The difference between 7 HS and 6 HS is quite simpily the opening turn of the game.

More often than not in a deck fronted by a 6 HSer, i will not draw enough or the correct foundations, or there will not be enough versitality in my hand to allow me to play safe foudnations (once that cannot fail of my decks own accord) So very many times, even with a properly curved deck with a very strong spread of foundations difficutly, ill draw an opening hand for a 6hser that is like 1 asset, 2 attacks, and 3 foundations (each with a 2 difficulty). By the time I make the 3rd check to play that 3rd foundation, I can and sometimes will fail it by rolling an attack. 7hsers are much more versatile against this

The other part of the opening turn equation is that with more cards in hand first turn, you can play more cards first turn. I've have decks that could play out 7 cards turn one. a 6 HSer will never be able to do that. Being able to play 5 foundations and still have the 2 cards in your hand for The anti K or Antisocial are a big deal as well. Even if they dont make all thier checks, a 7hs will be more able to see more cards from thier deck and draw more cards come turn 2, without having to devote aquakinesis to it (also aqua may help 6 HSers but it helps 7 HSers eqally as well, if not better because they are more equipped to use the cards they draw because they are better off to spam turn one and pass the checks for more subsequent cards).

I feel like the fact that most 7HS characters lend themselves to aggro is also something of note, because most aggro better early on than the 6hs defence based characters can defend themselves.

Although I shouldn't need to point this out.... 7HS characters can run the same card draw support as the 6HS, and can get it out faster. So let's stop trying to use that as a reason 6HS are as competitive as a 7HS. Don't look at what the support does, look at what the character is and what the character does.

I'd say that there's a couple of 6 HS characters that can compete against larger HS characters and have been shown to do so in the major tournament scene. Victor (only cuz of his asset), Promo Yi Shan (+2 -2 from the get go), and Felicia (lolz Feline Spike'd) are very good. You could also argue from Promo Ken and Promo Temujin to be up there. Then last but certainly not least there's Sakura. She consistently top 8's as well she should. She's that good. Maybe because she's basically a 7 HS in disguise =). Hell, if I had Feline Spike's I would her in a heartbeat.

I feel like the Draw 2 cards terry can actually be a competitor, if only because he has the ability to play a full 6 cards turn one and then potentially draw into the anti K or antisocial with his +2. He starts to lose effeciecy as the game goes on though.

Protoaddict said:

If you only have 2 cards in your hand, what good is Antisocial? =/

Terry's OK, but when you think about it, any character that runs Return to Southtown can become Terry. His Life gain is OK, but it's truly his only saving-grace, and when you can run a 7 hander with better abilities, he just doesn't look too great anymore.

MarcoPulleaux said:

So Terry with Return to Southtown becomes DoubleTerry.

And we all know that DoubleTerry is just that **** good.

EDIT: Also, I find it hilarious that symbol spreads aren't getting more of a look at in modern UFS.

Symbol spreads are basically impossible to analyze in anything BUT a case-by-case basis. Maybe, maybe , you could do some analysis about two-symbol combinations {Order-Good comes to mind personally}, but there's really not much past that. Furthermore, with the trend in single-chain support {ie, all cards under a character have the same 3 symbols} things get two-dimensional. Chaos-Order has been a feature of several characters in Block 3, including Victor, Sophitia and Seong Mina, so that's a strong combination, and hence anyone who has Chaos+Order + another symbol that has some common ground with one or both of those symbols, has an advantage.

But... there are 66 combinations of two symbols in this game, so a case-by-case analysis is going to be hopelessly inefficient. Looking at 3-symbol combinations, then you're basically in the realm of pet decks and supersecret tech, so people who actually know anything are likely to keep it hush-hush until they win some tournaments :]

Back on topic:

@Shinji: Antisocial has a godly action side, IMHO the foundation is bleh.

@Judas, that was a great post. I think one of the problems with experimenting is that it is difficult,.and takes a large amount of time (if you want to be at all thorough), and has no guaranteed payoff - whereas building a remake of a previously successful deck will only require a little bit of tuning and playtesting before it's ready to take some heads off. It's not too hard to put together a Evil control deck -- you just take the cards that Evil has, make a few choices about including this/leaving that out, and boom deck complete. Playing against two different versions may feel more-or-less the same, but there are certain to be some subtle tweaks and optimizations in the deck that may not be apparent, yet requried (on a smaller scale) the same sort of experimentation and innovation as building an entirely new unproven deck. And that's where I see the problem -- if you have to compete with, say, $600 Akuma (hi Scott :] ) with an unproven concept, your concept had better be pretty well-refined already before you even bring it in. And refining the deck either forces you to make some hard decisions that you can easily get wrong -- because it's a whole new day, and what applied to previous decks may not still apply to this one -- or to lose some games, likely lose HARD, against those top-tier decks. You lose 10 games straight to Akuma, and anyone will think, "This deck just isn't viable. Let me dust off my Chester's and Seals and play the same games we did last month." Sometimes that will even be the correct choice, because the deck just wasn't viable. Or, the deck was viable, innovative, and it just needed one little realization, one genius tech card, to make it work and start crushing skulls everywhere... but you won't know until you try.

Sorry if that got ramble-like

Edit: Lol, I just noticed a new forum glitch. The time stamp on this post is actually later than the stamp on Fred's post just below. I guess that's because I editted this post (the whole thing after "back on topic" was an edit :b), buut! In the thread list, my name appears under "Last post by"... but with Fred's timestamp. lols

MarcoPulleaux said:

Action side to get a 7th card into play turn one?

Wafflecopter said:

Only one of many I'm afraid. Only one of many.

Protoaddict said:

I think he's amazing because he can go "oh, I saw two cards that rule." Researching the Past them to the top, end your turn, and draw.

...I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone or something

OK, Protoaddict, Wafflecopter...

Antisocial is amazing...if you have perhaps 3 or more cards in hand after being played.

With Terry, if you drew 2, and 1 is Antisocial...that means you might be able to get maybe one foundation or asset...

To you two, I will only quote the poets "GS Boyz"

WHOOP DI DEE DO!

MarcoPulleaux said:

Anti-Social -> BRT or Chesters Backing turn one = <3

to me it's like the Anti-K' for playing foundations turn 1. Both really amazing and kinda meh all in one! Also, Ruskies enjoy this card.

MarcoPulleaux said:

I don't care much for Terry, myself, but I care even less for Antisocial foundation side :b

Why is anyone talking about antisocials foundation side?

Point was that 7 HS are better than 6 HSers, one of the reasons being that they have more potential to play more in the opening turn of the game, and to some extent still have things left over that can provide some advantage from hand.

6 HS or 7HS character can play 4 foundations and anti k or antisocial action a foundation into play, or potentially play 6 foundations/assets

But

only 7HSers and terry can play 5 foundations and still do that

But

Terry can play 6 cards turn one and still potentially play anti k or antisocial

My point that the only 6 HSers who actually do have potential are the ones who have draw teck and basicly function as 7+ hand characters still stands. In order to really be amazing, they need to be able to have a strong first turn and 7+ hand size still lends itself to that better.

This is why I think Astrid's so good (personal opinion). She can spam out lots of low difficulty foundations, as she's a very atypical Order character (or a very typical Fire character, depending on how you look at it). She also has lots of solid draw tech that you don't have to put any effort into working into the deck (Paying Respects is stupidly good).

She and Alex are the two best 6HS characters around at the moment, along with ~8HS Terry and Sakura. I wish Balrog had gotten some new stuff in this set =/

MarcoPulleaux said:

What does the action side of Antisocial have to do with having 3+ cards in hand? It lets you drop 1 card, that's it. Having an Antisocial + 1 foundation is the same as having Antisocial + 5 foundations, you just get a bigger selection in the second case.

Just my 2 cents, but it IS with personal experience with 3.Terry that i'm writing...i DID pilot Tri-Symbol Wild Wolf Bogard to a Top8 finish at the Silicone Cup Regionals...His static ability is actually a very comforting thing; not once did i ever feel i over extended on my turn. His E ability is pretty boss, too, because i felt like i could Reverse with Sakura's Shinku and go back up to full at any point in the game.

In fact, on two separate occasions during Swiss, this is exactly what happened and it cause my opponents to Sccop the match to me.

Tagrineth said:

tannerface said:

not exactly...

Anti-Social puts it directly into your staging area uncommited. That could be huge depending on the card.

BRT.

Valerias dosent really do the same thing though. Its a great card with other applications mind you, but youll see in the following example with draw 2 terry as the example:

Opt to go first:
-Play 6 foundations with difficutlies of 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 0 (Cant fail first 4 if your only playing 3+, can just need 5s for the other 2, very possible if your running few attacks)
- End Turn draw 2, one being anti social, one being another foundation
- Play foundation with Anti Social
- at the start of your turn 2, you will have 7 foundations in play to pass checks with.

If you did this with valerias you would start your turn with 6 foundations and 1 asset. Not too shabby mind you, but at the same time its not 7 foundations. Though Using them both together would be best:

Opt to go first:
-Play one valerias shop followed by 5 foundations with difficutlies of 2, 1, 0, 1, 0
- End Turn draw 2, one being anti social, one being BRT, or have a BRT in play
- Play BRT with Anti Social
- BRT the next card they play and draw a foundation
- Play foundation with Valerias
- at the start of your turn 2, you will have 1 valerias and 7 foundations in play to pass checks with.

In any event Terry is the only 6 HSer who can do this turn one, and that because he cheats his hand size, which is back to my original point that the only 6ers who will win are ones who function as larger hand sizes in the opening of the game.

They need to start making meatier foundations. Once they go back to making 4-6 difficulty foundations again, Valeria's will be hawt. Man...I miss Physically Fit =/

I'll only tolerate such a world where we have more 4 difficulty foundations if said foundations are Chester's Backing/Yoga Mastery level of power.

HolyDragonCloud said:

Fixed to represent the majority consensus =D

I just want Vast Resources back.

Temporal Being is nowhere near as useful.

Temporal Being (isn't it Temporary Being?) is only worse because it doesn't actually give you board advantage, and it also doesn't give you massive card draw powers.

Vast Resources would be really, really disgusting in a Stand Off based Fire deck packing 12 each of 0/5s and 1/6s... "I can drop 7 cards T1, and 10 cards T2..."