Jump to content

chimchimm

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    31

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by chimchimm

  1. Posted

    I will be there :-D looking to play (i practically live in the card room for 3 days lol). As long as no major Magic events conflict with things I will be looking for people to play W:I........This is also when I'm not trying to get some games of Dominion with random people :-D.......O wait or Warmachine.....<3 Gencon........Might be able to sneak in some time for anima tactics this year too ;-).

     

    I also have 2 other people in my group that are confirmed going that play W:I as well and will be playing some I think when the vendor room isn't open lol.

  4. Posted

    volkmar said:

    Why not use a single capital in team battles? make a Invasion equivalent of the popular "two-headed giant" format from Magic. As for allegiance symbols, you could count your capital as 2 symbols too. one for each race the allies use... or then just keep it as one symbol and the team has to choose which one it is going to be.

    The capital points could be doubled as well so that each areas requires double as much damage before it goes burning (but development still add +1 point, not +2, only the basic points are doubled) 

    If you use 2 boards (one per player) and allow your teammate to block with you if they have units in a corresponding zone than you are still achieving this same effect while reducing the clutter on the playing field. The one difference that would occur however would be if someone was attacking a zone in someones capital and had a huge overkill swing like say swonging for 32 dmg or something than it would hurt the opposing team as much as if they had been sharing a capital board where the "overkill" damage would be completely relavent. Sharing one capital board strays further from the base rules than you need to rather than just simply adding "You can block with your opponent if you have a unit in the same zone your opponent is being attacked at."

  8. Posted

    Wolfie6407 said:


     

    I think you missed the point entirely dut....

     

    I really don't care what anyway says, In my opinion, 3 Troll Vomit in one deck shouldn't be allowed in tournaments.

     

    Comments like this is far off base imo. By no means should there be a restriction on a card like this or any other card that is considered good for the sake of it just being a good card. If you have a legitimate reason for thinking cards like troll vomit or maybe vereenas judgement than I would like to hear it. This game has seen zero cards so far that need restrictions or bannings. If a card came along that would ruin the game to the point where it would stifle any room for growth or creativity because it hindered any other strategy from being viable than yes I would support a banning or restriction.

    I can assure you if there was a legitimate tournament that gave a decent sample size of what people were playing it would not be overran with troll vomit, and even if 40% of the player base was using troll vomit this still wouldn't justify banning.

  9. Posted

    Dam said:

    chimchimm said:

     

    Could even Poison wind globs your own urguck while he was attacking to play a tactic or something lol :].

     

     

    This part won't work, since Urguck's spending is limited to your capital phase (as per the wording).

    Yup Absolutely correct :]. Sometimes I don't pay attention to small details that are extremely relevent this is one of those times.

  11. Posted

    Absolutely 100% agree with everything rheingold said.

    Just wanted to add a good way of looking at sideboards is if you decide to run a 50 card maindeck and the game system say allows a 15 card sideboard (potentially 9-10 in a game like this since the MD requirements are lower as well as single card allowence) than when you're building your deck you are building a 65 card deck not a 50 card deck with 15 other cards. A common mistake a lot of players make with sideboards is vewing their sideboards as seperate entities from their maindeck.

    I for one am pro sideboards obviously. There are a lot of cool things you can do with sideboards other than just running cards that shore up your one bad matchup. Examples are making a transformational sideboard which allows you to say switch from a combo deck(something I never see happening in this game based on how it plays) to a control deck or even a aggro deck.

  12. Posted

    Shotgun answers for your questions:

    Yes this game is definetly worth getting in to. I feel it is extremely balanced and the system plays very well. There was definitely a lot of attention to detail that has kept many things that could have been broken balanced. Its also nice that the game is new so there's really no better time to get started.

    As far as the "best" decks etc. Since the game is so new people are still experimenting greatly with possible builds etc and there hasnt been any large amount of test data made available to the public yet to really justify saying deck X is clearly better than everything else. Most of the factions are pretty much all on the same level imo but people will generally agree that a Orc blitz (weenie type deck) or chaos control or Dwarf "defensive" strategy are all very good right now. Personally I exclusively play orcs atm and enjoy them a lot and feel they are very strong. I have a friend thats been working on chaos that plays very well and also a friend that plays dwarves that just gets nasty if you start getting into the mid to late game.

    As far as a list of all the cards https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AshMvIR3XzBtdEd6WmJhV2dIOUxoYTR5LXNCV1pOM1E&hl=en <-this guy updates his google xcel sheet whenever a new set is released and it is VERY nice (something I most def. appreciate havign around)

  13. Posted

    http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=140&efcid=4&efidt=256864

     

    Multiplayer works out pretty well if you do ffa. Since in this game its not always best to be the first player we let the winner of the die roll choose who plays first. Also only the player to go last is the one who doesnt skip their quest and battlefield phase. Other than that we have noticed there probably should be a different way of winning rather than being the last man standing. Maybe a point system based on damage dealt to all capitals or something would be interesting because its pretty easy right now to sit back out of the fighting and than clean up the scraps afterwords.

  14. Posted

    Dam said:

    dormouse said:

     

    Faction, not unit. So people who feel Chaos is weak keep trying to play it like it is a Red Deck in Magic, or Empire too week like a Green Deck. That is what I meant. they are far and away from this kind of strict comparison, though once you realize that a certain race/build plays like your favorite faction from another game it becomes easier to start to see which races best suit your playstyle, even if that is not the one which was "coolest" to you when you read about the description or looked at the cards.

     

     

    Isn't Chaos more Black and Empire White, going with a MtG analogy?

    Chaos does play alot like black does in Magic with discarding effects and "pestilance" type sweepers. Chaos also plays a little like blues board control however this comparison is a stretch because even though the effects are the same the impact the game completely differently due to the mechanics of each game.

    Oddly enough the faction that plays most like white is actually orcs. They have 2-3 standard builds at the moment all of which reflect a playstyle of white with either a weenie assault or a control build that focuses on board control.

    I would say empire kind of plays like blue in Magic but not really. Empire is nice in the fact that it is really independant of other game systems. What I mean by that is a lot of empires "tricks" and "combos" are based around mechanics only found in this game.

  15. Posted

    I too do not feel there are any cards in the current card pool available to us that warrent bannings. I understand each person has there own limits as to what they can afford/spend each month towards games and other such things but justifying banning a card based on what people can afford or not afford is not productive towards the health of a game. Now I will say I am the type of person that will be buying 3xBP everytime they are released and also have 3x all of the 1xcards from the core set that I want (this was done by splitting a core set with a friend trading cards and recieving a core set for christmas to split up between myself and another friend). This is the approach I take towards any game I play but not something I expect of everyone who wants to play a game. That being said I do feel if one wants to be competative this is usually the stance one must take and punishing the people  who want to be as competitive as possible by justifying bannings because not everyone will have 3xWhatevergoodcard.com is not productive.

    In this game though I still feel it is easy to be very competitive with 1xcore 1xbp etc. and don't feel you should have much to worry about. In magic Banslayer Angels are currently selling on ebay for around 46 us dollars (a few weeks prior they were even fetching 60$). This is because it is one of the best creatures EVER printed for its casting cost no questions asked. This card steals games if it goes un answered. so if you wanted to play the maximum amount allowed of this card in a single deck it would cost you 172$ for 4 cards!! HOWEVER the point I'm trying to get to is the current standard format ( 2 most current blocks of boosters and most recent core set) consists of a single deck that is taking up about 60% of the format, and guess what? The best deck in the format does NOT use baneslayer angel. You can in fact almost build the entire deck for the price of 4 baneslayer angels (which is relatively cheap in magic terms). So I feel if you have a good grasp of the game are a good player and have some pretty good intuition when building your decks you should have no problem dealing with any "awsome" card in this game currently.

    I am always strongly opposed to bannings unless they are absolutely warrented. Just because something is really good doesnt mean it needs banned. When something is so good no one else is playing anything else than and only than should a card be discussed as a potential banning.

  16. Posted

    In theory attacking an opponents hand usually is a good strategy (depending on the speed of the format). Generally these strategies work a lot better when the format is more dedicated towards "control"ish decks as opposed to aggro (where cards that affect the physical game state of the board are much better suited). Also discarding strategies tend to work better in games that have limited ways of drawing extra cards where more cards generated generally leads to more victories (unless of course every card produced from your opponent is just that much more relavent than anything you have done up to that point). These situations are also attacked by things like "virtual" card advantage by producing an effect that results in a X for 1 (X= the number of cards "blanked" or answered by 1= your single card). Examples of these situations would be "sweeper" cards like Troll vomit etc or combos that produce an effect that continually generates a positive effect for you while producing something negative for your opponent like cloud of flies+Urguck.

    In this game however attacking a players hand seems much less effective than in other games based on a few reasons.

    the first reason is this game absolutely promotes overextending your hand. By this I mean the game has VERY little cards in it currently that deter a player from playing their entire hand every turn while worrying about a swift recourse from their opponent ( a common way to "play around" discard").

    Second EVERY deck in the format has the ability to draw obscene amounts of cards if they want. As much as this hurts a discard strategy this could very well be a good thing as well. You could in fact put your opponent in a situation where they must draw a large amount of cards to keep up, but by doing so put themselves on a clock where they must finish you off within a decent amount of time or lose to decking themselves> It may be possible to add "milling" cards to your strategy to speed up this process paired with sweeper effects to simply stay alive long enough for them to deck themselves. You also my be able to find a way to corrupt enough guys a turn to where they are never able to attack profitably.

    I think currently how the game plays if there were enough scout cards in the format you could most definetly build a deck based around discard where board control was your main focus while stripping their hand would be a subtheme and a way of protecting you from things that were not permanents. As it stands I dont really feel the card pool available to us doesn't support this type of deck yet but I can forsee soemthing like this in the future.

    (Btw this post is being written and sent DURING my flight back from florida atm :-P wifi on planes now woot)

  17. Posted

    While adding these cards would increase the drawing capabilties of the deck it would definetly not speed it up :[. The cost to damage ratio of the cannon is sub par especially when factored with the idea of giving up a turn of attacking with that unit. the poison wing globs ( fromt this point forward i declare they will simply be named GLOBS :-P) do nothing Im interested in as a unit on there own. While I am using Skaven in this deck It is not a theme I am trying to push for the sake of using skaven unless ffg releases another efficiently costed skaven unit it will not find its way into this deck. I understand the more skaven units I add the more rediculous Greyseer can become but honestly he is is only a subtheme to the deck that effectively helps the rest of the main goal of this deck while the clan rats are another 2 creature that have great synergy with eachother as well as greyseer. Drawing power is not something I concern myself with in this game as much as other ccgs/lcgs due to the mechanics of the game. This deck deck is an example of your classic weenie rush decks you see in other card games except thanks to the mechanics of the actual game you can reload once you begin to run out of gas. This was always traditionally a weakness of this strategy but warhammer invasion strongly supports weenie rushes. I personally have never been a huge fan of these types of decks in other games usually leaning more towards control (which I will be throwing together here very shortly once I return from my vacation) but the design of this game has led to a VERY enjoyable experience with this deck.

    Outside of the card drawing capability these decks can now maintain another thing that makes this type of strategy much better in this game as opposed to others is the way combat damage is dealt with. Being able to only "block" damage as opposed to actual units is INSANE. This makes cards like totem of gork and waaagh! borderline obsene (do i think they are broken however no. many factions have things that balance cards like this and many combos that make attacking very un profitable a lot of times). To make a comparison to Magic(as much as i know a lot of people hate this game I feel this game is one of the best around and gets a bad rep based on the financial issues that come with it) the card trumpet blast is funcionally the same as waagh! but has NEVER even come close to affecting the game like waagh! has. why is this? because the turn you go for your trumpet blast a player can simply "chump" block most of the attacking creatures and still taking no damage and at worst have some unfavorable creature trades forced upon them. I could go on but this post has already become very long and I will end with saying that there are many more examples i could give like this one but will save you the trouble of reading them lol. Also just because I'm using magic in my examples says nothing about what I think about this game I have said this is the past that I REALLY feel this games design is excellent and I love it very much and plan on playing this for long times to come.

    Oh and 2x seduced by darkness have replaced  Grimgor :_P

  18. Posted

    2 of my friends and myself play 3 player games we have another friend that plays with us as well and we have done 4 player games also. The 3 player games work PRETTY well except for a few things. The first being the "decking" rule some times this becomes troublesome in a multiplayer game, we ran into many instances when 2 people would beat eachother up while the 3rd player kind of sat back and once one of the 2 other players were removed from the game the 3rd player only needed to turtle until the other player ran out of cards. Somewhere on these forums someone mentioned they use a recycling rule to counter this in multiplayer by shuffling their "graveyard" back into their libraries after they ran out of cards. While this is a possible solution I don't really think it's the right one because you do need some sort of punishment for running out of cards or else there really isn't a HUGE reason to not draw your whole deck within the first 5 turns of a game outside of not developing properly and getting blown out by a fast deck. For me ,though it is not perfect, I would suggest not ending the game upon running out of cards rather simply continuing the game but not being able to "re-use" any of the cards used previously in the game by the "recycling method".

    As far as 4 player games are concerned they seemed relatively balanced. This was of course until we had the great idea of trying a team game. Using the single player plays team games got pretty retardedly imbalanced. It was simply to easy to rush down one opposing teamate if another team were both using orc decks and than cleaning up the other opponent. However a possible way to fix this would be to allow your teamate to "block" for you if they had a unit in a corresponding area. I have not personally tried this and it is all speculation but it seems like it could be a solid solution to what is currently a very defective "team" format. In the most basic of thought processes it seems to make sense since 2 players are allowed to attack the same players capital the game would balance out a little more if 2 players could defend. This would definetly seem to promote working together as a team better as well promoting interesting gamestates.

    As it stands 3-4 player ffa games work fine minus the decking rule but if your interested in team play you should definetly adjust something to make it more balanced. Also when playing multiplayer to start the games only the last player is allowed to attack on their first turn.

  19. Posted

    Looks to be about a 30 min drive Saturday was when I was actually going to try to stop by. Can't promise anything as of yet may not even be able to get away since I'm going with my girlfriend and we've seen eachother all of 6 or so  hours in the last month or so lol (very busy schedule with her school atm). Anyways I'll hav emy laptop so I'll update once I'm down there headed down tonight around 5p.m.

  20. Posted

    The orc cards themselves in these last BPs have not been that stellar for the orcs BUT the neutrals have been Tony the Tiger GrrreeAt :]. Honestly I feel there are many possible ways to build orcs outside of the usual Blitz deck and the cards orcs have seen out of these BP's have supported those types of builds, but the first 2 skaven units out of the first BP and now the veteran sellswords have really given them a nice little boost at least imo for blitz decks.

  21. Posted

    Dam said:

    Followers of Mork damage can be put anywhere you like. For Orcs, they are often good at getting a wound on a Unit, boosting Boar Boyz and Squig Herders. Or combo with Urguck and play another Followers of Mork essentially for free.

    Ahh goodstuff would have been sad to find out I couldn't do that anymore.

  23. Posted

    Well sadly (odd to use sadly in this statement) I am leaving for disney tommorow so I will miss FNM at joes this week however I will see him next week so I will ask him about it next friday and throw an update on here. I am really interested in seeing a community start in Ohio for this game since I thing it is a really good game system. I don't want to have to wait for Gencon every year for any events ;-P.

  24. Posted

    I'm curious about the followers of mork. I checked the rule book and can't find anything about "indirect damage". So than I moved to a simple google search and came across a forum on BGG and it seemed like the consensus was that you could damage units with indirect damage. Now up until this point I have simply taken my friends word for it, that word being that you could damage units with indirect damage. HOWEVER after approaching the card for more answers it simply states that the player takes the 2 indirect damage. To me this would imply that since the player is the one taking the damage than it is the players capital that would be the recipient of this damage since the capital is in theory and extension of the player. Generally in other card games damage allocation is split between 3 seperate entities the first being a player himself the second being a players units/creatures/characters and the third being a combination of the two. I could definetly see indirect damage meaning just your capital but I could also see someone having the choice of damaging there own units or their capital.

    As far as the blood thirster+rip dere eads off I had it for awhile but eventually cut it because I usuall ended up with one half in hand and the other half sitting in my deck or by the time i had it together it was irrelavent and I was already going to win.

    I have however recently taken out Grimgore Ironhide x 2 and added Seduced by darkness x 2.

×
×
  • Create New...