dormouse said:

not to mention they know the longterm plans development wise...

Wytefang said:

Got everything up to Warpstone Chronicles and Assault on Ulthuan, if there's anything we're missing be sure to point it out.

Otherwise you might want to consider that maybe somebody's either thought of something Empire-related that you haven't, or tuned his deck better for the expected metagame, or is just a better player than you give him credit for. Either way, dismissing a hard-fought victory out of hand with no more knowledge than your own pre-conceptions is just flat out rude, to both the player concerned and his opponents on the day.

dormouse said:

Well, I've worked there, and to be frank, I trust them in some things but not with everything. I've seen just how much playtesting does occur and I'll leave it at that. It's a super tricky thing to manage a card game and I think we can all agree that mistakes will be made, no matter how much we revere FFG's staff.

ChaosChild said:

I could argue that your initial response to my very reasonable skepticism (which was also worded carefully so as to NOT be rude - go check) was fairly pointed and rude but that'll just lead to a waste of time on both our parts. Let's just agree that we're not out to actually insult each other but make honest points here. I maintain my very sincere, reasonably founded skepticism and wouldn't be too worried about losing a series of games with an Orc/Skaven or DE/Skaven deck vs. this winning Empire deck (I'll agree that I may not be anywhere near a "top-tier" player and as such could certainly lose to a superior player but if you cloned two great players and had them play each other, the Orc/Skaven decks will win most of the time). The sad thing is that I'd really LOVE for there to be feasible Order decks capable of CONSISTENTLY (that's the key word, really) winning vs. the current nastiness but it's just not happening yet from what I've seen, despite any anomalous results. I think we're getting close (though if the currently spoiled Arcane Fire card is any indication, we're taking steps backwards, sadly) but no cigar just yet, as we like to say on this side of the pond.

Alright, this has gone on long enough that I guess I'll weigh in. Here are my thoughts:

1) Warpstone Excavation is showing up in too many decks. If HE Bolt Thrower emerges as the best option for Order, then it is in every deck in the meta, which is bad.

2) Warpstone Excavation is not as good as it seems. It is very, very good in the opening hand, assuming you are not concerned about the corruption effect. However, in rush decks, its stock drops in a hurry. If the game is going to last four turns, you do not want to pick up Warpstone Excavation on turn three. When you're building the deck, you don't get to pick which cards go in your opening hand. I am fully aware that the upside is bigger than the downside, I'm just pointing out that there is also a downside.

3) Defending is not important enough in the current environment. Corruption and removal effects are too easy, so it is easier just to cancel combat damage or play your own removal/corruption than it is to actually try to defend. This is part of the reason that decks do not care about Warpstone Excavation's drawback.

So, while I think removing Warpstone Excavation would slightly diversify Destruction decks, and help out Order decks (which are struggling), I think ultimately the BEST approach is to fix the meta some other way and leave Warpstone Excavation in the mix. For one thing, I like the idea of leaving a 0-cost support (with a hammer) in the game so that Pillage doesn't always hit stuff at a 1:1 or better barrel attrition rate. For another thing, I think it makes for interesting gameplay decisions when non-Skaven decks try to get away with playing it.

dormouse said:

You're willing to concede that Warpstone Excavation can directly accelerate certain builds by one full turn and yet that's not a problem? At the moment the first two turns are the most important ones in the game and cards like Warpstone Excavation create too great a gulf between development potentials. The first game or two I played I though a decent turn one was playing a single 2/3 cost support or unit. After I saw Contested VIllage, Huntsmen etc a good turn one was a two-cost card and a one-cost card, but there would be first turns when you can only play that one card. The average first turn of an Orc blitz is playing 3-4 cards, which is effectively an extra turn of production. A good turn one means that you've played 5-6 or more cards. This is too great a disparity when the Orc deck can draw multiple cards in their next turn to replenish their hand and take advantage of either their production advantage or their cheap units. Why do you think that so many decks are running Innovation? That extra point of resource on turn one is such a huge bonus. I use Orcs as an extreme example but the logic applies to all the blitz builds Destruction has.

Playing a blitz deck should mean sacrificing economic stability to push an early aggro strategy (which disrupts decks that play a slower game) and should be risky. Cards that mitigate the risk by giving you the ability to progress your economic development for free are bad; they distort the environment and enable blitz to be a less-risky strategy. Blitz won't disappear if Warptone Excavation was errata'd or banned as it's not the only problematic card, but it's a card that needs to be changed to allow the game to develop.

Very well said, Crowdedmind. I concur.

crowdedmind said:

longclaw knew skaven rush would be a problem, longclaw didn't complain and thought about it, and longclaw succeeded.

Do you need to quote that much amount? It disturbs reading and forces senseless scrolling.

"Sign up to ban excessive quoting"..... I'll vote yes on that one.

I just can't see a resource accelerator as ban worthy when everyone has access to it, can build to take advantage of it, and removing the card will not prevent the rush decks from still rushing faster than the majority of control decks can reliably get their lock.

WE is simply one card that adds to the problem...that there seems to be few control builds able to slow down the game enough to get the lock before losing. Rather than calling for the ban, I'm turning my energy to a Dark Elf based control build intended to defeat rush... I've got a number of pieces in place, but I'm waiting to see what the rest of the cycle has before I solidify and start testing.

What I have noticed is that a lot of the DElf Skaven builds are running cards that work well at doing just that, slowing other rush decks down... the question is can they also field the right mix to get a lock instead of rushing themselves, and if they can is it possible to develop a strategy to not fall victim to the same tools in a rush deck. If I had to guess right now I'd say no, but I'm not satisfied with that answer.

You raise some good points (as always) Dormouse. It probably wouldn't be enough to just ban WE and then it's a slippery slope. Hopefully they'll just tweak the game with other card releases...

I think banning anything before the first real test of all the theory-crafting is just a bad idea. We think we know how all of these regionals are going to turn out... but I think so far we've had an Order deck in the top four of each of the regionals so far yes, some of which were not rush builds. Of course it is possible that they got lucky and never faced off against any of the OB or SR decks until the top four, but banning something with no tangible results because we are afraid is not something I can get behind.

I think if we were to ban something to slow rush down I'd ban Clan Moulder Elite first. If we were to look at the cost to benefit ratio 2 resources for 2 P and 5 HP with an almost totally worthless that can attack detractor versus a card with 0 resources and 1P with an slightly more annoying detractor that can't attack, I the answer is pretty obvious which one is broken from a pure cards stat level. One feeds into the problem the other is part of the problem.

Lest anyone take this the wrong way, I'm not calling fro a ban of CME either, just if the goal is to slow rush down I'd hit one of the cards that is adding so much damage so fast.

I could see CME being problematic and more specifically. Could help to address that card instead.

But I think we are, however, getting some good info back from the tournaments that does seem to be pointing out the issues with WE. I'm not sure what more data you'd be waiting on. At some point you have to start taking action based on what info you have, I'd imagine. At least in one case with Empire, it was explained that they never faced a tough Orc/Skaven deck the whole way to the Finals, so I'm taking most of those reports with a huge grain of salt.

Not facing a tough Orc/Skaven deck, and not facing an Orc/Skaven deck are not the same. The builds for those are pretty stupid easy, as is playing them (comparatively).

Essentially there is nothing that would make me want to ban We before Gencon. The regionals for the most part have been pretty small with most players from the local metas of that hosting city. Until we get the same reports from multiple meta events it just isn't enough data to remove a card from the game... especially one which is not doing the winning, but simply giving a non-combat hammer to a player.

I'd rather see Deathmaster, CME, and Greyseer banned before WE... and even then I'd rather see them errata'd before banned. The Limited keyword is interesting, but I think if they are really that much of an issue (which I don't but lets assume I agreed with everyone else), why not make the card restricted, 1 per deck? Still allows for a touch of a fast start for those that want to run it since it isn't limited, but completely eliminates the chance of a double WE start, and makes mulliganing for a WE in your starting hand pointless.

Or maybe Unique. Nevertheless lots of order decks uses it, so i don't think it's the basic problem of rush decks.

dormouse said:

The Sheffield regional was 22 people from four different parts of the country (Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield) and included several people who have won national level tournaments in other card games.

That is why I said for the most part. It should also be noted that the second place Order deck was the same player who won an early regional, Aldershot, yes? We are just now really collecting meaningful data. I'm just saying lets finish the data collection and see if it supports the hypothesis, or if another is supported better by the evidence at hand.

What is the purpose of banning WE? My understanding is to slow down the environment. Why do we want the environment slowed down? What benefit is that to the game, and which Races and types of players would best be served by slowing the game down? What races and types of players would be paying the expense of that?

Do we want to lsow the game down so rush decks are no longer viable, or is it so that control builds can win more often than they are now? What is the line between a Rush deck and a fast Control deck? How does banning this one card accomplish all the things we want?

I don't believe that it will, and "It's a start," comes off as weak to me. If it isn't going to accomplish what we want how many other cards must be banned, Limited, Errata'd, or otherwise nerfed to achieve our goal? Is there a point where it is too much alteration to the game scape and the cards in question and that we would be better served by adding new cards to the environment that will achieve what we want? Rather than nerfing a card or four is it possible to create the balance we are looking for by beefing up a card or four?

Why do we assume that long ponderous grinding decks have a place in this environment or even this game? If the official tournament rules are for the best two out of three games to be run in 50 minutes, I posit that Rush or at least fast playing decks are intended to be the bread and butter of this game. This was intended to be similar to a RTS in CCG form. The multiple moving parts, the speed in which actions drastically affect the board, and the need to manage everything possible are all characteristics of RTS games. Slow grinding factions usually aren't. Maybe rather than trying to slow down Rush by petitioning FFG to ban or otherwise nerf cards we should be trying to convince them to speed up control.

dormouse said:

These are some good ideas, actually. I like your suggestions here.

dormouse said:

Ugh, I truly hope not. I don't play RTS games online solely due to the fact that the require little actual strategy or tactics and mostly just twitch-based memorization of build orders. No thanks. Same goes for W:I. I'd rather enjoy the combat and those drawn out slug-fests where fortunes change back and forth as the battle rages. There's a reason why blowout sports victories are somewhat boring (other than for the winning team's fans, that is).

dormouse said:

I was thinking that they'll take this route and it really bummed me out. I'd rather play a more thoughtful tactical game than a rush, rush game of quick-paced, easy decisions. I'd like to think I'm not alone in that category.

Fast does not mean easy though. Longclaw's DElf/Skaven deck is not a rush deck but a fast control deck. A "Kill 'em all and let Khaine sort them out!" kind of deck. It is brutal and efficient, and requires some great piloting to be used properly. The best RTS' I've played don't rely on fast twitch muscles but on a high level of mental acuity coupled with the ability to multi-task. This is very different than say FPS games which are the inverse about fast-twitch muscles and and hand to eye coordination more than about strategy.

To me I'd like to see W:I be more like soccer (futbol) or hockey than baseball or cricket. I think American rules football would be an acceptable middle ground. I want there to be constant action between the players, and sudden bursts of high activity, but a team who cannot throw up an awesome defense or dominating offense should get blown out in short order (say no more than 15 minutes) against one which can. I think the average game should probably be about 7 rounds (games ending on average during the second players fourth turn). You'll have some blow outs where the first player manages to win on their third battlefield phase (5 rounds) and some grinders where the second player wins on their 5th turn (10 rounds).

The way the cards have been made I'd expect these longer games to be between two control builds from order where damage is regularly getting canceled or healed. Complete blowouts should be due to substandard decks, massive playing errors, the push or pull of Oponn or complete misreads of the meta. It happens... but a healthy and balanced game and meta should not see it happening between extremely strong decks piloted by people of similar ability frequently. I think most of us would agree on that.

One thing to consider is the amount of group think that may be going on right now. We recognize that Orc Blitz and flavors of Skaven rush are incredibly well supported, not difficult to build and has the potential to win very quickly. As an end result 60% - 75% of the fields at the regionals are looking to be some sort of Destruction deck with a Skaven component. Are we seeing the domination of these decks because they are so much better, or because they are perceived to be so much better that they make up a larger percentage of the field and often being piloted by the more experienced and competitive minded of us?

Personally I think the answer lies somewhere in between. When 66% of the field is destruction and 75% of the top four are destruction, I find it is hard to say that there is no correlation there. I'd like to see control sped up and rush slowed down, but I'm willing to wait until after Gencon for FFG to take stock of the game and with full knowledge of what cards are being released in the Enemy Cycle (and whatever other cycle or expansion which may already be in or through the Development cycle) to decide if cards currently available need to be tweaked in some fashion.

dormouse said:

If I get time today I'll explain why Warpstone Excavation is broken in the purest sense (it inhibits accurate card design) but for now I'd request that you stop using such a disingenuous and misleading term as "5 rounds". Each player has their turn and cannot attack outside of that turn. The passing of your opponent's battlefield pahse does not matter when counting how many battlefield phases it took you to burn two of your opponent's zones. If you burn both zones by the end of your third battlefield phase it has taken you three turns, not 'five rounds'. Using a larger number that has no bearing on the game's mechanics suggests that you want games to appear longer than they actually are. Orc blitz can regularly win on turn 3 and if going second can potentially win on turn 2 (although this doesn't mean that going second speeds the deck up, merely that you aren't allowed to attack on turn one if you go first). Skaven can win on turn three as well.

The game is too fast. You might not feel that this is a problem but I think that it's highly unlikely that the game was intentionally designed with such a short length in mind. Neither of us can prove our opinion of designer intent but please don't try distort the time it takes a good blitz deck to win with meaningless counts of arbitrary 'rounds' (intentional or not).

I'm not trying to distort anything. I used rounds and turns because it gives the more accurate distinction of total amount of turns that were played rather than just how many turns a single player got. Since I can take actions that cause damage during my opponents turn, which includes damage to their capital it is the more accurate way of describing how many separate phases are being played for damage to be dealt in. I didn't want to use turns to describe both of them because I thought that may be too confusing.

You can disagree with my point all you want. There is no attempt to make it seem like the game is longer 5rounds is 3 by the first player 2 by the second player, as I explicitly said by counting how many battlefield phases each player got.

You can dislike me and disagree with me, but now you are just trying to nitpick where there is no case. Your argument boils down to I am distorting things by being too specific. That is just nonsense.

dormouse said:

Excellent points - I suspect that you're correct in that part of the issue is perception. That IS, admittedly, the fun "game within the game" of playing in a tournament: the guessing what deck to bring in order to best match-up with the expected opposition.

I can wait, too, until after GenCon's big dance. Seems like a great point for FFG to take stock AND for us all to see what the new cycle will bring. I'm expecting to see the new Cycle on shelves in late June or mid-July.

The greenskin decks have the ability to look at their hand and just say "I win" vs most decks. Skaven as well. Too often you lose to the nut draw. Everyone seems to agree that skaven and greenskins aren't fair. Anytime I greyseer I feel like i'm cheating. I only see 2 reasons why there are any order decks at major tournaments.

1) Someone is just trying to be different and prove a point.

2) A really good player wants to try and take advantage of being a really good player and outplay opponents with controlish type decks vs having to play flip the coin with random t-shirt man.

New cards are never the answer to old OP cards. They can never design anything better, or as good. So whatever comes out will always be cut for the stuff that exists already. Printing pure hate cards is not the answer and just proves the format is crap.