Jump to content

darkdeal

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    179

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by darkdeal

  1. Posted

    ddm5182 said:

    I think what's coming to light in all this discussion is that the bolt thrower deck is extremely hard to play well, giving the impression to bad players that it is not the best deck.  That's fine I suppose.  It definitely is not easy.  For those still undecided, I recommend you read Clamatius' thread and insights on how to play it.  And, if you can bear it, practice with the thing.

    FWIW, in our testing - DE/Skaven does not beat Orc/Skaven.  Its close to a 50/50 matchup as all Skaven mirrors are, mostly hinging on who gets an active Deathmaster, but Orc definitely has an edge overall.  DE/Skaven being unable to play Pillage almost totally offsets anything they gain from WNYB/Vile Sorcs; while DE can definitely have draws where they get board control, just as often they lose to the speed of the orcs.  Without a Greyseer, DE is often just too slow.  Not being able to put 4-6 power on the board in a single turn reliably means they will often be outraced even with a spectacular board position.  And with cheap Lobber Crews/Pillage, it is Orcs, not DE, who are the most reliably disruptive in the early game.

    I would say the meta for the current cardpool is:

    Tier 1: Bolt Thrower

    Tier 1.5: Orc/Skaven; Dwarf Midrange

    Tier 2: DE/Skaven; Empire aggro; HE midrange

    Dwarves get the nod as tier 1.5 because they can splash High Elf's Disdain and have some game v. bolt thrower.  Skaven have to play Mob Up! as well to get any equity in that matchup - otherwise it is pretty poor.  Dwarves have some excellent game against Orc/Skaven as well.

    If Bolt Thrower wasnt a deck I would say this was moving toward being a pretty decent metagame.

    The fact that you rank Dwarves above DE/Skaven shows that you are doing something wrong. Bolt Thrower is good, but it is not the best deck like you have here. The Orc/Skaven list posted in another thread is worse than my build as it is slower, so maybe thats why you are losing to BT decks. Even given my faster orc/skaven deck, my DE/Skaven still steamrolls it. Testing is all fine and good, but if you are using different builds, your results are going to be different.

  2. Posted

    My DE/Skaven deck just uses the 6 scouts. I was thinking during playtesting though, the scout effect still works even if they use a Master Rune of Valaya or a Gifts of Aenerion because although they don't do damage, they still survived combat. Unless by combat they only mean if defended against (in that case scouts are really bad and I think everyone would be misplaying them).

    I think if all the decks I posted were evenly distributed at a tournament, I would take the DE/Skaven. The orc match is a near bye and atleast you CAN win against the Bolt Thrower deck, although not usually. If you use orc/skaven you will lose to DE/Skaven. If you use the Bolt Thrower deck you will lose to orc/skaven (probably less than what orc loses against DE though).

    I just don't think the cards are there yet to build a deck that can compare to these 3. The Bolt Thrower deck really wasn't even good until this most recent BP. Orc control is real close to being there I think, and Empire seems close but still a little too slow.

  3. Posted

    I have tested this stuff as well. It seems on further examination that the environment is actually pretty ok. There is a rock/paper/scissor thing going on. The 3 tier 1 decks are DE/Skaven, Orc/Skaven, and Bolt Thrower.

    It goes something like this;

    DE/Skaven beats Orc/Skaven, Orc/Skaven beats Bolt Thrower, Bolt Thrower beats DE/Skaven.

    Orcs are just too fast for the BT deck so they often fell flat. It was really easy to play around half of the prevention cards as well even without things like Mob Up. Speed out some damage onto a zone and burn a zone if you can. If you attack for 6 one turn on a zone, but have more than enough to burn a different zone, we would burn the new zone. That made it so if the BT deck played Flames of the Phoenix, it wouldn't be enough as the Orc deck could just play Units and finish off the damaged zone. We would save back our Innovations (other than first turn accel) to recover better from it. We also played around Judgement and that made it really hard for the BT deck to win many games at all.

    The DE deck that I have just beats the Orcs easily. The number of cards that deal with 1-HP units are too many for Orcs to deal with consistently. We'z Bigga was a liability when the DE deck plays Call the Blood. Blowing out the orc first turn with Hate. It was just never close.

    The DE deck had trouble with the BT deck though. The DE is just slow enough that the BT deck can stabilize. It is a lot harder to play around Flames of the Phoenix too as the deck doesn't have as many cheap, powerful units. The DE deck also has a ton of cards that are pretty useless against a unitless deck. Judgement was pretty bad here because of the number of useless cards in the DE deck, they had plenty of developments.

    Use that however you want. If you can make a deck that is good against all 3, you are doing pretty well. If you can predict your metagame, you can just pick the deck you think will do best and maybe chance a card or two if you fear the mirror match.

  5. Posted

    Cain_hu said:

    Also, about the MtG comparison :

    - In MtG about 35-40% of your cards are "passive" > don't do anything at all but makes resources (these are lands)
    - normally you draw a single card a turn
    - the minimum deck size is 60

    I think it's not terribly hard to understand why putting in some extra cards will be pointless : You will rarely draw them, and your ability to draw particular cards decreases.

    Another comparison :

    - In W:I if you have 1-2 "cheap" permanents you are fine to start your KZ and QZ (1-2 cards out of 7)
    - In MtG you want to see 2-3 lands and at least 1-2 other cards to play in the first 3 turns (3-5 cards out of 7)

    Also, note that in MtG you draw one less card (6 instead of 7) if you mulligan.

    Counting with minimal deck sizes for both game, the chances to draw a particular card in turn 2 :

    - In MtG it's 1,8%
    - In W:I it's 2,3% if you put no power into your QZ
    - In W:I it's 4,5% if you put a single power into QZ

    So if you put even single WE or contested village into your QZ you have about 250% chance to draw a particular card compared to MtG ! And you could increase these chances even more turn by turn. This, combined their 35-40% of drawing a land card clearly shows that an extra card with usefull ability is much easier to justify in W:I than in it's rival.

    I wasn't comparing the odds of drawing a card in W:I to the odds of drawing a card in M:tG. I was comparing the odds of drawing a given card in 2 W:I decks. If the decks are 50 cards and 55 cards, and 50 cards are the same, in the mirror match, the 50 card deck will win more often given enough games.

    Also, I wasn't talking about the kingdom zone. Again in the mirror match (especially with orc rush), if one player gets the first turn quest power and the other player doesn't, the player that is getting more cards a turn will more than likely win.

    Another point was that you are not taking a mulligan every 20+ games. You are taking a mulligan every 1 or 4 games(55 cards) as opposed to every 1 of 5 games(50 cards). The higher odds of taking a mulligan also mean higher odds that your new hand will not be good either, and you can only mulligan once in this game. You bring up M:tG and their mulligan rule as if it is a drawback, but they have that "draw one less card" stipulation because you can keep doing mulligans. You draw your 7, if you don't like it shuffle up and draw 6. Don't like the 6, shuffle up and draw 5, etc.

    Also in M:tG, you can play 4 copies of a card. A 50 card deck of W:I has a 37.04% chance of drawing a certain card that is a 3-of in its opening 7. A 60 card M:tg deck has a 39.95% chance of drawing a certain card that is a 4-of in its opening 7. I don't really see the relevance of comparing W:I to M:tG this way, but I thought I would point it out because you brought it up.

  6. Posted

    Deck ..........Percent chance to draw a specific card
    Size ............given 3 copies in the deck.
    50 ...............37.04%
    55 ...............34.07%
    60 ...............31.54%
    65 ...............29.36%
    70 ...............27.46%
    75 ...............25.78%
    80 ...............24.30%
    85 ...............22.98%
    90 ...............21.79%
    95 ...............20.72%
    100 ............19.75%
     

    I used the excel program to get all of these. They assume 3 copies of the given card in the deck and this is the percent chance you will get the given card in your opening 7 card hand. Note that the percentage gap gets greater as the number of cards in the deck gets smaller. So if you have a 35 card deck vs the opponents 45 card deck (because you are a few turns into the game), you are a lot more likely to draw that given card (about 5% if both players are drawing 3 a turn and the percentage goes up the deeper both players get into the deck).

    Another way to go deeper into this is to analyze the odds that you will draw a card that can give you more hammers into your kingdom/quest zone first turn. Its rare that you won't be able to, but the odds are still there. They are also complicated by things like Innovation if you play several 4 cost supports that can go into the zone as well. That isn't really applicable in an orc rush though so we will use that as an example. I'll use the list that was also contentious.

    Orcs

     

    3x Lobba Crew
    3x Crooked Teeth Goblins
    3x Goblin Spider Riders
    3x Followers of Mork
    3x Snotling Pump Wagon
    3x Clan Moulder Elite
    3x Veteran Sellswords
    3x Squig Herders

    3x Contested Village
    3x Warpstone Excavation
    3x Choppa
    2x Rock Lobba (2 Greyseers instead)
    1x Basha's Bloodaxe (1 Greyseer instead)

    3x Innovation
    3x We's Bigga
    2x Waaagh!
    3x Seduced by Chaos
    3x Pillage

    It was also noted that Greyseer should have been in the list, but not knowing what to cut from his point of view, I will trade out 2 cards that cannot be used for quest zone buildup turn 1. -2 Rock Lobba and -1 Basha's Bloodaxe

    So you have these cards that cost 3 or less that can be played to the quest zone.

    3 Squig Herders
    3 Followers of Mork
    3 Greyseer Thanquol
    3 Warpstone Excavation
    3 Contested Village

     

    15 cards total.

    So with a 50 card deck, the odds of drawing just one of these in your opening 7 is 93.27%
    A 55 card deck is 90.81%
    60 card deck = 88.25%
    65 card deck = 85.65%
    70 card deck = 83.07%

    Not very much variation, but the larger the deck, the more often you will have to mulligan still. We also don't really want to play our attackers into the quest zone when they could be attacking. So lets see the percentages with the orc units taken out.

    This is done with only the Greyseers, WE, and CV.

    50 card deck = 77.49%
    55 card deck = 73.62%
    60 card deck = 70.02%
    65 card deck = 66.69%
    70 card deck = 63.61%

    So the 50 card deck will, theoretically, need to mulligan 22.51% of its opening hands. A little more often than 1 in 5 games.
    The 55 card deck will need to mulligan 26.38% (3.87% more) of its hands. A little more often than 1 in 4 games. So about every 26 games of the 50 card deck not taking a mulligan, the 55 card deck would need to take one. If you average 2.5 games per round (some rounds go to 3, some rounds stop at 2), you will mulligan an extra time every 10.4 rounds. Not that big of a deal right now, but if you have 4 rounds of swill and make it to the finals of a top 4, that is 6 matches. That extra bad hand could be the difference between first and second place, and that is only a 5 card difference. I see some players say they like to play 60-65 card decks.

    So this is really the sticking point for me. The orc deck was just an example to show the numbers. They apply to any deck. The more cards you have, the less chance you have of drawing that opening hand that gets you a start. I had this problem with chaos when they first came out. I had to mulligan a lot because I didn't have a turn one play. Even with 9 cards out of your 50 being turn 1 plays, you would mulligan 22.51% of the time. Thats too high for my taste and it gets worse the more cards you play in proportion to the number of turn one plays. There is a ton of analyzing that can be done and these numbers are really useful when you construct a deck. Before you even test it, you can sit and count the number of cards that fit a certain role and calculate the odds of getting it in a certain circumstance.

  7. Posted

    Neutral Support

    Palisade Wall

    Cost = 3

    Order Only

    Units cannot attack this zone. If an opponent controls a 'siege' card in his or her battlefield, remove Palisade Wall from play.

    Power = 0

     

    High Elf Support

    Pacify

    3-HHH

    Battlefield. Action: Spend 3 resources to make a player discard X cards from the top of his or her deck. X = the number of developments in your battlefield.

  8. Posted

    Wytefang said:

    ddm5182 said:

     

    I'm going to come off as a jerk here, but its OK because I'm doing it in service to the community.

    TO: anyone reading this thread wondering how many cards you should have in your decks

    FROM: me

    Play 50 cards.

    Seriously, just do it.  It is criminal that people are trying to tell you anything else.  They are misleading you.  They are wrong. They are bad at this game.  Put them on your ignore list and never listen to anything they say about W:I theory ever again. 

    You will be a better player for it.

    I guarantee it.

     

     

    It doesn't make you a jerk to have a strong opinion about the subject.  No worries there...we all feel strongly about it.  I do think that this black & white mindset towards the subject matter isn't terribly helpful, though, to people trying to understand why (or why not) they should have to have the minimum amount of cards in their decks.  It's important to take into account the impact of not just the probabilities but also WHY drawing a specific card would be useful and at which time, what the impact is of developments in the game (and how the gameplay functions itself - also considering how quickly players can adjust their card drawing).  Leaving that stuff out when discussing this topic makes your strongly worded points (ironically) "misleading" and doesn't really make anyone a "better player for it." 

    Good intelligent thought on the subject isn't to just ape the strategy advice from a different game (we all realize that it's mostly - key word there - the M:tG players making the claims that everyone simply "has to use the minimum deck sizes."  If this game was M:tG, perhaps these points would be fool-proof - but the key point is that this is not M:tG but its own game and as such provides several different aspects to take into consideration when mulling over the deck-size conundrum.  Players have already won tournaments with more than the minimum deck-size of 50 cards, so I'm not sure that it's that critical of a rule.  Or to put it another way, there are other considerations at work with W:I than just increasing your probabilities.  ;)

    Ultimately, deck size isn't that large of a varience from one card to another. It does start to add up the more cards you put in your deck though. The difference between 50 and 60 is quite large.

    To say that leaving out factors such as manipulating cards drawn is misleading, is a little incorrect. Every deck, giving the larger deck the benefit of the doubt, is equally able to develop their card drawing ability. The same cards can go into the decks. So that point is ultimately moot. Also, the idea that you can develop doesn't make a card more valuable if it had no value at all in the deck. It took the spot of a card that you would have rather drawn. You can use any other card in your hand as a development, if you even want to develop.

    I think the argument is getting a little too much slippery slope. The basis of the argument is simple. If you play less cards, you have a better chance of drawing any given card. Thats it. Extrapolate what you want out of that, but it doesn't change the argument at its base.

    Decks can win if they play more cards, but with only a few rounds in a tournament and decks not always being terribly competative, the difference in deck size will probably not be enough to matter much. To a competative player though, any advantage, however minimal, is still an advantage.

  9. Posted

    Cain_hu said:

    Wytefang said:

     

    Oooh...I forgot about the Lizardmen..yeah, I'd rather see those guys as a faction.  Good call, DD.

    I'd love to see what I call "rule cards" or even "city cards" that are played attached to Capitals that can give your capital some special over-arching ability that changes the rules a bit or something.  Like a permanent global enchantment that totally skews the playing field a bit.  That could be interesting OR new Capital boards that offer unique capabilities built into the capital boards themselves (something I'd have liked to have seen at the very start with the Core Set, even).

     

     

    Wytefang said:

     

    Oooh...I forgot about the Lizardmen..yeah, I'd rather see those guys as a faction.  Good call, DD.

    I'd love to see what I call "rule cards" or even "city cards" that are played attached to Capitals that can give your capital some special over-arching ability that changes the rules a bit or something.  Like a permanent global enchantment that totally skews the playing field a bit.  That could be interesting OR new Capital boards that offer unique capabilities built into the capital boards themselves (something I'd have liked to have seen at the very start with the Core Set, even).

     

     

    I think additional factions would be a very-very bad idea, as we already crying to get more cards and possibilities for the current six. :)

    Also, Lizardmen are very passive to the outside world in my knowledge, so I could imagine them better as neutrals.

    Cities attached to capitals wont happen... as we already have settlements as building-supports. For example Har Ganeth is one of the six major dark elf cities, but Grimgor's Camp or the contested neutrals are also count.

    BTW, I don't see the point in attaching something to the capital, rather than simply make it a support card (maybe with no power icons) or a quest card if appropiate. ;)

    My best idea so far :

    Maybe the next big expansion will be the REAL Companion Set with multiplayer rules, cards with inter-faction abilities, and "order only" and "destruction only" neutrals with synergical abilities (maybe the same way as skavens were done), and even some Dog of War units.

    Some ideas :

    Morathi's Caravan (Unique Support - 4-DDD) - Quest. 2 power, all non-DE units you play with the Warrior keyword cost 1 less to play

    or maybe more innovative as a quest :

    Morathi's Caravan (Unique Quest - 2D) - All unit with the Sorceror keyword provides a Chaos loyalty symbol, and have the following ability - Action :  lower the cost of the next Warrior unit you play by 1. It comes into play corrupted. Play this ability only once per turn.

    Support against the Horde (Tactic 5EE) - Action: Search the top five cards of your deck. You may put into play into your BF two units found amongst those cards that does not share the racial affiliation of your capital with printed cost 3 or lower. Then shuffle your deck.

    Mentor from the White Tower (Unit, 4H, 2 power 3 HP) - Each of your non-HE mages you control gains +1 power.

    Mercenary Captain (neutral unit, 4 ... 2 power 3 HP.) Warrior. Forced : Search the top five cards of your deck. You may put into your hand one unit amongst those cards that does not share the racial affiliation of your capital. Then shuffle your deck.

    First off, Order needs a neutral race or something that can balance skaven being destruction only.

    Second, capital attachments could be used. They would be support - attachments just like the hex's (not a location/building/ or anything physical). They could be something like Capital Attachment Empire - Bar the gates - Your quest zone has -1 power, prevent the first 6 damage dealt to your capital each turn. The point would be that it would have another designator or keyword that other cards could look at. For instance - Tactical Councel Meeting - Search your deck for a Capital Attachment and put it into your hand.

  10. Posted

    I would like to see lizardmen as the order friendly neutrals, but they are so diverse it would be hard to get enough of them out there to do them justice. They could always release more skaven to make up for it though. They could also do wood elves, but with 2 other elf races already, I would rather not.

    Another theme they could take could be to go unit light and build up capital stuff. Release a bunch of support cards that are not attachments that are really defensive and fast enough to stabilize before rush wins. Maybe bring up some big defensive units. Give dwarves a Clan Moulder Elite that can't attack. Or another unit that doesn't take combat damage if it is defending against more than one attacker.

  11. Posted

    Well, W:I ends up having a lot less cards over the same time span as a card game like M:tG. A small set of M:tG is about 145 cards I think and a large set is 248. Typically it goes Large set (starts a new block), Small set, Small set (to finish block). Sets are released every 3 months. Then there is a base set printed every year that is also 249 cards. Each set that is 249 cards also has 20 basic lands that I won't count. The base set is mostly reprints as well and there are 2-5 reprints in the other sets. So I'll say there are about 540 new cards printed every year in M:tG.

    In W:I, we get 20 new cards per month. Then a "base" every 6 months? The base typically replaces the battle pack for the month if I am not mistaken. So month 1 we got 127 unique cards, Then we had 5 battle packs for another 100 cards, then Ulthuan is 57 unique cards, and we will get 5 more BP's for another 100 cards. That is 384 new cards printed every year in W:I.

    I will say that the more frequent release of cards in W:I keeps the metagame fresh though. There is a smaller chance that a deck will stay as its best if unchanged when new BP's are released. In M:tG formats get stagnant. Nobody likes going to a tournament and seeing the same deck for 3-6 months straight. Rush decks in W:I are kinda like that, but atleast they change and adapt to the new cards monthly.

    The thing I worry about most in an LCG is the tournament scene. Once we get into the next cycle and the Corruption cycle is no longer available, if Skaven are still the most powerful deck, how are new people supposed to compete in tournaments? If they can't compete with the cards available to them, how many will keep playing? If they want to keep W:I tournaments competative and fresh(er) and more available to new players, they should implement a rotation for tournament play. A couple different formats, but the format for new players could be the 2 most recent cycles are all thats legal. So once the first BP of the third cycle is released and tournament legal, the whole corruption cycle would rotate from that tournament formats play. That lets cards be played for 6-12 months in that specific tournament format. BP's would remain in print until they rotated from that format making it even easier for new players to pick up what they needed no matter what point they started playing. This also puts a shelf life on certain dominating decks. Skaven would no longer be playable in its current form, in this format, once the Corruption cycle rotated out. They could always print new Skaven and even reprint some, but it keeps the play environment fresh.

    When it comes to monetary investment, an LCG can be a lot more expensive than even M:tG if the player knows what they are doing. M:tG takes a much larger initial investment, but the cards have value and you can make your money back or even turn a profit. W:I, the cards are pretty much worthless. Its just like buying a board game. Nobody is going to want to buy the stuff from you, you aren't going to make your money back. If W:I cards go out of print and nothing changes about the tournament formats, there may be some value added from people who want the old cards, but the tournament scene will still be worse off. I think that is the main reason I can't get others into the game though. They don't want to invest in a game that they can't get their money back out of. Even tournament's aren't paying out in cash prizes. The prizes from what I have read are absolute junk. They could do Alternate Art promos, or gift certificates for a BP so the new one to come out will be free for you, or they could do Capital Board playmats (I want badly). Until there is real incentive for people to travel and pay to play in a tournament, they will always be small as they have been. Imagine going to a W:I tournament that had 120 players, and the top 8 prize payout was a combined $2000 plus promos/mats/tickets. Would that get people excited to go? At $25 a head, that is still $3000 for FFG so they still made the profit. 80 people broke even for the cash payout. It would be hard to take the chance if the company ended up getting less than that and taking a loss, but its things like that that grow the game.

  12. Posted

    Just to avoid the hated Magic comparisons maybe, Warhammer Invasion is more like Shadowfist than any other game I have played. In Shadowfist you played down your locations/sites and they determined how many resources you made each turn. The similarity to W:I is that you could attack any front row site and defenders could only defend the site they were at or the adjacent site. That is a lot like the 3 zones in W:I. Decks in Shadowfist still stayed close to minimum though, because once again, damage in that game was not tied to the size of your deck.

  13. Posted

    Wytefang said:

    And other games, as we've explained repeatedly in here (myself and others), don't include some of the mechanisms that W:I does that make it both unique and a bit different when it comes to deck design.  That's not to say that using certain general principles are a bad idea, overall, but that you don't have to be totally married to pre-programmed rules from other games since this is its own game.  Once you can get a hold of that concept, you'll better understand the points that some of us have made in here about deck-sizes.  We're all basically on the same page, to some extent, it's just the level of fanatical dedication to strategic interests where we differ.  ;)

    I think it is actually the opposite happening. I don't intend to sound mean or anything, but maybe the fanaticism is coming from you and a couple others about how "different" this game is compared to other and how you fight tooth and nail to exaggerate the differences while glossing over the similarities.

    I have played so many other games (I even played AGoT before it was an LCG wanting so bad to get those kennel masters to make a deck around them) and have about 15 years of card gaming experience. There have been games where you wanted to play more than the minimum for certain decks. DBZ for example had 4 types of decks. Anger, Dragonball win, Physical beatdown, Energy beatdown. You don't have to know what they are, just know that the mechanics of the game allowed for it. Anger and Dragonball wanted minimum cards because they were kinda combo-y. The beatdowns typically went for max cards. The reason was that damage in DBZ was taken by discarding cards from the top of your deck. So your deck was your Health/HP/Life total. The beatdown decks just played as many cards that did a lot of damage as possible so that no matter what you drew, they were quality attack cards. Buffing your deck just increased your longevity.

    Star Wars was similar in that damage was taken from your deck, but everyone was required to have exactly 60 card decks so people couldn't be different. If there was a deck size range, it would have turned out the same in that more generic beatdown oriented decks would have gravitated to larger decks.

    Warhammer Invasion is more similar to Magic in that the point of winning is not tied to the number of cards in your deck. So typically, the fewer cards, the better. As an example, lets say you are playing a beatdown deck that has nothing but a ton of units that are extremely similar but not exactly the same. Because damage is not taken by reducing the opponents deck, you would be better off cutting all of the worst performing cards until you had a deck of 50 cards so you were guaranteed to draw the better performing cards. In combo and control it should be obvious why you would want fewer cards in the deck.

  14. Posted

    Wytefang said:

    While I can appreciate the Magic-style format (it does make sense for a lot of reasons), I'd rather just have them stick to adding races via Neutral cards.  Though I am hoping we get some new races, just for thematic purposes, if nothing else.  :)

    It's not just a Magic format. WoW TCG did it too. There comes a time when you have such a large pool of cards and a great deal of them are really hard to get that it makes it detrimental to the game to not make either formats, or reprints of everything. You have to market to new players and if those new players can never compete at a competative level, the game will die.

  15. Posted

    The only way I could see them adding new races that have boards is if they have tournament formats that rotate races so they don't have to support them all at once. For example these first 2 cycles are the standard 6 races we have now. If they have tournament formats that are at most 2 cycles, then once the first battlepack of the 3rd cycle is released, the whole first cycle would rotate out and they could introduce a new set of races or reuse some that are already available. They could even do boards of existing races with a different picture on them.

    That would atleast open up a couple different constructed formats. An eternal format where you can use everything printed and a "current" format that uses the most recent 2 or 3 cycles.

  16. Posted

    I am not theorycrafting here. I have played the deck posted. Its less consistent and the chances of getting that explosive start were less than the chances of getting the less than desirable start.

    In the end, this is just a game and we can all play what we want. If I ever have the time to get to a tournament, and one happens to be close, I may go and we will see how well I do. Not that one tournament is indicative of much or that rush will even be good when I can get to a tournament.

    I don't really that that good of a group of people to test against. I taught them all how to play and they only play passively. They just use my decks as they don't want to invest the small amount of money. Magic is the primary game in my card shop and it usually kills all other games. I would love to get WoW TCG played as well, but people don't want to spend the money on games they can't get money back out of.

  17. Posted

    Palisade Wall

    Cost - 4

    Neutral Support

    Only 1 unit may attack your capital during the battlefield phase. Sacrifice Palisade Wall if the opponent controls a Siege card.

     

    Smash 'Em All is a pretty good card against the Bolt Thrower deck. People just don't tech against the deck because rush doesn't need to and rush is more important to tech against.

  18. Posted

    I'm not sure how aggressive muliganing works when you can only take one. If you have a hand that is average, do you take the chance at getting a worse hand?

    As another point, I also think that when considering cards for the deck, you should look at the opponent playing rush first. That Lobber Crew when you go second against a rush deck is typically pretty bad. I love Lobber Crew though as if nothing else, its another resource every turn that can be used for utility if you need it.

  19. Posted

    deashira said:

    I disagree.  Even in a case where your opponent's strategy is to deck you out, you should still be trying to win.  Adding more cards to your deck simply dilutes it (in most cases).  In fact, I would say it's even more important to have a smaller deck against a milling deck because it's even more important to get the cards you need right out of the gate.  Throwing "filler" cards to avoid decking out doesn't do you any good if you end up drawing the "filler" and discarding your core cards.

    Even if you include redundant effect cards instead of "filler" cards, you still run the risk of drawing too many redundant effects (all support cards, for example) and not enough of other effects (units, tactics, etc.).

    As mentioned, you can also include redundant effect cards in a fifty card deck, greatly increasing the chances of drawing those effects.  Depending on the effect, this may be desirable, but in general I think the argument I made earlier is an even greater problem in a smaller deck; having six copes of one effect in your deck means you have a chance of drawing six copies of that effect in your hand at one time.  I, for one, would hate to see a starting hand of six units I can only play in my quest zone.  Sure, I could get a ton of early draw, but I have no resources to play those cards.

    RM

    I don't disagree, I was simply trying to pose a scenario where it may be desirable to have more than 50. I, personally, will always try to cut cards to get to 50 or 51 as I like my decks streamlined. I have in the recent past said that it is important for rush decks to be as streamlined as possible, but if you consider combo decks, it would be even more important there to insure you get your combo pieces asap. It is also vitally important for control decks to insure you get those board wipes and other control elements before you get overrun by rush or you get your Disdain before combo can combo out on you.

  20. Posted

    That whole argument is moot though. The whole point of the discussion is that if you need to draw that troll vomit and that is the only card that you need it. Your odds of getting it are better if you have 30 cards left in the deck rather than 40. If you want to take into account that you can add a completely different card that has the same effect you have to also consider that the exact same redundancy can be added to the smaller deck. My 50 card deck can also run 3 errant wolf and 3 huntsmen giving me an even greater chance of drawing them than the 60 card deck. Thats it, thats the whole argument. Its simple and there shouldn't really be disaggreement on it.

    A completely seperate argument arose when people were equating the better likelyhood of drawing a specific card to the deck being better. It may not be. If there is a deck that doesn't really have any cards that would save your butt in a situation like that, and you need another turn or two against a metagame filled with decks that try to run you out of cards, the bigger deck may very well be "better".

  21. Posted

    agg said:

    darkdeal said:

     

    Look at this in the Orc Rush vs Orc/Skaven. The initial deck vs my deck. I have more units. Neither deck is that great at dealing with opposing units, and because of that, my deck will have more threats on the board. If you do your plan, and I do mine, I should win more often just from applying damage faster. That extra turn you give the opponent could also be just enough for them to stabilize to board and carry that to a win.

     

     

     

    so its who ever can play the most units and attack wins right?

    so my deck is faster than yours because i have more acceration, so by that lodgic i would win right? because i can play guys faster.

    plus if i can disrupt your draw and you can't mine then i will draw more cards and make it more likly i will win.

    you dont need a lot of dudes to burn a zone. 

    now i agree that thanquel should be in there and ive added him but i dont agree that more units means faster, you only need 8 power

    and i need less due to rock lobba.

    i think having said all that there is really very little diffrence in the decks and if your happier runing your list then thats cool. i think the overall effect will be minor.

    First bold, I answer sure, but when you have 3 guys because you play so many non-unit cards and I play 5 guys because I don't play those non-unit cards. You aren't playing the most units.

    Second bold, your deck isn't faster. I played the deck, it accelerated into nothing because it doesn't have enough units.

    It seems like everyone is attacking me like I killed someones dog. I don't think I should be ridiculed so hard for questioning the card choices of this deck. I played it, and it didn't work as well as other versions I have played. And you are right, the differences are few. I just feel that my version is more consistent where yours is less consistent with the possibility to be more explosive from the start.

    I have also tried to disrupt the draw of my rush deck and it just doesn't work. It was always a poor decision over playing a unit to defend with or some other option to race. The damage comes too fast for the draws to be that much. You may get 1 or 2 more cards over the course of the game in most games I've played.

  22. Posted

    crowdedmind said:

    When you say 'usually' you mean less than half the time after taking the mulligan, correct?  If you really want a Thanquol/2 unit start why aren't you playing three copies of him?

    The point of playing We'z Bigga and Innovation is to increase the chances of seeing one or two early on which allows you to force out an extra unit and gain more tempo.  I think that if you don't believe Pillage is good then you probably don't understand the power of disrupting your opponent's earl y game.

    Disrupting the opponent's early game is meaningless against rush and pointless against control because you are going to win anyway. Rush doesn't care that you kill its Warpstone Excavation when it has 2 or 3 units sitting there beating you down and you just wasted 2 resources on a card that doesn't deal with the threats.

    A player, almost always, starts the game with 3 resources to play units. Most units in an orc/skaven deck cost 1 or 2. So you draw 2 of the we'z bigga/innovation and a warpstone and 4 units I'll say. If all 4 of those units amount to about 7 resources to play out, you didn't need both of those acceleration cards as you can just play 3 or 4 resources worth on your first turn, and the rest on your second turn. If you are playing second in the game, then it may be relevant, but it doesn't matter if you are playing first as your guys can't attack that turn anyway.

    Another reason you would want more than one acceleration card in your opening hand is if you want to play that many more units to your kingdom/quest zone. If you do that though, that is yet one more card that isn't attacking.

    It would be more acceptable to play that much acceleration if the deck played cards that actually cost more than 2.

    A defense of my deck about the Greyseer. I like to say "usually" so don't read too much into that as if it were a percentage. I played only 2 Greyseer because he is unique and I didn't want multiples in my opening hand. He is really good, but not manditory to get the damage there.

    Look at this in the Orc Rush vs Orc/Skaven. The initial deck vs my deck. I have more units. Neither deck is that great at dealing with opposing units, and because of that, my deck will have more threats on the board. If you do your plan, and I do mine, I should win more often just from applying damage faster. That extra turn you give the opponent could also be just enough for them to stabilize to board and carry that to a win.

  23. Posted

    JayDe said:

    Can someone link the thread where dormouse discusses this (bump to whoever else asked for this).

    Without seeing a supported argument for either side, i DON'T THINK HAVING A SMALLER DECK MEANS YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO GET A CARD YOU WANT - card games are almost like dice chance in the manner with which you draw cards. I do think it just means you have LESS BAD cards in a smaller deck, and it is therefore overall better.

    Has anyone had issues with people forcing them out of cards if they stick to the minimum? Because this seems very difficult, i threw about 8 power in my friend's Quest zone, but somehow his deck seemed to go down very slowly and I think I won the game a few turns after then anyway...

    Its basic math. If both decks are drawing the same number of cards, the smaller deck is more likely to see any specific card more often. Here is the math.

    50 card deck
    .0600
    .0612
    .0625
    .0638
    .0652
    .0666
    .0681
    =====
    44.74% chance of drawing a specific card, that has 3 copies in the deck, in your opening hand.

     

    60 card deck
    .0500
    .0508
    .0517
    .0526
    .0536
    .0545
    .0555
    =====
    36.87% chance of drawing a specific card, that has 3 copies in the deck, in your opening hand.

    To be fair, I assume both decks have can draw the same number of cards. That is, if the 60 card deck is able to play something in the quest zone to draw more cards, the 50 card deck is just as likely (more likely in most cases*).

    *In most decks, there are a certain number of cards that you can play to the quest zone. Assuming both decks are the same 50 cards, and the 60 card deck just added 10 additional cards, If the number of the additional 10 cards that can be played into the quest zone are too few, then you actually have less likelyhood of starting with a card you can put into the quest zone.

  24. Posted

    agg said:

    cards like innovation and we bigger are there to speed you up. you can draws where you play 2 2cost units turn one, that is huge imo and should not be ignored.

    putting a slow stream of guys is not as good in this game and playing a load striaght of, simply the more tempo you can get the better.

    this deck on average gets 5 power out by its 2nd turn. you only need to slow your opp down by one turn and you will win 90% of games. i agree that you could have a problem with de/skaven but adding mob up doesnt do it. you should just win that game any way.

    You don't need any of that acceleration to do that. The problem is when people answer your few threats, do you have what you need to recover? A deck with more units and the ability to draw more cards will recover faster than this deck as you will draw too many useless cards that were only good on the first turn. 3 of each of we'z bigga and innovation is too many. Pick one and play 3 of that. Pillage doesn't need to be there. Mob Up doesn't need to be there. That was just a hold over from when I first built the deck when Mob Up came out. There really should be more skaven in here. Clan Rats and Greyseer Thanquol can both be played to the quest zone and still add power to your attack. They are weak HP wise, but they force the opponent to play around you and that is what you want. What happens with my deck usually is first turn Greyseer in Kingdom. Turn 2 I play 2 more skaven, if they are 2 Clan Moulder Elites, I am attacking for 8 on turn 2. Good luck losing that game.

×
×
  • Create New...