|
Post by crazygambit on Feb 3, 2012 11:52:45 GMT -5
I don't know why people are so adamant about this situational stuff getting +1I. It's like this - people are still running untimely end even if it's situational and incomeless. I doubt people will NOT run Faux pas because it DOES intrinsically give you +XI where X is whatever you countered. It's all relative. And if Assassin decks become popular, I doubt people will stop running demotions, too. Just like untimely ends. Except that it doesn't. It gives you +1 no matter what you countered. It's as if both of you started the game with 1 less card and you had +1 income. Conversely countering a Collateral Damage doesn't give you a +5 advantage. Without the income advantage Faux Pas is pretty useless IMO. Untimely End is balanced because agents make a huge part of the memories you face and its cost is half of Court Order. If Radical Demotion were to cost 2 I'd agree it shouldn't give +1. But for 3? It has to.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 12:12:54 GMT -5
Erm, so emptying your hand before discard can discard them and having those cards actually do work isn't good enough of a way to beat discard? There are many decks that can beat discard. Sure they are strong ow, but order counters are obviously stronger. Just look around in the field.
So you're saying that by "taking away" the only way order counter decks can deal with discard (which I disagree with as order can still/also rush), it's giving an unfair advantage to discard?
I say that's more a view saying "order needs a way to deal with every threat", which should never be the case. If you wanna beat discard, look elsewhere. If you wanna be order, beware discard.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 12:19:34 GMT -5
I don't know why people are so adamant about this situational stuff getting +1I. It's like this - people are still running untimely end even if it's situational and incomeless. I doubt people will NOT run Faux pas because it DOES intrinsically give you +XI where X is whatever you countered. It's all relative. And if Assassin decks become popular, I doubt people will stop running demotions, too. Just like untimely ends. Except that it doesn't. It gives you +1 no matter what you countered. It's as if both of you started the game with 1 less card and you had +1 income. Conversely countering a Collateral Damage doesn't give you a +5 advantage. Without the income advantage Faux Pas is pretty useless IMO. Untimely End is balanced because agents make a huge part of the memories you face and its cost is half of Court Order. If Radical Demotion were to cost 2 I'd agree it shouldn't give +1. But for 3? It has to. It doesn't only if you don't do your consider that your opponent would have gotten +1 or +2 or whatever. How can you say that them NOT having something is not your gain? Countering a collateral damage definitely gives you +5, would you rather take the -income? No? Then counter it. Faux pas now is overpowered because it denies their growth and you get growth. Whereas any other income booster doesn't deny opponent's growth. In this game everything has to be taken into consideration of having an opponent, because you're not playing by yourself That's how I feel and how I play. I really doubt people will stop playing faux pas unless 1. No one runs 1/0 costs anymore or 2. No one runs the zero cost x cards anymore. I know I would still play it, in the right deck, not every deck, just like it should be. Besides order already has the best income boosters in the game, why are we still going on about this one that supposedly no one plays?
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 3, 2012 12:23:54 GMT -5
No. Just no. Please use reason when reading my threads or this is just going to turn into a flame fest. I am not saying Order needs a way to deal with every threat. I am saying Templar players need to be able to design decks that are viable against any deck. Not EVERY deck at the same time, mind you.
I play Templar. I play rush. A well designed Discard deck can crush rush most of the time, because rush needs threats. Lance is the exception. Taking away the only viable Templar counters to Discard is giving Discard an unfair advantage over Templar players. Yes.
Edit: Since these cards aren't overpowered vs. other deck archetypes (and often quite weak), why restrict them?
|
|
|
Post by crazygambit on Feb 3, 2012 12:39:49 GMT -5
t doesn't only if you don't do your consider that your opponent would have gotten +1 or +2 or whatever. How can you say that them NOT having something is not your gain? Countering a collateral damage definitely gives you +5, would you rather take the -income? No? Then counter it. Because it isn't. Your gain is limited only to what has actually happened. If he spent 10 income to cast a card and you only 4 to counter it, that's an actual tempo gain. Whatever the effect the card was supposed to have is absolutely irrelevant. Same as discard btw. If you make him discard a Plentiful Crop with an Answered Prayer, you're not getting a +2 advantage. You don't get a +1 agent advantage every time you use Untimely End. It's ridiculous to think this way. You get no card advantage since it's a 1-1 trade. If you hadn't played the counter you could have played an agent of your own for instance.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 12:48:11 GMT -5
Hmmmm... I'm not flaming anyone by the way, I was only thinking of order balance. I've never really thought of Templar vs assassin, cos they're not mutually exclusive... I would argue that cards like order of the king p, which can be held until you're ready to drop something big (dropping it first turn and fetching a Cesare when you know opponents playing discard is silly) is viable. Untimely takes out strangers and silvios (big anti-rush tank).
I dont think faux pas is being removed from play, it can still counter discards. In fact only divine intervention. It just doesn't ramp you up while your opponent is denied their strategy. You really do in essence get +1 cos they don't get +1. The same is true for all counters. All other removals that give income are more expensive or REALLY situational, so they get +1s. Plus they're not counters - counter deny the income other cards would have generated, removal doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 12:54:07 GMT -5
Because its not my perogative to convince people but just to convey my thoughts, I'm going to leave this topic with this: Scenario 1: Day 1: I play a plentiful crop. Opponent plays a Dante. End day 1 I have 4 income, opponent has 3. Scenario 2 (with proposed change): Day 1: I play a plentiful crop. Opponent faux pas it. End day 1 I have 2 income, opponent has 2. 1 card for 1 card in both, in scenario 2 the negated +1 income advantage is the net effect, hence +1. You don't have to believe me, that's my story and I'm sticking to it and will say no more about it, and am going to have a sandwich Edit: AND it's not just about the income, you've got an advantage AND removed a threat.
|
|
|
Post by The Rancord on Feb 3, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
You dont consider, that my enemy could play without 0/1 cost cards, or just dont draw them.
Then not only I do not gain +1, but I have a card thats completly useless.
Wich is a risk that I have when including this card. So I should get a benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 13:14:37 GMT -5
I'm not saying anymore about this! Don't tempt me!
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 3, 2012 13:53:25 GMT -5
Let me put it another way:
Discard right now is a powerful archetype. After these changes Discard will be even more powerful, since essentially it is unharmed.
I would accept either remedy: Keep anti-discard cards strong. Weaken discard cards.
I prefer the first to the second, since I think the developers should weaken as few cards as possible.
|
|
|
Post by The Rancord on Feb 3, 2012 15:05:03 GMT -5
Especially answered Prayers is quit cheap. When u don't counter it its really game deciding when ure deck doesnt have card draw.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 15:16:00 GMT -5
I don't think it's that clear cut, saying that faux pas and demotion is anti discard isn't really right. I've really not seen faux pas and demotion even being used as anti discard....... And I've played discard a fair bit (without citizen, which is the only thing I think that's really broken about discard) Discard is 1 for 1 (with a few notable yet slower exceptions), and opponent hasn't vested the resources to play the card, unlike counter which is resource denial too (gold used to play the offending card). Discards not nearly as strong as counters when seen in this light. And half of the time the discard tosses useless cards. It's a blind dagger to counter's all-purpose big stick. And yes I agree answered prayer is very good, but it's the same principle. Not better than a counter. And you have a draw every turn, just like a discard deck, except if they play the current citizen/scholar. In which case their threat potential is much lower and the deck becomes a slow slow slow dragged out deck (sir ericluah has demonstrated the effectiveness of that )
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 3, 2012 15:37:21 GMT -5
I've used them as anti discard. The reason you don't usually see them as anti-discard is that they aren't good enough to include in most decks, so they wont show in a random matchup that often.
Counters always stay 1 for 1, but discard starts working up to card advantage-- Mysterious Stranger for example, or Ancestral Discovery. The powerful discard decks combine both discard to limit your cards and counter to take care of any leftover threats. If effectively played they can follow up with card advantage discard to cement the deal.
One way to manage discard decks is with card advantage of your own, but Templar pretty much lacks card advantage cards altogether. Another way is to drop a bomb when they are short on counters. Bombs are pretty much getting limited with this change. A third is rush, but Lanz to is getting limited with this change.
These decks are powerful now, but since they don't rely on the resource boost from their counters (unlike, say, blue-green control), they will become more powerful in the future.
I expect blue-green draw-control to benefit a bit as well, but not so much as discard, because blue-green has a higher resource curve to really get underweigh-- it needs to use counters and draw enough counters. Discard starts out with discard right out of the gate.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 15:49:13 GMT -5
While I appreciate the consideration for Templar cards to compete with assassin cards, i think its not right to expect Templar cards to get the same utility value as assassin cards. That defeats the very important point that you can mix the two, and in the end you'll end up with a game that has nothing but powerful cards all round.
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 3, 2012 16:56:06 GMT -5
? So? What does that have to do with anything?
I'm not asking for exact match between Templar and Assassin. I'm asking for a reasonable Templar strategy vs any deck archetype. And by reasonably I mean has a fighting chance-- not wins all the time, or the even the majority of the time.
Discard is powerful and only going to get worse. If this change is really about balancing, then that must be accounted for.
|
|