|
Post by Ringel on Feb 5, 2012 16:00:22 GMT -5
Hi Ericluah. Your post was interesting, but it made all sorts of assumptions about me and my play style that are complete nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 5, 2012 16:03:49 GMT -5
Counter decks do not need Demotion to fight discard. Very few counter decks even bother to play Demotion. Demotion is useful for non-counter decks to fight discard. It opens up possible deck styles, not closes them or limits them to counter decks. Discard, like Counter, closes off certain play styles. Demotion opens them up again.
As far as Templar goes: Should every color have an effective deck build vs other colors (not all colors at once, mind you)? That is an interesting question.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 5, 2012 16:09:41 GMT -5
Well, at least someone agrees with us. But really, Ringel you can believe whatever you want to. My multitude of discard decks (counter/discard, site/discard, Lanz/discard, even clothes make the man/discard have all lost their very fair share. To fast decks mostly. Plus I've refused to use citizen after I realized how damn boring that 1 card discard lock is, so a discard deck has a very hard time dealing with fast sites or agents on the table cos the deck has dedicated itself to drawing discard to keep the lock. It's a dangerous game. If it works, great. I think Ringel, you just have to play a discard or two yourself to realize how it's not perfect. sudden exhaustion is currently to deal with ceseare's (salad) Hey hey if you wanna use cesare's salad at least quote me on it, that was my deck's name And Ringel, I think Ericluah was more making a general statement on all faux pas users and counter decks. It's true counter decks don't need multiple targeted removal cos they get a one size fit most solution.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 5, 2012 16:15:45 GMT -5
Counter decks do not need Demotion to fight discard. Very few counter decks even bother to play Demotion. Demotion is useful for non-counter decks to fight discard. It opens up possible deck styles, not closes them or limits them to counter decks. Discard, like Counter, closes off certain play styles. Demotion opens them up again. As far as Templar goes: Should every color have an effective deck build vs other colors (not all colors at once, mind you)? That is an interesting question. If you say that there must be a Templar only build against everything, you're telling crime to go stand in the corner and cry. If you need Templar only to be strong enough to take on the world, youre telling all the assassin cards to go stand in the corner and face the wall. If you think demotion isn't being run in counter decks but instead suggest that demotion is only being run in decks with no other counters, you're REALLY not paying attention. Unfortunately we're all playing the same game here, not two different games. Giving the kind of attention you want to Templar only will (and has) messed up the entire meta with order supremacy. I'd like to see that supremacy end. That is all. And it's not like order can't counter anymore, geez. You just now have to pack resource boosters with your Swiss army knife one size fit all removal, just like EVERY other decks out there.
|
|
|
Post by ericluah on Feb 5, 2012 16:23:23 GMT -5
Hi Ericluah. Your post was interesting, but it made all sorts of assumptions about me and my play style that are complete nonsense. I'm not assuming your play style. I'm merely recounting a larger percentage of people i've played against. just because you don't do it, does not mean it can't be done. the fact that it can be done is an extremely huge advantage whether you make use of it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 5, 2012 16:29:43 GMT -5
Omg I can't believe I'm still talking about this (faux pas and demotion), I'm gonna stop again.
On the same related thing though, does anyone feel against all odds should have the income taken away? I guess so, scientific espionage doesn't have an income, although it is a steal, too.
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 5, 2012 16:36:22 GMT -5
As far as Templar goes: Should every color have an effective deck build vs other colors (not all colors at once, mind you)? That is an interesting question. If you say that there must be a Templar only build against everything, you're telling crime to go stand in the corner and cry. If you need Templar only to be strong enough to take on the world, youre telling all the assassin cards to go stand in the corner and face the wall. Um. No, I'm not saying any of those things. Some do. There is one deck posted here that does, but it is a splash. I want two cards out of several not changed. That is hardly going to result in Templar supremacy. Notice that Templar can foot a solid control deck, because control requires card advantage and card advantage is pretty solidly Assassin (blue Assassin included). I'm fine with that. I'm trying to focus on Blue here. Should Blue (not Templar) but Blue have cards to answer different threats? Same question for Red, Green, Purple and Black. Should each color have strengths against a variety of threats? I think it is a good question to consider. Maybe the answer is no, since you can always two different colors.
|
|
|
Post by ericluah on Feb 5, 2012 16:53:11 GMT -5
Counter decks do not need Demotion to fight discard. Very few counter decks even bother to play Demotion. Demotion is useful for non-counter decks to fight discard. It opens up possible deck styles, not closes them or limits them to counter decks. Discard, like Counter, closes off certain play styles. Demotion opens them up again. As far as Templar goes: Should every color have an effective deck build vs other colors (not all colors at once, mind you)? That is an interesting question. If you say that there must be a Templar only build against everything, you're telling crime to go stand in the corner and cry. If you need Templar only to be strong enough to take on the world, youre telling all the assassin cards to go stand in the corner and face the wall. If you think demotion isn't being run in counter decks but instead suggest that demotion is only being run in decks with no other counters, you're REALLY not paying attention. Unfortunately we're all playing the same game here, not two different games. Giving the kind of attention you want to Templar only will (and has) messed up the entire meta with order supremacy. I'd like to see that supremacy end. That is all. And it's not like order can't counter anymore, geez. You just now have to pack resource boosters with your Swiss army knife one size fit all removal, just like EVERY other decks out there. the order deck just won't be as clean and efficient as it currently is! most specialized/tuned decks of 50 cards have some sort of weakness as they can't have everything to deal with every situation. not to mention most of them are not surprises. heck.. nowadays i keep playing a new deck and i keep getting ppl who "seem" to be playing a specific type of deck to counter what i'm playing.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 5, 2012 16:59:16 GMT -5
As far as Templar goes: Should every color have an effective deck build vs other colors (not all colors at once, mind you)? That is an interesting question. If you say that there must be a Templar only build against everything, you're telling crime to go stand in the corner and cry. If you need Templar only to be strong enough to take on the world, youre telling all the assassin cards to go stand in the corner and face the wall. Um. No, I'm not saying any of those things. Some do. There is one deck posted here that does, but it is a splash. I want two cards out of several not changed. That is hardly going to result in Templar supremacy. Notice that Templar can foot a solid control deck, because control requires card advantage and card advantage is pretty solidly Assassin (blue Assassin included). I'm fine with that. I'm trying to focus on Blue here. Should Blue (not Templar) but Blue have cards to answer different threats? Same question for Red, Green, Purple and Black. Should each color have strengths against a variety of threats? I think it is a good question to consider. Maybe the answer is no, since you can always two different colors. Most definitely no. Every colour has to have weaknesses. Yes you should always need two different colours. Blue order is fortunate to have answers to almost everything. They should suffer in speed for it. In all aspects, anti assassin or not. And it shouldn't only be "what strategies can I counter (not as in counterspell but as in disrupt), it should be what can I do to win. It just so happens that everyone has had to ask the question what do I need to deal with rather than how can I win because of a few overwhelmingly strong options.
|
|
|
Post by ericluah on Feb 5, 2012 17:08:13 GMT -5
every colour should/maybe should not have a weakness.
but should a colour have an overwhelmingly powerful card to counter all threats outside of ceseare ( being a surprise). yet gain income from using it?
on a side note, the fact that he can't be countered, almost makes sudden exhaustion a must in most decks.
|
|
|
Post by ericluah on Feb 5, 2012 17:10:58 GMT -5
my bore you to death deck, was birthed from trying to make a deck with a solution to every thing. =/
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 5, 2012 17:27:12 GMT -5
every colour should/maybe should not have a weakness. but should a colour have an overwhelmingly powerful card to counter all threats outside of ceseare ( being a surprise). yet gain income from using it? Just to beat a dead horse, but notice that I'm not defending the cards that counter all threats. No kidding. My decks shift with the meta too. I used to carry discards to manage combo decks when they were popular. Now pretty much every deck I have carries SE to manage Cesare. Never mind that it is useful against many threats.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 5, 2012 17:43:48 GMT -5
my bore you to death deck, was birthed from trying to make a deck with a solution to every thing. =/ Well, having a solution to everything can also be a strategy to win. At least you did it unconventionally
|
|
|
Post by UnCL0NED on Feb 6, 2012 3:58:58 GMT -5
Daring experiment has been used to draw entire libraries. 10g for 4 cards is bigger than Leonardo da Vinci. Half the time it's popped out when the game is super far gone and both players have exhausted options. Drawing 7 cards for for 16 cost vs 16 cost il carnifice is super imba. So to compensate for the late game drawing power, daring experiment has to suffer from early game cost inefficiency, or else there is no reason not to run daring experiment over drawing 3 for 6 cost, since it's 3 for 8 cost (2 is really negligible). Currently daring is drawing 3 for 9, which is still plenty. I don't think it's been nerfed much, but does make it less attractive early game, which is what it should be. I don't think anyone's not gonna run it cos of this change, it scoops people out of end game desperation with 20+ income regularly. Still will. It was never meant to be an early game filler. If both players drew cards then I would definitely not run it, just like I wouldn't run nothing ventured DE is already not attractive to play early game atm. It will be totally unattractive both early as late game now, which is exactly my point. This card has some value now to play late game. When you make card drawing late game more expensive, it will loose all value. I do think 2G early game is a very big difference (to in-depth) early game, let alone 3G difference... It cannot be compared with agents. Leonardo 5/5 with Cunning and Fierce out on the field and 2 memories extra in my hand, I'd choose (almost) any day over 4 cards in my hand. I do agree with Il Carnefice, which has only use for a few certain kind of decks (e.g. Carnefice Call ), but has nothing to do with drawing extensive amounts of cards... Also: It would be nice to have a card that lets both players draw a lot of cards. It would be interesting with resource denial decks or discard decks to play. Anyway, I guess we just have to wait and see, what this change really means for the balance of the game...
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 6, 2012 5:17:02 GMT -5
Unattractive late game? Answer me this:
When you're late game with 20+ income (happens more often than not), with not much to do and game is in stalemate, would you rather draw the new 0 cost Daring Experiment and draw potentially 7 cards for 21 gold or a Leonardo/Draw 3 cards for 6?
|
|