The decks are the same ones as the original core set. There was only one of every card except for the neutral cards. I was hoping they would have improved the suggested decks.
The designers did make a couple subtle changes to the decks. They changed the basic weaknesses. Roland, for example, has the Silver Twilight Acolyte, an enemy he can use to trigger his ability. That's a lot better than his old weakness, which I believe was Paranoi. Personally, I wish the designers had been willing to take a few more risks with the Revised Core. I know there are a lot of players who would be very unhappy at the prospect of re-purchasing a product they already own, but there are quite a few cards that could have been cut in favour of better cards. The Mystic cards, in particular could have really used in upgrade. But we'll likely talk about that when we sit down to review the player cards in the Revised Core.
@@TheWhispererinDarkness I see where you're coming from but commercially speaking if the core set cards are too good it's less incentive to improve your options by buying more stuff. I think it's probably better to try and see 'bad' cards as 'niche' cards that may work in some build for some character somewhere, even though realistically, yes, there are a bunch of cards no-one anywhere wants to use ever unless thay have to (Switchblade)... but then that is exactly where those cards have their place: in the core deck waiting to be improved. If the characters are super effective right out of the gate what scope is there for deck-building? It's good design IMO to MAKE the players find what works, not give them a cheat sheet (or worse, a cheat code with super powered cards) right away.
New owner of the revised core set here. What do you think about playing through with the starter decks compared to something like the 'Structure' decks from Arkhamdb? Singles of most cards seems much more variable than a deck with doubles of fewer cards, although I'll get exposure to a wider selection of total cards.
The Starter deck are there for players who just want to open the box and play without having to worry about deckbuilding. Obviously, you've done some research on arkhamdb, which is great. I'd recommend that you jump right to the structure decks. While you'll miss out on playing a greater variety of cards, truth be told many of those cards don't belong in those decks. Consistency is king, and I think you'll have a better experience with the structure decks.
The Structure deck series has the caveat, that you can't combine them in any permutation, even with the revised core set. For example, you would need 4 copies of Working a Hunch and 4 copies of Deduction to play Roland aside Daisy. There is a new series by Killbray, called "Better Starter Decks" to address this issue.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I really like her new art.
Great video thank you
I think it would be helpful to put out good deck lists for single revised core deck builders.
The decks are the same ones as the original core set. There was only one of every card except for the neutral cards. I was hoping they would have improved the suggested decks.
The designers did make a couple subtle changes to the decks. They changed the basic weaknesses. Roland, for example, has the Silver Twilight Acolyte, an enemy he can use to trigger his ability. That's a lot better than his old weakness, which I believe was Paranoi. Personally, I wish the designers had been willing to take a few more risks with the Revised Core. I know there are a lot of players who would be very unhappy at the prospect of re-purchasing a product they already own, but there are quite a few cards that could have been cut in favour of better cards. The Mystic cards, in particular could have really used in upgrade. But we'll likely talk about that when we sit down to review the player cards in the Revised Core.
@@TheWhispererinDarkness I see where you're coming from but commercially speaking if the core set cards are too good it's less incentive to improve your options by buying more stuff. I think it's probably better to try and see 'bad' cards as 'niche' cards that may work in some build for some character somewhere, even though realistically, yes, there are a bunch of cards no-one anywhere wants to use ever unless thay have to (Switchblade)... but then that is exactly where those cards have their place: in the core deck waiting to be improved. If the characters are super effective right out of the gate what scope is there for deck-building? It's good design IMO to MAKE the players find what works, not give them a cheat sheet (or worse, a cheat code with super powered cards) right away.
New owner of the revised core set here. What do you think about playing through with the starter decks compared to something like the 'Structure' decks from Arkhamdb? Singles of most cards seems much more variable than a deck with doubles of fewer cards, although I'll get exposure to a wider selection of total cards.
The Starter deck are there for players who just want to open the box and play without having to worry about deckbuilding. Obviously, you've done some research on arkhamdb, which is great. I'd recommend that you jump right to the structure decks. While you'll miss out on playing a greater variety of cards, truth be told many of those cards don't belong in those decks. Consistency is king, and I think you'll have a better experience with the structure decks.
The Structure deck series has the caveat, that you can't combine them in any permutation, even with the revised core set. For example, you would need 4 copies of Working a Hunch and 4 copies of Deduction to play Roland aside Daisy. There is a new series by Killbray, called "Better Starter Decks" to address this issue.