MarcoPulleaux said:

... Ultimate Team flat out reduces damage by x, where x = the block mod of the discarded card. This means using it 3 times averaging 3, 3, 2 is going to make up for 8 vitality. It has nothing to do with pushing damage through, it has to do with the vitality loss after the fact. We are talking about vitality aren't we?

??? Ivy off life is as good or better than Siegfried. Then again, who cares if Sieg is the best life character, I am assuming you run him off his best symbol which is far and away earth... At which point he is heavily rivaled.

Speak for yourself, and all the other short sighted players that see 4X Standoff as a smart move. I have never run more than 3 in a deck (I own 8) and I can't see myself saying I ever will.

- dut

dutpotd said:

Unless you're in a foundation heavy deck - you know, the kind that can support 4 Stand Offs.

But I don't see such a deck ever working good.

dutpotd said:

Yes Dut, 3 + 3 + 2 does equal 8. Of course, that is implying you've committed 3 foundations and discarded 3 cards. Siegfried doesn't have to do any of that to get 8 more health =).

Your second paragraph represents your misunderstanding of Siegfried, at which point I ask you, "do you even think before you speak?" If you think Earth Siegfried is better than Life Siegfried, then you simply don't understand how to play Siegfried. I know how tempting it is to throw 9 damage Embraces and 8 damage Flooded-Niles, so much as backing them up with No Forgiveness! or Berserker Rage, Life is better because while blocked Throws result in half rounded-up, unblocked attacks result in full-on damage. A good Life Sieg runs attacks with no difficulty higher than 4, whereas Earth usually runs 4-6, not 4-2 like Life does. Earth IS a great symbol, and does many different jobs than Life, but Life is in the top 4, and Siegfried represents it best. Also, Ivy simply is not that good.

Why should I speak for myself? I'd much rather quote a guy who got 3rd at SAS, losing only to VikramS, than speak for myself when apparently you don't care for my opinion. OK, fine, run 3 Stand Off, the point is that you're running Stand Off to begin with. You denounced Financial Troubles, yet it saw MASS play at SAS. You don't need to run 4 Stand Off, but you DO need to run Stand Off.

MarcoPulleaux said:

I've numbered the above.

1) A 7hs character only needs 3 turns of game to have those '3' extra cards. And yeah, discarding 3 cards is helpful, it is like an extra review step of sorts sometimes. Siegfried does do something to have 8 more health, that being have a 6hs.

2) Obviously I am incapable of thought Shinji, everyone knows I am really thoughtless, not a smart guy, practically the epitome of stupid. Knowing this, of course I don't think before I speak... There are a number of ways to play Siegfried, I agree with that, and there are better ways and there are worse ways. Life isn't a top 4 symbol. Sorry, it isn't. Fire, Earth, Death, All, Void, and to an extent Chaos are all better than it. Earth and Fire offer distinct advantages over it. I agree that Siegfried brings life something it has a hard time acquiring, that being damage, but if that is what you were trying to say you should have said it earlier instead of calling a mid-tier character 'unrivaled' and assuming I would understand you meant on his lesser played symbols...

3) You seem to think that someone who did well with King commands more clout than you. He does, infinitely more, but not becuase the person you speak of can win with King, moreso becuase that person isn't you. Because he ran 4 standoff (look at this deck, he ran a lot of 4 ofs, even 4 of path, his strategy was to get key items fast and he saw standoff as key, in King it is becuase he often leaves himself with few cards in hand and can't very well block, this doesn't mean that becuase a King player recognizes this that every character should run 4X standoff or standoff at all...)

Standoff is a bad card in a large number of decks and so is Financial Trouble. Just because something sees mass play doesn't mean it was the best choice of card, it just means that people recognize it as useful in many situations.

There is a big difference between an 'always good' card and a 'best-fit' card. Standoff is very rarely a best fit card. Consider a deck that wants to kill turn 2 every game. Would you use standoff? NO. It is commit 2 for 4 damage, Two foundations in an agressive deck could otherwise offer 3 damage per commit or more. Let's say you want to defend early and need to survive by 2 more damage, would you run standoff or would you run shadowar (If you could only pick one, i.e. you want to do other things and have limited resources). You would pick Shadowar becuase it is one foundation to commit to survive 2 damage. Standoff would mean you couldn't get stunned below 2 foundations to commit, and it means your opponent hasn't outbuilt you and is able to cancel the ability.

Standoff is not a good card. It is a typical card that is great in certain decks and sub-optimal in the vast majority of decks, I'm sick of people labeling it as anything else.

- dut

dutpotd said:

That's where I think you're wrong. Mostly because of the symbol spread and what it brings to the table versus what it doesn't. What plagues it is the other amazing options there are in two of it's three symbols (Earth and Fire).

Most decks benefit from having one or two Stand Offs on the table. Any more than that and the deck needs to bank on the thing.... which is not good.

...

dut, I hate you. Now I've got another deck to build - Air Temujin. With Stand Off, Tira and possibly Nina support.

Homme Chapeau said:

This is becuase most decks aren't good decks. They don't have a clear path to victory, they don't know if they want damage or if they want redux or if they will have more resources than the opponent. Standoff is a card that is always good but rarely great. Hate me for wanting more, but my decks don't settle for benefit, they settle for victory - the latter being something that only the best card can bring to my table, and consistently enough to satisfy me.

- dut

dutpotd said:

And here I thought you'd comment on the hate I have for you trying to get me to acquire moar cards ;.;

I get the point - push towards victory no matter the cost. It's a good viewpoint to have, and probably the main reason as to why I haven't really consistently won in various events.

My deckbuilding philosophy is different : It banks on preparing for the unexpected. A card like Stand Off is good for me because it allows for more flexibility than most cards. If I need redux, I have it. If I need pumps, I have it. If I need control, I bluff and have it. Granted, the cost is hefty (two foundations for both effects) and they can be negated (but sometimes that's what you want). It's why I'm rarely surprised, but likely why I'm rarely winning as well.

I'm also of the "I'd rather have it and not need it than not have it and need it." school of thought.

So on that one we'll probably agree to disagree. Personally, I place the card at a very high potential while you would place it as somewhere under "meh" and "why are people playing this it is total donkey."

dutpotd said:

I agree with a lot of things you say, but this is one thing I simply do not. You say it's not a reliable damage reduc, but it is reliable in that it either a) DOES reduce damage, or b) commit their resources, and that's why i find it to be so good, and key. It's not the absolute best card in the format, but it's very powerful, and very key for many decks. I think that's a bit out of character of you to point out people for being bad players or bad deckbuilders for running multiple copies of standoff; maybe for not truly understanding the value of it or why it's good, but it still seems out of character to me.

dutpotd said:

1. I don't think you understood the point. The Ultimate Team IS a great card, no doubt about it. However, you're trying to say that with it, Cassandra can in essence have 28 or more health by dropping 3 cards. However, think about it, you've now committed 3 foundations and discarded 3 cards. Not only is the likelihood of you passing a block now 3x slimmer, the likelihood of you BLOCKING is likely zero percent because, according to your theory, you've sacrificed blocking to gain 8 vitality. Siegfried may have 1 less handsize, but he can choose to just buff attacks by existing, or block and keep his health high.

2. If we divided the 12 symbols into 3 brackets with 4 symbols in each, Life would easily be in the top 4. The only symbol that could arguably beat Life in that top bracket is All, and that is a very SLIM debate because while All is amazing and has its points above Fire, All has a tremendously difficult job differentiating itself from Fire, whereas Life doesn't have much of a hard time separating itself from other symbols, and has Siegfried and Tira to boast about. Void and Chaos are only mid tier because the bottom tier symbols (Good, Order, Water) do suck so badly and find it neigh impossible differentiating themselves from other symbols. The only good Chaos character (at least, who has proven themself) is Heihachi Mishima (although Jin and Kazuya are in general good characters). Chaos simply is not Death, and has a few cards over Death (Controller/Body of Souls). Void I have never seen or heard of doing well at all, and I know personally I have a hard time trying to find it much use. I've tinkered with some Void King, Rashotep, and Cervantes builds, but their other symbols just perform that much better.

3. I shortened your third point to represent just how absolutely stubborn you are, which is exactly why I thought you came off as a ****** at Worlds, and why I still haven't changed that opinion.

Um, I don't know about you, but usually cards do see mass play BECAUSE they are good cards. Why don't you tell me what a "better" choice of card is. I mean, we have a limited ass card pool. What card is similar to FT that they could have used instead. Relentless? Sure, if they had a weapons deck then it's definitely the better card. Frischer Himmel? Was more than likely in their deck, too.

Maybe Stand Off is in many decks because it is a good card, as opposed to a bad card, which you have very clearly called it. Just because a card isn't good in every single circumstance, that Stand Off's pump/redux doesn't always go through doesn't make it a bad/dead card, it just means that there are times in which it isn't as useful as it could be, which, I don't know about you, I'd like to say the same thing about EVERY card! I mean, isn't that what a balanced card is? Great under most circumstances, not so great under some?

I mean, look at any Form card lol. Great on your turn, useless on the opponent's, yet we still see Scrolls, Body of Souls, Unnatural Grace, etc.

Also, my point wasn't that ShippuJinrai RAN Stand Off, it's that he so ardently packed his deck AGAINST Stand Off (which, according to him, he was "dead on").

Like I said, not every deck needs 4 of a card, including Stand Off/FT. However, in a format with the card pool we have now, more often than not, it's OK to run 4 of a card, especially to increase the chances of drawing into it (and in a 6 handsize format, that's saying a lot).

I'm so sorry Stand Off isn't a promised pump or promised redux, and that FT isn't promised draw, and by that side they may appear inferior to promised cards such as Relentless. However, they see play because, if you use them properly, you will more often than not get a desired effect, and that their "static" negation costs STILL put the opponent at a disadvantage.

Oh, and one more thing I'd like to pull out from your argument:

"Consider a deck that wants to kill turn 2 every game. Would you use standoff? NO. It is commit 2 for 4 damage, Two foundations in an agressive deck could otherwise offer 3 damage per commit or more."

Oh really now? Well, let's do some homework:

*the following are Air/Earth/Fire foundations, since that's what Stand Off is*

All Life is Prey CAN be +3 or more in one commit...'cept you have to have destroyed 3 foundations or more, and in this block, that 3 or more will likely include a few of your own
Anger Towards a God can be +3 or more damage...under extremely low circumstances, and to my knowledge, the card has never seen play.
Black Giant is too dependent to see play
Brooding doesn't even require a commit! ...you can only give 1 damage per vitality loss per copy, though
Dark Past gives +3 more often than not at no commit, but um...face-up momentum only >_>
Determined gives +4 damage! ...by destroying 2 foundations, and only on your weapon attack, and only while committed.
Determined to be the Best has too limited use to see play, but can indeed give +3 or more
Enemies Now Friends gives +4 damage...but unless you're Reversaling, you must reduce your own attack by 2 to give another +4.
Fury of the North gives more than +3 damage...at the cost of tapping-out completely
Hungry for Battle can give +3 damage in one commit, but +4 by two commits, the same as Stand Off.
In Search of Plunder can give +4 damage...at two commits (same as Stand Off) and by losing 4 vitality, and you must have 2 copies out to do so.
Long-Standing Rivalry is in the same boat as Black Giant and Determined to be the Best
Loves to Talk is the same as Long-Standing Rivalry
No Longer Controllable gives +4 damage...by blowing itself up, requiring you deal damage prior, and only on big attacks
Nobility of the Wolf might as well be Hilde only
Ready for Battle is extremely dependent
Strength of Ages will very rarely give your Throw attack +3 or more damage.
The Azure Knight can give +3-5...but have fun only having 3-5 foundations
Unstoppable Warrior is in a similar boat as No Longer Controllable
Zhao Family Discipline will give your attack +3 or more damage...under extremely limited circumstances.

Enraged Golem is probably the only card that's gonna give you a guaranteed 4+ in one commit, but it's for Fire attacks only, has 1 more difficulty, no block, and no shot at reducing damage or potentially committing the opponent. The Ultimate Team is one of the better damage pumps out there, but there's no promise about how much pump it will give, and how frequently it can be used, and most important, you must discard per enhance. Boxing is Life and King of the Ring give guaranteed +3s, but once again, only for Punches/Throws respectively, and KotR is a 4 diff.

I'm sorry if it appeared obnoxious posting so many cards in one thread, but no, Dut, we don't have THAT many cards that do give +3 or more in one commit. We don't.

Even if we did, it wouldn't matter, because Stand Off is simply amazing.

Finally, the fact that you said ShippuJinrai's has more ability to "clout" just goes along with how I've always thought of you: you're an *******. I have never once read, heard, or witnessed a time when you weren't so stuck in your own world, and mercilessly degrading those who view things differently. Maybe that's a Canadian thing though, 'cuz it wasn't just you who acted so inappropriately.

Eithinis said:

Well, I guess the only way I can take you thinking that is out of character is as a compliment, thank you. It is seldom that I call anyone a bad player or bad deckbuilder, because it isn't my character to criticize, rather I enjoy constructively pushing others to better themselves and their deck choices.

I suppose my biggest problem is that some people have reduced this card to always being good... As much as you see it as key to many decks, I really think that is an overstatement. To a) it doesn't reduce damage for a great cost (there is slightly better ways to reduce damage), and b) commiting resources is great and all, but it sometimes doesn't prevent damage which would appear to be the goal of the card. If it is the one attack that is killing you, commiting the other resources isn't an exceptional ability. Of course, this card also gives you some control over pacing and, in a way, is similar to cards like Psycho Style (i.e. attack and be commited out, susceptible to following turn attacks).

You have to realize some of the derogatory nature of my response is in direct contrast to Shinji, a person who lays out his opinions, often in absolutes, and I am simply trying to communicate in the same langauge.

It goes without saying I respect, understand, and to an extent agree with both what you and Hatman are saying. I am simply trying to expand the realm of thought, break free of the rut-like thinking that oft plagues the forums and improve the overall play experience.

- dut

MarcoPulleaux said:

The first, this is the attitude towards certain cards that I am trying to stifle, it is not productive.

The problem may be not that Canadians are narrow minded, perhaps it is that we are more able to be forthright with what we think and feel, granted we have less issues with freedom and the luxury of not being inadequately labeled, which a lot of Americans are. You guys are great, but America has an identity that is well established, Canada does not have the same pressure.

In general, most Canadians come across as 'too nice' or 'polite', it is simply that we are less gaurded, and when we meet the vast majority of people (the vast majority deserving respect and our nicities) we speak more congenially.

Sadly, the reason you have never witnessed that from me would be becuase, along with being able to be obviously nice and easy going, we are also able to be overtly critical and willing to call a Spade a Spade and in public. I don't have a problem treating you the way you treat others, that is about as simple as it is.

- dut

I don't speak from an American standpoint, or a Canadian one, or a Japanese one.

I speak from a general, human's standpoint.

It's one thing to have good SIDES, and it's another to be, in general, a good person.

I don't know you well. We've never truly hung out, we've never had private conversations, I know nothing of your background or anything of the sort.

However, it's very clear to tell what type of person you are from the times we've met, spake, and the things that I've read that, if you truly are a good person, then simply put, you need to convey that image more frequently, instead of the one I'm constantly seeing. Of course, this isn't me being myopic or making blanket generalizations; I've tried, time and time again to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I've foregone those days, and as I said in the last thread we had a debate, I'm fed-up with dealing with you.

With past debaters such as VikramS and Protoaddict, we found middle ground in some issues, agree-to-disagree in most others.

With you, though, it's as though you come into every argument knowing your right, unwilling to concede in any way, and perhaps to add insult to injury, after your boastful tirade of how correct you are comes to an end, you give an eloquent monologue about how, "in reality", you are humble, modest, and "honest".

Yeah, that doesn't fly with me.

I understand your point, which is that for example, Enraged Golem DOES win games, Stand Off MIGHT win games, believe me, that's an easy one to catch. However, if you're packing 3-4 FT/Stand Off in your deck, you shouldn't rush to say, "Oh, well, it isn't THAT good. I mean...what if you want to draw with FT, but can't because the opponent discarded?"

The whole point of Stand Off and every Paul Phoenix card is not that you get the INTENDED effect, but rather, that you generate advantage no matter what. If you're a smart player, by the time you use any of Paul's cards, it's because you know either they can't be canceled, or cancelling them will end up being the downfall of the opponent.

Either way, I'm thinking we're done here. I hated your attitude before this thread and I still do now. Who knows, maybe one day we can quell this animosity? But until you do what every other user did, people who have had worse, more frequent disagreements with me than you and I have, and reach some middle ground, some agreements and disagreements, yet overall push them aside, then maybe things will be ok.

But for now, I'm going to really, really hope you can restrain yourself from quoting me and starting yet another unnecessary thread-derailing debate.

FT and Stand Off saw great play at SAS. Why? Because they're amazing, advantage-creating cards. I was right in thinking both would see immense play, and if you too thought they would, then stop ******* knocking great cards points just because they aren't linear (which, of course, would make them broken).

MarcoPulleaux said:

I'm not sure how this discussion is thread derailing we were talking about Sieg vs. Cass, now we are talking Standoff. You have some personal issues with me and vice versa.

All cards generate advantage or else why would you use them, and being able to generate advantage that is intended is usually better than the reverse. This is all I am trying to convey.

The big problem we have (my opinion on us, cute huh) is that we write to different goals. A large majority of my posts are aimed at adding to the thought process of the game, and I find a large majority of yours are aimed at reiterating a known fact and making sure that everyone agrees with it. Further, your inability to progress and create lends itself to stagnant, this works, and therefore too well, lets ban it, discussion... By playing the devil's advocate when there is something to advocate, I can at least attempt to enjoy a variety of game styles and uncover new - sometimes useful - tech.

I 'honestly' don't think standoff is a good card in probably 80% or more of the decks out there in the Newfs format. (I don't know why you'd attack my honesty btw, just doesn't make sense...) I feel it, along with most of Pauls support (I am 100% happy with For the Money being a very good card in 'many' decks, so lets not bother with it), needs to be seriously re-evaluated as I find many players in my play group tossing those cards into their deck and not getting any use out of them whatsoever. Ultimately, I am just trying to improve my own playerbase, and with the amount I travel any and all I can play against.

- dut

MarcoPulleaux said:

Maybe if the viewpoint of Canadians in this community was considered rather than rejected outright because they're Canadian as opposed to a good reason...

dutpotd said:

And yes, it was a compliment; I have nothing but respect for you. And standoff is just like PoTM to me, it's an amazing card, people overestimate them or don't realize the extent to why it's good/when it's good/when you should just it for other things(PoTM being themed attacks vs. better attacks, for example.).

Either way, this topic has turned into a complete shitfest, so I probably won't be reading any comments in it after I post this.

dutpotd said:

What's interesting is, I feel I'm adding to the process of the game, and I find a large majority of your goals are to present a generally disagreed-with opinion and try to make everyone agree with it. Funny how that all works out huh?

I attacked your honesty because, from your last post, it came off as a very "Don't blame me for telling the truth", which is simply arrogant because, well, you aren't telling the truth at all. You're telling your opinion, but because you're you, you market it as though it is the truth. I attack your honesty because it isn't constructive criticism or even some sort of harsh reality slap, it's just you posting your opinion, and dogging on others whom disagree with your "fact".

Also, I think most people ARE pissed at For the Money. I can't tell you how many times such great cards as Rejection, Blood Runs True, and even Absurd Strength saw no play for whatever reason. Doesn't mean they didn't break the game when they did see play.

Shinji... In all honesty that "attack" on canadians is really uncalled for. I know in the past; you and I have also disagreed on many things aswell (and that really is an understatement). The 4 main canadians who post serious (and not so serious) discussion points are Dutpot Hatman Myself and b-rad (not really points... more like rants/whines). Now we don't represent all canucks... We however have the basic rights to voice our opinions without prejudice. If you really think that voicing our opinions is really a flaw... then why are you on a furom? Is this not supposed to e a civilized discussion over UFS? Honestly I can say sometimes I go to far with jabs and statements when I talk to you but I don't remember really attacking you or your nation... I always try to go after your opinions or the things you have said (which most of them/if not all of them/ I disagree with). Unlike me... Dutpot is a geniunely nice guy and when he speaks his mind he attempts to do so rather civilly and I've met him in various tournaments and have never had a problem with him.

You do try to present your opinions as fact most of the time in contrast to what is the most commonly accepted belief. At times I wonder if you are stating your opinion or simply trolling the furoms and trying to get a rise out of people. Now I agree that not everyone should have the same beliefs... some people are wrong and some people agree with me (lol... joking... that's me being an ass again). Rarely do I see you change your stance on something no matter how many times it was discussed by various people.

Look at the discussion between Vik dutput and me about cassie vs hata vs hilde. Im sure Vik and dutput can see some of my points and I can see some of theirs. Do our opinions change? Maybe... maybe not? but we recognize each other's opinions as valid (YES). Do I think Hata is a strong character? yes ... I also stated my opinions as to why I don't like him and think he is not the strongest fire character. Dutpot made a counter argument with regards to hilde which I am unable to say anything until I verify his claims or until I can refute them although I did say I was worried about her vitality. Thats how things are supposed to work... not "if you don't agree with me your mean and wrong". We are all grown men (or getting there)... lets start showing our maturity...

-Shajir

I don't mind if dut, or any user for that matter has an opinion they are unwilling to change.

The problem arises when two parties have different opinions one party (me) accepts agree-to-disagree, and the other party INSISTS that they are not just speaking on fact (an opinion is JUST an opinion, guys), but also degrades others whom disagree.

It's simply immature and insulting, and has no place anywhere.

Whoa, now. Take it easy, guys. Bury the hatchet; I don't care who said what, this has gotta end right here. I made this in order to have tech discussions and grasp the feel of the current metagame, as well as display my opinions, but that ain't as important to me as the discussions. Enough is enough. Be adults and put it behind you, all of you.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...

I agree with Shinji in that I think Siegfried* off of Life might be the way to go for him. Look at it like this; he patches up what in my opinion is Life 's major weakness (damage output) with a wave of his sword and a check from his deck. He can rush with the best of them in the early game because of his pump (when you're facing 7 damage Leg Sweeps and 9 damage Tiger Claws , you'll feel inclined to block... if Eiserne Drossel and Robes of the Grandmaster let you, that is). You won't find any complaints about not having Low blocks there like you will in Earth , so he'll block well and attack for big damage and big speed on little difficulty, with all the cute tech pieces that Life has in Genius Alchemist , Know When to Talk... , Torn Hero , and the like. I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty darned good to me.

Also, I'd like to take a quick poll of your opinion about the following characters' ratings: Kisheri , Kyoufu , Marius Gaius , and White Crane . Justified/not justified? If not, why? Got any tech you'd like to share?

LordAggro said:

I'll toss you another thing he has against every other Life character in the format - Soul Calibur *.

With the predominance of Stun in the meta, that thing can literally neuter the problems with For the Money, sniping them off the table, or any other problem foundation if they even so dare as use Stun.

Sooooooooooooooooooo about those rankings guys...

Regardless, Shinji you made an interesting point about Ziggy being only viable off life (forgive me if i misconstrued that). I simply think he is a much better Earth deck. You can argue that life has all of the speed pump in the format and I will absolutely concede that point to you. However, outside of ziggy damage pumping your attack base, you have a really lackluster offense. Here are some of the advantages i see ziggy having in earth:

1. Great, consistent damage pump. Brooding, Stand Off (more on this later), HUNGRY FOR BATTLE, Mexican Sensation in some builds, Bloodline Rebellion, and of course the Ziggy E itself. The relative amount of fantastic pump in the earth seems to edge out life's monopoly on speed pump.

2. Defense (CLAP CLAP!). Stand Off (More on this even later), MAN BEHIND THE MASK, Torn Hero (does share life i know but is very well supported in earth), Ka Technique, Undisputed Ruler, all of these cards allow earth to wall up very effectively and play a late game if it has to. Not to say that Siegfried wants to play a late game. However, the option does exist and is crucial in a lot of matchups like Astrid or Paul where you want the game to go later.

3. Ability to devote 12 slots of your deck to not only 1/5's or 0/5's, but very GOOD spam foundations at that. Man behind the mask, torn hero, and brooding are incredibly strong in any earth build and i would argue that almost every earth deck will find room for these gems. Anyone who has played in this environment at a high level will tell you that tempo is game breaking. Staying ahead of your opponent by 2-3 foundation is crucial and allows for you to start swinging bigger and swinging earlier. Also, cheaper foundations means better Stand Offs (more on this later).

4. Throws. You say that most throw decks are going to be packing a lot of 5 diffs. Not entirely true. Cobra twist is a great throw at 4/3 3M3 with a relevant combo e. With the access to cheap, reusable pump that earth has, close throws cost/damage redux is often a great return on its investment. I cant tell you how many times at the SAS i would get a clutch blocked only to play a 4 diff close throw with +5 dmg worth of free pump on it. My attack base in a Siegfried build would look something like 4x close throw, 4x clutch, 4x twist, 4x hilt impact/konvict kick/tiger claw. The cool thing here is that a lot of these attacks are going to match life's attack base. It really become kind of a moot point here in what you run as long as its difficult to block. However, i feel that earth's foundation base is better able to support such an attack base. Life's foundation support seems too scattered and lacks the streamlining needed to make a really competitive aggressive deck. Also, Earth and Life both have access to a TON of stun. This acts as pseudo speed pump and makes your stand offs much better (more on this soon).

And the principle reason I love earth ziggy over life ziggy ...

5 STAND OFF! I feel that Dut's argument against playing this card is very sound and I will agree that it isnt required in a lot of decks. However, I simply can't imagine playing ANY earth deck or stun centric deck without it period. The card itself is format defining. Entire characters are severely hampered by its very existence (Christie, Ivy, Padma, etc.), its versatility is unmatched by any card in the format save Knight Breaker, and it is just all around fantastic. Its main strength lies in its ability to force opponents to completely rethink a turn. This format is defined by forcing your opponent to overextend and punishing them afterward. Simply having a stand off in play makes your opponent go for a kill a turn or 2 later without you even activating it. And resolving one early with a stun centric attack suite ensures very solid damage pump. 2 foundations is NOT too much to pay for 4 dmg. Maybe in fire but in earth this is well costed and strong damage pump. the most spoken phrase at SAS was probably "how many stand offs do i have to commit to kill you?" Vik and i can attest to this as was demonstrated by our swiss and top 8 games. Whoever got it and sat behind longer won. Plain and simple. But i digress.

Honestly though Shinji, both symbol spreads are good and even overlap a substantial amount. However, you can see where i am partial to earth. I simply love the added versatility and damage you gain from the mountain. Ill throw together a ziggy build to get you some quantitative data over the weekend.

Also, if we could, anybody mind talking about things other than Canada vs. US and why one is more rad than the other?

Here food for discussion: Since we are all in agreement over who is top tier and who is garbage, how do we hard counter the top tier? What cards should King or Astrid be sideboarding or teching with knowing that the field is gonna be full of Jin, James, Hei, other Kings, and other Astrids? Discuss!

Homme Chapeau said:

Soul calibur has earth too...

ShippuJinrai said:

IT ALSO HAS GOOD.

The thing is, Earth has better options in terms of characters, and Soul Calibur * is simply not good enough to warrant playing Siegfried off of Earth if you're going that way. Off of life, however... it makes a difference.

Of course, if you consider characters only by their own merits, and not symbol by symbol, there's no real reason to play Siegfried.

LordAggro said:

LordAggro said:

Kisheri- A Tier. Way too easy to shred your opponents grip, ***** Astrid, Cold and Indifferent ruins breaker launcher/phoenix smasher/lifter strings, and she just has fantastic synergy in death. Very strong character. Only thing keeping her from S tier is Ancient Burial Ground existing and King still being a very hard matchup, especially after board. Mono death still doesnt have the damage output to blow through stand off and a 6hs character in one shot. Sketch's new pet deck...

Kyoufu- shes the block eater right? I thought she was called something else. But i think shes a high B Tier/ Low A Tier Character. She gets to free POTE a block which almost always ensures a kill late in a turn in fire and synergizes VERY well with financial troubles. You're already starting your turn at -1 card anyways, do you pitch blocks to give her more threats or pitch more blocks and hope she can't kill you? Very solid.

Marius- Low B Tier- He gets neat tricks with like Ready to Launch and No Forgiveness. I just think he lacks a little oomph. He's a character that will get exponentially better with the growth of the card pool. His symbol spread is just very solid and warrants a lot of experimenting. Once I get one ill definitely start testing him.

White Crane- Garbage... Sorry shes just isn't good. Her spread is bad. Her gimmick is weird and momentum dependent and just lacks support. Maybe in a set or two but right now... C Tier imho.