Hey, many of you know me, some might think I am strong deck builder, others not... In any case I have heaps plenty trouble trying to figure out my attack line-ups. Frankly picking and choosing from a number of viable attacks (especially come block 4) takes in upwards of 80% of my deckbuilding time.

As the topic indicates, I'd like to see what people think and I have a few questions for us players that may stimulate other players to think differently when deciding what attack linesups to run in decks in the future and for good reason:

1) How many attacks? Obviously the answer is variable, some run few attacks, sacrificing the ability to draw into them consistently for better checks, and I'm sure some run plenty, sacrificing good checks for plentiful blocks and to ensure they can always capitalize on a defenseless opponent. When you post an answer, please identify what character you are playing as, and why this may or may not impact your number of attacks decision.

2) I'd also like to see if people are having harder times picking and choosing attacks or if it just me. I'm finding that the advent of combo in particular has led to me having different sets of attacks that work well together, but weighing these sets of attacks off against other possible sets always gives me a headache. Yes/no, harder, the same, or easier?

3) What are the different goals people have in mind when picking an attack lineup. Some of the ones I have are:

Defense - variety of block zones, cards with breaker, cards like Mark of the Beast, etc.

Max Damage - ability to deal massive damage if chained properly and mid/late game with foundations to support and pass multiple attacks.

Quick Damage - low difficulty attacks with damage boosting enhances or those that string together on low difficulties for big damage.

Utility/Draw - attacks that offer unique abilities, whether it be to draw cards, commit cards, negate things, etc.

Checks - how many people run 2 checks? I find there are some 2 check attacks that are strong, but 'may or may not be' strong enough to warrant running 2 checks, i.e. not knowing that you will 'at least' check a 3.

Zoneage - variety of attack zones? Or one attack zone over and over, exhausting your opponent's ability to completely block repeated zones?

4) 1 Checks. We don't have any in block 4... Is this good or bad? What would a 1 check attack look like in the new standard block?

Thank you for your time ^^

- dut

First - Symbol (obvious)
Second - Character
Third - Strategy

As a brief description, I'll use my Ragnar deck as an example. I went with Fire, so, obviously, I looked into the Fire attacks (and found that they were better than an Earth/Death line-up). Next, I was using Ragnar, which tied into #3, which is how am I going to use my attacks effectively? I decided to go with a dual purpose, using a large majority of Ragnar's support so I CAN crush people with just 1 attack, but I also used the Launcher-Breaker combo for a list of good reasons, giving my aggro deck the flexibility it needs.

I generally ask myself "How can I kill my opponent?", and then after I select my attacks, "Will it kill the opponent?" For example, I really want to build Lu Chen, but as I'm discovering, his Reversals are...well...underwhelming, to say the least. As such, I'm actually considering a Good Throw-down Lu Chen that utilizes his R in conjunction with Know When to Talk, ignoring his second E, because really, even if you've blocked an attack (1 card in their CP) and used his R (2 cards in their CP), there's no promising his reversal won't be blocked (although yes, I know, you SHOULD have Drossel/Robes in play).

As far as numbers go, I'm still stuck in last block's mentality of running fewer attacks, but that aside, my range is 14-18. Even if I ever made an Ivy or Astrid (highly doubtful, I HATE hyped chars), I'd likely have both at about 18 attacks. 1/3rd of a deck being 3 checks is a frightening prospect.

MarcoPulleaux said:

I guess this is obvious, but another thing I forgot to mention that I have a hard time with is Path of the Master. It keeps telling me to run cards that share 2+ symbols with my character for MASSIVE damage pump. i.e. I can run my characters support, or a character that shares 2+ symbols, and use Path of the Master, or I can use an arguably better attack line-up (for other reasons) and chain off of one symbol only.

Thoughts? Similar experiences?

- dut

Path of the Master is NOT a staple, contrary to popular belief. My Fire Ragnar doesn't run it and likely never will because, even though every attack in my deck DOES conveniently share Fire AND Death, um, my character is a balls-to-the-wall beatface char, running 2 Kunpaetku Shrines, 2 Stormhammer, and 3 Ymirfang, and those are just the assets!

It is generally a good card to have, but if you aren't using what few symbol-specific abilities there are, then it comes down to the E, and while this may sound stupid, there IS a lot of asset competition.

Don't be so pressured to use Path of the Master in EVERYTHING. Chars like Ivy and Christie whom DEPEND on strings of attacks simply NEED Path of the Master, and I say need because if you neglect to run it, you've DRASTICALLY cut your win ratio, I promise.

However, highly aggressive chars such as my Fire Ragnar simply do NOT need it, it's just a good card to have (maybe).

Also, as far as your "I could run 2-symbol versus 1 symbol BETTER attacks", let's keep in mind that, in this current game, chances are all of your attacks ARE dual symbol.

If you're Fire, all of your attacks will either share Earth, Death, Air, or Order with your character.
If you're Earth, all of your attacks will share either Fire, Life, Death, or Void with your character.

the list goes on and on.

Better attacks > planning your deck around Path of the Master.

The thing i love most about this block i think is the huge variety and amount of thought that goes into attack lineups. In block 3 evil circa worlds you knew when you saw a pitch fork you were gonna see chain throw, ichi no tachi, and kunai. Now, decks usually have to choose a set of attacks before they start developing anything else.

Let's look at fire for example. Each character is going to run a different set of attacks that keys off of different elements of their particular game. For instance, cassy will be sometimes be playing Dragon's Flame as the center of her attack base. In order to run Dragon's flame you have to devote 4 slots to Midnight launcher and 4-8 slots to mid weapons to keep up your combo kill. Your attack base has been determined already. Fire Jin will have a very different lineup. As a death character he will want Knight Breaker. This means he will also need launcher and a setup like crushing embrace. Finally, Paul is going to run Phoenix smasher. To support it he will need wheel kick, arguably pommel smash, first rite, and/or turn thruster/hammer of the gods/dragon lifter. It's really cool how much variety people are going to be running the same essential archetype. Astrid is different than jin who is different than paul show is different than hilde who is different than etc. This is the first time weve really seen this much variety in attack selection as we are more accusted to seeing sets like 4 yoga roundhouse/4 banishment (for og players), the standard evil spread that EVERY deck ran, or feline spike/spinta/spiral arrow. The variety in what you can do now with combo and all the keyword support is incredibly fun and interesting.

Onto answering Dut's questions. Number of attacks is really going to depend on your character but you know this already. More specifically, its going to boil down to what you want to do. You can argue that control wants less attacks. But the thing is control now needs as much damage as possible due to the lack of one shots. For instance, my current rashotep lists run 15-16 attack, all of which are throws. Due to rashotep not lending himself (his character and support that is) to dealing tons of damage, he needs to deal GUARANTEED damage and he needs to draw several attacks. This, coupled with a LOT of earth dmg pump determines exactly what he needs to play to get the job done. King on the other hand is kind of a mixed bucket. Yeah youre going to run all throughs obviously. But how many attacks do you play? Ive seen builds run as many as 16 while my build only runs 11. Some builds run reverse ddt. Mine does not. And my build can still turn 2. Its really depended on how your deck is set up. Aggro usually wants to 16 as a baseline. Control wants to draw a lot of foundations but also needs enough attacks to kill you. This can be offset a little bit with damage pump but building is still integral. Combo characters run different sets and different amounts. Like Ivy. She wants 20-28 attacks. Christie wants 16-20 but she is very different.

So in essence, i like shinji's approach.

1. Get your symbol. Don't dual symbol at this point. Speed is integral in this meta.
2. Get your strategy. How are you killing them? Keywords are SO much more important now as they provide the most damage and utility. Combo and throw provide the best damage output while stun and the others provide more flexibility.
3. Tweak your base. Now that you know what youre doing, how are your blocks? What attacks provide more utility? Can i support pommel smash in a deck like Bryan Fury despite it being so important in the meta?

The reason the meta is like this now is that attacks are longer cards you have to play so can win eventually. this was huge with heel snipe, spinta, spike, arrow, and all the other super utility god attacks that allowed you to play 4-8 attacks and ways to find them. Now that you cant one-shot without a LOT of setup, decks need to run more attacks to win. They are now the most important part of you deck and, at least from my testing, should always be the first thing you figure out when theorizing any list.

Just my two cents.

ShippuJinrai said:

100% agree with this Shippu. Thanks for the comments, and Shinji too. I agree with him on his PotM talk to an extent, and therin lies my problem, I find each situation is unique and I can't always decide to PotM or to not PotM lol.

- dut

Try to understand there really aren't any staples right now.

To be honest, I have yet to use Pommel Smash. While it APPEARS integral to anything that can run it, as I've mentioned in a different thread, there aren't THAT many cards you're gonna wanna commit with Pommel. As such, you're betting off running an attack more suited to your deck.

Same argument as above goes for all cards, and furthers mine and Shippu's point.

MarcoPulleaux said:

I disagree with that shinji. There are TONS of crucial targets to commit that make pommel a staple in almost every deck that can run it. It the only reliable way to commit a character, makes certain terrible matchups winnable (hilde committing rashotep on her ring out turn) and certain great matchups terrible (steve getting pommel'd on a fire deck kill turn). Stand off is the most relevant card in the format. Period. With how hard it is to kill somebody in this environment, getting through Stand Off is crucial. Ka technique is one of the best defensive tricks in the format and can really wreck a kill turn.

I guess its a metagame call but there are too many powerful defensive enhances to just say that Pommel is not an integral part of the meta. Of course i mean outside of the mandatory slots it takes in astrid. But the flexibility is provides is so crucial.

MarcoPulleaux said:

Don't have to convince me, I'm the one who said I don't even run stand off or financial distress in every deck that can...

I also agree with Shippu though, Pommel is almost near staple, and the reason is becuase there are a lot of cards that can and do mess your kill turn over like Ka Technique, cards that are played by your opponent on your turn...

Pommel is kind of a Manifest Destiny to me, you should probably run it if you can becuase of it's utility, you will almost always be willing to trade off +1 progressive for a knockout of a stand off, rashotep, paid to protect, man behind the mask, etc. etc.

- dut

I try to come up with a strategy, then find a way to support it with attacks.

Ex: Brian deck playing Jotun's Fury for the ability to one-shot every 7HS character, using mostly throws in Hilde, being able to play out 7+ attacks a turn with Cervantes, etc.

Although with Hilde I'm waffling between symbols a lot. Probably try my original idea first.

Also, Path is as close to a staple in this meta as you're gonna get, especially running your own character's attacks, and moreso if you're running more than two symbol-specific abilities in the deck. Example - if you're not running it in King, just stop while you're ahead.

Just saying Pommel and Path are NOT staples, they're just extremely good cards that see play in most decks that can. My fire Ragnar has no need for Pommel, nor would likely any of my Fire aggro decks.

But the cheap and easy damage pump of Path? Plus the added 5-check and block?

MegaGeese said:

Like I said, it isn't QUITE a staple. I still want it banned, definitely, but it isn't being tossed into everything I build (ex. my Bryan Fury runs only 1 attack that shares more than 1 symbol with him).

Pommel is not a staple as i think there are other ways to answer the same cards that pommel addresses, though if your not running them you probably should be running pommel, so in that regard that type of card is staple, and pommel is just one of them.

I find that your average deck (not Ivy) is landing on 12-14ish attacks. I think anything less than that is risky without recursion (Omar) or a **** good reason (Ivy). As recursion methods become better ala king or a few of temujins cards I think you will very likely see the number off attacks decks are running start to decline to more of the 8-12 range with the characters that already recur running 8 flat.

I also think like every attack you run should potentially be able to be turned into a kill card in this current environment. Even pommel smash in Astrid is lethal, or decks need to run damage pumps like brooding and such, because it seems to be most of the time that if you cant win with any one of your attacks in this current format, your likley not too win at all. Ivy once again is the exception that proves the rule.

Protoaddict said:

So Pommel Smash/Siren's Call/Rashotep are staples? =/

Only so many ways to stop characters, yo.

Anyhoo, I'm gonna drag this thread back on topic. Number 1.

dutpotd said:

I'm running 20 attacks in my Yi Shan** deck off of Life , and because of all the reasons you just described. Additionally, Yi Shan** 's support becomes much more useful when you land a few hits, so teeing off on turn 2 is very important to my deck. For that, I need to draw into attacks. Since I spam weenie strings, I don't usually have to expend too many resources to swing 2-3 times on T2, then drop some foundations.

dutpotd said:

I would say about the same. Sure, Combo has us all scouring for attacks meeting for particular pre-requisites and the like, but more often than not, your character's theme will decide your attack line-up for you (see: King *, Rashotep** , Yi Shan** , Astrid , Paul Phoenix* , Christie Monteiro* , I can go on).

dutpotd said:

Well, since I think everyone has to think about these to a certain degree, I'm simply gonna assign a number from 1 to 10 for 'em (I also took the liberty of sub-dividing them by letter).

A) I would say about a 6 ; since attacks have the better block modifiers, you probably want a good mix. However, I don't think it's the greatest idea to base your entire attack line-up on where they block...

B) This category gets a healthy 7 from me; massive late-game damage is important if you find yourself forced to punch through a wall of ShadoWar , Stand Off , and Paid to Protect (and yes, they can all be run in the same deck). However, if you rush them and take their heads off quick, you likely won't even need this.

C) This category is the most important IMHO (at least in my deck it is); I pack attacks that are heavy all on their own, so that the need for pump is relatively minimal. This means it gets a 9 from me.

D) Utility attacks are what make the game go 'round once you have damage (if ya don't believe me, ask any remotely competitive Astrid to drop her Pommel Smash and her Execution Technique First Rite . Yeah, I didn't think so). This isn't quite as important as damage IMHO, but it's more important than the other two, since B) usually requires this to work, and A) is just such a pessimistic outlook on your offense. So I say 8 .

E) I personally have horrible luck with 2 checks (like check them when you're playing a 3-diff card at the beginning of the game horrible), so my Yi Shan** deck runs smoother without 'em. However, Cervantes* loves him some 2 checks, especially since he lol's at any additional burden they'd put on his turn. So I say a 5 , only because it's very character-dependent.

F) I would say that under ideal circumstances I prefer to pick a zone and pound it until my opponent simply can't full-block me there. However, I have come to appreciate having a variety of zones for your opening salvo (hopefully, it gets them off guard). So I would say variety of zones gets a 6 on the importance scale, because sometimes your opponent is stacked on your zone...

dutpotd said:

I wouldn't mind having a 1 check, but it'd have to look more like Dark Force: Mirage Body and/or Darkness Blade (strong stand-alone attacks), as opposed to Feline Spike (waaaaaay too much power to put on 1 non-character piece of cardboard). Even now, Spike wouldn't be hard to pull off; Ascending Zephyr would have allowed Zi Mei** to go ape s**t on people anyway.

My 2 coppers, interpret them as you will.

I'd kill for a reprinted of Blazing Cadenza or Devil Reverse. Just saying.

*cracks knuckles*

I...LOVE 1 checks. However, even Mirage Body and Darkness Blade aren't good examples, not for NEWFS.

As a person who has ran Spiral Dominance, Go Shoryuken, and Messatsu-Gorasen in competative decks, let me just say that THOSE are examples of 1 checks we could see in a 1 check of today. Destruction in His Wake could have been the Combo E on a 1 check attack, but naturally, as DIHW rolls a 5 and the attack would roll a 1, the combo requirement would be slimmer, methinks.

Also, we could see 1 checks like the following:

5/1 +1-MID
1MID 10DMG

7/1 +1-LOW
3HIGH 12DMG

I could go on and on =). The problem I think Hata is having with 1s is that they are indeed a hard niche to run. He's trying to get it so that every card has an arguable "this COULD see play", but when it comes to 1 checks, they either end up broken (Feline) or underappreciated and thus unused (BP Akuma's stuff). That, and when NEUTRAL cards make good kills, character-only/combo/1 checks look useless by comparison (which is why Knight Breaker can eat a major D).

That's one of the things I love about the current meta. There's no good answer to this question. FREX, my Cassandra deck run's Double Grounder Beta, but is mostly a poke deck. However it runs 26 attacks, so I can damage pump 'em too.

dutpotd said:

Depending on the deck, I do... if it's worth it. I play Lion Slayer in Kazuya because it is silly and also a great second attack for when you don't have the multiple to play with Spinning Demon (or after an early Zi Mei's Wheel Kick, even though curve dictates you should play one before the other - HAHAHA no)

Would I play it anywhere else? Maybe in Jin, but otherwise hell no.

Thing is, as far as 2CCs are concerned, the Tekken ones are pretty good, the ones in SC/SW simply aren't (exception of Dragon Punch but even then that's gimmicky as all hell). Double Face Kick becoming a throw multiple that still throws? Following a Rolling Sobat? Yum.

Lion Slayer and Upper Claw are 2 awesome 2 checks. 4 difficulty is their biggest perk for their sheer damage potential. Shadow Flare is an honerable mention.

MarcoPulleaux said:

Crap, forgot about Shadow Flare.

Carry on. That thing is awesome, and honestly I prefer it to Midnight Launcher when wanting to Knight Breaker combo off of Evil.

I run between 18 and 25 attacks, regardless of character. I usually run all copies of half-decent or decent attacks I have for a character (theme decks), but I'll cut crappier attacks like Sail Nautilus (despite its excellent block) down to 1 per deck.

Yes, most of the time my decks lose. But they've gotten better. Apparently the hybrid Evil/Fire Bryan I built is mean.

dutpotd said:

dutpotd said:

As a newer player I feel starting with your character is essential and is the first thing you need to look at. Symbol tech is important but making it your primary focus will in the end make you generic. I next look at the card list of the character and see what the designer had in mind of what he wanted to see done. I go through all the attacks fro that character see what I have. Then I look at how they all work together even if I draw multiples of that one card. I then go make a pile of support for this character. If I find that the support I want to run doesn't help a certain mechanic in the attacks or vise versa i start dropping cards off. I run with a primary and secondary game plane. The primary is how I want the deck to run. The secondary is when I am pushed outside the timeframe I setup for in terms of tempo. Optional cards are added at the end. Things that are more symbol specefic then directly helping my character.

This is when you resort your decks according to blocks. If you see you have a big opening go back and see if you can replace your foundations with better blocks. If not go and drop some of your no block attacks if possible for the range you need to fill in. Look at block range is deffensive but keep in mind pure defensive thinking will be costly and defense doesn't win games anymore. You aren't stalling for a kill condition. You are mitigating damage so you can strike back. When you think past mitigation into stall you have already lost.

I run no more then four 2 checks in my deck period. The cost of landing exessive 2's so I can have the strongest attacks in my deck has stunted development more then helped. A slow and steady or snow ball aproach are more stable in the current envoirment.

I run between 18-22 attacks depending on the deck size and what I need to do on average. I found with this amount of attacks I can pull a kill condition hand. What I mean by that is that I can most likely kill my opponent with the total printed damage values shown on the cards.

Combo has its place but I always ask myself can I still use this card without the combo effect. If not then it becomes a second or third string attack. I won't base my character around it unless my character card makes it easy. Take King for example he has a lot of combo cards. He makes it easy because he is set up to draw cards from his ditch and put them in his hand this setup makes him able to continually be agressive. If he can survive to turn 3 he can get an auto kill just about. With King I run 70 percent throws and the rest are attacks that buff throws or make me get more throws. Now take a Christie deck. I run 70-80 percent kicks and run some throws so I can get guranteed momentum. The key is letting the combo come naturally in your deck instead of you waiting for it or depending on it.

Quick damage versus Max damage is something we talk about at my shop. Blocking a couple of 3 attacks is annoying when you know a big attack is coming. Do you take 9 damage and block the 13 damage or do you take 6 damage and pray you can block the 13? What do you do when you get faked out and the attack cycle ends? The mind game is the part of it. If your character needs momentum to rock people then go for the small damage. If you can damage pump off your character card then max damage is great. Quick damage eventually has to translate into moderate damage and back to quick. While Max damage has to lay constant pressure or else they will be overcome. THe opponent will see that the hits are not as heavy and it will give the tell that there is blood in the water.

I run anywhere from 15 to 19 or so attacks depending on the build. If it's a more defensive build like my Lu Chen deck it's only 15 (only own 3x Wraths, though, I'd like to try four), whereas my more aggressive Siegfried and Temujin decks run 16-18 attacks. For a ~60 card deck I find any more than about 19 attacks hurts the control check ratio just a little too much to remain decently playable.

I should add, though, that I have notoriously and obscenely horrific luck in card games... so I don't try to push it too hard. >_> you do not want to know how many tournaments I've lost purely because of stuff like trying to kill my opponent and checking some 5 or so 3ccs in a row, getting to the last attack in the string thinking "dear god, I'm due for a 5+ check by now" and STILL flipping more attacks. Nothing will ever beat what happened to me at the first ECC's final round though...