really interact with spark or bazine so I don't even understand why you would prefer those type of discard over pillage.
I ask you the question again: how is red supposed to interact with decks that don't rely on the board to win the game without hand disruption? I guess you could give red selective discard as well but that's supposed to be a yellow thing and different color should have different asset.
I understand that you don't like pillage but it's a very important card for the game
Pillage and vigilance-mill are not even close to be the same type of cards. Mill is a pro active win condition (sometimes it can disrupt but it can also help the opponent depending on what is milled), hand discard is disruption.
@@Thorrk_THT
My issue with Pillage as I said is that the discard is random and blind. It can not be used to answer a specific threat a la spark of rebellion or Bazine. This might be a result on occassion, but the player using it can't control that. It is used it seems primarily to randomly lower the ceiling of the oponent and quite literally hope that stops them. You aren't targetting a threat, you're crashing the ceiling of the oppoent and, I don't mean to be disparaging but I feel it's accurate, quite literally hoping that stops them. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I still don't see how it's different from vigilance in that you can't interact with it when played? I'm in favour of something like a counterspell mechanic to allow for this or aura to protect from it, but as it stands currently and moving forward it doesn't seem to be on the horizon.
So I suppose your point about red dealing with hard control or decks that paly minimal units outside big win conditions is a different question than I initially brought up, but I have my own thoughts. Firstly red is generally the most aggressive archetype and can outrace most other aspects on pure damage quickly (in general terms, I'm not claiming this is absolute) so going for the base and winning the damage race is an option. Secondly, there are other discard cards which I've said I have no issue with and others in aggression. Force throw trades the effectiveness of the discard for effectiveness of removal depending on the player targetted for the discard. Forced Surrender is a card advantage swing that also acts as a draw card and is a higger cost can lean towards a different gameplan and could be interesting if red control becomes more viable (red has some of the best draw cards in the game and yet most see little play), I believe cripple authority also does this with the intention of being played against ramp decks though this has seen little play to my knowledge. All of these differ from pillage. And then finally without sounding patronising I suppose I would ask should every aspect alone be able to address every gameplan as effectively? To me this is why you would combine red with another aspect in order to expand the card pool when you're deckbuilding. Otherwise why have aspect restrictions at all? I'm not saying you couldn't have it so that every deck has access to every card in the card pool, but it'd be a fundamentally different game.
With respect I think we may have to agree to disagree on this, and also this goes beyond me simply 'disliking' pillage. I have a fundamental issue with that type of blind and random hand destruction, and if you look at other card games like yu-gi-oh that kind of thing can get really toxic really quickly if left unchecked without erratas or banlists. Maybe this is my own philosphy, but in card games with so much inherent variance I like to have as mcuh within my control and influence as possible so deckbuilding witn cosistency and mind and generating card advantage, valueand 'plussing' are the things that appeal to me in a card game. seeing chaotic and blind minuses do not. I also still don't see how you as an opponent facing it can answer pillage any more easily than you can vigilance mill. In both cases you firstly as you mention do your best preventitively both in deckbuilding (including restock) and in technical play by say trying to stay at three cards or more if you suspect it's likely to be played. But beyond that you are left hoping they don't hit something critical and it is blindly out of your control. And to come back to my initial point from my first comment, from a card design perspective seeing blind hand rips is not something I'm pleased to see or excited to play with and I hope this does not increase in prevalence.
I think your comments are fair. I’m more concerned about the prospect in four months that Twilight of the Republic might get a similar or worse score in terms of weak mechanics (coordinate), bad legendaries or low impact on the meta.
I too feel coordinate is a very weak keyword, much weaker than exploit for example
We will see. but maybe a ban of Boba will help set 3 having bigger of an impact on the competitive scene.
But for casual players, I think it's obvious that set 3 is going to be more appealing so that's a good thing.
I think twilight is gonna have the best sealed and draft play
@@Jrodlxxv If that's true I hope FFG and independent TO will capitalize on it by organizing sealed/draft tournament
I agree with all your points. I definitely have more hope with this set as in general leaders seem to have more potential. Now just waiting that Bobba is finally banned 😁
Just wait till next set when you stick Bobas armor and Phantom Tie effect on your Boba leader when you deploy. Get your bamboozle and power failure stocks. (Though bamboozle just slows it down cause it bounces them not destroys them)
Good recap ! What do u think about set 3 ? I'm affraid that's the result will be quite similar than set 2...
You will know soon enough :)
Set 2 nearly killed my interest in the game. Unpacking legendaries worth 5 euros sucks. Kinda on the edge now, you think set 3 will be better? I dig the clone wars theme tho.
The theme can go a long way, I personally find the the set more interesting to build with.
The legendaries are not that strong either in set 3, I think even less than set 2. BUT, they are way more iconic, which can affect the vallue by a lot.
Amazing recap! It's very nice to think back about the set 2 experience!
The thing that bothered me was that after an incredible first set, the cards just felt week and not as exciting as cards of the first set like Cunning, Luke, U-Wing, Vader, Avenger, Superlaser Blast, Palpatine... All cards that were great to pull and felt good to play.
It wasn't just bad, Bossk, New Han saved the day but it was not good enough imo. Basically what you called the power decreep.
The third set does seem a lot more interesting from a deck building perspective, with many great leaders, so looking forward to that.
Could you do a similar video as a preview for set 3?:)
Yes my plan is to do the same video at the end of every set about a week before the release of the next one.
@Thorrk i think your review was spot on. My rating is 3/10 because most of the Legendaries were unplayable and capture pretty much failed in constructed. There were some good things in this set for sure, but the Legendaries should have been more playable and either make capture better or remove it completely ro support the others. Personally, i think it would be flavorful if there was a place like a jail to drop captured cards off at. Might be cool, maybe not though. I have some similar fears for set 3, but i hope im wrong.
With regards to Legendaries I certainly agree. I feel like there were 10 exciting Legendaries in Spark with 15 that were at least ok. Shadows had 6 exciting and 10 ok ones with 6 bad compared to one bad in Spark. My initial thoughts have 9 exciting Legendaries in Twilight and 15 that are at least ok ... maybe all 16 will be playable either competitively or in thematic fun decks that are not bad.
I don't think this set was bad as much as it is building. Set 1 had to capture people's attention and create a competitive field to ensure the game was picked up by players so it naturally had to have a high ceiling with a lot of playable cards. Set 2 was setting up some new mechanics, introducing new decks but also has product that will improve more over time and not straight on release and decks like hero boba can change with each set but needs the cards worth playing to be played and a meta that works into. Decks like hondo/lando are ok now but with more smuggle cards in the future, those decks will increase in power. Set 2 didn't need to be incredibly playable, it just needed to add some new features and shift the meta a little and it did that. People expecting a whole new meta every single set need to play a bandai game and then realise that power creep in every set sucks! Set 3 I feel will just expand on this, it isn't about to revolutionise the way the game is played to knock all the previous meta decks off their perch, it will change some things up, introduce the new mechanics and exist, the only thing really knocking boba/sabine away is a ban or errata.
ok couple of things here:
- In any media if you set up expectations with something and the "sequel" does not meet that expectation it's not a good thing no matter how you look at it.
- Each expansion has to do both, be good by themselves AND build for the future and I don't see why those are mutually exclusive. and btw you have no idea if this expansions is building anything, Smuggle and bounty might not be revisited by FFG anytime soon who knows, you are speculating here. Beside it's kind of a cheap excuse to say "this set is not good because it's building for the future" every set is building for the future obviously.
- I don't expect a whole new meta for every set, it depends on how many cards the new set adds compared to what's in the game already, in this case, set 2 DOUBLED the size of the card pool so yes I was expecting a much bigger shift. Also keep in mind that set release on SWU is slower than in other game (which is a good thing imo) but it also means that we need each of those sets to be more impactful, there is nothing worse than realizing that the new set changes nothing and that we are stuck with it for an other 4 months.
- I agree that excessive power creep is very annoying but I would argue that power decreep is far worst for 2 major reasons:
-It makes the meta extremely stale and boring
-It makes people no want to buy the new sets, it's a horrible business strategy that will kill the game profitability.
Say what you want about power creep it has not prevented Yu GI Oh from being one of the most successful card games in the world. I would much rather have an expensive but successful game than a boring one that dies in 2 years for lack of sales. Obviously their is a middle ground but if given the choice I would choose power creep over power decreep ANY DAY.
- Set 3 needs to do both .... introduce new mechanics, new archetype AND makes it so those archetype have a significant impact on the meta. What's the point of even making new archetype if they have no chance to comepeting against existing tier 1 decks?
@Thorrk_THT yugioh is also celebrating their 25th year of the game...due to the banlist and the way the game went in the early days, it was a different card game, it didn't have decks built the way they are now and they had a lot of the same 25-30 cards in early builds until around 2005 with exodia and hand control being typically the same sort of builds prior to 04/05.
The problem isn't set 2 being so far below set 1 as much as too much of the game is below boba, and with armour he just became worse, he isn't just powerful but gatekeeps the meta which prevented set 2 from getting out there and set 3 has a similar issue if boba is just unchecked throughout it as well.
I do agree the legendaries were somewhat worse but the fact that maul, wrecker, palps return, chewie weren't legendaries and some others were definetly impacted on that occurrence.
If people are only buying because they see a ROI and not because of the potential for the future of the game then that's a terrible vision for a hobby as it is...games take a while before the begin becoming ridiculously expensive or they also don't get off the ground because why would I spend 500-1000 on a swu deck when I can spend the same on ygo or mtg and know that games sticking around??
People need to understand the game is building and that can take time, if people don't have the patience and that kills the game then that sucks, FFG need to do a banlist to fix the boba issue 100% and I think we'd see the game become a lot more open but again, that's not that set 2 is inherently bad as much as boba is busted.
@@callumvaughan-floyd7711 You forgot to say that Boba was under control in set 1 and that set 2 is what exacerbated the issue (same for Sabine). So yeah it's partially set 2's fault if Boba is busted.
Most people don't buy cards for ROI they buy cards to play with them, if cards are bad they won't play with them it's as simple as that.
You take the problem on the wrong side, assuming there is no supply issue, if a deck is worth 500-1000 euros it means the game is insanely popular, it's a good problem to have believe me, it doesn't mean that you can't have more budget friendly decks that are just as powerful just like we have right now.
Take your time is not a good philosophy, most card game dies within the first year of release, year 1 is the most important. People have no patience not because they suck but because they have alternatives and limited time, there are plenty of other games to play. The card game market is saturated and very competitive you can't afford to fuck around.
@Thorrk_THT I wasn't here for set 1, from what I was told though boba green was still an issue set 1, but we also didn't have this level of competition set 1 from what I've seen...as boba wasn't dominating the 1-4ks earlier in the set, it only really started destroying the meta in the PQ season this last month.
Assuming that doubling the cards results in a 50/50 split isn't necessarily feasible either...there will always be a meta and due to the popularity of certain colours and decks, the cards that synergise with them will be what we see more of.
People taking advantage of the secondary market doesn't necessarily point to how popular a game is, just how much people are willing to pay with supply and demand taken into account.
Set 2 wasn't as good as set 1 but certainly don't think it was a flop, I think the competitive scene was still a lot of fun to play, it just needs some adjustments and we'll see even more opened up, if this game fails I feel it'll be due to mismanagement of the game, not from the product we get
Set 2 was fun, a bit underpowered in comparison, but typically that's the norm. The increased pricing from distributors hurt those who crack boxes and expect to break-even or make a profit though. Set 2 had a much more interesting meta in comparison, with more interesting deck builds due to the larger pool, although control might need a bit of love as it's fallen off pretty hard. Overall this game has attracted a lot of new players which is great, but I've seen some pretty poor takes and expectations in comparison to TCG norms. I'm excited for Set 3 overall for some new builds and cards.
Fair rating. The set as a whole killed my interest to play competitively. Limited was interesting and about the only good thing about it.
Really? I'm the exact opposite. Set 1 decks just had cards for the sake of cards in constructed, and the limited format at our shop had an incredible amount of games go to time for sealed in Set 2. Draft was ok for Set 2, but nowhere near Set 1 level of fun.
Honestly I'm worried about set 3 being the same, coordinate seems underwealming like capture was and there is a massive amount of filler cards and under powered cards,i feel like they are too conservative with most of the cards and only a few are powerful like with poe and krayt dragon in set 2.
Sophomore efforts in a lot of media often fall short. IMO Shadows followed that trend.
I think it was a mistake to not go straight into the Clone Wars to keep the hype train rolling and end year 1 with Shadows.
Yeah the theme of the set was defo on a weaker side on what people love about Star Wars but maybe it would have been smart to keep this weaker theme for when the game is more established (and it's not like we didn't have our dose of Bounty hunters and smugglers in set 1).
With that being said this doesn't tell the whole story, and I am pretty sure the theme of the set would have been fine if only they didn't commit the mistakes I explained in the video.
In terms of "convoluted mechanics" we must mention Hunter (leader). Dear lord, who was thinking that's a good idea for ability :P . thankfully it was outlier.
Capture sadly is extremely overprized for being basically glorified "no good to me dead". My "favourite" card is The Mandalorian Rifle. How many restriction can you put on card and also make it overcosted ?
As someone who started playing with Shadow of Galaxy, and who didn't played at all in SOR it felt miserable at time. All the cards I need to my decks were from SOR, which is still unavailable, and prizes are extremely inflated because of that. I found my niche with Cad Bane , but let's be honest, he's not even close to the top leaders.
Good news is that set 1 is getting a reprint soon!
@@Thorrk_THT I hear that since I started playing. Regardless it didnt help with experince of this set, getting blasted by cards you do not have access to.
I don't think it was a bad set: just much weaker than set one. My take would probably be different if Boba wasn't everywhere.
Indeed my rating would be different if Boba wasn't that dominant but sadly set 2 is highly responsible for that situation so it's only natural that it impacted my rating of the set.
Boba or not Boba, there are too many failed archetypes in this set and legendaries being unexciting for competitive and casual players is a big No No
Bucket heads on stream said ECL is more of a problem. lol
Boba Fett singlehandedly made me lose interest in set 2.
People told me I need to get good and I decided to try Boba Fett myself, I did and literally dominated in a very unhealthy way and just lost interest. Just did not feel fun.
I'm hoping Set 3 can somewhat be a bit more diverse and fun.
Yeah, I actually debated the Buckethead host about Boba in a friendly debate (it's at 2:08:26 of that video if you want to check this out: th-cam.com/video/T1JkUU5zwtw/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=TaketheInitiative).
I also find it hard to believe that people still think that ECL is a problem after how little it sees play.
If Boba's dominance is the only thing that bothers you, luckily it's an easy problem to solve. Considering the overwhelming evidence we have, I have faith that it's only a matter of time until it is solved.
yeah this added ambush is powerful in Sabine, but boba greens play nowadays more often 30 than ECL and all the other flavors of boba are also meta-relevant so I think it’s not a base that’s the main issue now
not as fun as the first one. felt less interesting in cards types. and also the system in the way they where put in the packs. and also to much disney wars caracters. not a set ill buy more of.
I agree. This set was mediocre at best. Other than just a handful of cards, the rest of the set was pretty forgettable.
Please change your channel name to Thorrk's COMPETITIVE Takes.....Competitive is all that matters!!!
Waste of time video.
You're right, my channel is mostly based on competitive but in this video I make several points about elements that are relevant to casual players too:
- The theme of the set being on point.
- Legendaries being underwhelming for both casual and competitive.
- Smuggle and bounty being strong but also FUN mechanic to play with.
He said the theme and flavor of the set was great though, but he's right re: his overall assessment, even in a casual format like Twin Suns the capture mechanics are terrible, and the legendaries for the most part are not good in casual formats either. We currently don't have aggregate data for decks played in non-competitive formats, so competitive gets more of a focus. Beyond that, it's still a game where there's a clear winner, so using what data we have to assess how much the cards help decks win is totally appropriate. I'm saying this as someone who primarily plays Twin Suns right now but has top 8'd all three of the competitive events I've attended.
Waste of time comment.