Nfxon said:

No, not at all. Just felt that the count should be updated accordingly.

Our store's located in Newnan, called Heroes. Our play group is sadly a small one, only consisting of the most casual sense unfortunately. We have four regulars with a handful of others who come and go irregularly. Working to build that group up (again-again) with the new(new) meta!

..Not to hijack this thread. >>'

Nfxon said:

Nice deal, glad my thread has brought attention to possibly growing play experiences and groups.

@ darklogos - Your example is a pretty good one, the only problem is that the attack string in question is just that, and attack string. It will happen often, don't get me wrong, but far less often than you think. What with 6 hs, having to pass all 3 attacks, etc. It is still a mid game (after turn 2) piece more often than not. But yeah, very good example of 'on the card' speed pumps.

- dut

dutpotd said:

I only use Drossel in the first example because putting it every example was making it more crazy. Also note that I didn't count keeper of the watchers or any other foundation speed bump since it was not guranteed to be a fixed number. Thing is this are we justifying P2P on the basis of speed being abused or the fact of how often something happens? I ask this in seriousness and not in jest. The original rebuttal you gave me was that speed abuse was not that strong. That is why I gave the example I did to show that speed abuse is possible and that p2p would be needed. If you are arguing that x combo would not happen often I would disagree as well. Most decks are running on average of 16 attacks. Most of my combos are using 3 cards. If you have a play set of each card that is 12 attacks. You add in one more play set that can pull off another combo and it becomes possible to play it more consistently. Currently out of Air's characters that are available Dariya is the only one that has the potential to draw, only if their opponent has any draw card in their staging area.

The big thing is that the game is going away from lots of continual strong foundations. The new level of what is strong is lower then the previous block. Once someone gets an ability out that gives +3 speed and more can be added they are entering the fast lane. If one was able to any my examples on turn 2 then having 1 p2p would have only saved them from the second attack played. I will agree that p2p is stronger after turn 2. But I'm not sure I can call turn 3 and on mid game.

darklogos said:

The only reason turn 3 and on is mid game is because small bumps of +3speed and +2speed here and there are seriously less effective as foundation bases grow. I've played games with Hata where I've speed pumped an attack making it 12 speed or higher, however at turn 3+ 4. The opponent takes a +0 mod, checks a 5, and commits 7 foundations and fully blocks it.

I'm actually saying P2P is not as important later game, and really only helps against Hilde with 'big speed early' attacks. Granted later game there are much more effective ways to survive attacks other than blocking, may they be damage redux, keyword wiping, or otherwise.

I'm saying P2P is a great card, but only in very few circumstances. Despite what you are trying to get at... "are we justifying P2P on the basis of speed being abused or the fact of how often something happens?" t here is a distinct relationship between how good/justified a counter card is and how often the thing being counterd happens, when it happens, and under what circumstances it happens.

Others have pointed out that although air and life do have speed pumps they tend not to have the damage pumps, this falls under the category of 'under what circumstances' . I have pointed out that I feel 'speed abuse' is a very seldom occurence in todays game and really only exists competitively in the form of Hata and Hilde (this is 'how often') the latter of which is better contended by playing against offensively and not defenesively. I have also pointed out that the other characters that may turn attacks into unblockables on speed alone can do so only after the game is at the point where the opponent will lilkely have better/altnerative defense out and may not even intend to block to survive, 'when' .

I can gaurantee you that if I see you loading up on speedy support, drossel/whatever, my goal won't be to try to block many of your attacks. Rather I will work to the other defenses in my deck, the ones you aren't countering... (try to get damage redux out, ka technique, or something similar) or simply kill you as quickly as possible knowing that you are gearing up for a string of speedy attacks.

I have the impression that speed is abused in very few circumstances. Perhaps you play in a meta where everyone is chasing/including speed pump in order to push damage through. I'm of the opinion good speed pump is rare in todays block, and where it does exist it coexists with a relative lack of big damage attacks or pumps. All of this might change, at which point cards like P2P will become more important. However, at this point P2P is not a 'needed' card, players who haven't got a set because of distribution realities are not suffering for it, and if they are they are simply not looking at the alternatives.

- dut

jackpot-444 said:

dutpotd said:

To an extent your establishing a couple of paradigms that where not defined as clearly in your first post as it is now. The first is that the value of the card is based on stage of the game it is played. You are implying that this card is a better early game prolonger then a mid or end game tide turner. To an extent I agree on this point. When comparing the defensive capablities of P2P as a whole (not just the speed redux) to other defensive cards it hits the average mean.

Now the "How often" this card is viable is where we can get down to the meat of the conversation. Thing is that Hilde and Hata have been moved up in popularity and in play. Hilde is stated a meta dominating card. Hata on the other hand has been given his place only because of proven success and would have been overlooked by the main meta if not for Vik. Look at how many times Hata was mentioned before SAS and how many times Hata is mentioned after SAS. To an extent it proves that there are some little nuggets left to mine and sift for in the current card selection. But the masses has seen the proven success of these cards. If there are 8 players and 2 are using Hilde and 1 is using Hata then the card is a needed card because the meta demands it. Now I'm not going to argue P2P being main board or sideboard. That gets into a hypothetical a bit beyond where the focus is. If a third of your local meta is using Hilde and Hata then P2P is a must have card. If the local meta is dominated by Earth and non-stacked Astrid then you don't need the card.

I would ask for you to clarify what you mean by "circumstances" to determine the value of the card. Are you saying without damage pumps speed abuse is worthless? If so how does a circumstance like stacked Astrid fit in where the opponent has access to speed and damage pumps on a high level?

I think the issue overall is that more people are following the pack then we may believe. I think that once results get sent in people run to copy to gain success. I don't think inovation is even attempted because the excuse of convience and tiers has made people intellectually lazy. P2P is there to put risk to speed pumps.

One thing I've learned is that in this game people create setups to make thing reaccur almost to the point of clockwork. I would like to see how someone is going to speed abuse in the future because it will stretch the meta a lot.

dutpotd said:

Get me a 2/5 Earth/Void foundation that reduces speed and I will say it's not needed.

darklogos said:

I'm not trying to establish any sort of paradigm, I am merely answering your question re: whether we are discussing the magnitude or the likelihood of the event happening that triggers P2P. The answer is, when discussing the relative strength of a card you can't assess it in isolation of either of these criteria. Both the likelihood and magnitude of the abilities P2P offers are discussed in the OP, but elaboration is fine as well.

Many people question Hilde's use/rating. I can tell you from using her extensively that she is very vulnerable and not in the same class as Astrid and King. "Hata on the other hand has been given his place only because of proven success and would have been overlooked by the main meta if not for Vik. " I don't doubt that many take slight offense to this statement, I personally know of a lot of players utilizing Hata with much success prior to Vik and SAS. Surely Vik's success has contributed to a recent insurgence of cries that Hata is top tier, but 'given his place only because' is a weighty statement, and I straight up disagree.

At the most in a top 8 (diversity) you will see 1 Hata and 1 Hilde, after that (the other 5/6 entrants) your P2P really isn't doing much. Sure, in a perfectly built deck that plays to mass keywords you can use it as a solid damage reducer, but 'in general' there are better ways to reduce damage on the symbols and with cards that also pump damage or provide an agressive use effect as well (see my OP). i.e. I would still sideboard it, playing with cards that are efficient 1/3 of the time will not win a tournament in the fast-agressive format we have.

By circumstances I mean just that, the surrounding circumstances. In relation to the post I am saying the only circumstances that would cause me to utilize P2P would be ones similar to the strength it offers against the likes of Hata and Hilde. All of the other 'circumstances' where speed is pumped to the point where I can't block it is a) late in the game and I have other defenses or have killed my opponent that is trying to squeeze speed out of a speedless meta, or b) I am taking little damage because the symbols that offer some speed boost (air, life as you put it) do not offer it in conjunction with lots of damage. (note this is one of the reasons Siegfried is a decent character card and of course there are minor exceptions, still it is my opinion that these exceptions are not as dangerous as Hata or Hilde).

Astrid stacked can offer damage and 'slight' speed, she is definately one of the exceptions I speak of above. Note Astrid is equally as dangerous without stacking, and some would argue it even slows her down in a sense. All things considered stacking Astrid usually happens turn 2, so turn 3 attacks 'might' be getting a +2/3 speed boost, an opponent will have foundations and this won't make or break a block at this point in the game.This isn't a post about Astrid, but I will again state that the exceptions in general do not match the strength of Hata or Hilde who are far and away more dangerous with speed.

The whole point of my post is to address the 'following the pack' attitude. Namely, people see the use of P2P in decks and instantly prop it up as a card that they 'need' to compete and play in this meta. This is not so.

You are taking more liberties with what you say, not all people aim for clockwork. It is true that a lot of players build decks that always kill with the same attack or setup. There are many others like me that abhor running 4X any attack and only play decks that can offer the flexibility to win the game with a) one big attack, b) many attacks, c) few into combo attacks, and/or d) defense. I think that what you see on the forums is a menagerie of 4X this in decks, partly becuase people are building their first iteration of a deck or partly because they don't put as much time into the subtle tweaks in numbers that open up the doors to an endless number of game outcomes.

You speak a lot to the future, and it is easy to discredit an analysis that is solely written on the back of present facts. I'm not a playtester and I have no clue what is down the pipe, as such this analysis does not take into account what 'may' become more played down the road.

I don't really like your wording, 'speed abuse', it seems to harbor the wrong connotation. Namely, it sounds like you think speed pump without limits and to amounts that mean an attack won't/can't be blocked is 'absuive' or detrimental the game experience. This is not so, speed pump is part of the game, and unblockable attacks are part of fighting games, so are attacks that come out so fast that if you are moving forward or caught in the slightest of other than the neutral/block stance means you are going to get hit no matter how quickly you react with a block.

- dut

Homme Chapeau said:

This is an impossible statement for me to respond to. That is like saying, give me a life foundation that gives +x damage and I will say PotM is not needed.

With the limited card pool every variant of every card is needed to address what you are seeing in this card. Why you think Earth or Void needs a way to reduce speed more than the other symbols also would need to be touched on for me to understand your statment.

I've clearly stated my opinion, which is Earth and Void both have countless other foundations/assets/actions that are defensive in nature, and many which that are both defensive and agressive and all-round more useful.

P2P is not a needed card (except for in Hilde off fire, I agree it is needed there or you are short changing yourself) any more than any card that shares 2 symbols with a character you or I am trying to build and that offers a unique effect. i.e. In general, the meta did not need this card to address a dominant or prevalent force, speed pump is isolated and utilized by few characters and equally few symbols. In most cases speed is manageable and in the rare cases that speed isn't, there are better alternatives...

If you were to look at the meta and try to see what is dominant and say, "the meta needs an answer to this recurring win ingredient..." you would probably note speed below throws, below stun, below PotM, and below consistent non-negatable abilities that both King and Astrid have ingrained on them. That is a different discussion though.

- dut

dutpotd said:

Except they do not do what I want them to do. It's that simple. You know why I insisted on Earth AND Void? If I wanted support for those symbols I would have insisted on Earth or Void. But no, I require both symbols. The problem is that you think I've been speaking as someone who's studied the meta - we both know I don't do that. Or at least not in the way to write grand articles - I was simply saying that there is no card that can do what Paid to Protect does for that spread.

You're speaking "generally it is a defensive card and you have other options". Except none are as appealing. If my deck is to be all that it can be, I require Paid to Protect. No other card compares. I already pack Ka Technique in that deck. That's as offensive and defensive a card you can get. Yet I need Paid to Protect to properly defend myself still... because no other card compares. The only one that comes to mind is Sa , Symbol of Protection and it would be VERY GOOD... except I intend to use Paid to Protect as PotM fuel as well (hence the importance of the two symbols) and it would be dumb as hell to nerf the damage of my own attack if my name is not Hilde.

I get your point : "You peeps ain't looking at the meta enough nor exploring the game." The thing with that is that at the moment we've pretty much done what we can. There's gonna be a heavy injection of cards next month, alongside 8 new characters. THEN we will see if Paid to Protect is really needed, but from the spoilers released I can sense there will not be an Earth/Void (or Good/Void, or Earth/Good) card that I could consider a Paid to Protect substitute.

So yes, I need that **** card.

And I'm pretty sure that the Foundation offered as a pre-release promo is going to have the same problems, so I hope nobody really needed a playset of that for their deck.

EDIT : I'll give you Learned from the Best if they have discarded momentum, and instead of +1 to PotM it would be at +2. Except... who discards momentum?

dutpotd said:

You seem to misunderstand how I'm using some of my words. You are setting up a way to look at a certain thing. This is a paradigm. You are presenting a logic argument that leads to x conclusions. You have a paradigm. So yes you are using paradigms in your analysis. I didn't think that was insulting. If it is I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Any of the the vocal statements about Hata on the forums before SAS was very underplayed. Unless in the period of 3 weeks I gave the forums and the game the finger that there was mass Hata talk I doubt many really saw him as threat. Many would just rank him as just another fire character. When I looked at the old rankings he was not S class. When he was revealed he was not S class. I've seen some list where he was A and B but not S. I saw a lot of speculation around him. I don't know what your local meta, Aim cool kids club, or anyone else outside of the forums are saying. They are not part of this conversation on the boards and they fail to contribute. So they lack a voice of credence to an extent. Because A. they refuse to share their insight and B. they can be spoken for by anyone to say anything. Bandwagon changes the meta just as much as inovation does.

In a top 8 situation you still have to deal with speed in the intial rounds. There are no out rounds without surviving the gauntlet. Out rounds don't matter if you are steamrolled by speed or anything else in initial tournament. I think expecting to be in the winners circle and starting from their is jumping the gun.

To say that Seigfried is not on a dangerous level is pushing it just a tad. Thing is he fits your flexibility model well. He can plink, damage pump, speed pump, anti-commit, reduce damage, and blank foundations.He doesn't have to commit for his damage pump and his speed pumps are reusable. He is flexible. So why is he not a threat to consider P2P? You brought up the example I don't feel that you compel a point to show that the speed danger of Seigfried is not there.

The following was said" You are taking more liberties with what you say, not all people aim for clockwork. It is true that a lot of players build decks that always kill with the same attack or setup." Well I can say that the culture and its continued statements, including yours, have pushed me to such conclussions. I am reflecting back what the collective has shown to me so to speak. You read the forums and you hear "If you don't have x,y,z in your hand mulgen and draw into that." Or "If it can't kill by turn 4 it shouldn't be considered." Add on other talk about consistent results and the statements that the game is not about luck its about math. What else are am I and others to conclude other then A. Top tier decks work very effeiciently, or B. A lot of people are full of it. I'm saying this by giving varying voices in the community, yours included, criedence. But if you want me to retract that I can do so. The standard of what is "good" and "best" is set high with effeiciency being paramount above all others and some how I'm taking liberties by restating the values echoing out of the mouths of many "respected" players. The fact that turn 2 and 3 kills happen frequent enough in some decks to note mention proves I'm on track a bit more then you like to give me credit for.

I speak to the future, not in my last post but the one before, by saying what needs to be patched to shift the meta and that is all. I speak to the future on cards that are revealed by showing their current meta impacts. Acro is the strongest card I've seen in newfs because it makes some overlooked symbols very dangerous and it changes the roles of modifiers. Having damage pumps don't matter as much when you can speed pump flip, and then speed pump again. We can speak about the future when the future reveals itself to us. I don't see the problem about picking apart uses of previewed cards. Sad thing the only proven models for success in UFS are UFS House model and the Omar model. The UFS House model involves staying behind close doors, test, keep everything between a small group of people. The Omar model is F it all do something out of the box and go with it. Both are proven. UFS House model does follow and watch trends a lot. Omar model looks to work outside of trends. My point is that I don't see the limit pushed in current deck design. I see no experimental tech. Heck I don't even see that many dual symbol decks present let alone balanced dual symbol tech. Yet some how when the meta speaks like E.F Hutton we all listen. I see the potential to break and abuse a lot of stuff in the current pool. Sadly I don't have a lot of time to test.

You don't like my word use of "abuse" well that is going to continue. Your applying a value analysis and then saying that since I don't share your value analysis that I'm wrong. If you say speed pumps are healthy then how is abusing the mechanic and break it wrong. As it stands with what is legal speed doesn't turn into damage. There are many speed pumps without limits. If pump doesn't commit or commit a card it is without limits in how many times it can be reused. Without limitation to "your turn" like other cards it opens up a can of worms. We have 2 different game design philosphies that will not reconcile and lead no where. Unblockable attacks are a part of fighting games but many of those attacks are dodgable or able to be canceled by a quick jab. That is mechanic that balances unblockable attacks is not in UFS. So yes in the scope of playing a real fighter unblockable attacks as they are now are not balanced because the disads to balance them are not present. Paul has an unblockable attack but you can sidestep from it or get out of range. Street Fighter 4 has shield breakers but you can dodge the attacks or hit the person with an attack that counts for more then one hit. Only in Guilty Gear do you see potential full screen OHKO unblockable craziness. Even then unblocakables had to fill up a power guage. Every condition in real fighting games for unblockables and unblockable negation is not present in UFS or can not be imitated or has not been imitated. Therefore unblockable elements are not balanced.

Just to make things clear. I'm not saying speed pumping is wrong. I'm not saying damage pumping is wrong. But there is a certain time that a mechanic is abused that should cause it to come into question about being rebalanced either by nerf or by creating a counter or both. If something is accepted as a normality then there shouldn't be anything to negate a normality. If high damage and high speed is accepted as a normality then cards should reflect that normality. The same should be said about control elements, card draw, and any other mechanic. If that normality is called into question then it most likely has strayed outside the bounds of what is acceptable and is no longer a normality. Thus the terms and symbols of normality are redefined and rebalanced.

While it may seem that there are intense tones in the post it is not meant to slander or character assualt but bring up major disagreements in gameplay and game development philosphies.

@ Darklogos - I don't dare quote what you wrote becuase it is lengthy and I only want to address some of what you said. Thank you for again spilling your view of the UFS game and the environment as a whole into words. Don't worry about silly things like slander or whatever, I can tell you are writing from a n intellectual standpoint only, and it is good to share these views so that we can help influence one another and better understand what different players feel about different parts of the UFS world ^^

In general...

I think you have some very well defined ideas about what UFS is at the moment, what different players do, and the different approaches to playing (or sharing in the playing of) the game. I think a lot of it has shades of validity, but I think the large majority of it stems from a lack of identifying with the community beyond the forums. This isn't your fault of course, and much of what you say about many groups not using the forums as actively as they could/should is appropriate. To that extent I hope that you do get to travel and meet most of these people face to face, get a feel for what they think (as they aren't as inclined as you or I to spill it into words on a regular basis), and generally expand your view of the game.

In particular...

"Hata on the other hand has been given his place only because of proven success and would have been overlooked by the main meta if not for Vik. " - I was just trying to emphasize that you equating the 'main meta' to the forums is unfair to many players who don't utilize the forums the way we do.

Ultimately, preparing your deck for the top 8 is the way to win the top 8. Yes, I agree the top 8 does not mirror the starting round robin. That said, after your very first pairing, maybe second pairing in a bigger tourney, you are likely facing off against players that are contending for or will make it in the top 8. Granted, most records needed to get there are 4-1-1, 3-1-1, etc. My point being that if your deck is ready for the top 8 it should be able to win a round against almost anyone to begin with, and then it will be facing many of the decks that are going to be in the top 8. Finally, the diversity rules insist that if there are multiple copies of these cards losing to them isn't as detrimental in the early rounds because they are being tossed from the top 8 equation. All that said, if there was a character, highly diversified, that utilized high speed attacks, using P2P mainboard would be appropriate. Right now, the primary characters that are stacking up as diversity threats are Astrid and King, there is also quite a bit of parody which is more or less my point, i.e. with all characters well represented and only few using high speed attacks, P2P is a 20-25% useful card.

"You brought up the example I don't feel that you compel a point to show that the speed danger of Seigfried is not there." Seigfried is a fine example of why P2P is only an okay card. Namely, at this point in time 50% of Seigfrieds (I'm being generous here) will be Earth which means they likely won't use speed at all. So now we are down to a 50% symbol that will probably use some speed pumps, and they are small. We are talking +2 speed with Drossel, +2 speed with robes, etc. Life has speed pumps, yes, but the magnitude of it's pumps is not high enough to warrant the use of P2P. Similarily the time to set up these minor speed pumps to combine them into anything with magnitude negates the practical nature of them in the first place. If you don't agree with this then you haven't played many Life vs. Fire/Earth/Chaos/Death/Void/All games, all of which are symbols with 'different' and 'better' defensive pieces (mostly becuase they are also offensive) than P2P, and that will be out on the field ready to be used against a mid/late game speed bump higher than 4.

You shouldn't pretend to know about my culture or the way I play the game of UFS. If you are gathering from my posts that there is a correlation between efficiency and lack of variety you are wrong. The more effective ways you have to kill (the less clockwork your deck is) the more efficient your deck will be 'in the long run'. There is a big difference between clockwork, the same thing every time, and a consistent strategy. I would argue that most decks have pieces in them that work together and that necessitate the inclusion of cards with duplicate abilities to ensure the strategy is sound throughout the deck. The difference between a consistent strategy (effective) and a clockwork approach is, to me, very vast. I'm not trying to give you any less credit, and your conclusion that there is an efficient target, one that differentiates 'good' from 'better' is 100% correct. Confusing this with variety, and assuming that it means a clockwork approach to a game is, again my opinion, likely to discourage you from making personal progress with your style of play.

It is interesting how you view the different UFS 'models' as you put it. That's all I really have to say about it, interesting.

FYI, I don't think I've solo symboled for the longest of times, my first Alex all deck back in June maybe. Almost everything before that and everything after has a spark of duality. You can't expect to see much experimental tech at the moment, what with the limited card pool. Then again, that all depends on what you consider experimental...

I agree we have different game philospohies. I've read your interpretation of high end damage pump, I'm not surprised you see mass speed boost as something that should be looked at for applying a limiting factor against, and I'd be more surpised if you didn't have other views about different extremes in the game (draw, discard, etc.) My philosophy is, many of these things can get out of hand, but very rarely do they get out of hand quickly and without some draw back. Hilde is a good example, her speed, unchecked by any of the many answers for it, is on the high end, but the drawback she comes with is a low vitality and usually a high comittal cost to get the speed she needs, i.e. lots of little damage reductions that necessitate she is comitted out or less likely to defend a next turn attack if she messes up her kill. The high cost, time, that it takes to get her set up is the main drawback though, as it entails she must also find a way to survive and protect her low vitality for a longer period of time.

That's about it, thank you again for your response darklogos

@ Hatman - I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. The big point of contention, and what I was trying to address with my OP is that this view "If my deck is to be all that it can be, I require Paid to Protect. No other card compares." is flatout wrong. There are a lot that compare, many that are better even under a lot of circumstances. I think we are specifically talking about either a King or Rashotep deck. My King deck started with some P2P and quickly found out it did nothing except for very rare circumstances, and even in those circumstances being able to toss out more damage would have done me equally as or more well. My deck is a Earth/Void dual symbol, with P2P in the sideboard, and so far never sided into. This is why I write these threads. To hopefully share my experience with open ears that my practical knowledge of this card doesn't match the theoretical value people are placing on it, people that haven't used it as much as they should before judging it.

- dut

dutpotd said:

That's the thing, I've LOOKED at the Earth/Void spread cards. No other card compares. THD's updated with the Tekken set, go into advanced search, and look for Earth/Void Foundations. There's not a lot there that gives me the same thing as Paid to Protect. Some cards, like Mexican Sensation give the same effect and also have enough damage. The thing is, I HAVE enough damage boosts and I'm not even counting PotM. It's really just the cherry on top of the sundae. I'm going to do you one better and take a look at every single one just so we're clear on this.

Dead for a Thousand Years - Shuts off Stand Off, shuts off repeatable effects by neutering them for the entire turn, but does not prevent anything. It blows itself up, and is 4 difficulty. If it hadn't been 4 difficulty, MAYBE it would be worth playing, but since I'm not playing Heir to the Storm in case DfaTY is useless to me, this is marginally worse than Paid to Protect.

Enemies now Friends - Shares 3 symbols, potential +4 damage on a combo provided I don't neuter my throw's damage too much. Potential use defensively provided I manage to nerf the damage down to zero. Would probably be the most efficient replacement.

Jealously-Guarded Secret - Side-deck for Kisheri, watch as she now becomes a completely useless 7/18. Utterly useless otherwise until Xianghua support hits, and even then.

Ka Technique - Great card, but it's already in the deck (as well it should be).

Killer Android - Great block, effect is even more limited than what you consider Paid to Protect to be.

King of the Ring - Offensive card either for aggro (+ damage) or control (card draw prevention). Not defensive. In the deck already. That and it's 4/5 so even if I were to replace it with Paid to Protect I'd gain -2 on difficulty but -1 on damage.

Learned from the Best - I mentioned that card earlier, but the condition is simply too limiting to warrant playing. Neuters Multiple copies however. Side-deck material at best, downright awful at worst.

Master of Magic - I don't recall anyone playing this to any efficiency other than maybe Padma (recycle your attacks into foundations that you blow up for your ability). Extremely useless except in what I just said.

Mexican Sensation - Offensive card mostly, because other than Hilde/Zi Mei I've yet to see a 7 handsize character make it in this meta, and forget about them ever printing a 5 Handsize character.

Strength of Ages - Purely offensive card that pumps throw damage. Almost useless in King because you can get a better damage pump from practically every other card.

The Man Behind the Mask - 0/5, gets every single symbol on King. Thing is, it's already in the deck.

The People's Hero - Purely offensive card that attacks both your opponent's momentum and then pumps attacks up for a large amount of damage. Nobody stacks momentum. Card is useless.

Undisputed Ruler - Prevents combos and Astrid's gigantic attack of doom (make it lose the Weapon keyword and then watch the Astrid player's smile drop). Blows itself up, has a 4 check. Almost useless. Side-deck material card.

Valued but not Trusted - Would be good even with it's stats if it wasn't a E. They can get their most important E in, and then leave you with a card that blows itself up and does nothing to prevent the most important E.

* * *

Yes, truly, Earth/Void has a lot of choices that are extremely diverse. Except most of them are awful and side-deck material at best. I run a lot of combos and keywords in my decks. Paid to Protect, even if I don't need the speed nerf, would be useful regardless. So, yes, I need it.

@Dut

I think we have developed some in depth ideas. I respect how you presented your last post.

I am limited in understanding the meta beyond the forums. Like many the closest meta is 2+ hours away. The forums, tournament reports, and general talk about the meta is how guage different things. I'm not in the cool kids AIM club. I haven't got that invite and I doubt I will. So I do put stock in peoples opinions who are stated to be valid. That is why I state that those that don't speak on the forum loose their right to repressentation and have no say in our conversations. If people forefit their insight and their right to speak then they don't have a right in be a part of the conversation. The other thing is that I don't want to create a culture where people are speaking for champs or repeating what a champ says and getting acredidation for their statements. The only person a person can speak for is their views on their meta, their views onthe game, and thier views on the forums.

I think that everything else has been exhuasted and we have made much progress on the views and why we hold our positions. I see 2 or 3 more developments in the meta that is currently possible but it seems that everyone just quit. That is the frustrating part is that a very few of us are mining for nuggets and everyone else is looking for the next gold rush.

All in all I don't need p2p in my meta because it is not as intense as some of the other metas. But we have some tough decks appear from time to time. We finally got all the components for stacked Astrid and King is the only deck that can stand a chance against her. Hilde has rocked hard but King can come out on top on average. The thing is that the stability of the top tier makes it so they are not questioned or even challenged. I think that this is destructive. I feel there needs to be more stuff that makes top decks struggle and have to fight and squrim. Without tech development, new cards are the only way to apply pressure for the masses.

Anyway thanks for the conversation. I will resign from this thread.

darklogos said:

The more I think about it, the more I think Undisputed Ruler may become something downright nasty against theme decks. Your deck banks on a certain card having a keyword? Undisputed Ruler neuters it. Good thing it blows itself up.

Astrid? They're going for the kill with her E? Make the weapon the weapon keyword.

King? Make it the Throw keyword (or the Combo one if you really want to piss ME off)

Zi Mei? Drop the Multiple off of Fury of the Ancients and watch as they plink you for 3.

Heihachi? Drop the Multiple off of Spinning Demon, it won't neuter him as much, but it'll prevent a potential 10 damage.

The biggest problem with that card is that it's 2/4 no block off a symbol spread of dubious origins.

Homme Chapeau said:

See, here is where my argument comes in and why it isn't getting through to you I suppose. Namely, I mainboard (from your list above) all of these cards frequently, and whenever I play any of their symbols...

Undisputed Ruler, goes without saying a very flexible defensive card. Getting rid of stun on wheel kicks or the combo keyword lately...

Killer Android, you will find Earth and Void suffer heavily from a lack of playable low blocks... I usually put 2 of these main deck and 1 or 2 more sideboard to include if the opponent is running a lot of low attacks or if they target my assets. I usually run at least 2 different assets that are always useful if out.

Mexican Sensation, this depends... If I am using King it usually goes in as 2 or 3, and if one can fit in the sideboard then it does. The thing about this is that King often is better to discard his throw card during his attacks so he can use the ability and play the throw for free. There are countless times I've drawn into too many throws and been unable to finish a turn with a planned attack from my discard pile. Using sensation to ditch a throw to pump a throw, then throw the throw back at the opponent is priceless.

Valued but not Trusted, goes in any deck that can run the symbols. 3 copies, I'd use 4 in a 7hs character. This is one of the best offensive and defensive cards out there for these symbols. A utility card.

I don't not understand your argument. I guess if you are running a lot of keywords, note Earth and Void only have cards with 2 keywords at most... then P2P can be useful. But more often than not you will not be using it to reduce speed, because speed isn't that prevalent except for in a few characters.

- dut

Homme Chapeau said:

Undisputed is the reason why i did as well as i did with King at SAS. IMHO one of the if not THE best foundation in earth. Also, ive noticed the people on these forums get hung up on x/4's a LOT. The check isnt that bad, you just have to build accordingly. Undisputed and Hunger for Battle are costed like this for a reason as they would be BROKEN if they were x/5. And lack of block isn't that huge. When i draw them, i want to play them.Plain and simple. Saying a card is unplayable because of stats and blocks despite having an insane ability deosnt seem viable. Especially in Earth. Earth has SO many good, blockless cards that all warrant playing.

As for stand off, I will need some more time to write out my thoughts on that card. But I will say, Hatman, that the card is not mandatory in king. Earth has so many ways to stem a rush that by the time you are facing down lethal, speed pumped attacks, you should be about to close the game down. The only exception for that is hata on the back of his pump being free. In this situation, i would rock p2p as a sideboard card. And if youre argument is that you need to devote cards to kisheri in the board, then you need to test again kisheri more. King absolutely ***** that deck.

ShippuJinrai said:

My argument was for Earth/Void cards. I don't know where Stand Off comes in in an Earth/Void spread. Also, I looked at each card individually, and that's the only way Jealously Guarded Secret comes in as sideboard for Kisheri. It doesn't matter whether or not King ***** the deck or not, it's still the only utility of that card.

Honestly, I'd rock Paid to Protect more as a mainboard due to how I built my King. The way you built it means it's side-board, but in mine, the E is pretty **** good. Also, I'm from a meta that does not go to Worlds and will likely never go to Worlds, the day I test against Kisheri means it's released to the world at large.

Homme Chapeau said:

I think when he says Stand Off he meant to say P2P...

Nor do I think he meant to say anything about Jealously Gaurded secret... It is useless at the moment. What he probably meant was King destroys Kisheri with or without P2P, granted the best way to kill Kisheri isn't to block one speed pumped attack... It is to kill her turn 3/4 like King does on a regular basis.

The thing about the E being useful for you Hatman is under the assumption that you aren't playing your attacks. i.e. the attacks (keywords) are in your hand. Most Kings play as - attack - attack, build, build, build, form and attack. i.e. the strength in King lies in being able to throw x+1 attacks a turn. If you are minimizing your x value becuase you are holding attacks to reduce damage with P2P... Well you just aren't getting out of King what you should be.

- dut

dutpotd said:

Maybe I'm being blind-sided by the fact that there seems to be only one playset here. Still, it'd be Paid to Protect over Stand Off, and Ruler over Body of Souls (I figured I play enough Combos so that fetching that extra attack per turn would be useful).

Also, if I'm not playing my attacks it generally means because it has a high chance of failure (not a lot of attacks in the discard, a lot of foundations on the table so I'd rather keep them as blocks for one turn, attack my opponent's hand through King of the Ring/Cobra Twist combo, and then buildbuildbuild free PotMed Throw.

Besides, we both know I'm an awful player so not playing King right is right up my alley.

Homme Chapeau said:

Not true at all.

It is kind of contradictory to say you play lots of attacks in one sentence (re: Body of Souls) and then in another that you often hold back and use keywords to reduce damage with P2P. But of course, using Body to grab extra attacks is consistent with having keywords in hand for your opponent's turn.

If you are running an Earth King deck, and/or stun attacks, you probably should use Standoff. As much as I say it is an overused card, Standoff protected by Torn Hero (i.e. Standoff in an Earth deck) is very strong and is better than P2P for damage reduce. It is Fire decks, often run with no protection that, that often misuse/include Standoff. (sorry for that off topic).

Hmm... the Body of Souls looping Twisty is a fine tactic. Body to loop the high throw, and Twisty from the discard... Toss in one other throw every turn and you got fuel for King of the Ring. See, you aren't an awful player at all!

- dut

dutpotd said:

Since I try to keep games short, Stand Off is more there as a psychological distraction. It's offense/defense, but at the same time I rarely want to fuel it as it costs me a foundation that could be put to better use.

And, again, Paid to Protect also has Void, which is how I'm passing my Martial Arts Champion (alongside King/Rasho stuff)

Also, Body of Souls has one problem - it's Void only. So I need more Void cards (or less Souls, which ever happens first).

Homme Chapeau said:

Yup. I played a King Void splash Earth this weekend and took the weekly with it. Earth slot for Torn Hero only. I will be posting it and a few other Void decks in the next little while as I finish writing an article on the Void symbol. i.e. I know how hard it is to dual symbol with a 6hs, and maybe my list might help you with some alternate ideas for your King.

- dut

dutpotd said:

Actually I'm pretty much settled on that deck for now. It's steamrolling over a lot of stuff around here. +3 Undisputed Ruler, -1 Souls, -3 Stand Off +something.