@dormouse... how is my logic flawed when I say these 3 cards are 3-ofs in every deck? How about you show me a list that doesnt include these 9 cards and wouldnt be improved by adding them. (Or, you know, stop talking theoretical nonsense without backing up your ideas)

My design challenge earlier stands... can you (or anyone) give us some ideas for fair, printable cards that would deter the use of warpstone excavation? The 4 cards I listed are barely straining the edge of balance and are still nowhere close to good enough to deter me from playing 3x warpstone. Have any ideas?

Because if you don't, we don't, and FFG doesn't, and no one can come up with a deck that doesnt run the core 9 and wouldnt be improved by adding them, then maybe, just maybe, talking about banning or rotation is justified...

Wow, you take yourself just a little too seriously, I was clearly saying that a card appearing in every deck x3 is flawed logic to demand it being banned. Is there a credible argument that can be made about banning WE? Yes, is this it? Not even close. The closest you can do is make a side argument about how it does this or creates that, and because it is available at x3 it only exasperates the problem.

It is a neutral card, all good neutral unaligned cards are likely to appear in all decks. That is the nature of the beast. If you don't like it I think the problem is more with you and your expectations of the game than the game itself.

I think all of us are overlooking the real issue here. Forgotten Cemetery clearly needs to be banned. It's way too powerful, even for a limited card. I'll be happy to explain why.

qwertyuiop said:

Please do.

â—Kefkaâ— said:

Here's some truth for ya.

FACT: Forgotten Cemetery costs a mere two resources while providing a whopping single power icon.

That's impressive on its own. You can one on the FIRST TURN!

FACT: Forgotten Cemetery gains an additional power icon while played in the quest zone and at least two developments are present in the quest zone

BRUTALITY! If a player can this first turn and develops wisely.... OH MAN! He or she will be drawing three, count 'em, three cards a turn by turn three! It's madness.

FACT: A player may include up to three copies of Forgotten Cemetery in his or her deck.

The HUMANITY!!! Three copies of this unstoppable force in one deck? Can you imagine? It needs to be stopped! Limited status and restricting its ability to the quest zone is not enough! Once the high level players figure this out... It's game over, man. Game over. I'm just thankful cards exist to destroy support cards. I'm also glad cards exist to force a player to discard or mill the deck so game changers like Forgotten Cemetery may never have a chance to see the light of day. Maybe we'll get lucky and FFG will ban it from tournament play.

qwertyuiop said:

Oh man, I think I finally understand!! I mean, think of the crazy synergy. Putting developments in quest lets you play pilgrimage for cheaper!! Wow, it's like that 4 cost is like... less. : D

I'm glad you're with me on this, Kefka. Also, much love for your choice of avatar.

qwertyuiop said:

Thanks. I'm a huge fan of Terry. Have been since I was....6? In 1991. I even played him in UFS for my brief stint even though he was pretty crappy.

Your choice isn't shabby either. Easily in my top 5 of most frustrating character to play against. Even in UFS : /

dormouse said:

Wait, so your stance is, "its never OK to ban a card, you just need to adjust your expectations of the game!!." Do I have that right?

Surprise surprise that I ask you for a list as a basis for discussion and you respond with drivel like this. I've come to expect no less from you, the guy who probably has the highest ratio of words posted to actual games played on the entire forum.

ddm5182 said:

LOL!

Classy, guys.

I still think my Hamburglar idea is decent. We can make him a neutral hero, and Kingdom only, to keep him from being extra abusable.

Hamburglar

3 cost neutral unit

1 power

2 HP

Hero

Kingdom. Action: Corrupt Hamburglar and pay X resources to choose and discard a support card with X cost, then draw a card.

"Robble Robble."

Opening draw you can play him solely, and if your opponent drops a WE, you still get net 1 resource, 1 card.

Later, it's a free card whenever your opponent plays WE, and could also help against decks that utilize Contested Stronghold or Treasure Vaults, but at a signifiant cost.

Or how about this one.

Athel Loren (Unique)

3 cost support

Wood Elf.

2 power.

Order only.

You may not develop in this zone.

Forced: When an opposing character corrupts, deal 1 damage to it.

"I told you that firewood was a bad idea." -Hamburglar

f7eleven said:

That really is very funny...

ddm5182 said:

Maybe you are too single minded in deck building if you always play those 9 cards in any deck.

For example my dwarf deck only use contested village from the above "great three", as innovation would be a waste of card after the first 2 turns, an WE would have much more drawbacks as boost. Including both six would reduce my deck's reliability and synergy by much, only because another 6 card not working toward my general plan. My deck is rather "cheap" overall, most times I don't need more than 5 power in KZ and 3 power QZ to work properly.

Contested Village is the only thing which holds back people to run 3x Armory and suchlikes in every deck thanks to "limited". Also, you can't play multiples in 1st turn because of the same. If you want to limit this, then please also limit the 1 cost QZ units for Empire and HE because they would be an unfair boost compared to other races. (and order already have much better resource engines than any destruction race)

I always tought than Innovation is... well... not innovative at all. It drawback supposedly should be that you must sacrifice cards for resources, but cards are very easy to replace. (and also you get even MORE resources combined with the proper supports) At least they are one shots, not lasting effects. I1m not sure if they needs to be limited.

WE is very strong, but making them limited would make them totally unplayable. Who would then choose them above CV ? Limited, combined with corruption would make them a rather "pricy" boost. And a CV + WE in starting hand without other cheap cards would be very bad, compared to now.

Maybe they could make WE unique ? As WE-s are not so common in Warhammer lore in my knowledge, that would make sense, and even a single free power is strong to keep it playable. Also, the first would keep it's current utility but 2-3 WE in first turn mayhem would be avoided altogether.

Also : I could imagine some neutral card in the vein of Flames of Tz., but destroying supports. So no 2 cost tactic (+development/orc symbols) to remove 0-1 cost supports.

I do not play WE in my main deck (empire). Neither I play CV since derricksburg forge. Innovation is a must have for my empire deck, but in other decks which do not lean on developments it's near to waste in my eyes.

greez,

Deagal

Good lord, I take a short break from these forums and this stupid thread is STILL going. For the record, I'm seeing valid arguments both FOR and AGAINST the banning of this controversial though very potent card. No one seems to have pushed the argument totally one way or the other. Might be time to just take a break.

And F7 Eleven, I probably have the worst "ratio of words to games played" in these forums, sadly. But that's due to my family situation (one 2-year old in the terrible "twos" and a second son with Liver failure who will need a transplant soon). So not much time once you "have a life," to play games as much as I'd like. If I could wrangle up consistent opponents, I'd certainly play a lot more.

Unfortunately, I think this thread is devolving into people arguing "Warpstone isnt really that good" which just means you don't understand the game (sorry, but you don't). What this argument should be about though is whether its OK to ban cards for power level concerns. To anyone who understands deckbuilding in W:I, warpstone excavation is pretty clearly the most powerful card in the format and its not close.

Definitely agree with DDM.

If you don't like free resources every turn, or more cards, then sure, you don't need to play with WE. The card should be in every single deck you ever make, period, no excuses.

- SF

ShubFan27 said:

That's simply not true. It's not a free resource/card every turn... which is clearly shown by the number of games I won due to my opponent's Warpstone Excavations.

Two explanations for your warpstone-less deck "totally crushing" decks with warpstone.

1. your opponent(s) and/or your opponent(s) decks are bad.

2. you are using anecdotes which are really just variance to justify your position, despite the overwhelming evidence presented by virtually everyone who has a clue on these forums.

These are not mutually exclusive, but I am betting we are getting a big dose of #2. (double-meaning absolutely intended).

Cain_hu said:

I'm a pretty smart guy and this statement truly confuses me.

Warpstone costs 0 (aka Free) and has a Hammer icon (aka free resource/card). You can't really debate that because it's on the card unless i have some defunct version. I'm perfectly aware that units enter the zone corrupted and that means absolutely nothing to me. You can play around that so many different ways that it's ridiculous.

If I'm getting 2 extra resources a turn than you are because I drew 2 Warpstones to your 0 then I'm going to win the game 99/100 times. If you want to debate this issue further, then I'm ok with it.

- SF

I have a feeling that James is well aware of this "hole". And will have an answer to Warpstone in this cycle.

Banning or editing a card text for OP reasons seems stupid to me. What happens when the game really gets going and suddenly other cards balance out Warpstone's effect on play? Do you unban/unedit it? So then we get a wishy washy ban list going? No thanks.

I payed money for the card I would rather have to pay money to fix it through additional cards added to card pool, rather than just eccept the loss in the money too take a card out. Just my person preference.

ddm5182 said:

ddm5182 said:

You are offensive, and cannot accept other people opinion if it's not agree with your's. It's just that simple, not much to discuss... but I take my time to answer you, because you had some valid points in the past.

There are no owerhelming evidence just overhelmingly selfsure guys here.

First : I never said that WE is not powerfull. If MAYBE you switch to read/write mode from read only and flaming, then you would recognize that I recommended to depower WE in my previous post in this same topic.

Second : Even now WE is not the autowin card as some naysayers try to hammer into everybody's head... EXCEPT if drawn in multiples in the first 1-3 turns. Then it provide a 95% win ratio at least.

SHubFan27 :

Yes, you are right ! If you drew 2 than it's a big advantage, and you have a better chance to win. Period.

But it's drawback is not THAT easy to play around that it would work in every deck. I definetly play 3 in my chaos build and in my DE deck, but I found it rather problematic when I tested it with my dwarwes grudge thower deck, where my defense is mostly creature based. So I know from personal experience hat I speak about.

Also, in the old days Empire Verena decks were the top 1... without excavation. They had another effective resource base. WE is mostly needed for destruction decks in my experience.

Final point : I bet the developers test more decks/play more than most of us... maybe there a reason because they didn't ban this, as they didn't banned Verena when we whined about it and they didn't banned skavens. Both have it's answers in the current card pool/metagame.

I wasn't designating anyone that title. I just thought it was a really funny line.

Sorry to hear about your son. I think there are a lot of us who don't have enough people to play with, me included. My friends gave it up when there wasn't a single regional on the east coast, except for FL 1000+ miles away. Nothing in NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, VA.

I also believe WE is a hands down three-of in every deck. I wish I had 18 of them.

Sorry if I come off as rude. I get tired of debates here completely missing the point. As I said above, what we should be arguing is whether its OK to ban cards on power level. Not whether the card is actually powerful or not. So I get annoyed when people keep trying to steer the discussion back to something which is just plainly stupid obvious to anyone who has played this game more than twice.

@Laughmask - don't count on it man. That was the purpose of my design challenge a couple pages back: can we come up with cards that could actually see print (IE wouldnt completely destabilize the game) that would make you not want to run Warpstone Excavation as a 3-of in every deck? I came up with some pretty absurdly powerful cards that hose warpstone and even those arent enough to make me even consider not playing it as a 3-of.

I mean, you could start designing some really super narrow hosers which are completely unrealistic... for instance, I probably wouldnt play Warpstone in any deck if this card existed and saw play:

• Warpstone Go BOOM!, 0, tactic: destroy target support card with printed cost 0. If you do, its controller takes 16 indirect damage.

This is the kind of card that would have to be printed to answer the prevalence of Warpstone. And even then, given how ridiculously narrow WGB! is, whether to play Warpstone Excavation would still be a meta call (if you think people are running WGB! you wouldnt play WE, otherwise you would, etc).

Is that really the direction we want the game to take? Ridiculously powerful cards answered by ridiculously narrow hate cards? It doesn't seem appealing to me, but maybe I just have a failure of imagination and can't come up with realistic hate cards that actually make people not want to play WE.

Probably the most promising was the "printed cost matters" mechanic I suggested a few pages back, where you get powerful effects on the cheap if your opponent has cards of a given cost in play, but even the crazy powerful card I came up with (a guaranteed 2-for-1) is not good enough to deter me playing WE. The advantage of having 1 or more WE on turn 1 is just too great.

Bonus thought experiment: Consider the "Warpstone Go BOOM!" card above. How high could the indirect damage number be to where you would continue to play Warpstone Excavation as a 3-of even if the card existed? I know I would definitely play WEx3 if the number was 4... but 8 seems like too much. I think 5-6 is probably about right, given that they are almost certainly going to be -1 or more cards in the exchange (even granting 4-6 indirect as worth a card), since they are unlikely to play WGB! as a 3-of since its so narrow, so its relatively unlikely you face the worst-case scenario of WGB! on turn 1.

I think Deathmaster is far and away the most damaging card in the format. He's clearly much, much better than any of the cards being discussed here in the context of a Skaven deck (i.e. you would play him over WEs, Innovations, or Villages if you had to choose). He is also a large part of the reason that games are short and defending is bad. With no fear of Deathmasters, you could reasonably start to think about decks that plan to defend. If that happens, then a lot of decks have to decide how badly they really want Warptsones (I don't think Dwarves/Empire really want them even now, but it's close and they probably aren't the best decks anyway).

Innovation I just don't buy as a problem card. It's turning x plus 1 cards into x barrels, which is just not that strong unless 1) it is turn one and you can't spend three or 2) you have a way to do something else with developments (or, rarely, 3) you need to play a tactic on their turn). That covers a fair number of decks, but not every deck. As the cost curves fill out, most non-Skaven decks are going to get 1-cost and 3-cost cards that eliminate the need for Innovation.

Village is (IMO) the clearest automatic 3-of, and it probably take quite a bit to change that. Even if you for some reason wanted to play Armoury and Forgotten Cemetary , I wouldn't really worry about play three Village. Village is a turn one play, those are best on turn two. You certainly aren't going to have to decide between 4-cost supports and Villages very often. Faction-stamped cards that you might want to play on turn one and are also Limited might get you to think about ditching Village. There would have to be a lot of them, but the following types of cards might do the job (if some decks had a couple that they wanted to play)

Dark Elf Prognosticator
Unit
3-DE
1P
2 HP
Limited
When this card comes into play, draw two cards and then place two cards from your hand on the bottom of your deck.

Somethingorother Barracks
Support
2-E
1P
Limited
Kingdom: If (this) is destroyed, you may turn a development in your Kingdom face-up; if it is a unit with cost three or less, it remains in play.

Orc Cannon Fodder
Unit
1-O
1P
1HP
Limited
(This) cannot be corrupted. (This) must defend if able.