Jump to content

ddm5182

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    218

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by ddm5182

  1. Posted

    I'll believe it when I see it man... Slayers says "nice volley gun".  A *lot*.  Do you really think Verena is enough?  It never has been before.

    Remember too that *Dwarves* dont have to beat thrower, which apart from maybe the mirror in some metagames was the primary thing they tuned for.  So all that support hate becomes even more unit hate... 

    I'm just depressed because I really liked the Orc/Undead deck.  RTF is so stupid.

  2. Posted

    A 40-person tournament is not enough data to judge a metagame.  Flukes happen in cardgames, you cannot assume all of those are optimal lists.  For some comparison, MTG (with a MUCH larger cardpool, admittedly), frequently has some terrible decks finish even 1st at 300+ person PTQ tournaments.  "The sun shines on even a dog's ass" as the saying goes.

    Would be better to discuss theory & playtesting as a group, rather than rely on the results of one small tournament to dictate optimal card choices.  Collectively, we can put together a lot more data than that.

    Anyway, if it were my decision to make I would have never printed Warpstone or Mining Tunnels.  Now that the cat is out of the bag, I probably wouldn't choose to ban them.  I'd be really happy if they were banned but its probably not the right call for the game.  Unfortunately though, that means destruction needs supports comprable to Mining Tunnels in order to be competitive.  I'm sure we will get them, since all signs point to power creep as the MO of the designers. 

    RTF on the other hand is just straight up broken.  It completely invalidates the entire design philosophy of the destruction factions.  Lets examine the core themes invalidated by RTF in more detail:

    • Dark elves: Hand disruption, unit kill via -hp, milling (putting cards in the opp discard pile from the top of the deck)
    • Orcs: "smother" effects (kill that cares about printed cost), "edict" effects (opp sacrifices a creature), or just straght-up unit kill (Troll Vomit)
    • Chaos: unit kill via direct damage

    Decks built around these themes *CANNOT BEAT* Reclaiming the Fallen.  I'd go so far as to say that destruction decks built around these themes should not even be played so long as RTF is in the metagame.

    In general: the meta is actually worse now without thrower, since we at least had two viable archetypes to choose from.  Now there is dwarves or...?  This is an honest question: can someone post a list that can beat dwarves reliably?  I know we haven't found one yet, though to be fair we were building to take thrower into account as well.

    Initial reaction to the current meta: even worse than when Skaven was dominant, because at least then we had 2 flavors of Skaven (orc and DE), and dwarves had some serious game against them toward the end of the cycle.

    I could be wrong though. Interested to see what others are brewing.

  5. Posted

    Thanks for your condescending, arrogant, rude attitude aimed at the way we ("comeptitive" players) play games.  It goes a long way toward productive discussion when you dismiss people who disagree with you as "doing it wrong."

    Don't be a jerk.

    In the interest of actual communication, please consider that we approach games like W:I as puzzles to solve.  Each new format has a single "right" answer - which deck is best given the expected composition of the field, and likewise, each game state has one optimal line of play.  We play these games to find and make those optimal choices.  I completely respect your right to approach the game in a casual manner that is more concerned with the experience of playing than solving the puzzle, but I also think the competitive approach is legitimate and worthy of respect.

    The purpose of this post & posts like it is to communicate that some of the competitive players feel this game's design is ruining the experience of solving the puzzle by making it obvious and, even worse, boring and inhibiting to new ideas.  If FFG doesn't care, fine.  We'll play something else.  But it should still be said, and its still a valid point regardless of whether it affects you and your personal casual philosophy.

  6. Posted

    If you ignore Silent Forge, the meta is actually pretty fun as a trio of Orc/Undead control, Bolt Thrower, and Dwarves.

    Silent Forge completely broke the game right in half though.  There are no viable destruction decks at all, and no viable order aggro decks that have game against both thrower & dwarves.

    @Tauwolf: are there any other cards in the game that give 2 hammers @ 2 cost with no drawback?  Errant Wolf is flimsy and easy to kill, and has limited, AND has quest only, and they print Mining Tunnels?  Really?  And as I said in that other thread, Mining Tunnels do not "get better in multiples". They are always 2 hammers (1 of which has to be in quest) for 2.  Actually better than that since you can develop as soon as they enter play,meaning there is no card-neutral means of destroying them short of Grimgor: you are almost always behind on cards and board position the moment your opponent plays one.

    Reclaiming the Fallen is such a joke its not even worth talking about.  How did that one get past development?

  7. Posted

    Mining Tunnels is 2 hammers for 2D (one of them required to be in quest), provided you develop once a turn, no matter how many of them you have out.  It does not "get better in multiples" it is just absurdly broken and should never have been printed.

    Same thing for Warpstone Excavation.

    I mean, I guess it "gets better in multiples" in the sense that it is pretty hard to lose when you have more than one in play, but thats not really scaling or synergy its just winning because you have a lot of broken cards.

    Also, @ balancing them via errata... not in favor.  Confusing for new players why their cards don't do what they say they do.  Better to just ban them from competitive play and print new, "fixed" versions.

  8. Posted

    Overwhelmingly agree that Silent Forge is the worst battle pack printed to date from a development pov. I like the design of a lot of the cards (as you mentioned, outpost when played fairly is a blast in the HE deck), but they are just wrecking the competitive landscape right now.

    Regardless, only bolt thrower is a true candidate for banning IMO - its pretty clear FFG has embraced cheap resource/card draw (see: forge, tunnels) as a balancing mechanism.  I think this is a truly, truly terrible idea that is incredibly bad for the game, but its obvious that's what they want.  At this point banning Warpstone would just make dwarves that much better than everyone else.  On a similar note, Reclaiming the Fallen utterly hoses all of destruction by itself, but its not as if this is a tricky card whose use is non-obvious during development.  Clearly they were OK printing a card that says "unit control is no longer a viable strategy".  This is an odd move considering every destruction faction is pretty much based on competing along the unit control axis, but maybe the upcoming battle packs will see functional reprints of spider riders and choppa, or a Troll Vomit without the "play on your turn" restriction, or something...

  9. Posted

    Also, as to the topic of the thread.... (though technically I'm thinking of 'Destruction post Silent Forge')... after testing my two ideas today (Chaos aggro and Orc aggro) I am going to flat out say this:

    There are no viable destruction decks in the game right now.

    Reclaiming the Fallen makes unit-control strategies irrelevant.  Outpost of Tirranoc makes Bolt Thrower fast enough to beat Grimgor decks.  Grimgor decks lose to dwarves.

    But the main culprit?  Mining Tunnels.  Card is ridiculously, absurdly broken and without a resource-ramp equivalent, I do not think destruction based decks can be competitive right now.

    I would love for anyone to post a destruction list they feel is competitive, but I am pretty much giving up.

  10. Posted

    I disagree, in theory at least (same boat as you w/rt thrower testing).  Dwarves have some equity in the match when they play nothing but support destruction while applying pressure, meaning I would guess maybe a 40-45% winrate just based on the deck with a +/- 10% for playskill, but that edge is mostly eroded when you consider the thrower's "I win no matter what you draw" hands.  Point being - dwarves with 6 support destruction cards will sometimes keep you off 20+ resources while applying enough pressure to win, but they will very rarely keep you off 10-15 with outpost support. 

    The match gets trickier for the thrower player (the game essentially becomes about sculpting the perfect turn to win on, as opposed to fighting through attrition), but I wouldn't be surprised if a properly tuned (for the mirror) thrower list was heavily favored against even the most hateful dwarf list possible.  As a bonus, if thrower adopts the "dodge aggro" plan the matchup is even worse for dwarves - I've mentioned before that I think thrower can play zero fogs in the current meta and win easily.

    Just speculation though, to be fair.  I really don't care enough to test thrower right now.  Would love to hear others' insights if they are working on this problem.

  12. Posted

    Interesting that you zero in on the two most "metagame" cards in the deck.  Both of those are *really* bad against other aggressive decks.  You definitely don't want to be the guy playing those cards if both players are trying to beat down.

    But by the same token, if the other guy is taking 5-6 turns to set up an engine before he starts pressuring you, Temple of Vaul and Veteran Sellswords can both be excellent cards, giving you a lot more value than they cost.  Essentially, if your deck is tuned to either win quickly or lose, your own "life total" is essentially a meaningless resource that is not being spent.  So, spend it by playing otherwise undercosted cards that use it.

  13. Posted

    Sounds good!  In general, I'd like to excise any personality-related discussion from these forums, and just stick to tuning decks and talking strategy.

    @CATS: exactly.  Well summarized.

    @Tauwolf: I appreciate your pov.  shoot me an email @ ddm5182@yahoo.com if you want more of my perspective on this whole pissing contest thing, but for now I am pretty much determined to do my best to keep this junk off the forums.  Here's hoping I'm not alone in that sentiment :)

  14. Posted

    This deck is *really* good.  I'm probably more a fan of it than Clamatius is, and I would absolutely agree it is nipping at the heels of tier 1 status.  It forces some complex attack phases, and is difficult to play around.  You need to be thinking 1-2 turns in advance to assign your indirect damage properly.

    Vs. outpost thrower it put enough pressure on that thrower was required to have a good draw in order to win in convincing fashion (which it did).  An average draw did NOT cut it however, and optimal play is required to win with most of thrower's average openers.  I think the matchup is slightly in thrower's favor, but it is probably the closest to 50/50 we've come since Silent Forge, and certainly the only order deck anywhere in the ballpark.

    Sleeve this up and give it a try - its quite difficult to play against though, so give your opponents some time to learn the matchup before concluding anything win-%-wise.

  21. Posted

    Thankfully no, outpost doesn't trigger when you deal 0 damage.  That would be a hellish, nightmarish place I have no desire to ever visit.

    @Harliquine, Reclaiming the Fallen would like a word with your deck :P  Not sure I want to be milling in a format where that card exists.

    @Wytefang, wishing doesn't = getting :)  Substantiate your claims or be ignored.

  22. Posted

    No concrete list from me yet, but wanted to post support for this line of thinking in the current metagame.  Outpost Thrower is very fast and resilient to disruption, but if it has a weak point, it is to fast aggressive decks.  Ditto dwarves - they are a true midrange deck (traditionally the 'best' type of deck to play vs. aggro), but they are very, very slow.  I am dubious whether the cards exist yet to make a really aggressive deck with enough speed and consistency to beat thrower, but I think this is a good place to look to attack the format right now.

  23. Posted

    Some uses of Forced March:

    • Moving a unit from your kingdom or quest to your battlefield for a surprise attack
    • Moving a defending unit out of an opponent's zone before you attack
    • Turning off an opponent's utility unit with a zone requirement for use of its ability (e.g. moving Vile Sorceress to Battlefield, or Spider Riders to Quest)
    • "Milling" your opponent by moving a high-hammer unit to their quest zone (or preventing yourself from decking by moving your own unit out of the quest zone)
    • Disrupting your opponent's resource engine or card draw by moving units out of their kingdom/quest zones
    • 'Double-dipping' your own resource producers by playing a high-hammer unit to Kingdom, them moving it to your Quest zone during your Kingdom phase

    ... and I'm sure there are plenty more.

    In general, cards have a lot of uses; pigeonholing them as "defensive" or "offensive" is going to unecessarily  limit your thinking when considering the card for your decks.

  24. Posted

    Wait, isnt this a hell of a double standard?

    "If you can't figure it out on your own based on my deck list provided, it's not really my job to prove anything or think for you. "

    You just got through telling me that I don't place enough emphasis on actual gameplay and testing (which incidentally I am sure you will agree is difficult to document in a format like a message board), then you say we should just 'figure it out' based on the decklist?  Which is it?

    FWIW, I totally get the complaint that a lot of my criticism of your ideas is not specific, in-depth match analysis.  I could provide that but it takes a lot of work, which frankly I am only willing to devote to what I consider the best ideas.  No ego there, just my choice on how I use my time.  I've playtested and theorycrafted this game enough to know at a glance which ideas I think have potential and which ideas don't.   Jogo did a very nice job of summarizing my issues with your deck, and unless you can respond to these very obvious, glaring holes in the deck, it isn't really worth taking it to the next stage of testing.  Don't be offended by this btw... Clamatius and I trash 3-4 ideas for every actual deck we build and test, and we've built and tested some *really* bad decks to explore ideas.

    All this said - remember, I am speaking only to the crowd that cares about playing optimal decks and metagaming.  If you don't care about this, and you just want to sleeve up some cards and sling some spells, this deck is fine.  Certainly capable of winning in cute fashion against other homebrew type decks.

     

  25. Posted

    What's your general line of play in the thrower matchup?  

    Speaking from thrower pov, I would stockpile fogs, let you attack until you threatened to win, and hold up multiple fogs in the same turn to play around counters.  My resource/draw engine is just as fast as yours.  My kill condition requires ~8 resources + spares to protect (IE playing outpost(s)/thrower on the turn i go off), yours requires 14+ over 2 turns.  Theoretically there is no way you are even close to 50% winrate when playing optimally, unless I am missing some key tech or strategic insight?

    FWIW, "yes huh it is so 50% winrate, trust me I'm awesome" does NOT fly around here, and nor should it.  You are making a very, very bold claim so lets hear you back it up.

×
×
  • Create New...