RockStar said:

I dont' have skype. Vent server I use is free as well.

darklogos said:

Can you write a shortlist of what you consider control dependant characters, from it I will choose one and take on your challenge, sounds like fun and as you have put it - a lot to gain.

Note, my decks are usually pretty Jack of all Trade, meaning even without sandbag they will kill, maim, or negate my opponents attempts at the same in a variety of different ways. Maybe this will impact my ability to succeed consecutively without need/benefit to changing my face card.

- dut

dutpotd said:

Feel free to pick from Kilik, Zhao Daiyo, Yoshimitsu, Nina Williams and White Crane. I didn't list Kisheri because I think that would be to hard at this point. Also I've put a lot of effort into researching her. Yoshimitsu is up there because I've failed hard with him. Lu Chen has been estabished to disrupt and be effective to some extent so he doesn't fit into this. Also most of his support is used for defense anyway. Thing is all of these are characters I have to some extent failed with and at some point in time promoted or submitted a decklist. So I throw that out to you. I look forward to your results. If anything I'm not one to shy away from eating crow if I and others can become better players in the future.

darklogos said:

ive been huffin and puffin all day...and NO MENTION OF LIZARDMAN!! lawl.

k im off work, stuff to do, be back on the interwebs in a few hours

Smazzurco said:

I would say he doesn't even need his E really. Most of the time if it goes off it is because the other player ran out of mid block and low blocks. I don't see it him needing it to survive. Also I think Lizardman is atypical when it comes to characters with control elements.

dutpotd said:

no its not fury of the ancients and garret text me your email and ill send you the decklist.im not gonna disclose much but you will start hearing about it next season.1 attack that wins consistantly thats crazy wright.not at all.

no there are 4 copys of that one attack.

as for the rest of the talk.its not zei mei,and i deal with kilik with a tiny foundation that stops enhances on cards that i name.very good card.im not putting a declist because i just despise netdecking so everyone but garret will have to wait and he is sworn to secracy.

otakuV said:

I could see a Deck that looped seal work but im not sure how you would go about making it unblockable without somekind of stun/discard i guess you do have discard through nina stuff but i still dont see it viable im working on a similar deck but ive got a back up kill condition

otakuV said:

If I had to take a random guess I would say Hilde. Wall up on fire behind P2P, Stand Off, Ultimate Team, and Toughest in the Universe and then Hadoken them in the face with [good attack here). I'm assuming this version would still be running dual-weilding.

P.S. Just realized you can Universe your own attack too. Wow how did I not know that.

Tader Salad said:

Issue I would put to that is why play Hilde so poorly. She can go way faster then the setup described. She can turn 2 and 3 kill no problem. To me it just seems like a waste to do all of that with Hilde.

Yeah, I remember when Steve asked Chubbs and I what we thought of mini-block and if there was any npe control in it. The first thing out of our mouths were that you had to attack in order to control, which is actually the way it should be.

A fine example is Demon Slayer. It negates an enhance, but it has to be in your card pool. To get it to your card pool, you gotta attack with it. Attack to control, baby.

Anyways, to jump on the NickAbrakadabra/Garret/darklogos convo, I was talking to a certain somebody who has not posted here yet about a 1-attack OTK control deck (4 copies of that attack) that is extremely consistent.

They are speaking truth. We cannot showcase the deck tho because we'll have another Juni's Spiral Arrow Revolution where everybody netdecks and 1/3rd of the field at Nationals is that deck.

Shaneth said:

I'm mad right now. That lets me know that there is something ban worthy in the new set and it won't be fixed and it will be abused by a few of people who know about this. After a lot that has been said I'm piecing bits of it together.

Well in all honesty, I don't even know if the deck I know about is the same type of deck as Nick Abrakadabra's.

At any rate, I believe Nick Abrakadabra claims correctly about that deck. He is known to crack the format, like his 4th Place Cervantes Deck at Worlds 2008, which only lost because Ukyo was the absolute worst matchup for him.

Shaneth said:

I'm figuring it out. I have a good idea of who he is using. When I get the peices togheter or something similar I will post it and let the meta wars begin.

otakuV said:

Nick, and anyone else that wants to talk shop - [email protected] is my personal address fire away. I was more interested when I thought it was 1 attack card lol, but you still have my full interest with this one ^^

Darklogos, it won't surprise you too too much Shaneth has already won his store championship with 8 attacks I believe, or 2 sets of throws and King.

The problem I have always had is - sure, I can build Hilde/King/Zi Mei/ whatever with one set of killer attacks, but I need attacks to block with, to threaten with, to commit with (pommel), to survive with - breaker or multiple hate or whatever. In other words, my attacks mean not only can I kill sooner and more 'on a dime' but I can defend equally well or better because of them.

This is just my opinion, not to mention consistency is great, but I win 'consistently' by changing things up and having 4+ ways to kill, i.e. 4 different attacks all capable of getting to enough damage or disturbing enough sh1t, 4 different damage pumps any one of which out means I can go off and kill, etc. Keeping the opponent defending against different kill methods is what keeps me alive (because they can't commit resources to kill me when they need to defend more than one front) and what kills the opponent (when everything is covered my deck has the tools to create a new way to win).

To summarize, I think that is what Darklogos is trying to say in this thread. Decks that 'control' and then kill with a single attack type are vulnerable to predictability, they aren't best shared because they lose potency, and once they are figured out they are meta'ed against easily. This is why I JoaT and why I always will. Anyone can build a deck that does one thing well, building a deck that can do whatever I want whenever I want is the ultimate goal here.

Darklogos, depending on the work I do I will either run Nina off Air or Yoshi off something.

- dut

dutpotd said:

4x Crushing Embrace
2x Crocodile Grasp

I should have ran 5 attacks instead: 3x Crushing Embrace and 2x Croc Grasp.

But now everybody runs him with 4 attax, aka 4ThrowKing.

dutpotd said:

Remember the Shallow Swipe meta? That lasted for like... 3 months. Wall up and Shallow Swipe. Every deck except VoldOmar.

"Yeaaaaaaaah, we gotta ban this..."

Shaneth said:

Yeah, I thought it was less than 8. I can't comment, our meta is super agressive and likes to kill turn 3. Needless to say we don't usually see low attack decks built.

I know they work to a degree, and for some they offer more consistency, a straightfoward single target for damage and an attack. To each their own of course.

I guess it really depends, even CSS and Arrowlock had answers, most of it being breaking the wall... People just weren't gutsy, everyone hates low checks, to run these decks.

I know my meta will wreck a defensive wall if they pass their checks on the attack strings ran, at least in this meta I have yet to see one that can stand to the likes of a well constructed Astrid/Hata/etc.

- dut

dutpotd said:

I agree with everything you said. The change up is essential. Not only that it makes it so you can hit the weakness of their deck. Speed hurts some decks more while low attacks might do more damage in other decks. To me the idea of 4 attacks in a deck to win and win consistantly makes me think that I wasted my time in this game. The reason I stuck with this game is based on the idea that reality was dead and gone and people had to do something offensive. I was thinking about going to the Texas even but I'm in limbo about a bunch of things in the next 6 months. But man the idea of having to play that pisses me off and makes me not want to play. I'm moving away from my playgroup back to Kansas City where no one plays and I'll be recruiting from scratch and starting games up from scratch. I was going to put in the work but if this is possible in the game then why bother. The mechanics, no matter how skilled the designer, lends towards stall and one shoting. That's just bull crap. Instead of outing the issue and getting stuff fixed it will be outed at a major tournament for someone to abuse and win. Then the cat will be out of bag later. If the NPE OMG LOOK I'M A NOOB AND OWNED YOU WITH MY LEET NET DECK bull is going to happen later I'm almost better opting out now. When someone builds a deck like that in the state the game is in now it pretty much says they want to kill the game. That or force it to go through a major rules revision which will kill the game. If the 1 attack deck is consistent and would create a Spiral kick lock reaction why build it knowing that people put in effort to walk away from that. After all that was done to stop that. It makes me mad and sick. If it is possible now it only becomes more and more viable as time progresses. We are looking at a possible 2 more sets before the next major tourney and this deck could be unstoppable by then because the core premise may not be cracked and the fact that the FFG staff doesn't read the board or even thought it was possible.

Shaneth said:

Or block...