Does anyone still play this TCG at all? Panini is still going

>>52497020
Score-Z was huge in its time but Pan-Z was more of a cult hit by comparison. Score-Z was better at feeling like a straight knock down, drag out DBZ fight but Pan-Z was a better tactical and strategic game, sometimes at its own peril.

>>52498205

Yeah, I agree entirely. This is the 4th time this game has been cancelled and the sad thing is, is that Panini was the best damn one. It had the CLEANEST mechanics and the best tier decks of THEM ALL. You could EASILY play with a Tier 2 deck and top cut a Tier 1 no problem in Panini's game. Forget about that though in Score-Z because I clearly remember that if you had a Tier 2 in Score-Z it was nearly impossible to ever beat a Tier 1 deck.

So Panini really balanced out a lot of the mechanics and the flow of the game which made it the best rendition of them all. Score had some pretty horrendously styled cards and hilariously bad phrased ones to the point where you couldn't even comprehend some of the shit. I give Panini kudos for taking all of Score's errors and redefining them to fit the game better.

When did you stop playing anon?

>>52498205
>>52498748
I used to play the Score version and rather liked it, and I almost got into the Panini version but got put off by the booster pack distribution model.

How do the two compare? Is the Panini one potentially worth picking up (expecially since I'd probably just be playing casually with friends)?

>>52498748
I stopped around the time of Perfection. Just didn't have the time to play.

>>52499097
I originally played ScoreZ up until Cell Games then played PanZ about a month after it released. As noted earlier it is a much more refined game with deeper strategic and tactical possibilities than ScoreZ had up to when I played it. However, PanZ sometimes had a weird tendency to make rulings that crippled certain MPs, Masteries, etc while strengthening others that were already strong.

>>52499097

What specifically put you off about the distribution model anon?

MOST DEFINETALLY pick up the Panini game if you can. You can get a booster box from almost any set still and its real easy to pick up if you haven't played it in awhile. But if you can try to pick up some Score stuff too. That shit gets more and more difficult to find every year.

>>52503394
Probably Ultra Rare distro. I personally don't see the need for cards to be 1 every 6 cases especially when you want/need 3 of them for a deck.

>>52497020

I've never played and there are so many failed versions now that I wouldn't even know which to go with if I wanted to. How do the different games/iterations compare?

>>52503394
I just don't like luck affecting what cards I have access to, basically at all. Even when it comes to uncommons and sometimes commons I seem to find myself missing 1-2 of something every time, and that shit gets annoying. Plus I always get a ton of something I don't care about that's not valuable enough to be worth selling.

I'm also considering just proxying a bunch of stuff, since I won't be going to tournaments or anything.

>>52497020
>Panini is still going to be releasing virtual sets this year
I mean, that's objectively wrong, since it's most of the developers and fans doing all that, rather than actual Panini employees. Not only that, looking over the virtual cards they've created (VSet 8, Celestial Tournament), it's readily apparent they have NO fucking idea how to balance shit.

I mean, there's stuff that's pretty bad, even for common-level cards, and the good cards are REALLY FUCKING GOOD. "Welcome your glorious new overlords" level of good.

DESU, if I'm doing virtual sets for a dead card game, I'd rather do WWE Raw Deal.