Why sit an type out a long COMBIN forumla when that's what HYPGEOMDIST does?

crowdedmind said:

Because, unlike you, I got the correct answer the first try. Tells you something about using abstractions like HYPGEOMDIST...

As far as banning WE, I disagree. I think the real problem is that units may attack the turn they enter play (though this may be my personal Magic-bias). I suspect people here will be against "summing sickness", as it implies the magic-ification of W:I.

If units were not allowed to attack the turn they enter play, games would have a competely different feel. Defending would play a greater role, and control deck would have more time to control. Even the aggressive "rush" deck may find new options with Warp Lightning Cannon being more attractive. I really wish Flames of the Phoenix did not have the "Play during your turn" restriction. I'm not sure I understand the design reasoning, but again this could just be Magic-bias.

Another possible option is cards like:

Cost 0

Support

1 Hammer

Opponents units may defend any zone.

Not sure if it would really require "Order only", but my point is cards that benefit a defensive strategy.

I dont think it is even necessarily the ability to attack on the first turn. The real distorting factor is that the rush player can choose where to hit while the control player has to have an answer which does one or more of the following:

1: Prevents units being able to attack

2. Prevents damage

3. Provides defensive coverage across all 3 zones

As things stand number 3 is really really hard to do and the card pool is not yet deep enough (and the individual cards not cheap enough) to make a combo of 1 and 2 all that strong in a game where you are facing two burnt zones by turn 4.

Scarow said:

Empire is getting a cost 0 quest which does this and High Elves have a Cost 2 one which also does it. Being quests is a bit limiting but it is at least a start.

Not attacking the turn a unit is put into play would change the entire feel of the game, but I don't think it would be in a positive way. The first player already cannot attack, he gets a truncated first turn. For the second player to also not be able to attack and then for each new unit to not be able to attack would be a major shift in how the game is played and would require looking at every card and determine if it is now substantially underpowered. Given the costing of cards and the ability to attack and defend without being committed to only that action until some arbitrary point where a card resets itself to be able to do another option (read tapping to attack/defend to the untap phase) this would be such a major problem in predicting the game flow change.

I'd just rather see cards that sped control decks up and slowed rush decks down. A card like Cauldron of Blood for order with a cheaper cost would be nice. An order version of Scrap Heap/Grimgor's Spike/Juvenile Wyvern, more units with counterstrike and toughness, or ways to give them counterstrike or toughness (especially mid-combat) would all go towards making defending more impactful for control decks. Also cheaper units that had a leave play effect that was beneficial for the control player.

Of course also giving Order more rush options would be nice. In my ideal W:I world each race would be able to field two competitive deck types some combination of Rush, Disrupt, and Control...

All though I don't like the support you mentioned, I do like the idea of a more order/control beneficial 0 cost support... maybe being able to add its power to any attack against that zone, though I think that would be too weak... maybe remove one target attacking unit from combat whose Power was equal to or less than the number of developments in this zone.

Battlefield has to be burned or have no units in it for the other 2 areas to be attacked.

I'd love to see an order only building that corrupts units that attack that zone.

RM

Scarow said:

If HYPGEOMDIST is an abstraction then muliplication is an abstraction when compared to addition. HYPGEOMDIST wasn't incorrect (we got the 37%), I was because I was lazy and a muppet.

Several people have suggested summoning sickness as it's present in several games as well as Magic (WoW, for example). I've not tried playing Invasion with it so I've no idea how much it would affect the current card pool. I would have liked to have seen Sigmar's Intervention be a 0R neutral tactic. Everyone would have to play it (so it's not an ideal solution), but it would have certainly taken some of the bite out of blitz.

There is nothing wrong with the card.

ON Subject: I agree warpstone should be banned.

Off Subject: it's obvious to me the 2nd player has the advantage, they can attack their first turn and start with 8 cards. Perhaps, Player 1 should only skip Battlefield phase and Player 2 (first turn) skip Quest Phase. When Orcs can burn on their 2nd turn, it seems unfair somehow that they can attack first if they are 2nd player.

I don't agree with this ban.

Any card that is an automatic 3-of in any deck, no matter what the deck is trying to do, no matter what other cards it plays, practically no matter what other cards are printed is probably too strong.

• Warpstone Excavation
• Contested Village
• Innovation

If you do not have 3x of each of these in every single deck you make without exceptions, you are doing it wrong. The only way you even consider cutting any of these is if FFG prints even more busted resource/draw acceleration than these guys.

Banning them, and changing the design philosophy that allowed them to be made, would be good for the game. As a deckbuilder, I would absolutely welcome the change. Alliances, Armory, Contested Stronghold, etc are a fine benchmark for resource generation.

I agree with ddm, when every deck has these in it, any deck that doesn't is at a disadvantage. You can start to see how that's broken. That was the problem with Mox, it was in every deck. That starts to get old and stagnate after awhile when everyone is doing the same thing all the time.

I think these are cards are too prevalent, but I'm still hopeful that future card design will make including them a more difficult decision.

Warpstone Excavation: I still don't play this in some versions of Empire and Dwarves. It does show up in every Destruction deck, but then the Deathmaster shows up in virtually every Destruction deck. I think that more cards that help defenders (like Gryphon Legionnaires) will make the drawback more significant.

Contested Village: The real problem here is the Limited keyword. It is a total non-issue in this game. They should either print more Limited cards (and not 2-cost ones, since there are plenty of good two-cost cards) or just change the definition of Limited to "you can't play any other cards to this zone this turn" or something.

Innovation: It has a place in a lot of destruction decks (particularly those with lots of Skaven) simply because they have trouble spending three on turn one, but they are always able to spend four. If you take Skaven out of the picture, I think you'd see maybe 50% of Destruction decks running Innovation. Mono-Orcs, for example, can open Grimgore's Camp, Spider Riders/Dork, Village/Dork, Spider Riders/Choppa, We'z Bigga/2x Dork, etc. There just isn't much need for Innovation there. It will take a lot more to get it out of Order decks, but more cards that reward developments in other zones would be a start.

Another thing to consider: If Contested Village and Warpstone Excavation go, Pillage becomes even sillier.

I'm really not in favor of banning any cards and especially this early in the game's life.

I don't think you need to ban it. The card is good because there is no reason not to run it. When decent playable hate is created for low cost support, (demolitionmaster snickt?) it won't be an autoinclude anymore because the threat is there.

Just for fun...can you come up with a fair card they would actually print that would make me not run warpstone as a 3-of in every deck ever?

Here's a few absurdly powerful cards that are still not powerful enough to deter me from running it.

• Suffering of the Meek: 0, neutral tactic: destroy all cards in play with printed cost 0
• Void Altar: X, neutral support: <> comes into play with X resource tokens on it. Forced: at the start of your turn, return all cards in play with printed cost equal to the number of resource tokens on <> to their owner's hands.
• Asuryan Pinnacle: 4HH, High Elf Support, 2 power, unique: kindgom.units your opponents control cannot be uncorrupted.
• Incite the Slaves: 6KKK, dark elf tactic: if your opponent controls a card with printed cost 0, you may play <> without paying its resource cost. Destroy up to 2 target unit or support cards.

I would happily run warpstone as a 3-of in every deck even if all of these cards were printed. Have any design ideas?

I agree that "low-cost support hate" is a bad idea on several levels. Once again, the problem is that defending is, in general, bad. If you never want to defend, you don't care that your guys in quest/kingdom are corrupted. Skaven obviously never want to defend. Chaos and DE can control attackers without defending. High Elves don't have any units. Orcs defend with Rip, which doesn't really count and doesn't care about WE. Empire does want to defend, but now Protect the Empire lets them get around Warpstone, too. So, we're pretty much left with Dwarves as the only faction that even attempts a straight-up defense, and they only do so sometimes.

I think the situation where so few decks want to defend is, in itself, bad. I'd rather see this problem fixed and then see where that leaves Warpstone. I know that when I was playing with just 2x Core set, I got burned by WE a lot more frequently. I thought it made for some tense decisions, both in deck-building, and in game-play.

How about this one?

The Hamburglar

3 cost Neutral

1 power

Action: Corrupt Hamburglar, than spend X resources to destroy a support card in play with cost X or lower, then draw a card.

"Robble Robble"

I don't share your view on defense being useless. I've never had this issue. Situations where it is straight offense vs offense only really come up with rush decks around here. Do you ever come up against decks with resets? It's true the negative effect isn't too bad, but the card only grants you 1 power.

The logic that a card that is in every deck x3 is flawed. Basic lands were in all Magic decks when I played. The problem is that this cards drawback is not enough of a disadvantage to offset its accelerating ability. Banning it is just unnecessary and a terrible way to handle issues like this. The card is not broken it simply skews the meta game by allowing certain builds to too easily dominate.

I feel the better way to handle this is make corrupted cards more dangerous. I could see a card from Chaos that targeted a corrupted unit and force the controller to sacrifice it. I could see a HElf card that allowed them to heal one damage from their capital for each corrupted unit their opponent had in play. An Empire card that does damage to the zone equal to the number of corrupted units in it.

Another manner of dealing with this is making defending MUCH more important. Malus is the right idea. You really want to force people to defend create a card that doubles capital damage if it is undefended. When rush decks start watching their own zones getting burned first or second turn by control decks because they are refusing to defend they'll start seeing a little more risk to corrupted units.

Going the support destruction route I could see an Empire card that was the support version of Judgment of Verena. An Orc card that destroyed all supports in play.

Would any of these stop someone from running WE x3? Not so likely, but they do show a method of greatly limiting the mid game advantage WE gives, and even minimizing the benefit.

IF something has to be done immediately, I'd suggest an errata rather than banning, and instead of making it limited, how about one to a deck the way they handled the streets in AGoT? IT would be an easy way to address all the problems in a very strict way and still allow for some wiggle room, even removing the errata if the metagame progresses past this hiccup.

Hey Dormouse! It's Rave. Good to see a familiar face.

I think the double damage for undefended zones is an excellent idea. Very Greyjoy, wouldn't you say?

ddm5182 said:

Play in a league?

I vote for 'limited' warpstones. A ban would'nt be necessary then, but also ok.

Deagal

Hey Rave, long time no contact. Welcome back to the forums.