Jump to content



Photo

Mining Tunnels and Wilhelm of the Osterknacht: Outdated restrictions?


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 rzarectz

rzarectz

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 03:39 PM

Is anyone else of the opinion that these two restrictions in particular seem a little outdated in the current game environment?  Mining Tunnels was restricted during the Morrslieb Cycle when I think there was a little bit of fear that development based mechanics were going to be too overpowered. These expectations didn't really materialize in my opinion (does anyone ever use Light of Morrslieb, or the Wood Elves in general?), and the Dwarves never really became that competitive from any new dev based mechanic that became available to them..  Further since that time I think Dwarves have definitely become one of the weaker factions in the game (which is fine, they did have their time), but I think this only further warrants Mining Tunnels removal from the restricted list.

Looking at low loyalty, 2 cost, early game supports of the other races, I don't think Mining Tunnels is that much more powerful than those for some of the other races.  I think a lot of competitive players would agree that Slave Pen, One Orc's Scrap, Church of Sigmar, etc. are just as powerful. So really is there any reason why this card should prevent Dwarf players from also adding Reclaiming the Fallen or Warpstone to their decks? Since most players choose to add either of these to their Dwarf deck it speaks to which ones are actually overpowered..  Seems like the freedom to add one of these in addition to the tunnels might rekindle the Dwarf prowess.

Wilhelm on the other hand was restricted when Verena decks were in full force.  The restriction didn't have much of an effect though because he tends to get in the way of Friedrich Hemmler, so players just tossed him in as a much utilized finisher instead.  It wasn't till the restriction of Will of the Electors that Verena was put under control (if not crippled).  I think the fact that Hemmler is such a great substitute for Wilhelm really takes away from the purpose of restricting him in the first place.  If Wilhelm was removed from restriction I don't think we would see a triumphant return of Verena decks given the powerful cards that a lot of factions have been given recently (which is great IMO). Wilhelm is also such a core classic Empire unit that it really takes away from the feel of the race to have him restricted, he's pretty much the keystone card of the original theme of Empire in this game.  

Regardless of the more specific arguments as to why these particular cards should be unrestricted, I think just looking at the current game as a whole, Dwarves and Empire are arguably the weakest races at the moment. So even if players embrace these cards as they did in the past it might not be such a bad thing, given what they're up against.  



#2 Ellyrik

Ellyrik

    Member

  • Members
  • 143 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 07:21 PM

 I agree from for Wilhelm (and Soul stealer if you ask) but I disagree for Mining Tunnels.

Mining is still efficient and has a good synergy with Innovation or Reclaiming the fallen (regarding dev sacrifices). I think the dwarves are less competitive nowadays because they rather lack of control.



#3 cyberfunk

cyberfunk

    Member

  • Members
  • 291 posts

Posted 17 October 2012 - 01:58 AM

Yeah, no reason to bring back Tunnels. Dwarves should definitely have to pick between that and Reclaiming. And it super-splashable and works with basically any Empire plan. 

Wilhelm could probably stand to make a comeback, as VTHC is gone and he's never going to get picked in Verena ahead of Electors. 

Soul Stealer was always a bit of a head-scratcher to me. It can certainly be very strong in the early game for the first player, but it's not much ahead of stuff like Lobber Crew and Hounds. And it's pretty obviously never going to be better than Warpstones, so it's never going to get played. 

 



#4 Virgo

Virgo

    Member

  • Members
  • 707 posts

Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:04 AM

Ellyrik said:

 I agree from for Wilhelm (and Soul stealer if you ask) but I disagree for Mining Tunnels.

Mining is still efficient and has a good synergy with Innovation or Reclaiming the fallen (regarding dev sacrifices). I think the dwarves are less competitive nowadays because they rather lack of control.

+1

The only outdated restrictions restrictions for me are Wilhelm (Hemmler is a no-brainer) and Soul Stealer (shouldn't be on the list in the first place). Minning Tunnels were played in almost every order deck (just like Derricksburg Forge) and you really can't compare them to One Orc's Scrap  or Slave Pen, cards that have actual cost and are not stackable.



#5 Entropy42

Entropy42

    Member

  • Members
  • 650 posts

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:14 AM

My theory on Soul Stealer is that someone inside FFG lost a series of games to a Soul Stealer deck and just smashed it with the banhammer.  :-p 

The day that restricted list was announced everyone was like "Oh these make sense, but why Soul Stealer?  Oh well."  And that opinion has never changed.  The funny thing is that no one even really lobbies for it to be off the restricted list, because seemingly no one cared that it was even restricted.

I guess I can agree on Wilhelm, but really I just think Hemmler should be on the list.  That card has a cost to power ratio that is much better than any other 4-6 cost unit in the entire game.  It has never made sense to me.



#6 gr4ffi

gr4ffi

    Member

  • Members
  • 98 posts

Posted 17 October 2012 - 12:13 PM

 I agree on Wilhelm and Soul Stealer. But Mining Tunnels is a good card to be on the RL. See, RL could be used to finally get rid of Warpstone Excavation. The status with Empire and Dwarf, most of them choosing Mining Tunnels/Derricksburg Forge over Warpstones in order to boost economy, have loyalty and greater synergy within their decks could be made possible for all races. So basically every race should have such an important economy card on the RL to make the decision harder choosing Warpstones. Also don't forget tunnels with 1 loyalty are usable for the other order races too. For example: High Elves right now should not be able to use Warpstones and Mining tunnels in my eyes.

As for Wilhelm, i think getting him off the list might bring in some fresh air on empire decks. The "moving-stuff-scheme" could be having a revival. I agree on Hemmler, but Empire is rather weak right now, i would prefer to atm have him off the list as well although he is imba… Someone here also think it is strange that Verena itself is not on the list. There might be viable strategies with Will of the Electors, Hidden Grove etc. but without Verena. So switching these too would also made have sense to me in the first place. Maybe Rodrik should be off too, but i'm not sure about that.

Soul Stealer made no sense from the beginning on. I also think it wouldn't matter much to get it of RL, because everyone would still choose Warpstones over it. Dark Elves need it that much.



#7 Doc9

Doc9

    Member

  • Members
  • 454 posts

Posted 17 October 2012 - 01:11 PM

1. Soul Stealer makes no sense. It should not be on there. Warpstone Excavation is far too important in a DE deck.

2. Wilhelm needs to stay on the RL. Especially now with there being such a strong focus on questing, Wilhelm can too easily single handedly ruin anything you have going on in your quest zone. Then you would not only have to deal with him, but also with Rodrik's Raiders since they could both be in the same deck.

3. Mining Tunnels need to stay on the RL. Far too powerful and too easy to splash. Dwarves have an easy time sending developments to discard in order to fuel Reclaim. If they had the Tunnels as well as reclaim, it would be silly how fast they would be able to get units into the discard pile.

4. Verena needs to be switched out for Will of the Electors. Even swap.

 



#8 Teokrata

Teokrata

    Member

  • Members
  • 190 posts

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:48 PM

gr4ffi said:

 

 I agree on Wilhelm and Soul Stealer.

 

 

Unrestricted Soul Stealer and Wilhelm SUPPORTED!

Soul Stealer and Wilhelm are powerful cards, but for 4 resources, one is attachment-support other is unit. We have now many options in all races to deal with these cards. Wilhelm can lead Empire back to the tournaments. He is very strong card, but maybe Empire need him now. About Hemmler - with unrestricted Wilhelm You cannot have 2 heroes in battlefield ;-)

But other restrictions in my opinion should stay on the list, becouse they are cheap hard to stop and really, really powerful.



#9 Djibi

Djibi

    Member

  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 08:20 PM

Entropy42 said:

 

My theory on Soul Stealer is that someone inside FFG lost a series of games to a Soul Stealer deck and just smashed it with the banhammer.  :-p 

 

 

I like your theory very much, very funny

Unrestricted Soul Stealer and Wilhelm SUPPORTED!

 



#10 Skychapon

Skychapon

    Member

  • Members
  • 26 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:35 PM

Unrestricted Soul Stealer and Wilhelm SUPPORTED!

I think the restricted list need live and evolve with the game and maybe some restricted cards needed to be restricted at a certain time of the game but neither now.

 

I think about the unbanishment of Visit The Haunted City too… Maybe this card can just go into the restricted list today, due to new effects on quest cards?
 



#11 Ellyrik

Ellyrik

    Member

  • Members
  • 143 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:09 PM

 Unrestricted Soul Stealer SUPPORTED !

But I don't want Wilhelm to be unrestricted anymore cause it can ruin an entire game when played turn 2.



#12 HappyDD

HappyDD

    Member

  • Members
  • 327 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:35 AM

Yo, no one thinks Soul Stealer is a powerful enough card to be restricted? If I can play Warpstone Excavation then play Soul Stealer on an important unit that much faster and start using his abilities on you, that's devastating. What's that? It's an attachment so you'll just blow it up? Well, allow me to respond by sacrificing this unit to my Slave Pen. I hope you enjoyed paying 4+ (presumably) for that expensive unit and burning the attach/support destruction. Being able to take an out-of-race unit, even an order card, and using it in a Dark Elf deck might result in some unbeatable situations? Just saying.

Maybe they (the banners of cards) were really scared of cards that screwed up the other player's economy? Will of the Electors, Rodrik Raiders, Soul Stealer. Then there are the accelerant cards like D-burg Forge, Innovation (does anyone ever use this one, by the way?), Warpstone, Mining Tunnels. So I can SEE why these cards would all be restricted. "Of course, but there are other cards that do sort of the same thing, so why these cards, HappyDD?" I dunno, maybe you cannot fathom the evil workings of the Warhammer Invasion design crew and their cards-within-cards.

Maybe it's not as obvious of a restriction as Mining Tunnels (YOU'RE outdated, Rza), but I can see why Soul Stealer would have been restricted. It basically resulted in no one playing the card, though, as people tend to favour the free power from warpstone. I was playing on Octgn and my opponent said "Who plays Soul Stealer?!" when I put it on the board, I think that says it all. I am not in favor of removing any restrictions, ever, just as I am never in favor of changing the rules since it changes the entire environment.

 



#13 Entropy42

Entropy42

    Member

  • Members
  • 650 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:50 AM

HappyDD said:

Maybe it's not as obvious of a restriction as Mining Tunnels (YOU'RE outdated, Rza), but I can see why Soul Stealer would have been restricted. It basically resulted in no one playing the card, though, as people tend to favour the free power from warpstone. I was playing on Octgn and my opponent said "Who plays Soul Stealer?!" when I put it on the board, I think that says it all. I am not in favor of removing any restrictions, ever, just as I am never in favor of changing the rules since it changes the entire environment.

 

Are you also opposed to them ever putting new cards on the restricted list?  Or adding card errata to correct imbalance?  Both of those also change the environment. 

I also have to respectfully disagree with your opinion on Soul Stealer.  If the card was truly worthy of a restriction, you would see decks that choose it over the other restricted cards.  While those decks exist, they appear to be a super-minority.  Its a pretty expensive card.  Early game, you are not likely to be stealing something that is more expensive than Soul Stealer itself. 



#14 Virgo

Virgo

    Member

  • Members
  • 707 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:36 AM

HappyDD said:

What's that? It's an attachment so you'll just blow it up? Well, allow me to respond by sacrificing this unit to my Slave Pen.

…and your 4-cost attachment goes to discard.

HappyDD said:

I hope you enjoyed paying 4+ (presumably) for that expensive unit and burning the attach/support destruction.

4-cost units?

HappyDD said:

Maybe it's not as obvious of a restriction as Mining Tunnels (YOU'RE outdated, Rza), but I can see why Soul Stealer would have been restricted.

I tought it was common knowledge that Soul Stealer got on the list because there had to be some destruction card on it so people woulnd't say that only order is imbalanced.

 HappyDD said:

I am not in favor of removing any restrictions, ever, just as I am never in favor of changing the rules since it changes the entire environment.

So if something is broken people should just quit the game (like many did during the VTHC era)?

 

 



#15 Lilian

Lilian

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 07:56 AM

Unrestricted Soul Stealer and Wilhelm SUPPORTED!

Why don't you limit them one per deck ?



#16 HappyDD

HappyDD

    Member

  • Members
  • 327 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 02:38 AM

Entropy42 said:

 

 

 

 

Are you also opposed to them ever putting new cards on the restricted list?  Or adding card errata to correct imbalance?  Both of those also change the environment. 

No, that's the thing. I'm all for printing new cards and seeing how they go, then if one of them is just too amazing (Visit the Haunted City IS pretty amazing) then ban or restrict, that's fine. But then we move on, designers design new cards, invent new keywords like "Ambush" or whatever, and those cards remain restricted. I can see them removing a restriction, then realizing "Oh ****, that card just became amazing again because we designed it 3 cycles ago, printed 200 new cards since then, and forgot about X, which coupled with the restricted card is now unstoppable" and they have to restrict the original card again, which results in rampant complaining… It sounds a bit weird though, saying I'm all about printing new overpowered cards but not bringing back cards that seemed overpowered. I guess I like to think that somewhere at FFG there is a massive think-tank / computer / formula that is deciding on the best list of restricted cards with a better ability to see the future of the game than us. Maybe that's not true, maybe they're just designing cards and hoping the restricted list doesn't get too long. Anyway, long story short, I contradictorily prefer things remaining the same on the restricted list yet have no problem restricting other things 

Entropy42 said:

I also have to respectfully disagree with your opinion on Soul Stealer.  If the card was truly worthy of a restriction, you would see decks that choose it over the other restricted cards.  While those decks exist, they appear to be a super-minority.  Its a pretty expensive card.  Early game, you are not likely to be stealing something that is more expensive than Soul Stealer itself. 

That's true, we should see it more. Sometimes I choose it over Warpstone, but that's probably more for the laughs than for any real problem-solving that it does for me. Maybe if more people used giant units… I guess if someone were able to summon a costly unit with lots of (unrepeatable) card effects, it would be a good thing to steal. The restrictions sort of weaken certain deck types, so maybe they were scared of a deck that uses Soul Stealer as a piece of a larger machine? Which would be why they restricted Will of the Electors? I'm just reaching here.

 

 



#17 rzarectz

rzarectz

    Member

  • Members
  • 96 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 03:16 PM

I think the preemptive caution that was exercised on Soul Stealer was largely due to people already, at the time, not using expensive units because they were way to vunerable. Soul Stealer has a double effect.  Not only is your unit effectively sniped but your opponent gains a unit.  If your Decendent, or your Blood-dragon knight is stolen from you, not only are you down your finnishing unit, your opponent is up a finishing unit. This can be as game changing as a well executed Verena, so I think it is a very powerful card.  The fact that noone uses it speaks more to the lacklustre start pool of the DE's than the weakness of Soul stealer.  Starts are important.  That being said I agree it should be removed.  If the environment changes as it always does, it's not so unreasonable to re-assess the actual power of restricted cards.  It's essentially the same as assessing yet to be released cards only they have a history, and infamy, which can be fun.

All that being said what ever happened to the errata approach.  Why not just change the wording on cards to something more reasonable like they did with the bolt throwers.  Restrictions aren't fun, certainly less fun than errata's.  Ex. Change Mining Tunnels to a constant effect: When you develop you may draw a card, no stacking, not so overpowered.  …. All THAT being said, what is really so outragious about the Dwarves having the most powerful 2 cost support in the game that plays right into their theme as a dev heavy, defensive, outlast your opponent race… Mining Tunnels for Life!!  …….and ban contested village…. *cough*



#18 HappyDD

HappyDD

    Member

  • Members
  • 327 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:06 AM

rzarectz said:

….and ban contested village…. *cough*

Now THAT'S provocative! It's an auto-include, so maybe that's all it takes for a banning. 



#19 Entropy42

Entropy42

    Member

  • Members
  • 650 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 10:40 AM

HappyDD said:

rzarectz said:

 

….and ban contested village…. *cough*

 

 

Now THAT'S provocative! It's an auto-include, so maybe that's all it takes for a banning. 

I would like to see Contested Village on the restricted list, just to slow down the early game, but they are going to address its auto-include status in a different way that is also interesting.



#20 HappyDD

HappyDD

    Member

  • Members
  • 327 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:43 AM

Entropy42 said:

 

I would like to see Contested Village on the restricted list, just to slow down the early game, but they are going to address its auto-include status in a different way that is also interesting.

I heard! You get to punch your opponent once for each Contested Village in their deck before the game begins!

You keep that spoiler info to yourself, Entropy. I'm on the outside, I'm still surprised when I open a Battle Pack, it's still just like a mini-Christmas.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS