I suspect, Player-Character, that you'll need to come in here with more proof than just your claims that Orc/Skaven aren't that bad just because in your play-group you've had some success against them. Unfortunately not many of us here (myself included) are prone to believing a first-time poster making claims that "Skaven/Orc, or DE/Skaven aren't that bad." Most will expect you to post a deck to prove it.

I have zero desire (along with most folk here) to steal any deck ideas, anyway - most of us have come up with several decks that can beat Orc/Skaven or DE/Skaven - the issue is that they won't do so consistently.

For example, you could've brought whatever counter-deck you wanted to the recent FFG Event Center tournament and you'd have been very lucky to walk out with even a single victory. Doesn't matter if you're a self-proclaimed card-playing genius or deck-designer extraordinaire, you have the same stuff to work with as all the rest of us and the "group mind think" you so blithely disdain is pretty darn on the money about this issue.

When every deck at your tournament is the same kind, something's either broken or warped a little - there's really no debating that fact. Eventually with some new cards we can hope for changes (and as Steve H. has promised us, Order is going to improve and supposedly fairly quickly) but for now, there's no secret magic bullet or wildly creative deck-build that's going to solve that issue because they just (sadly) don't exist. That doesn't mean that a deck can't get some great draws and/or good luck along the way and steal a Regional victory somewhere - they could - but it's still unlikely to be something that could repeatedly win at the tournament level.

Wytefang said:

I see what you did there.

PlayerCharacter does have a point in that it's entirely possible that there's a counter deck to the various Skaven builds that is better, and I've said that lots of times now - in fact, my main reason for posting our best Skaven list is that I want to know what beats it. I certainly have some builds that are close to 50%, so I could easily have missed something that would put you over the top. If I was in his position and I thought I had the solution with regionals coming up, I'm not sure I'd want to post it either.

That said, I have played a _lot_ of different builds and games at this point, so I think that the Orc/Skaven deck may indeed be the best deck, i.e. the deck with >50% against everyone else.

Just to make myself clear, I do not think that Warpstone Excavation needs to be banned right now - and with the regionals going on, it would be a terrible idea to do it now anyway. In the long run the game may be better off without it since it will make games slower, but that's just my personal opinion.

Did anyone stop to think that it's possible that right now destruction/skaven are SUPPOSED to be the most powerful cards? They did just have an entire cycle of battlepacks based around them, after all. It's not impossible that normal ebb and flow of aggro versus control was designed to favor aggro in the first cycle. Aggro is the easiest deck to type to build and the easiest to play. it's also the easiest for new players to identify as strong.

Control decks are hard to build and hard to play (as long as control cards aren't overpowered), so they SHOULD take longer to develop and become popular in the meta. If control started out as the strongest decktype we'd have the problem of players feeling like they don't get to really play the game when they are matched against control. if you lose to aggro decks you don't have that reaction. You can just pass the loss off to a lucky start (like complainging about Warpstone) or not getting a good defense early.

I think the game is in a good place right now. The tournament at HQ was far too small to show anything meaningful about the meta. It will take until at least Gencon to know much. I can say that among my playgroup, Empire/Dwarf control is the best deck. Orc/Skaven is strong but not unbeatable. The key turns are obviously 2 and 3 but it's gotten easier and easier to live to those with the recent battlepacks. I say don't make too much of the current perception of the meta. Just wait. This game is published in cycles so expect for different factions to get pushed one way or the other in each. The situation you don't want to find yourself in is having overpowered control. That kills games.

While I absolutely agree Rush decks are way too prevalent in the game after the tourney today I don't think banning is necessarily the way to go.

At the tourney I was at today there was a Skaven Orc(won) Skaven, Chaos De(2nd place) Orc (3rd) then 3 Dwarfs, 2 Dark Elves, High Elves. No Chaos and No pure Empire. I refused to build and play a Rush deck despite really wanting to win as I just don't like them. I prefer something with some more thought and depth to it. My DE did okay, in 4 rounds I lost one round and drew in the other 3. (best 2 out of 3 in 50 minutes). My one lost was of course against a Rush deck, Chaos, DE and Skaven mix. But sadly after today I am going to build a rush deck for the next time I am at a tourney as if I want to win or even have a chance thats what will have to do till the meta switches.

No to the ban. There's plenty of other stuff in the game that needs attention before WE.

Just to add to the discussion, the Aldershot regional today was won by an Empire deck with 2 dwarf decks in the top 5. Just because most of the community is saying that orc/skaven/dark elf decks are nigh-on unbeatable doesn't make it true.

P.S. I can't really take a request to ban a card seriously when the OP can't even remember what the card's called.

In all fairness though the decks brought to the Aldershot tournament (including the winning deck) could have done well due to the players playing in that tournament not quite building the best Orc/Skaven or DE/Skaven decks and then possibly just not playing them well if they DID bring a decent Rush deck. I guarantee you won't see Empire winning (especially not pure Empire) regularly at all.

No to a ban. I'm adamantly against banlists at this stage of the game.

I saw that the Empire won in Aldershot; that was pretty awesome. I am very happy with the game, especially with the growing card pool... I'm sure the discussion about such-and-such card is broken will continue for the life of W.I.. Once people are shown the counter-builds that fades away until a new power card enters the scene that people are having difficulty finding answers too.

i agree with everything you've said there playercharacter. I honestly don't think warpstone should be banned, it really isn't a game breaking card by itself, strong yes, ban worthy... no. I believe in next cycle hell even now the rush dominance is coming to an end and with it cards like warpstone will see alot less play as a result.

Hi fellow players,

Well, I'm stunned to read this topic even exist... really. Do you really think that Warpstone Excavation is what makes rush broken ?

In my experience it is Clan Moulder Elite and Deathmaster who makes the current skaven builds unstoppable.

Compare these :

- Moulder Elite is far the best 2 cost offensive creature. Cards to compare with : Squid Herders, Snotling Pump Wagon. Even with 3 HP instead of 5 it would be strong and used.

- Deathmaster's ability is the only effect in the game which could destroy any targeted unit in the field repeated times... not only attackers, not 2 damage dealt etc... direct destroy. Empire could destroy a single unit for 4 resources with Vigilant Electors (EOT), and above that there is no more "kill anybody" effects in W:I.

- Warpstone gives a free resource or card but makes one of your zones very vulnerable against the fastest (and currently most dangerous) deck archetype out there... rush (and also a pretty bad topdeck lategame)

Yes, Warpstone Exc. is very effective if drawn in multiples, but not as effective as 2 Moulder Elite turn 2 (right after a turn 1 Thanquol).

So I'm not really sure, that it's that glowing stone which really matters. BTW, based on reports it seems that even the mirror matches were often decided by "who draw Deathmaster" rather than "who draw an excavation"

Cain

The problem is not that card, but skavens in general. I think it's too easy to say, "I don't like X card because i don't use it and people beat me with it", as lots of people did about Alchemist Guild Hall. Complaining is easier than thinking. Nevertheless Pyromancer's cache were banned since the release of LCG, and its almost the same card.

PS: Also ban Contested Village.

NO BANNING!!! The game is far too new to begin banning already. I don't even use the card. I've seen people get killed because they couldn't get a unit in to protect a badly damaged section of the capital because they were corrupted the second they hit the ground. I don't like the card, not because it's broken, but because it gets people killed.

Wytefang said:

Maybe you just haven't got the players in your region that have the skill in constructing and playing mono empire decks. All the decks at Aldershot were very built to a very high standard and were extremely competitive. I'd expect nothing less from the UK players.

Can pure empire beat decent rush decks regualarly... yes... I'd expect to see a bit more of it in the future as well.

tearmat said:

Any deck can beat any other deck, you just need to be canny in your card selection.

Add the word "Limited", and it's good to go.

for deathmaster snitch they just need to change it to how many skaven you've got in his zone, not the entire playing field.

Would still be powerfull but not as insane as it is now.

Warpstone Excavation is a powerful card but I don't think it needs to be banned.
Maybe the developers could create a card to counter act it. Something like this:

Neutral Tactic, cost 2
Order only.
Action: Move one target support card from its zone to another zone controlled by the same player.

You play the tactic and move the opponent's Warpstone Excavation from its current zone to his battlefield. All of his units will enter the battlefield corrupted.

They need a support card that makes it so corrupted units cannot be restored. Order only maybe, but it would be powerful in a DE or Chaos control deck so I dunno. It would be a good hoser for skaven too.

Tobogan said:

Tobogan said:

AGH created a lock that was bad for the game. Period. It required little creativity to play, vastly limited the in game decision making process, and was a major piece in a deck archetype that reduced the best decks in other Houses to second tier builds.

Pyromancers cash was banned because it did not fit in with the LCG AGoT design philosophy. There was literally no other reason.

WE is not against the LCG W:I design philosophy.
WE does not create a lock that is bad for the game nor is it a major piece in the best deck.

It actually can be pretty dangerous in a mirror match-up because it makes one zone hard to defend and in the mirror match up defense IS important, otherwise it degenerates to a race to do 16 and only 16 damage spread over two zones.

The Skaven are what power up the Rush to ridiculous proportions. At regionals there should probably be two deck styles: some flavor of Skaven Rush and some flavor of anti-Skaven.

If they really wanted to reign Skaven in more anti-corruption cards would do the trick a tactic that destroyed all corrupted cards. A support that would prevent a target corrupted card from restoring itself. The first is very silver-bullet-ish which I'm not a fan of, but having it in the environment would give Skaven Rush builders a pause. The second one less so, especially if it was priced competitively and granted a hammer or two.

There are ways to bring Skaven under control if JAmes wants to take them... but I suspect James has some tricks up Order's sleeve as well as some ideas to make Destruction Control more attractive that will marginalize Skaven Rush rather than nerf it.

tearmat said:

I doubt that very much (about lacking the players in this area) considering that the game's designer is someone we play with and/or against. That being said, I'm appreciative that the UK players had strong decks but this is what I suspected all along - that some tournament somewhere would showcase the anomalous results of a non-Rush deck actually doing well. Doesn't change that it's probably (in all likelihood) exactly that, an anomaly.

And the claim that "pure Empire" can beat a good Rush deck regularly is (sorry) laughable. I'm guessing that you probably don't have all the cards there yet or something.

It's not the end of the world if (for now) any particular faction is pretty powerful as long as there is SOME variance between deck-types winning (which there seems to be) but for now those are almost all Destruction-based decks. Hopefully Order will improve eventually - I know my High-Elf/Dwarf deck is close at least.

dormouse said:

The concept that I've bolded, that a card can be banned for some generically labeled, all-encompassing reason such as "um, it doesn't fit in with the design philosophy of the game" is extremely worrisome to me. It sounds like political double-speak, almost - full of sound and fury, not really signifying anything. I wonder if that will be FFG's blanket term to justify card banning that has no other real justification??

I'm just probably worrying for nothing but reading that gave me the bad kind of chills. I don't mind having a logical or in-game justification or reason for banning a problematic card (I'd rather not see anything banned, if possible, but sometimes it's a necessary evil) BUT these kinds of flimsy loosely-worded justifications bother me.

I would have to disagree, however, that WE is NOT a major piece in a great deck. It is super helpful and critical to the speed environment that feeds the Rush deck's success. Its removal or nerfing would probably help slow things down a bit though I'm not totally sure it's necessary yet - especially without having a few more cards in the gameplay environment. I'm of the mind that we could probably afford to wait for another BP or two before passing that kind of judgment. Just my opinion though...

I promise you two things, removing WE will have little noticeable impact on the Rush decks win ratios. They may allow them to rush easier or achieve victory a turn earlier sometimes, but you'll discover that a single free hammer to draw or resources will not make a huge difference. If you don't believe me try it. This card is not what makes rush dominant, it isn't even what makes rush consistent, it is what makes rush easy.

The second you have no idea what so ever about Pyromancers cash or you would not have posted what you did. Unilateral free effects that enhance the base mechanical needs of the game were removed from the LCG version of AGoT. Pyromancer's Cache was designed, tested, and released in the pre-LCG days, but because of the Chapter Pack formatting its cycle was grandfathered in... and only because of the insistence of the player base. They had originally excluded all the cards from that cycle, and when they decided to officially recognize them as LCG cards they chose to not recognize Pyromancer's Cache and Jaqen H'gar.

How you can denigrate a design decision on banning a card because it did not fit with their new vision of the game and where they wanted it to go, and then call for the limiting or banning of a card because it is "major piece in a great deck" and "Its removal or nerfing would probably help slow things down a bit" is illogical. You are essentially replacing their judgment about what is and is not good for the environment with your own... after all something that is bad for the environment but is not a card that will in itself win you the game is a card that does not fit with the philosophy and direction of the game you want the game to go in.

A few thoughts:

1. You're totally correct, I have no idea how that Pyromancer's Cache card works - my reply wasn't focused on it or the specifics of why it didn't fit in, just that the justification that you explained as to why they decided to ban it seemed like a generically worded catch-all and that makes me nervous. If they truly DID have good reasoning, then no worries at all - it's probably just that in your original post you didn't really explain why they removed it (in specifics).

2. You're **** right I'm replacing their judgment with my own. That's what we do all the time both online and in person AND as paying customers, we enjoy the right to do so. We discuss what we think is good or bad with the Gameplay Environment (aka "Meta") and push forth our own dearly held theories. Doesn't mean I'm right (or wrong) it's just what happens. In my case, I can see that a 0-cost Resource generating card with little drawback (in my experience, anyway) is probably going to aid Rush more than it should. I agree (actually) that banning it probably won't change much but even slowing down Rush a turn or two or taking away the uber-starts that it can get via easy cards like WE would probably be good for other decks. So I'm at least providing a rational explanation (of course it's my own rational based on my experience but that hardly makes it any less valid) rather than tossing out some loosely-worded catch-phrase for why a card should be removed.

For me it's all about being specific - as long as they can provide specific reasons why a card is or was banned, I'm fine with that (for the most part - doesn't mean that I won't sometimes disagree with the decision).

This whole little side-tangent may just be because you didn't really explain their specific reasoning and the card in question, so if that's the case, then hopefully we didn't waste too much time for people reading our posts!

But it isn't really any more specific. It boils down to you don't like what the card does to the environment, and replacing their judgment with your own just comes off as hypocritical (and that was what I was responding to). I said there was literally no other reason, the card didn't break anything, it was just another card that did an effect that was deemed bad for the environment, according to them it was too easy, too efficient, and had absolutely no downside what-so-ever (which is not the case with WE, even though the downside can be mitigated, or in certain circumstances ignored, but even then it is affecting the way you play and build causing limitations that may not be there otherwise). In the CCG days that was acceptable, not so in the LCG-verse of A Game of Thrones.

Sure it is your right to assume you know better than FFG, James, Nate, Eric et al. They do make mistakes after all, so they could be wrong and you could be right... but if we had to go by a proven track record when it comes to what is and is not accounted for, adjusted for, broken, strong, on the watch list, or simply a non-factor, I'm betting FFG and staff comes up with more right answers than every other person on all the W:I forums combined.