Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: I miss globals

  1. #1

    I miss globals

    While I am enjoying DCJL and AoU, I am saddened by the trend that is happening.

    The newer sets are giving us fewer and fewer global abilities.

    I really miss the days of AvX and UXM. Globals were everywhere, and I think it is better for the game.

    It made team building more dynamic, as you would have more cards that would be used every game. With fewer globals, when I play a constructed in a "one set only" event, I really find myself wishing there were more globals to choose from for my team.

    What do you think? Do you like the environment with fewer globals, or do you miss the olden days?

    (And I don't mean specific globals, like PXG, just the availability of globals in general)

  2. #2
    For me globals are what lift the game from being merely good to being great.

  3. #3
    While the sets are giving us fewer globals, they are giving us more abilities that are one sided, but funded by energy and played at global speeds... Loki Laufeyson for example.

  4. #4
    It's an interesting scenario. Value for your energy is going up, purchase costs are increasing and the amount of useful globals is decreasing in new booster sets over time. This is kind of brilliant depending on how you view older cards. You can either: Spend less energy for (in most cases) cheaper, faster options with globals available to both players, or you can spend more energy for (in most cases) powerful effects with higher stats that do not give any value to your opponent through globals. The only problem with this way of looking at it is that Tsarina, Gobby and Green Goliath are still extremely powerful. We just have counters now, such as Captain America for burn effects, and characters like groot and jocasta for anti-Green Goliath.

  5. #5
    I'm a fan of globals, but I also like the newer character abilities that "you can use anytime you could use a global ability." It's only mine, I don't have to give my opponent anything to work with like I do with a global.

  6. #6
    I remember people saying that the game was a little global heavy back in UXM and the start of D&D. The idea that you needed to use some of these globals was a major gripe with people. This is wizkids evening the field. I also think that it is a change to force new teams and end conditions. If you watched the nationals last year you saw a lot of global reliance, I think Wizkids is trying to remove that. I also personally think and this is just me, but they may be trying to even out power of AVX. They are working to change the feel of the game and to almost force you to get into the newer sets. They have all but admitted that this is the plan of WOL, that the cards in that set and the color combos for lanterns will be so strong not taken them over AVX will be hard.

  7. #7
    I'm not sure that I miss globals as much as I wish they'd make more interesting globals. Something about AvX is that it felt pretty fresh when I first played it, and I don't think they've hit that same freshness since.

  8. #8
    I am okay without globals. In AVX and UXM it got challenging to even keep track of all the globals at times.

    The downside with less globals, for me anyway, is that I sometimes find it hard to make a team where I truly need all 8 character spots. With alot of globals, you could always through in a few guys just for the global they had and the odd chance that you may need it for defense or to control sonething unexpected. Playing constructed in set for JUL and AOU...I have found that sometimes I'm just throwing in a few characters I don't really intend on using, just to round out my team.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Vapedaveb View Post
    They have all but admitted that this is the plan of WOL, that the cards in that set and the color combos for lanterns will be so strong not taken them over AVX will be hard.
    Can you cite a source for that?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    Can you cite a source for that?
    You know what Scorp, I think I am wrong, I miss read the end of this article

    http://www.gametrademagazine.com/Hom...ticleID=163846

    As I went to look for the quote I realized they where more talking about the set in and of itself.

    I am sure you have read this article, The part about Kyle Rayner I miss read as being about the set versus other sets.
    I admit when I have made a mistake.

    But I personally stand by the idea that they are trying to move people away from dependence on AVX. But that is my personal opinion.

  11. #11
    No worries. We all make mistakes and misremember stuff.

    Anyway, I do agree that they are slowly rebalancing the game away from the AvX power cards.

  12. #12
    I'm in the middle. I feel like AvX and UXM had too many globals. If there were a lot mor generic globals like add 1 attack or subtract 1 attack that might be neat but too many is too many. I think when we did a AOU draft I was surprised at how few globals there were but it was easy to track them. The big difference for me is there are way less globals on basic actions. I think if anywhere this is where to sneak them back in, and on strong characters to balance them (obviously)

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by KennedyHawk View Post
    I'm in the middle. I feel like AvX and UXM had too many globals. If there were a lot mor generic globals like add 1 attack or subtract 1 attack that might be neat but too many is too many. I think when we did a AOU draft I was surprised at how few globals there were but it was easy to track them. The big difference for me is there are way less globals on basic actions. I think if anywhere this is where to sneak them back in, and on strong characters to balance them (obviously)
    I am in the middle as well. I have only played a single draft game with Age of Ultron, but when we started my wife asked what the globals were, and it turned out we had none! On the other hand, I remember back when just AvX and UXM were out one person brought a team that was just Tsarina plus Gobby. Their other six slots were just full of cards with one die that he brought along for various globals. I think I like a balance somewhere between those two extremes.

  14. #14
    2015 Canadian and 2016 US National Champion
    360

    Location
    Akron, OH
    Blog Entries
    2
    I love that choices in unlimited are becoming more difficult and varied.

  15. #15
    I think WoL is going to bring a whole new perspective to Globals with the cards that are affected by dice in your reserve pool. I believe it was one of the Teen Titan cards that they revealed that gets +1 attack or something if you have a fist in your reserve pool. Now a player holding onto a die will have even more significance. Is it for the global...is it for the character buff...and...do you use it for a global to negate the character buff. I love the direction WizKids is going with their sets...I just wish there weren't 3 new sets coming out within 5 months of each other.

  16. #16
    I play almost no globals. It's a habit I formed back in the old school Star Wars CCG days. Starve your opponent of options. It sounds like it wouldn't be that helpful, but it has drove so many of my opponents crazy I assume it is working. People can't seem to handle playing someone that does not field any globals. One guy said he has 2 guys on his field for no reason other than the globals. You'd be surprised how it effects your opponent.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Critenstein View Post
    I play almost no globals. It's a habit I formed back in the old school Star Wars CCG days. Starve your opponent of options. It sounds like it wouldn't be that helpful, but it has drove so many of my opponents crazy I assume it is working. People can't seem to handle playing someone that does not field any globals. One guy said he has 2 guys on his field for no reason other than the globals. You'd be surprised how it effects your opponent.
    I really like this. Build yourself a team that can function well without globals. If your opponent brings some, sure, use whatever works for you. But if you run up against someone who isn't playing, for example, Professor X, because they expect most of their opponents to have them, then you're in the better position for their not having it.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Critenstein View Post
    I play almost no globals. It's a habit I formed back in the old school Star Wars CCG days. Starve your opponent of options. It sounds like it wouldn't be that helpful, but it has drove so many of my opponents crazy I assume it is working. People can't seem to handle playing someone that does not field any globals. One guy said he has 2 guys on his field for no reason other than the globals. You'd be surprised how it effects your opponent.
    I never expect my opponent to have any globals. I only expect that I'll use mine better than my opponent can.

    I'm also careful that I don't supply "the answer" to my team in one of my own globals. From my experience, a lot of people don't follow that themselves, and I have often used one of their own globals to a much better benefit than they got.

    See, to me, I see removing globals as a way of "dumbing down" the game. The way globals are, they are completely symmetrical. This is what I like about them. If you want to use it, you also have to let your opponent. It gives a way to add powerful abilities to the game, but still keep it balanced. That's choice. That's design. That's awesome.

  19. #19
    I love globals, I also love handing my opponent the ability to use them, and then make him regret it. However I have lost sometimes to a global I brought. Globals are gambles, but AOU in Unlimited screams for globals BEWD, Thousand Dragon, PXG, Distraction, Relentless, Ice Man: TCFW where all good before, but now Nasty Boy's global is going to be handy, weather witch is going to get more play, (hulk out that Giant man Oh I don't think so)For those who love globals this set brings a lot of new combos with some of their favorite globals, However is now adds more options to those who hated globals, like Loki. I think in Unlimited this set really shines for every type of player.

  20. #20
    I wish they would incorporate more globals that are there to make you question whether you should bring the character you're bringing. They seemed to have a few with that intention in AvX: Magneto makes your villains beefier but his own global risks you losing your villains. Venom helps your fist characters but his own global can be used against you to remove his fist buff. They seemed to get away from that almost immediately with UXM and I'd like to see some more risk/reward ability/global pairings.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by alleyviper View Post
    I wish they would incorporate more globals that are there to make you question whether you should bring the character you're bringing. They seemed to have a few with that intention in AvX: Magneto makes your villains beefier but his own global risks you losing your villains. Venom helps your fist characters but his own global can be used against you to remove his fist buff. They seemed to get away from that almost immediately with UXM and I'd like to see some more risk/reward ability/global pairings.
    Agreed with this.

    The one Kitty Pryde fits this too. She is unblockable the turn she is fielded, but brings the "pay a life to attack" global with her.

    Man, those were the days.

  22. #22
    2015 Canadian and 2016 US National Champion
    360

    Location
    Akron, OH
    Blog Entries
    2
    I agree that those are excellent for the game. The uncommon Gamora has a global that is along those lines (in my opinion).

  23. #23
    The Wasp globals have a teeny bit of that flavor, too, but I'd really like to see something more fully fleshed out.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by crambaza View Post
    See, to me, I see removing globals as a way of "dumbing down" the game. The way globals are, they are completely symmetrical. This is what I like about them. If you want to use it, you also have to let your opponent. It gives a way to add powerful abilities to the game, but still keep it balanced. That's choice. That's design. That's awesome.
    I could not possibly agree with this more.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by crambaza View Post
    I never expect my opponent to have any globals. I only expect that I'll use mine better than my opponent can.

    I'm also careful that I don't supply "the answer" to my team in one of my own globals. From my experience, a lot of people don't follow that themselves, and I have often used one of their own globals to a much better benefit than they got.

    See, to me, I see removing globals as a way of "dumbing down" the game. The way globals are, they are completely symmetrical. This is what I like about them. If you want to use it, you also have to let your opponent. It gives a way to add powerful abilities to the game, but still keep it balanced. That's choice. That's design. That's awesome.
    I don't dislike them. I just like to choose not to use them. I have not seen any I think are overpowering or game changing. All in all, a good way to spend extra dice. Removing them from the game would take away from the fun I have of not playing them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •