This isn't a competitive game there is no reason you have to play him every villian can be beaten without him if you think he's op and you don't like him just leave him out
I don't think it is a problem because you can just choose not to include him. And when I only had the core box I was really glad Nick and Mockingbird were that strong.
I'm more of a thematic player, and Nick Fury definitely doesn't make it into 80% of my decks. Generously, maybe 20% Additionally, I don't think there has to be a balance issue between the ally and the hero. If anything, I'm curious to know how balanced S.H.I.E.L.D. supports/upgrades may be, since they might boost the Nick Fury ally and make him even more OP.
I believe we look at these type of cards the wrong way. With the game Elden Ring, known for being a incredibly hard game with no way to change the difficulty, there are ways in-game to make it easier for you by making your character stronger or exploit certain weaknesses. This is Fury. Him, Mariah Hill, Ironheart, they make games simpler. Just cuz you run them doesnt mean you will automatically beat Ronan but it gives you a little less to worry about.
In Mexico we have a saying “Hay que ser cochi, pero no tan trompudo” which roughly means for MC “it’s ok to use a strong gimmick, but just don’t abuse it”. For me, I only keep 1 copy of allies and only 1 player will be able to play said ally.
They could make scenarios that weaken allies and/or disincentivize allies. There's no problem with Nick Fury and it makes it so people have to buy the core box
You make a good point for sure. But for those of us with a much smaller collection its nice to have a major kickass card to lean on as we dont habe a lot of the other staples
As a Commander player coming from Magic, a strong staple is not really something that moves the needle. You can choose not to play it, I understand there is not much of a reason not to start with a 16 card deck. I will say, I hardly use him when I'm building a Protection deck, because there are other allies i often value more. Some Core Box cards being strong is a good thing in my opinion, as every player needs that base card pool. Last, I think Professor X is a more level design. We should aim for that for Basic Allies.
I build out all my decks for game night, so we pick a hero, pick a villain, and play. Allies are a limited resource in that economy. This makes the Protection aspect much more important. Even my Leadership decks only have 6 allies + a few Make The Calls. Trying to balance all the decks means no deck is stacked with all the best allies. We have to strategize carefully. I put Nick Fury in Gamora's deck, where she has a bunch of cheap aspect cards ==> drawing three is usually worth it.
Seems like my comment got deleted? Or some odd YT stuff. Anyway, I don't think he's a problem. If I open with him with no doubles and granted, I have no resource generators, I'd rather play other cards 95% of the time, whether I still need to build out, etc. I have to use my whole hand to play him and the 3 random cards I draw I might not even able to do anything with. Even if I use The Power in All of Us, I don't always use him. In a Web-Warrior build I'd rather just use those allies, those give me more than enough draw power. Even in ally-spam builds, with Cap for example, I'd rather just use all Avengers allies. He also messes up Uncanny X-Men just to name another example. I don't use him very often, maybe in around 10-12% of my decks. In general, he might be the strongest, just because he's a non-trait locked basic ally. But for example in a Web-Warrior deck the basic Peter Parker Spider-Man ally is stronger I believe. Goldballs is also crazy good. There has to be a best type of card in a cardgame anyway and he just happens to be the one. I don't know if he is the best or not, but if you believe that he is, the believe you. While I definitely think he's strong, I don't think he's "too" too strong. Now that you mentioned the hero Nick Fury, it's also interesting, never even thought about it. Having to be stronger than the ally I mean. It's going to be interesting to see how he's going to get balanced.
1. This is a cooperative game, so if something feels too strong/makes things too easy that is simply a matter of players at the table discussing what kind of play experience they want. I also play LOTR and Arkham, and this dynamic carries through into those as well. You already touched on Gandalf, and in Arkham a similarly powerful card is Cyclopean Hammer. It is objectively one of, if not THE strongest weapons in the game. To the point of trivializing some enemies. But simultaneously there have been some difficult games where it took those cards to pull us through. Some cards are just inherently going to be more powerful and that is okay. If that is perceived to diminish the fun by the table then we discuss it and agree to not use it. 2. The Core Box SHOULD include some of the most powerful cards. It is the one guaranteed purchase for most players and when tackling the wide range of scenarios/villains they need those to get W's with a more limited card pool. I would loathe a format where the core box is a taster, but if you want to have any chance of tackling the other villains you HAVE to purchase a myriad of expansions to even have a shot. If any single box should be stacked it should absolutely be the Core Box. I do agree that having those power house auto-includes can limit design space somewhat. However that is fundamentally a player choice. And the player may at any point choose to play something less optimized based on the experience they want in game. In fact, self imposed restrictions have led to some of my favorite decks ever. Especially when that leads to you discovering a combo/interaction that had been sitting there all along! If this were a competitive game many of your points would land harder with me. In that format the need to play the most optimized choices is much stronger. None of this is to invalidate your thoughts though. You bring up some valid observations, especially when it comes to game design. The designers absolutely do need to be wary of creating cards that warp the game around them. Thanks for the video and your contributions to the community!
I think two errata fixes would help. 1. Instead of Nick leaving to the discard pile after the round whenever he leaves the field he gets removed from the game. 2. Nick Fury no longer counts toward your deck size. So this addresses two points in the video. The first one balances him and gives the other allies a chance because you can only use him once. This also makes the player critically think whether they want to use him at the time they draw him or go through a deck pass to use him for a more critical time. The 2nd one helps with the auto include aspect of deck building because he won’t take up a spot so if you use him you still have to include 25 cards instead of 24 so it gives the players more opportunity to use cards they wouldn’t normally use. Great video.
As a lot of others stated in the comments here, I’ve never seen him as a problem because (a) I rarely include him in my decks and (b) don’t abuse him or the cards that’d make him OP. Maybe it’d be more of a problem with smaller card pool, where options are limited and you “have” to play him because decent allies are hard to come by. Basic aspect is usually what I go to last to fill out the last 3-6 cards in my deck anyway
Yeah, honestly I've not taken him much since GMW and haven't missed him on Expert. He was super important to have in the early days, but I think if people try decks without him they'll find he's not necessary to succeed
Something I forgot mentioning but when I was checking around MC and I saw Nick Fury literally my reaction was (isn't this Gandalf?) And things get even worse with recursion. IDK how bad it is in MC but in core lotr you could already use Gandalf 6 Times, 3 of them for 1 mana cost
I have no doubt that an expansion Fury will contain callbacks to ally Fury and, to use a well worn trope, he will be fine. The Fury expansion I expect to cause deck construction chaos outside of true solo. I’m all in for that. Adjusting after being taken out of your comfort zone is a key element of any recreation. Or we could all be wrong and the silhouette isn’t Fury at all. It’s Skaar, son of Hulk. Makes total sense
No, no it's not. The only bad thing about him being an ally is that the hero version will probably be nick fury Jr and I will be tempted to boycott that box.
I think they should design the game to be easier and then expert players like you can give themselves challenges such as no Nick Fury or no allies. Otherwise they're going to alienate casuals to cater to minority pro players.
Honestly, I think it's a weird situation where; yes, personally I think Nick Fury is a problematically strong card. However, there's nothing in the rules that dictates he needs to even be considered when you're constructing your deck. I feel like the major issue with how strong Nick Fury is comes into play when it's a discussion of what the the best or 'meta' decks are. And in that regard I can see him being an issue for all the reasons stated in this video. When he's so clearly a powerful card, it can make you feel like you are specifically making your deck worse by not including him. From when I started playing Champions; I've learned that I do not like playing ally centric strategies. Leaderhsip has never been fun to me because my fun with the game has always come from highlighting the hero card and making the hero the star. So I've always kept ally inclusions to a minimum since I started playing from the core box since, for me, they're rhe least interesting inclusions. I also care a lot more for the theme of the game and of character than I do for the effectiveness of playstyles. I'm a stickler on myself for having allies in a deck that are legitimately connected to the hero in some way (be it through storyline, traits, etc) so I only included Fury in decks with SHIELD/Avengers characters. That is the best part of this game; it's as fun as you want to make it. I do think there can be fun ways they can come up with to limit deck construction with this in mind. I know there is already a table ally limit, but I'd be interested in them coming up with an overall ally limit per deck (on an aspect basis as to not screw over Leadership even though it still likely wouldn't make it that much weaker.) Or even see a community limit challenge to allies based on the agreed effectiveness of allies and applying a ratio value to allies to not exceed a number of effectiveness in total.
He's good, but I think part of the fun and enjoyment is making thematic decks. As they have now guardians, x-men, etc and cards that benefit faction specific deck building, it gives incentives to not use. Also, players can just avoid usage if they don't like it.
Allies are incredibly strong for sure. I think Gene Pool has been the best way to minimize the best aspect of allies - chump blocking. However, I think you are overstating Nick Fury’s effect on the game. Granted early in the game, Nick was used quite a bit but not so much anymore. The card pool has expanded and tribal decks such as web warriors, x-men are much more impactful than Nick. A quick check of Marvel CDB shows Nick is only in around 33% of all the decks posted. Both Avengers Mansion and Helicarrier are used more. So stating he is in 80% of decks is a bit much. I know I very rarely use him anymore and I prefer Professor X for his confuse. I think the scenario you are playing is more restrictive on deck building than anything else. If you’re playing Ultron, are you bringing Nick or Squirrel Girl? For certain Villains, you have to deck build to the scenario or you have no chance.
Not a problem. For example, I don’t put Nick into any of my X-men decks. I guess if you play the game trying to make the most efficient/strongest deck every time, then this might be an issue? But I go for theme which is more fun for me. The biggest problem would be newer players or with a small card pool to choose from.
Honestly, I kinda like the idea of all villains having overkill to combat the ally strategy. If the designers were truly worried about ally power level, they could print a permanent Environment card that gives the villain overkill, like the environment printed in Standard 2 that starts you out with an acceleration icon.
I don’t see him as problematic. In most gameplay scenarios he isn’t going to be the deciding factor on whether you win or lose. In a game where Ronan and Venom Goblin exist it’s fine for powerful player cards to exist. I also agree with many others that balance is generally less important in a non-competitive game such as this. People can and will self-police. I’d also be very curious to see what Nick’s play rate even looks like. I have almost 100 custom decks on CDB and he’s only in 6 of them.
I am of a mind that "overpowered" cards arent a problem in cooperative games. Its there as an option that you can chose to take or leave. If this was a competitive tcg then that would completely change things.
I play Nick Fury, I draw 3. Nick Fury thwarts. I defend the villain attack with Nick Fury. I Rapid Response Nick Fury back into play. I draw 3. He discards at the end of the round. I play Make the Call to play Nick Fury from the discard pile. I draw 3. Nick Fury thwarts. I block the villain attack with Nick Fury. I bounce Nick Fury back to the hand with Regroup. I play Nick Fury. I draw 3. Nick Fury thwarts. I defend the villain attack with Nick Fury. Rapid Response brings Nick Fury back. I draw 3. I play Make the Call to play Nick Fury. I draw 3. I’m sorry I can.t hear the problem over all this winning.
It is bad because the game is balanced and twisted around him. It's as you said the same issue as with Gandalf and cards like steward of Gondor. They're so powerful they bend the game around them
Is the game really aimed at balancing around Nick Fury ally? If that were to be true, then that seems problematic. However, in case that's not the case: if someone feels 'burned out' on hainvg Nick Fury being an auto-include into their decks: What's stopping them from just not putting him in their deck? If you can step away from 'best in slot thinking' because playing optimally burns you out, consider playing cards you play less often. There is another channel that I watch that plays Arkham the cardgame a whole lot. That game also has 'auto-include' cards and they often mention that creating optimal decks burns then out. So they just decided to no longer aim for playing optimally. They sometime do special variants in how they can deckbuild: among the 3 players, draft the expansions available to them to limit the cardpool. Or the alphabet format, where only 1 copy that starts with each letter is allowed. Or an 'event only' run. Or building a janky denk around a particular set of cards to see what happens. They stopped optimizing for winning exclusively, and instead have started optimizing for having fun (which for them does including winning, but due to overcoming some challenge). If Nick supposedly is the strongest ally, I honest don't care for a co-op game as long as the game itself does not require the card to be in your deck in order to have fun.
you can just not include him and be fine. I have used Nick Fury in like 5% of the games I’ve played and I win all the time. He’s only an auto-include if you cannot restrain yourself from including him.
@@joeytrimboli2845 doesn't change the fact that he sets a ceiling for new cards, both player and enemy cards. I see it happen a lot in Yu-Gi-Oh due to the lack of rotation in the game. Everything has to creep up the power or else the set is a failure.
@@DrAlberts however, Yu-Gi-Oh is competitive game. Those styles of game breed an environment where the best float to the top en playing the best is required to compete. Marvel LCG scenarios do not automatically adjust the adversaries to continuously grow in power level.
To me, this is less about ally strength, and more about how solo play skews development away from multiplayer. GMW was terrible, even with house rules. We almost gave up on Marvel Champions because it felt like development was swinging toward Nth degree solo deck building, which we had no interest in doing.
My solution of "why not include Nick Fury in every deck" was solved by having all my heroes built at once. Not enough Nicks to go around = problem solved! : D
Yup that’s exactly what I do. Granted I have bought extra single cards online and nick fury is one of them I have bought extra copies of but still don’t have enough copies to use on every hero
My only problem with cards like these is people have no creativity and run them in all of their decks. The number of decks I've seen running Nick Fury, Ironheart, and Professor X is absurd.
@@TheVlad1616 I have never not discarded him as soon as my turn was over. I thought he drops in, gets me a couple of things and then bounces out. He is so much better now that he can take a hit for me in the same turn.
@@Moldyvort yes he is. There are 2 phases (player and villain) each round. That’s very important to know/remember as plenty of cards/abilities are based on “per phase” or “until the end of round/phase). Playing those wrong drastically swings the power in 1 direction.
No it’s not bad that he exists. This is only an issue if you are trying to min-max the deck construction side of the game. The game isn’t supposed to be played like this. If it’s a problem to you, just don’t include him. I try to be as thematic as possible when selecting Allies, and that makes the game more fun for me, and limits my pool when selecting the games’ strongest cards.
I have never mentally clicked with the idea that the existence of an optional card that is arguably “always better” to include harms or upsets the entire game in some way. If it were a competitive game maybe, but in a co-op game you can just not include him. I see people say things to the effect that they have no choice but to include him and therefore his existence is a limitation or hindrance on creativity. I say just…don’t include him if you don’t want? The game is still completely playable and winnable in all respects. It would only be an actual problem if it was too difficult if you don’t use him. Which is not the case. It would also be different if he had some preposterous ability like “deal 20 damage” when he enters play or something like that. But it’s not to that degree. He’s not a game breaker, he’s just really good. I don’t play MTG but I read an article about some card that was banned (the one JD Vance said was his favorite…🤮) and Nick Fury doesn’t seem to be on the level of something stupid like that card.
I was writing something that looked a lot like that when I saw your comment. People can't both complain that the game is stale and only look at it through a min-maxing lens. It might be stale, but only for people that decided they absolutely had to include theses cards deemed the best. If we go further than that, why would they play any other hero than Dr Strange if they are only looking for the best possible deck ? Such a huge game as Marvel Champion can't be balanced no matter what you do, so there absolutely will be better cards/heroes. I'm pretty sure in a coop game it doesn't bother the majority of players.
It’s not as bad as competitive but it’s still a problem because it skews conversations around the game. People will often discuss whether a scenario is too easy or too hard, it the win rate of certain heroes. I imagine that people who spam nick fury have wildly different experiences from those who don’t, leading to trouble in forming a consensus
@@awesomeanimal Regarding scenario difficulty, I personally use the amazing tool that Mark Crawford publishes on BGG. he uses the datas collected through more than 35'000 plays to rate everything (villain, encounter set, expert mode etc.) and rank every possible combination of scenario. It's probably not perfect, but it's also probably the closest we'll ever be of a real and useful difficulty ranking system.
How does Nick make the construction process smaller? You don't have to use him! But, you also can...You have a choice. How is choice limited by him? You're weird.
Obviously you can’t understand basic logic. So let me try to break this down for you. If the goal is to win. You need a good deck to win. In order to make a good deck. You need to use good cards. Good cards are generally ones like nick. Then you would put the best cards in every deck (ya know, to win). Hence putting in nick every time. So now. Instead of having a starting 15 you have a starting 16. Sure you can choose to make a weaker deck. And if you want to do that. That’s an argument you can make. But to purposely make your deck weaker is a weird choice to me. This is pretty basic logic so hopefully you can keep up with it.
@@D20Woodworking Obviously, all you're capable of is Ad Hominem attacks. F you, buddy. Subscriber lost. Be better next time. Nick is an option. I'm sorry if you can't win without him...
This isn't a competitive game there is no reason you have to play him every villian can be beaten without him if you think he's op and you don't like him just leave him out
I don't think it is a problem because you can just choose not to include him. And when I only had the core box I was really glad Nick and Mockingbird were that strong.
Not a problem to me because I still loose games with him 😂
I'm more of a thematic player, and Nick Fury definitely doesn't make it into 80% of my decks. Generously, maybe 20% Additionally, I don't think there has to be a balance issue between the ally and the hero. If anything, I'm curious to know how balanced S.H.I.E.L.D. supports/upgrades may be, since they might boost the Nick Fury ally and make him even more OP.
I believe we look at these type of cards the wrong way. With the game Elden Ring, known for being a incredibly hard game with no way to change the difficulty, there are ways in-game to make it easier for you by making your character stronger or exploit certain weaknesses. This is Fury. Him, Mariah Hill, Ironheart, they make games simpler. Just cuz you run them doesnt mean you will automatically beat Ronan but it gives you a little less to worry about.
In Mexico we have a saying “Hay que ser cochi, pero no tan trompudo” which roughly means for MC “it’s ok to use a strong gimmick, but just don’t abuse it”. For me, I only keep 1 copy of allies and only 1 player will be able to play said ally.
They could make scenarios that weaken allies and/or disincentivize allies. There's no problem with Nick Fury and it makes it so people have to buy the core box
You make a good point for sure.
But for those of us with a much smaller collection its nice to have a major kickass card to lean on as we dont habe a lot of the other staples
As a Commander player coming from Magic, a strong staple is not really something that moves the needle. You can choose not to play it, I understand there is not much of a reason not to start with a 16 card deck. I will say, I hardly use him when I'm building a Protection deck, because there are other allies i often value more.
Some Core Box cards being strong is a good thing in my opinion, as every player needs that base card pool.
Last, I think Professor X is a more level design. We should aim for that for Basic Allies.
Making Fury a hero in the new S.H.I.E.L.D box will cut down the Fury ally usage a tiny bit. Only one instance on the table and all.
Not if its nick fury Jr
I build out all my decks for game night, so we pick a hero, pick a villain, and play. Allies are a limited resource in that economy. This makes the Protection aspect much more important. Even my Leadership decks only have 6 allies + a few Make The Calls. Trying to balance all the decks means no deck is stacked with all the best allies. We have to strategize carefully. I put Nick Fury in Gamora's deck, where she has a bunch of cheap aspect cards ==> drawing three is usually worth it.
Seems like my comment got deleted? Or some odd YT stuff. Anyway, I don't think he's a problem. If I open with him with no doubles and granted, I have no resource generators, I'd rather play other cards 95% of the time, whether I still need to build out, etc. I have to use my whole hand to play him and the 3 random cards I draw I might not even able to do anything with. Even if I use The Power in All of Us, I don't always use him. In a Web-Warrior build I'd rather just use those allies, those give me more than enough draw power. Even in ally-spam builds, with Cap for example, I'd rather just use all Avengers allies. He also messes up Uncanny X-Men just to name another example. I don't use him very often, maybe in around 10-12% of my decks.
In general, he might be the strongest, just because he's a non-trait locked basic ally. But for example in a Web-Warrior deck the basic Peter Parker Spider-Man ally is stronger I believe. Goldballs is also crazy good. There has to be a best type of card in a cardgame anyway and he just happens to be the one. I don't know if he is the best or not, but if you believe that he is, the believe you. While I definitely think he's strong, I don't think he's "too" too strong.
Now that you mentioned the hero Nick Fury, it's also interesting, never even thought about it. Having to be stronger than the ally I mean. It's going to be interesting to see how he's going to get balanced.
1. This is a cooperative game, so if something feels too strong/makes things too easy that is simply a matter of players at the table discussing what kind of play experience they want. I also play LOTR and Arkham, and this dynamic carries through into those as well. You already touched on Gandalf, and in Arkham a similarly powerful card is Cyclopean Hammer. It is objectively one of, if not THE strongest weapons in the game. To the point of trivializing some enemies. But simultaneously there have been some difficult games where it took those cards to pull us through. Some cards are just inherently going to be more powerful and that is okay. If that is perceived to diminish the fun by the table then we discuss it and agree to not use it.
2. The Core Box SHOULD include some of the most powerful cards. It is the one guaranteed purchase for most players and when tackling the wide range of scenarios/villains they need those to get W's with a more limited card pool. I would loathe a format where the core box is a taster, but if you want to have any chance of tackling the other villains you HAVE to purchase a myriad of expansions to even have a shot. If any single box should be stacked it should absolutely be the Core Box.
I do agree that having those power house auto-includes can limit design space somewhat. However that is fundamentally a player choice. And the player may at any point choose to play something less optimized based on the experience they want in game. In fact, self imposed restrictions have led to some of my favorite decks ever. Especially when that leads to you discovering a combo/interaction that had been sitting there all along!
If this were a competitive game many of your points would land harder with me. In that format the need to play the most optimized choices is much stronger. None of this is to invalidate your thoughts though. You bring up some valid observations, especially when it comes to game design. The designers absolutely do need to be wary of creating cards that warp the game around them.
Thanks for the video and your contributions to the community!
I think two errata fixes would help. 1. Instead of Nick leaving to the discard pile after the round whenever he leaves the field he gets removed from the game. 2. Nick Fury no longer counts toward your deck size. So this addresses two points in the video. The first one balances him and gives the other allies a chance because you can only use him once. This also makes the player critically think whether they want to use him at the time they draw him or go through a deck pass to use him for a more critical time. The 2nd one helps with the auto include aspect of deck building because he won’t take up a spot so if you use him you still have to include 25 cards instead of 24 so it gives the players more opportunity to use cards they wouldn’t normally use. Great video.
As a lot of others stated in the comments here, I’ve never seen him as a problem because (a) I rarely include him in my decks and (b) don’t abuse him or the cards that’d make him OP.
Maybe it’d be more of a problem with smaller card pool, where options are limited and you “have” to play him because decent allies are hard to come by. Basic aspect is usually what I go to last to fill out the last 3-6 cards in my deck anyway
Yeah, honestly I've not taken him much since GMW and haven't missed him on Expert. He was super important to have in the early days, but I think if people try decks without him they'll find he's not necessary to succeed
One option for. Nick power could be .on alter ego side , once per turn each player draws a card..... Call shield s logistics or something like that.
Something I forgot mentioning but when I was checking around MC and I saw Nick Fury literally my reaction was (isn't this Gandalf?)
And things get even worse with recursion. IDK how bad it is in MC but in core lotr you could already use Gandalf 6 Times, 3 of them for 1 mana cost
I have no doubt that an expansion Fury will contain callbacks to ally Fury and, to use a well worn trope, he will be fine.
The Fury expansion I expect to cause deck construction chaos outside of true solo. I’m all in for that. Adjusting after being taken out of your comfort zone is a key element of any recreation.
Or we could all be wrong and the silhouette isn’t Fury at all. It’s Skaar, son of Hulk.
Makes total sense
No, no it's not. The only bad thing about him being an ally is that the hero version will probably be nick fury Jr and I will be tempted to boycott that box.
I think they should design the game to be easier and then expert players like you can give themselves challenges such as no Nick Fury or no allies. Otherwise they're going to alienate casuals to cater to minority pro players.
Tbh in my experience the game is leveling out around “easier than before” all things considered, and it’s good because of the reasons you stated
I am hoping Nick Fury's reveal is he can have any SHIELD support aspect cards in his deck, that's my prediction.
Honestly, I think it's a weird situation where; yes, personally I think Nick Fury is a problematically strong card. However, there's nothing in the rules that dictates he needs to even be considered when you're constructing your deck.
I feel like the major issue with how strong Nick Fury is comes into play when it's a discussion of what the the best or 'meta' decks are. And in that regard I can see him being an issue for all the reasons stated in this video. When he's so clearly a powerful card, it can make you feel like you are specifically making your deck worse by not including him.
From when I started playing Champions; I've learned that I do not like playing ally centric strategies. Leaderhsip has never been fun to me because my fun with the game has always come from highlighting the hero card and making the hero the star. So I've always kept ally inclusions to a minimum since I started playing from the core box since, for me, they're rhe least interesting inclusions.
I also care a lot more for the theme of the game and of character than I do for the effectiveness of playstyles. I'm a stickler on myself for having allies in a deck that are legitimately connected to the hero in some way (be it through storyline, traits, etc) so I only included Fury in decks with SHIELD/Avengers characters.
That is the best part of this game; it's as fun as you want to make it. I do think there can be fun ways they can come up with to limit deck construction with this in mind. I know there is already a table ally limit, but I'd be interested in them coming up with an overall ally limit per deck (on an aspect basis as to not screw over Leadership even though it still likely wouldn't make it that much weaker.) Or even see a community limit challenge to allies based on the agreed effectiveness of allies and applying a ratio value to allies to not exceed a number of effectiveness in total.
He's good, but I think part of the fun and enjoyment is making thematic decks. As they have now guardians, x-men, etc and cards that benefit faction specific deck building, it gives incentives to not use. Also, players can just avoid usage if they don't like it.
Agree, I don’t use allies willy nilly in decks that don’t have anything to do with the characters I play, a little OCD, but it works for me.
Allies are incredibly strong for sure. I think Gene Pool has been the best way to minimize the best aspect of allies - chump blocking. However, I think you are overstating Nick Fury’s effect on the game. Granted early in the game, Nick was used quite a bit but not so much anymore. The card pool has expanded and tribal decks such as web warriors, x-men are much more impactful than Nick.
A quick check of Marvel CDB shows Nick is only in around 33% of all the decks posted. Both Avengers Mansion and Helicarrier are used more. So stating he is in 80% of decks is a bit much. I know I very rarely use him anymore and I prefer Professor X for his confuse.
I think the scenario you are playing is more restrictive on deck building than anything else. If you’re playing Ultron, are you bringing Nick or Squirrel Girl? For certain Villains, you have to deck build to the scenario or you have no chance.
It's fine. You can choose to use him or not based on personal decisions.
I'm expecting the Nick Fury ability on alter-ego side to allow the Nick Fury ally card to be played - like override the hero/ally conflict
Not a problem. For example, I don’t put Nick into any of my X-men decks.
I guess if you play the game trying to make the most efficient/strongest deck every time, then this might be an issue? But I go for theme which is more fun for me.
The biggest problem would be newer players or with a small card pool to choose from.
Honestly, I kinda like the idea of all villains having overkill to combat the ally strategy. If the designers were truly worried about ally power level, they could print a permanent Environment card that gives the villain overkill, like the environment printed in Standard 2 that starts you out with an acceleration icon.
They sort of did this already with the Flight modular set which includes a permanent setup attachment that grants overkill.
@@chainsawash nice, NeXt Evo is the only set I don't have so I wasn't aware this existed.
I don’t see him as problematic. In most gameplay scenarios he isn’t going to be the deciding factor on whether you win or lose. In a game where Ronan and Venom Goblin exist it’s fine for powerful player cards to exist. I also agree with many others that balance is generally less important in a non-competitive game such as this. People can and will self-police. I’d also be very curious to see what Nick’s play rate even looks like. I have almost 100 custom decks on CDB and he’s only in 6 of them.
Is it bad? No. There you go.
Ok honestly i liked this vid a lot. Well done
😂 😂
In Arkham at least ffg won’t balance the game around a single card. They’ll balance the card in a taboo list
I am of a mind that "overpowered" cards arent a problem in cooperative games. Its there as an option that you can chose to take or leave. If this was a competitive tcg then that would completely change things.
I play Nick Fury, I draw 3. Nick Fury thwarts. I defend the villain attack with Nick Fury. I Rapid Response Nick Fury back into play. I draw 3. He discards at the end of the round. I play Make the Call to play Nick Fury from the discard pile. I draw 3. Nick Fury thwarts. I block the villain attack with Nick Fury. I bounce Nick Fury back to the hand with Regroup. I play Nick Fury. I draw 3. Nick Fury thwarts. I defend the villain attack with Nick Fury. Rapid Response brings Nick Fury back. I draw 3. I play Make the Call to play Nick Fury. I draw 3.
I’m sorry I can.t hear the problem over all this winning.
😂 😂
It is bad because the game is balanced and twisted around him. It's as you said the same issue as with Gandalf and cards like steward of Gondor. They're so powerful they bend the game around them
Is the game really aimed at balancing around Nick Fury ally?
If that were to be true, then that seems problematic.
However, in case that's not the case: if someone feels 'burned out' on hainvg Nick Fury being an auto-include into their decks: What's stopping them from just not putting him in their deck? If you can step away from 'best in slot thinking' because playing optimally burns you out, consider playing cards you play less often. There is another channel that I watch that plays Arkham the cardgame a whole lot. That game also has 'auto-include' cards and they often mention that creating optimal decks burns then out. So they just decided to no longer aim for playing optimally. They sometime do special variants in how they can deckbuild: among the 3 players, draft the expansions available to them to limit the cardpool. Or the alphabet format, where only 1 copy that starts with each letter is allowed. Or an 'event only' run. Or building a janky denk around a particular set of cards to see what happens.
They stopped optimizing for winning exclusively, and instead have started optimizing for having fun (which for them does including winning, but due to overcoming some challenge).
If Nick supposedly is the strongest ally, I honest don't care for a co-op game as long as the game itself does not require the card to be in your deck in order to have fun.
Well the next expansion might have Fury as a hero so no more basics lol
you can just not include him and be fine. I have used Nick Fury in like 5% of the games I’ve played and I win all the time. He’s only an auto-include if you cannot restrain yourself from including him.
@@joeytrimboli2845 doesn't change the fact that he sets a ceiling for new cards, both player and enemy cards. I see it happen a lot in Yu-Gi-Oh due to the lack of rotation in the game. Everything has to creep up the power or else the set is a failure.
@@DrAlberts however, Yu-Gi-Oh is competitive game. Those styles of game breed an environment where the best float to the top en playing the best is required to compete.
Marvel LCG scenarios do not automatically adjust the adversaries to continuously grow in power level.
i stopped watching ppl play leadership resummoning nick and moon girl videos . the most boring shit ever doesnt matter even which hero it is
@daringlime pls read this. your decks i saw are always like this
To me, this is less about ally strength, and more about how solo play skews development away from multiplayer. GMW was terrible, even with house rules. We almost gave up on Marvel Champions because it felt like development was swinging toward Nth degree solo deck building, which we had no interest in doing.
Imho there is enough incentive to not put him in every deck.
But sure, I agree, he is really strong and I still include him in a lot of decks.
My solution of "why not include Nick Fury in every deck" was solved by having all my heroes built at once. Not enough Nicks to go around = problem solved! : D
Yup that’s exactly what I do. Granted I have bought extra single cards online and nick fury is one of them I have bought extra copies of but still don’t have enough copies to use on every hero
He's fine. Yeah I find myself putting him in 30-40% of my decks but he's totally fine
My only problem with cards like these is people have no creativity and run them in all of their decks. The number of decks I've seen running Nick Fury, Ironheart, and Professor X is absurd.
I've been discarding nick at the end of the player round....he seemed mostly useless for his cost and I only play him if I have no other options.
YOU MEAN NICK FURY STAYS IN PLAY UNTIL THE VILLAIN PHASE IS OVER??
I hope this was sarcasm, and you weren’t discarding him at the end of your phase.
@@TheVlad1616 I have never not discarded him as soon as my turn was over. I thought he drops in, gets me a couple of things and then bounces out. He is so much better now that he can take a hit for me in the same turn.
@@Moldyvort yes he is. There are 2 phases (player and villain) each round. That’s very important to know/remember as plenty of cards/abilities are based on “per phase” or “until the end of round/phase). Playing those wrong drastically swings the power in 1 direction.
No it’s not bad that he exists. This is only an issue if you are trying to min-max the deck construction side of the game. The game isn’t supposed to be played like this.
If it’s a problem to you, just don’t include him. I try to be as thematic as possible when selecting Allies, and that makes the game more fun for me, and limits my pool when selecting the games’ strongest cards.
I have never mentally clicked with the idea that the existence of an optional card that is arguably “always better” to include harms or upsets the entire game in some way. If it were a competitive game maybe, but in a co-op game you can just not include him. I see people say things to the effect that they have no choice but to include him and therefore his existence is a limitation or hindrance on creativity. I say just…don’t include him if you don’t want? The game is still completely playable and winnable in all respects. It would only be an actual problem if it was too difficult if you don’t use him. Which is not the case.
It would also be different if he had some preposterous ability like “deal 20 damage” when he enters play or something like that. But it’s not to that degree. He’s not a game breaker, he’s just really good. I don’t play MTG but I read an article about some card that was banned (the one JD Vance said was his favorite…🤮) and Nick Fury doesn’t seem to be on the level of something stupid like that card.
I was writing something that looked a lot like that when I saw your comment. People can't both complain that the game is stale and only look at it through a min-maxing lens. It might be stale, but only for people that decided they absolutely had to include theses cards deemed the best. If we go further than that, why would they play any other hero than Dr Strange if they are only looking for the best possible deck ? Such a huge game as Marvel Champion can't be balanced no matter what you do, so there absolutely will be better cards/heroes. I'm pretty sure in a coop game it doesn't bother the majority of players.
It’s not as bad as competitive but it’s still a problem because it skews conversations around the game. People will often discuss whether a scenario is too easy or too hard, it the win rate of certain heroes. I imagine that people who spam nick fury have wildly different experiences from those who don’t, leading to trouble in forming a consensus
@@awesomeanimal Regarding scenario difficulty, I personally use the amazing tool that Mark Crawford publishes on BGG. he uses the datas collected through more than 35'000 plays to rate everything (villain, encounter set, expert mode etc.) and rank every possible combination of scenario. It's probably not perfect, but it's also probably the closest we'll ever be of a real and useful difficulty ranking system.
There is no "Nick Fury Problem." Give me a break. He's ONE card.
How does Nick make the construction process smaller? You don't have to use him! But, you also can...You have a choice. How is choice limited by him? You're weird.
Obviously you can’t understand basic logic. So let me try to break this down for you. If the goal is to win. You need a good deck to win. In order to make a good deck. You need to use good cards. Good cards are generally ones like nick. Then you would put the best cards in every deck (ya know, to win). Hence putting in nick every time. So now. Instead of having a starting 15 you have a starting 16. Sure you can choose to make a weaker deck. And if you want to do that. That’s an argument you can make. But to purposely make your deck weaker is a weird choice to me. This is pretty basic logic so hopefully you can keep up with it.
@@D20Woodworking Obviously, all you're capable of is Ad Hominem attacks. F you, buddy. Subscriber lost. Be better next time.
Nick is an option. I'm sorry if you can't win without him...