darkdeal
-
Content Count
179 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by darkdeal
-
-
I dont know, but this is almost exactly what I expected. Being that I am Mr. 50 cards. My line of thinking is as follows, people who play pet decks are not usually competative players and probably would rather not shell out the $25 to play in a tournament. The ones who are willing to pay the entry fee to play are more competative and are playing to win. So they will play the "best" deck even if it isn't the faction they think is the "neatest".
I would like to know about deck sizes at the tourney though. Anyone running more than 50? 55? 60? and if so, how did they do compared to the ones running fewer cards? I assume since they were all rush, they tried to be as close to 50 as possible.
-
Hellionus said:
As for the sideboard, no sideboard debate. I don't see why there is any debate. I've read all the rules in the Warhammer: Invasion rule book and the FAQ and I don't see any mention of a sideboard. I know other games have such a thing but that doesn't mean every card game has to have it (Yes, I have played them). Play Warhammer: Invasion as Warhammer: Invasion and please don't try to convert it to other games you have liked. I like to play different games and not similar games with different scenarios.
Sideboard rules are typically not in rule books as they are tournament rules.
-
Dragonball Z had an interesting sideboard rule. Instead of going through your deck and choosing which cards you take out, you decide what card you want to put in and then pull out the same number of cards from your deck AT RANDOM. It made sideboarding really hard and costly.
I dislike how everyone in here is getting down on sideboards with the argument that the sideboard will beat the opponent, not taking into account that the opponent will also have a sideboard. In MtG there is a thing called a "transformational sideboard". It is where your whole sideboard is something you put in in order to completely change the strategy of your deck in subsequent games to throw off the opponent. It is a neat strategy, but also comes at a cost. You lose the option of putting in "silver bullet" cards against other specific strategies.
I think sideboards actually benefit a game. I agree that tournaments will be degenerate because of the lack of sideboards. Just adding in cards that you would have put into a sideboard will reduce the effectiveness of your opening hands. In a game against orc rush you have maybe 3 or 4 turns to draw that card you added to help there, but you have all those other cards you added to help in other matches and you have a lower chance of drawing what you need when you need it.
-
gamjuven said:
Yeah I was going about this Ulthuan expansion really hyped for the high elves. They seemed like they would be awesome. But I have not seen them do well so far. It's probably the fault of my deck building, but they are just not hanging well against other decks. Decks that have units like Deathmaster in them. The elves can't do anything once he gets out there. For all their control if deathmaster gets out there with some skaven there's like nothing they can do.
The dark elves solo deck runs pretty well I'm seeing, and a dark elf skaven decks are awesome. But I haven't figured out the high elves yet.
Blessing of Isha can be played on the Deathmaster and he wont be able to use his ability as he can no longer be corrupted. High Elves also have Flames of the Phoenix which can set a Chaos/Skaven non-rush deck back pretty far.
-
Everyone here is assuming that "taking out cards to replace" means that someone is trying to force 50 cards, but what if they are at 100? There is a card cap too you know.
I will posit simply this; If everyone starts to make 50 to 60 card decks, and then design a "sideboard" and just throw those cards into the maindeck to play with their 65-75 card decks, Orc Rush will win every single tournament. The lack of sideboards actually rewards the most narrow, fast, non-interactive decks because they don't care what you are playing, they just plow through before you draw your hate (if you play it).
-
Wytefang said:
darkdeal said:
Wytefang said:
Just to clarify the annoying and confusing M:TG 1337 speak, "recursive" is an overly pendantic way to say Recycling.
Echtalion, will AoU be released in time for the Regionals? If so, you may want to wait and see all the options you have before crafting your tourney deck. I'm undecided still for the local FFG Regionals at the Event Center.
Too many choices now. But what worries me is that most people are probably just going to revert to using an Orc Deck (easiest to play, fastest still, and probably still most powerful with the best odds of granting a victory). Sigh.If I knew that there would be a bigger variety, I'd definitely try something more wide-ranging and that offered some variety. As it stands, I'm really unsure.
Renju, I like your deck...it's tough.I think you need to stop with the bias against M:tG. You are getting so bad with it, that you are attributing things to M:tG that were not started by M:tG just in an attempt to "smear" the game. A quick search on Merriam-Webster will get you the definition of recursive.
Main Entry: re·cur·sive
Function: adjective
Date: 1934
1 : of, relating to, or involving recursion <a recursive function in a computer program>
2 : of, relating to, or constituting a procedure that can repeat itself indefinitely <a recursive rule in a grammar>M:tG is definitely not 76 years old. If you would just ignore your inclination to bash M:tG, maybe the comparisons will die out on their own and this game can thrive as its own entity. The more the W:I vs M:tG flames are fanned, the more people will decide they can only focus on one of the games and despite what you may think, M:tG would win that battle.
About the deck in question. I think you should worry about the opponent being able to keep guys off of your quests. If they can do that, it shuts off your loops and they just then have to attrition you out. I think you should consider Gromril Armor to stop sniping shenanegans, not to mention how powerful it is on the Dragonmage. I also think you should strongly look at Blessing of Isha if Deathmaster is in your environment at all, and even still just to stop people from corrupting your infinite damage blocking dudes as corruption is one of the few ways to get around a Dragonmage or Swordmaster.
Honestly, it's not about anti-Magic bias - I played it too, just like many of us here. It's a GREAT game though it never really caught on with me or my gaming group for a variety of reasons (cost, too much pre-existing history of the game to grasp and enjoy, overly competitive player-base, etc...).My only gripe has always been about how silly it seems for people to come in here to a new forum for an entirely new game and expect people here to know and use their terms from an entirely different game. Just doesn't make sense and it comes off a bit elitist after a fashion.
I'll admit that some terms from the world of CCG gaming have now since somewhat transcended their boundaries and I suppose in that regard, these usages can't be helped.That being said, I was definitely aware that this word had its own definition previous to M:TG, my grumble was mainly that it's usage among our genre was popularized via an entirely different game. Not only that but as Dormouse has pointed out, it's a pedantic, unfriendly usage at that. Why not just say "Recycling?" It's far clearer and much easier to understand. It's a bit presumptuous to assume that W:I gamers will be familiar with or comfortable using a more "fancy" word when a much simpler and direct one will do.
Hope that makes sense. I (and a few others here) are not against M:TG at all (at least I'm not), but just the applied usage of terms here from a different game with the assumption that we 1. Are all familiar with those terms, and 2. Are comfortable or willing to make those terms standard for our beloved new game here.
I still don't understand your ill will towards words used in other games even though they have meanings outside of those game. Why should "recycle" be any better than "recur" or "bring back" or anything else? It seems completely arbitrary to me. What if to me "recycle" indicated more that you were putting a card from your discard pile back into your deck while "recur" had more of a meaning of from the dicard pile to your hand? And honestly, if someone has never heard of a "recurring dream", there is a situation that isn't just because of that one word. They could be people who don't use English as a first language or something and in that case, any other word could be just as difficult.
Really, it doesn't matter too much what a few people try to push as their own terminology for this, or any other, game. Whatever is the most common will probably stick and the terminology will evolve and become more defined for W:I over time. Even now, I still use words when I play M:tG that aren't the way everyone else talks about something.
This isn't limited to card games either though. People have actually started saying LOL or ROFL in real life instead of actually laughing, or OMG instead of actually saying the words. I do not do this and I refuse to assimilate into this current pop culture fad, but it is a good parallel to this discussion.
As long as people use words that have a real meaning and not some meaning based on the specific name of a card in another game that may or may not be known, I see no problem in calling something whatever as long as it makes sense.
-
I agree that sideboards are probably a bad idea in W:I
and because of a lack of sideboards, I would prefer a tournament layout with 1 game matches, but you play more matches in a tourney. It puts a focus on deckbuilders to build a more consistent deck rather than a less consistent one that can just blow someone out randomly.
-
Don't feed the trolls Wytefang.
I have never heard anyone refer to an effect in W:I as a fog or timewalk. I honestly think that if people are playing W:I with that much focus on M:tG, then they probably aren't really that serious about playing W:I to the point of buying their own stuff. I have a friend like that and I am to the point where I am just going to cut him off because I don't want to support him in this game. Realistically, if a player were even remotely serious about playing this game they would take the time to learn the language of W:I and not just compare everything to M:tG or some other game. Corruption vs Tap for example, there is absolutely no reason to ever say "tap" in W:I.
-
Atretes said:
What is a sideboard? I have heard this term used and seen cards included in decks for a sideboard, but I'm not sure I really get it's purpose or where it comes from.
It is a set number of cards that you can have off to the side when you construct a deck. In a match play system (best of 3 or 5 or whatever), after game 1, you can substitute cards in your main deck for some of the cards in the sideboard to give you a better chance of winning games 2 or 3. It makes it so that exceedingly narrow cards can actually see play and therefore it opens up more design space for cards to be made. They can't really make a card that says deal 3 damage to a chaos unit and expect it to see any play whatsoever unless they introduce a sideboard option.
Specifics, sideboards are always the same number of cards for everyone, 15 cards in the case of M:tG. You can not side in cards in game 1 even if you happen to know what the opponent is playing and you have to put your deck back to its original state at the start of each new match.
-
Soft-Lock and Hard-Lock are actually a little different in M:tG.
Soft-Lock is a lock on the game, but the opponent can still do things and potentially get out of the lock. An example of this in W:I would be the Infinite Gifts of Aenarion combo because the opponent can still get around it with uncancellable damage and killing the unit on the quest.
Hard-Lock is a lock on the game that cannot be gotten around. There are currently no hard-lock strategies in W:I to my knowledge. For M:tG players, this is like Painter's Servant + Iona. Basically makes it so your opponent can't play any cards for the rest of the game.
-
The thing about "Tap" is though, that there actually IS a word for it in W:I. Other than when I am trying to specifically teach a M:tG player how to play W:I, I don't really hear or see too many people refer to corrupting as tapping.
I agree that Tutor and Mill are very specific to M:tG and there should be terms made specifically for W:I for these things. I prefer generic terms like Search for tutor. I do say Mill though and I am not really sure what you could call it in W:I that would be just as short.
Counter is a little more grey. It is refering to a specific card in M:tG, but it is also used in so many other card games in text that says "counter the effect" or something similar. Although I have heard some people go as far as just calling it "No".
-
Aggro simply refers to aggressive, sort of keep the pressure on even at the expense of some. I don't know where this started but it is most often used with rush decks in W:I. In other games, it means any deck (card games specific) that has its primary plan to be creature/unit/character beatdown. It is part of the rock/paper/scissors that is aggro-combo-control. Aggro also has some roots in video games, specifically FPS (first person shooters) and RTS (real-time strategy) games.
Control simply means that you have a deck that is meant to plod along slowly controling the tempo of the game only to some bomb late game and ride it to the win. A video game term synonymous with this would be "turtling". Sort of hiding under your shell until the opponent is sufficiently worn out so you can come out and get an easy win.
Bounce probably is a term that originated with M:tG. It simply means to return something to your hand.
-
Wytefang said:
Just to clarify the annoying and confusing M:TG 1337 speak, "recursive" is an overly pendantic way to say Recycling.Echtalion, will AoU be released in time for the Regionals? If so, you may want to wait and see all the options you have before crafting your tourney deck. I'm undecided still for the local FFG Regionals at the Event Center.
Too many choices now. But what worries me is that most people are probably just going to revert to using an Orc Deck (easiest to play, fastest still, and probably still most powerful with the best odds of granting a victory). Sigh.If I knew that there would be a bigger variety, I'd definitely try something more wide-ranging and that offered some variety. As it stands, I'm really unsure.
Renju, I like your deck...it's tough.I think you need to stop with the bias against M:tG. You are getting so bad with it, that you are attributing things to M:tG that were not started by M:tG just in an attempt to "smear" the game. A quick search on Merriam-Webster will get you the definition of recursive.
Main Entry: re·cur·sive
Function: adjective
Date: 1934
1 : of, relating to, or involving recursion <a recursive function in a computer program>
2 : of, relating to, or constituting a procedure that can repeat itself indefinitely <a recursive rule in a grammar>M:tG is definitely not 76 years old. If you would just ignore your inclination to bash M:tG, maybe the comparisons will die out on their own and this game can thrive as its own entity. The more the W:I vs M:tG flames are fanned, the more people will decide they can only focus on one of the games and despite what you may think, M:tG would win that battle.
About the deck in question. I think you should worry about the opponent being able to keep guys off of your quests. If they can do that, it shuts off your loops and they just then have to attrition you out. I think you should consider Gromril Armor to stop sniping shenanegans, not to mention how powerful it is on the Dragonmage. I also think you should strongly look at Blessing of Isha if Deathmaster is in your environment at all, and even still just to stop people from corrupting your infinite damage blocking dudes as corruption is one of the few ways to get around a Dragonmage or Swordmaster.
-
Artemus Maximus said:
yeah i agree, it would be crucial information. But information that i feel 1) shouldnd't be privy to your opponent and 2) interrupts momentum. my opiniono is based on that if an army is seiging another army's fortress or whatever, they wouldn't stop to count remaining resources, men etc to see how much longer they'll last exactly. They'd have a feel for how long and i think it should be the same here
Not every game play mechanic will translate into a thematic scenario. The whole idea of the quest zone and a unit on a quest being able to defend the capitol is one of the strange mechanics that I have trouble rationalizing in storyline.
I think that given the state of the game that an individual is in, it should be relevant. It is public information anyway. It wont be revealing any kind of secret. If someone only had 6 cards left, you can count that without even picking the deck up. When someone is doing it when you still have 50 cards left or they are asking every couple turns, I would seriously be suspicious of the opponent stalling (which in a tournament situation could be crucial due to time limits).
-
Compounding on the Neutral Board theme, maybe they could introduce up to 4 more races that are "neutral" and give them each a board, but have them be non-destruction and non-order. You could not play any destruction only or order only cards, including the normal faction cards for their races.
I don't really care what they end up doing, I just wanna see some lizardmen that are good to play.
-
I think it would be neat to have a neutral faction (With a board), that you could not play non-neutral faction cards in. There would have to be some way to balance it through more powerful cards, or a board that gave a little better bonus, or more HP per zone to make up for the lower deck flexability.
-
Honestly, they are just strictly better than if they had that damage as a hammer because you get to assign it anywhere and before regular damage. It can be used as a way to damage attackers that aren't even attacking the zone the globadiers are in.
-
Also, Skaven are becoming so powerful and common that I find Zealot Hunter to be a good option. It also lets you choose the target. This will add a power to whatever zone you need it to and let you kill the Deathmaster or Clan Moulder's Elite in one shot.
-
Reclaim the Hold, Abandoned Mine, Grudge Thrower allows you a unit to play and throw every turn. Units with 'enters play' or 'leaves play' effects are very good with this. Dwarf Miner to heal 2 a turn is a pretty good tool for stabalizing your board. Zhufbar Engineers can also cripple the opponent if he is running out of steam.
I do run a minor development theme in my deck though. Later in the game when everything is so locked up, I just use my 14 resources or so to activate my Grudge Thrower several times with 2 or 3 Dwarf Rangers in play to just pick off the opponents capital. If that isn't enough to get through, the attack with my units at +3 or +4 power will be.
My biggest problem now is surviving against my orc rush deck. I have a zone burned quick before I can stabalize, then the orc player just slows down a bit and takes a small chunck here and there until I die. I need something that is a little quicker to defend myself.
-
I think this is easy to clear up for now, but may become more difficult later depending on cards that are printed. The 'action' that is the act of playing a card does not target ever, it is just a "motion" that a player is taking. It is synonomous with "playing a card" or "making/taking a move". The card played may target, but that is irrelevant as you are then looking at card text for an effect that says "action" and that is what Iron Discipline can stop.
I think it is a poor choice to have two separate things have the same name as it will cause confusion. Due to cards already being printed with the word "Action" on them, and other cards refering to that, I think it would be easier to just change the terminology of the rules for play.
-
Mister Mask said:
f7eleven said:
Sideboard!?!?!? are there rules for sideboarding for this game?
no.
obviously the TO must be a magic fan.
it "corrupts" the deckbuilding challenge.
it could be interesting but it's not the format for official tournament. Or it has not been announced yet !
so we can't really get something useful from these results.
Are there any "official" tournament rules at all yet? According to your logic, we can't really get anything useful from any tournament report then.
As the game grows, the cardpool could warrant sideboard options without messing up the complexity of deckbuilding. If there are different strategies for all factions and all combinations of factions, a small sideboard would not be enough to answer them all. On top of that, there is a whole new set of complications on how to sideboard.
My opinion is that there should be no sideboarding as of right now though as there isn't a sufficient cardpool for it. A best 2 of 3 between 2 decks that stay unchanged for the match reduces the likelyhood of a win based on luck. The act of sideboarding for games 2 and 3 changes that by altering the decks and possibly the luck involved if one of the sideboarded cards is a big enough bomb.
-
I don't know too much about the warhammer world but I would like to see lizardmen as the order aligned neutrals.
I think High Elves are going to be very defensive. Damage prevention and cancellation, healing. I wouldn't be suprised to see some "milling" strategies going specifically to the High Elves.
-
X is whatever you want to pay, but only players with that many or more developments can participate in the cards effect. It would be really cool if it was not an optional effect, playing it for 0 to force everyone to discard their hands would have made it good. The way it is though, its just okay.
-
It works, toughness isn't a "response" to damage, toughness just happens.
All this ruling is saying is that there is no "damage assignment phase" to playing a tactic that deals damage. You can respond to the tactic, but if you let that window pass, the damage is done. If someone plays Flames of Tzeentch on your unit, you can respond to the Flames by playing Steel's Bane. The damage will be cancelled, but if you let your window pass, there is no time between the resolution of Flame and the dealing of the damage. Clear?
Too many choices now. But what worries me is that most people are probably just going to revert to using an Orc Deck (easiest to play, fastest still, and probably still most powerful with the best odds of granting a victory). Sigh.
Calling DarkDeal, Cyberfunk, Cain_Hu, Clamatius, Dywnarc, Bounty-Hunter, and Artemius Maximus....
in Warhammer Invasion Deck Building
Posted
I'm sorry but I didn't see this thread in time. I would have tried to help.
An idea for a deck building group could be to start a page on facebook. That way people can post general information on the wall and if you want to mail someone privately, its built in. Just something to consider.