6 hours ago, Silverfox13 said:

Lol, I can easily assume this won't be a 4/4 about 90% of the time. It seems people are highly delusional on how many rings get claimed in a round.

If you were to believe that every round of every game that you would have this card in your and 3 rings were claimed when you played her and you had 2 fate in your pool to do so then you should go play the lottery, because your luck is exceptionally good.

and as you are waiting for this opportunity to make her worth playing she is nothing more than a dead card in your hand. I'd imagine that it'll be sitting in many players hands right next to Fallen In Battle.

If every argument is that she is always going to be sone magical 4/4 for 2 fate, then you can also assume that I always have an Assassinate and 24 honor.

Most the arguments seem to be she has the potential to be 4/4. Realistically she'll be a 3/3. And if you think it's lucky to have 2 fate and 2 conflicts occur then you've played no games, or watched none of the streams already.

Also, not every argument has been saying she's a "magical" 4/4. You keep ignoring those, just to keep banging on about how she isn't a 4/4 and is a "dead" card. We get it, you don't like her and you think everyone who is saying she can be a 4/4 is wrong, you can stop now.

On 7/23/2017 at 7:12 AM, RandomJC said:

Most the arguments seem to be she has the potential to be 4/4. Realistically she'll be a 3/3. And if you think it's lucky to have 2 fate and 2 conflicts occur then you've played no games, or watched none of the streams already.

Also, not every argument has been saying she's a "magical" 4/4. You keep ignoring those, just to keep banging on about how she isn't a 4/4 and is a "dead" card. We get it, you don't like her and you think everyone who is saying she can be a 4/4 is wrong, you can stop now.

First off, you have NO idea what my experience with the game is, so stop making random assumptions.

The ONLY arguments that I am seeing are that she can drop at 4/4 which is what makes her a good card.

Are you saying she is good card as a 1/1 for 2?

No I didn't thinks so.

I also get it, you like her, and you think anyone with an alternate opinion but your own is wrong, we get it, you can stop now.

She's a conflict character, so you obviously play her when she's good, rather than when she's bad. The real question is "can she be 4/4 (or even 3/3) often enough to be worth running?" The answer depends on how many conflicts players declare each round.

34 minutes ago, Silverfox13 said:

First off, you have NO idea what my experience with the game is, so stop making random assumptions.

The ONLY arguments that I am seeing are that she can drop at 4/4 which is what makes her a good card.

Are you saying she is good card as a 1/1 for 2?

No I didn't thinks so.

I also get it, you like her, and you think anyone with an alternate opinion but your own is wrong, we get it, you can stop now.

First off, awfully defensive, you do act like you don't, since you'd know that two conflicts going off in a phase is pretty common occurrence.

No, I've been saying she is a good card as a 3/3 for 2. Or you know, what I said in my post you just responded to. I mean, do you think she's only a 1/1 or a 4/4?

Here is a sample of a few arguments why she's a good card:

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 11:01 AM, RandomJC said:

But that isn't the same as suboptimal.

There are almost always two conflicts in any given round, which means she will have a 3/3. at the very least. Since she is a character, you can play her out of a conflict, so if you don't have anyone else, and it's your turn to attack, you can play her and declare that attack.

Those 0 costs cards are good, but cards like Banzai and Charge are also limiting, Banzai is straight up useless if you have no characters on the field. So are attachments and most other conflict cards. Charge will only help you in a military conflict. She can be played to an empty field with mid-level stats that can then be boosted by those 0 cost cards.

I'd argue she isn't weak if you're behind on tempo, she's a card to mitigate that damage, if you lost two conflicts, she's still a strong card that can be played to mitigate further losses, or even turn the tide. It also matters very much, losing a conflict isn't the same as losing a province. If you lose two conflicts, or even three, but that doesn't mean you lost a province. (I know this, I've played lion enough to just lose, but not have my provinces break.) Coming in a swinging and breaking a province matters a great deal.

My point on the difference between clan and neutral is of course neutral will have better cards, they're more flexible than any clan card can, or should be. It's isn't a comparison that can be easily made.

I'm not saying she's a great card, but it isn't as bad as some are saying on here. She's widely capable and a pocket character to play when least expected, which can give a massive swing in your favor late in the phase. She may not be as good a boost, but Fine Katana, and other 0 cost conflict cards mean jack if you have an empty field.

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 9:08 AM, Anemura said:

This is the best Phoenix Character spoiled to date.

Effectively, it is Seeker of Enlightenment via the Conflict Deck. SoE can be considered a solid Dynasty Card, so this card is that and a touch more. On most turns, like SoE, she should be a 3M/3P for 2F. That's good. Few cards offer 6 stats points for 2 Fate. What makes her better than SoE is that aside from being a Conflict deck surprise, she has more surety in the bonuses she will receive by comparison (otherwise you don't play her).

SoE and II work as mirror opposites. As more Rings with Fate are claimed, SoE gets weaker. As more Rings are claimed, II gets stronger. Solid card.

It will come down to the frequency of drawing into II. Right now, it's relatively harder to cycle through one's Conflict Deck than it is one's Dynasty Deck. Hopefully, Phoenix will have more ways to draw into Conflict Cards like this as we are spoiled more cards.

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 5:37 PM, Eu8L1ch said:

My opinion is that this card will easily end up being played as a 3/3, sometimes as a 4/4. It's not uncommon at all for 2 conflicts to happen, then you might be short on bodies for the third one: this card will help.

That's the main advantage of a conflict character. Since it's not uncommon at all to have a handful of characters on the board, it is a common occurence to have your only character in a conflict bowed/sent home. In that situation, having a conflict character in your hand allows you to keep fighting, possibly being a target for any new cards you might want to play. It's true that a Banzai is more efficient most of the times, but this card is more flexible and makes you less susceptible to bow/send home effects instead of making you more susceptible, as Banzai does. It's a situational card for sure, but I see it as a nice failsafe that might very well provide solid value if played in the correct situation - what differentiates it from a bad situational card is that said situation is bound to happen, regardless of you including this card or not.

But you know...the ONLY arguments are for 4/4s. Maybe you should stop trying to prop your strawman up and have a real discussion about the card, if you don't like being called out on it. If you want to have a conversation about why you don't like the card, I'm fine, but actually respond to other points besides the 4/4 argument.

10 hours ago, RandomJC said:

First off, awfully defensive, you do act like you don't, since you'd know that two conflicts going off in a phase is pretty common occurrence.

No, I've been saying she is a good card as a 3/3 for 2. Or you know, what I said in my post you just responded to. I mean, do you think she's only a 1/1 or a 4/4?

Here is a sample of a few arguments why she's a good card:

But you know...the ONLY arguments are for 4/4s. Maybe you should stop trying to prop your strawman up and have a real discussion about the card, if you don't like being called out on it. If you want to have a conversation about why you don't like the card, I'm fine, but actually respond to other points besides the 4/4 argument.

Or... maybe you like to think you know me, or my state of mind, or my mood, much like you think you know "how good" a card is.

Or you know, maybe I have seen a bunch of games where people defend and claiming 2 rings is possible but can take all 4 conflicts, so a percentage of the time she is a 2/2 for 2 fate, because, you know, she really can't be used after the last conflict, in case you were still behind. But I actually rounded it to 2.5 as an average and said she would be a 2/3 skill for 2 fate in my previous posts.
I should not have used the word ONLY in my LAST argument, but I have in my previous posts actually argued why I thought the card wasn't that great, none of which you decided to show quotes of, but hey I'm sure everyone had forgotten the previous discussion going on right here, and it is super helpful you reposted them all.

Maybe you have Straw man too, and I'm not really going to change my opinion of the card just because you think you know better than I do. I am not just going to stop man, just cause you want to be a jerk.

3 hours ago, Silverfox13 said:

Or... maybe you like to think you know me, or my state of mind, or my mood, much like you think you know "how good" a card is.

Or you know, maybe I have seen a bunch of games where people defend and claiming 2 rings is possible but can take all 4 conflicts, so a percentage of the time she is a 2/2 for 2 fate, because, you know, she really can't be used after the last conflict, in case you were still behind. But I actually rounded it to 2.5 as an average and said she would be a 2/3 skill for 2 fate in my previous posts.
I should not have used the word ONLY in my LAST argument, but I have in my previous posts actually argued why I thought the card wasn't that great, none of which you decided to show quotes of, but hey I'm sure everyone had forgotten the previous discussion going on right here, and it is super helpful you reposted them all.

Maybe you have Straw man too, and I'm not really going to change my opinion of the card just because you think you know better than I do. I am not just going to stop man, just cause you want to be a jerk.

Her power is based on the "number of claimed rings" not the "number of rings you've claimed." Someone claims a ring every conflict, you don't have to win them. She can be a 3/3 if you need the power on the 3rd conflict, but she is strongest if you're able to save the 2 fate through 2 of your opponent's attacks when you're going second so you can drop her as a 4/4 (possibly 5 if you have Imperial Favor) which is province breaking if your opponent didn't save any defense for a 4th conflict (at this point she is still in your hand so they may not anticipate it and may over-commit resources to the 3rd conflict.) This is a very realistic play, so she is likely a 3/3 or 4/4 with possible Imperial Favor bonus. Never a 2/2 or 1/1.

Saving 2 fate isn't that difficult if you play defensively. The Defensive Crab can save up quite a bit if they hold fast the first turn or two, playing defensive with extra fate on some larger personalities. I imagine the Phoenix will be similar. I've played the game finally, and feel pretty confident in my assessment. This is a card you wait on until you are 2nd player, and your opponent taps themselves out on their 2nd conflict giving you a free attack with province breaking strength. If the opponent plays conservative to prevent this, then they are weakening themselves by leaving un-utilized strength on the table they have paid for, for fear of a card in your hand that you never have to drop.

12 hours ago, Silverfox13 said:

Or... maybe you like to think you know me, or my state of mind, or my mood, much like you think you know "how good" a card is.

Or you know, maybe I have seen a bunch of games where people defend and claiming 2 rings is possible but can take all 4 conflicts, so a percentage of the time she is a 2/2 for 2 fate, because, you know, she really can't be used after the last conflict, in case you were still behind. But I actually rounded it to 2.5 as an average and said she would be a 2/3 skill for 2 fate in my previous posts.
I should not have used the word ONLY in my LAST argument, but I have in my previous posts actually argued why I thought the card wasn't that great, none of which you decided to show quotes of, but hey I'm sure everyone had forgotten the previous discussion going on right here, and it is super helpful you reposted them all.

Maybe you have Straw man too, and I'm not really going to change my opinion of the card just because you think you know better than I do. I am not just going to stop man, just cause you want to be a jerk.

Like seriously, that's really defensive man, can just calm down a bit. I know I'm not the best at judging cards, and I'm fully aware of how wonky this card kind of is, she just isn't a dead card, like you keep saying, that's been my entire point.

You do know it doesn't say "You're claimed rings" but just "Claimed rings" which means your opponent's rings too, right? I haven't seen many games where at least 2 rings have been claimed halfway through the phase. Phoenix can be losing every step of the way and she is still racking up that power.

As far as the quotes, why would I post yours? Isn't the point of my post to show how the 4/4 wasn't the only argument being shown, and isn't even the predominant argument in this thread for those who don't think she's a bad card.

This isn't a card you can just a straight average since it has to do with the probability of the number of rings claimed by you and your opponent in a turn. and there is a very high probability that two rings will be claimed between you and your opponent in any single round, so while the easy math is she's a 2/3 card, realistically she's consistently sitting at that 3/3 for 2 fate. It's only in rare cases that she's ever a 2/2, and honestly, in my experience with the game, the odds are higher she'd be a 4/4 than a 2/2 in most games, if you play right.

None of this math even addresses how she's more useful on an empty board than any boost or attachment, which is far more likely to occur at the end of a phase where she will be the most powerful to play anyway.

I'm sorry you think I'm being a jerk, but you keep pounding away on that 4/4 drum. And I realize now that you've had a misconception of the card now, so I may be sounding harsher in hindsight than my general intention, but yeah, the only time she's only a 2/2 is during a dead turn anyway, where only one conflict has gone down, or like a super defensive/mind trippy game is going on, which are far outside the norms than they are to be regular occurrences to use as a basis for judging this card.

13 hours ago, Silverfox13 said:

Or you know, maybe I have seen a bunch of games where people defend and claiming 2 rings is possible but can take all 4 conflicts

Either you misunderstood the card or you misunderstood the rules. If the 4 conflicts occured, more often that not, 4 rings are claimed (but not necessarily resolved, that's not the same thing). The only way AFAIK for a conflict to occur without having a ring claimed is having no units on each side at the end of the battle.

So, if the 4 conflicts of a round are used like in your example, then at the 4th, the Initiate will almost always be 4/4. Indeed, there will be a lot of rounds with less than 4 conflicts but she will almost never have a round where she can't potentially be more than 1/1, and most of the time, she will be able to be at least 3/3 in the last conflict of the round.

Multi-post bug.

Multi-post bug.

3 hours ago, KerenRhys said:

The only way AFAIK for a conflict to occur without having a ring claimed is having no units on each side at the end of the battle.

0 vs. 0 results in no rings claimed. You can easily get a 0 vs 0 conflict but still have people in one or both armies.

Just now, Yogo Gohei said:

0 vs. 0 results in no rings claimed. You can easily get a 0 vs 0 conflict but still have people in one or both armies.

*grumbles about Crane stronghold*

13 hours ago, Yogo Gohei said:

0 vs. 0 results in no rings claimed. You can easily get a 0 vs 0 conflict but still have people in one or both armies.

True, I mixed up the 2 notions.

13 hours ago, Yogo Gohei said:

0 vs. 0 results in no rings claimed. You can easily get a 0 vs 0 conflict but still have people in one or both armies.

How often have people had this happen? I'm genuinely curious, please let me know if this has happened - and what the circumstances were. Was it a misplay where a person simply didn't anticipate something obvious or was it the result of some climactic struggle where both sides were reduced to zero through skillful defensive play?

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

How often have people had this happen? I'm genuinely curious, please let me know if this has happened - and what the circumstances were. Was it a misplay where a person simply didn't anticipate something obvious or was it the result of some climactic struggle where both sides were reduced to zero through skillful defensive play?

I had it happen once, and it was a bonehead I forgot what the crane stronghold did.

It should remember that in the case of 0 v 0, I don't think the favor helps you. Or was that empty board....gah hate not having rule book.

1 hour ago, RandomJC said:

I had it happen once, and it was a bonehead I forgot what the crane stronghold did.

It should remember that in the case of 0 v 0, I don't think the favor helps you. Or was that empty board....gah hate not having rule book.

Last stream they said that favor works as long as you have presence; even if you had your guy bowed by crane stronghold you should still get +1 in respective skill since the character is still in conflict

28 minutes ago, BordOne said:

Last stream they said that favor works as long as you have presence; even if you had your guy bowed by crane stronghold you should still get +1 in respective skill since the character is still in conflict

Yeah, I had forgotten which it was.

Lots of impassioned discussion on this card!

That, I think, tells us something. She's obviously very situational:

1. A conflict card: so has surprise value, but can be prevented from entering play.

2. 0 Glory: Doesn't help you win the Imperial favour, limited value in honouring her or dishonouring her.

3. Fluctuating stats - board state dependent.

4. Relatively low cost?

5. She's a shugenga, useful but needs other cards to gain a true benefit.

6. Void trait - do we know what this does (if anything yet)?

So what can we learn from this in terms of evaluating II? Well not a huge amount currently but we can look at game design principles. Situational cards / abilities are often very 'swingy'; they have high variability. They can be incredibley good, or outright useless.

So I think it depends on the style of deck and strategy you want to adopt? High variance plays mean you will be less consistent over a number of games but, if you're lucky, you will find high variance decks can win out on occasion.

II will probably suit high variance decks (maybe a Phoenix theme?) and will do some work there. She'll be less viable in decks aiming for consistent, but not exceptional, play.

High variance often equates to high tempo - lots of conflicts, lots of rings taken. So if your meta is high variance, high tempo then she's a good include. This probably aligns with Lion, Phoenix and Unicorn.

If your meta is lower tempo, lower variance (perhaps Dragon, Crab and Crane) then her value reduces. SoE likes this environment for example.

We can expect II to drop in and drop out of play then, which in itself is a useful barometer of what a local meta is like. Definetly one to watch even if you're not running Phoenix.

A lot of People don't seem to understand the playstyle of the previewed phoenix clan cards. The phoenix cards don't look like tempo cards, but more like grindy cards that try to force your oponent into lose-lose situations. You are right, that the cards don't always work, but they don't have to. In order for them to not work, your oponent has to play around them, which leads them to make unoptimal plays. Phoenix will probably be one of the harder factions to learn, because you'll need a vast understanding of the game to force your oponent into those lose-lose situations, but on the flipside you also need the understanding to grind through cards like Display of Power and Ishiken Initiate.

Now Initiate feels very in sync with Phoenix clan.