|
Post by Brontobeuf on Jul 16, 2012 10:22:57 GMT -5
Today I crushed over two suleiman decks with my Millitants deck, and also over a Faith site deck with Yerebatan and the 10-cost one. I play no Piri, nearly no surprises and no Constantinople. Yesterday it was with my Thieves deck that I got one too. (I play rush decks when I don't have my 500c yet, they are strong agaisnt counters...) And I just don't lose to them, at all, with my two main decks (crime/faith & crime/scholar). I play the red counters and Sci Espionnage in both. Less than 10 counters in each.
I lose to them only when I play fun/crappy/slow/vulnerable decks which is normal because they are quite competitive themselves and deserve to crush whatever is not competitive. I also lose to them when I got bad starting hands or when they got goodones. In fact, they are pretty much normal.
It's just that they prevent you to play your cards, and so, itis easy to feel frustrated to the point where you don't want that to happen again. But it's not a good mindset because you will just make bad decks this way, and you will keep loosing vs counters and feed the bandwagon...
The good mindset is to come back to the whiteboard and start thinking again about a new decks. :]
Don't read "I'm stronger than you" in my words, but read "I'm not in the bandwagon about the counters and the anti-counters thingy and I'm doing great, you should try to think out of the box."
I was playing counters when Revelations came out. I got defeated *a lot* and I know what their weaknesses are.
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Jul 16, 2012 10:34:41 GMT -5
Then there would a need to have a card that's 2 cost and be like "agents can't be neutralized" cos stronghold is getting too strong? Where does it end? We need balanced cards, not power cards. Well, we DO have a card that is suppose to stop counters. They made that for a reason. Saying that improving that card so it works is pointless is a bad argument.
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Jul 16, 2012 10:48:04 GMT -5
Wow. You totally miss my points Bronto. I too have decks that do well against counters also without using anti counters. My point is diversity (and fun) is less as you have to play certain decks to beat counters. I don't want to use the same decks I know works all the time. I like to experiment. Counters make that hard if you want to try something new and DON'T want to start thinking "how do I make a deck that does well or at least can handle counters easily". If Constantinople worked as intended I could make these decks and not fear counters. Suleiman is still useful with Constantinople on the board. He just doesn't counter while deploying. Still a 2/2 surprise noble. Making constantinople deploy for sure does not make it a power card.
If you use 10 counter cards I'll argue that you are playing counter heavy decks. 20% of a deck is a lot.
In my noble deck I use 5 suleiman and 1 preemtive strike. I can still use the synergi with suleiman with piri or constantinople out.
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on Jul 16, 2012 10:55:11 GMT -5
Why do you want that much to play Constantinople to beat counters? You just said there are other ways to deal with them.
I don't really want counters to become too much vulnerable to another card as they already have Piri, Monteriggioni and so many surprises to fear. Counter decks are not what I like to play (10 counters is not heavy btw) but they don't derserve the hate they get now on these forums.
Playing counters is a very valid strategy that doesn't need nerves/boosts because of it. (well... maybe only Suleiman... and I'm not even so sure about that)
Constantinople is fine as it is. Not perfect, not weak. :]
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Jul 16, 2012 11:30:02 GMT -5
Because a lot of concept decks rely on a few cards. Counter all copies and you lose.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there shouldn't be counters. I do like them in general, just not in the current meta there are too many powerful cards (e.g. Yerabatan temple and suleiman). If concept decks are to work you need to have a some way to stop counters - to protect yourself.
If it always hits the board then the game keeps going. The opponent can then remove it which is fine. Then the game is still progressing.
Does it make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jul 16, 2012 12:06:10 GMT -5
Just like in magic, countering is a specific strategy that blue has. Other colours shouldn't be able to abuse that power too easily, and right now, that IS the case, everyone and their dog has 10 counters, with or without order.
So everyone has to play surprise. Or counter. Or lose. I don't like this definition of competitiveness - the ability to beat counters or have counters.
|
|
|
Post by The Rancord on Jul 16, 2012 15:12:02 GMT -5
A thief deck that works? And with schoolar together? This is very surprising
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jul 16, 2012 16:28:47 GMT -5
A thief deck that works? And with schoolar together? This is very surprising What? You asking if there's an effective thief deck? Well I wouldn't call a heavy thief deck awesome, but elements of thievery really helps. Ezio mentor for me has proven to be more than just a big pretty card. It's strategically significant and boosts a lot of other stuff, too.
|
|
|
Post by The Rancord on Jul 16, 2012 16:33:13 GMT -5
No bronto mentioned it
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jul 16, 2012 17:01:05 GMT -5
Oh ok, Bronto please give us some insight
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on Jul 16, 2012 20:39:51 GMT -5
Nope. My Scholar/Crime is without Thieves. I also have a rush Thieves that is not original. My millitant may be more interesting and I will share the list soon. :]
|
|
|
Post by ironcladtrash on Jul 16, 2012 23:13:03 GMT -5
Why do you want that much to play Constantinople to beat counters? You just said there are other ways to deal with them. I don't really want counters to become too much vulnerable to another card as they already have Piri, Monteriggioni and so many surprises to fear. Counter decks are not what I like to play (10 counters is not heavy btw) but they don't derserve the hate they get now on these forums. Playing counters is a very valid strategy that doesn't need nerves/boosts because of it. (well... maybe only Suleiman... and I'm not even so sure about that) Constantinople is fine as it is. Not perfect, not weak. :] This might be the first, last, and only time I ever agree with post in favor of counters. I absolutely despise them, but with all the new cards like Piri, Constantinople, and others that got added that have surprise, or can give it, I am almost OK with counters now. Only because it keeps the game balanced. If counters were completely neutralized some other strategy or deck would emerge that would be almost unbeatable. Something like the old Pan/RI deck maybe.
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Jul 17, 2012 15:18:39 GMT -5
1 thing some of you may miss in my suggestion.
If Constantinople is always deployed, it doesn't kill counters. It is so easy to remove it again with site destruction (which can't be stopped from going through due to Constantinople). The only effect that it would have on counter decks would be for them to add some more anti sites (gasp what a thought...). Piri would still be much stronger as you can use your own counters to stop whatever tries to kill him.
This change will make the game go on even if the counter deck won the initial income boost and can counter your first cards.
|
|
|
Post by demkon on Jul 19, 2012 5:30:05 GMT -5
Sorry lurifaxb, but that is simply not true. If Constantinople could always be deployed it would definitely kill almost every counter deck. You can not counter anything while Constantinople is on the board, so you have to remove it first. There are two problems with this, income and time. The removal card is more expansive than Constantinople itself and there is the risk that the enemy plays another Constantinople (again it's half the cost than the site destruction!) as soon as you have destroyed the first one. Furthermore the Constantinople player can just launch his important memories, while Constantinople is still on the board. So the counter player has to pack solutions against these memories too.
These two facts would make counters almost useless, if they would change Constantinople to be resolved as surprise. I think it is good as it is, too.
As discussed in the other thread, I would rather like to see more uncounterable cards (respectively cards that are only counterable by the "Erase counter" but not by a simple Suleyman) as an answer to the counter heavy meta. Not too much of course, but some of them would force the counter player to build in some solutions into his deck.
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Jul 19, 2012 6:42:56 GMT -5
You do have a point. I did not see deploying multiple Constantinoples at same time. But there are good cards for removing multiple sites (best one is blue...).
Yet, you also miss a point. As soon as Constantinople is deployed a removal card (e.g Venezia) can take it out before a memory can resolve. Thus they still have time to counter the next memory. This is fair.
A deck with 5-10 counters is not going to lose to Constantinople as these decks are winning by other ways. Here counters are support which is fine. A pure counter deck can be screwed without proper site destruction, but I'm ok with that!!! There should be a high risk by playing a very singleminded deck that only wins by destroying the opponents hand. There is also a downside and risk to play anti counters. Against none counters Constantinople is almost useless.
|
|