Sure. I think that printing answer cards is particularly hard to do in this case because a lot of the problem with WE is on turn 1. Contrast with the Shrine issue, where the game typically goes long and you have plenty of time to draw into answers before the damage is done. Also, as ddm pointed out, a hate card would have to be absurdly powerful and I'm not keen on silver bullet designs anyway.

I do not think that Eric has any input on design these days - last I heard he was working on social network games at a different company.

So yeah. I say revert the Shrine to its actual text, restrict the Warpstone and let's see what happens!

Eric contract designs for FFG, and I know he was consulted numerous times before the FAQ was released, and during AoU he was actively participating in the design direction (if only through Nate).

I don't think a card needs to be overpowered to reduce the attractiveness of WE, or a silver bullet, it just needs to be something that is reasonably good in and of itself.

As to the first turn bit, it is a great boost, but getting a one free resource boost for a single turn is not as likely to make or break that game as multiples or one over two or three turns. I certainly don't like seeing it on turn one, but seeing it still there for turns two and three compounds the problem.

An answer card I'd like to see (though which would not likely effect the frequency it appeared in decks) is one which turned supports in a zone into Units with the HP equaling the cost of the card and power equaling its printed power. Make it cheap and easily accessible (so 1R 1L or lower, possibly order only neutral). Great to let you stand up against what might otherwise be an overwhelming attack for one more turn, but also would kill off WE with little in the way of investment. You have just as much chance of getting one on the flop and if you see it mid or late game it isn't something that you would mind that much on.

It of course does not reduce the attractiveness of WE but it does limit its effectiveness.

Sure. I'm not sure I like that in the end though since what it means is that as long as the answer card is effective, all the decks run WE x3 and answer x3, further cutting down on the space for actual deck variance.

Similarly, in M:tG vintage, Gorilla Shaman is a great answer to Moxes, but anyone who can will play all the Moxes anyway.

That is the way of it though, every time a good card comes out every deck that can run it will run it an optimal number of times. The ways of beating that are also reasonably good cards in and of themselves will get played out of every deck that worries about the previous card an optimal number of times, and some decks will run both cards an optimal number of times. With a small card pool this means that decks start to look very much a like, but as the card pool grows and more and more good cards are printed (assuming that power creep is more or less avoided) there are so many good cards and answers to good cards, and answers to answers of good cards that decks become wildly varied with each meta taking on a unique flavor and only during regionals and worlds do major shifts of realignment happen as people "discover" new ideas. The uber-meta crystallizes and then re-fractures following Gencon and the release of the next couple of BP Deluxe Expansion.

Evolution of the Living Card Game.

The design team needs to keep a watch that power creep does not set in... and that is the one problem with making cards specifically to make something else less attractive. Banning to me is preferable to power creep.

Excellent points both Clamatius and Dormouse. Dormouse, it's almost like you should be doing this for a living or something at a game company.

Yeesh.

Shhhhhh.

That is not the only way for a game to go, Magic for instance doesn't follow quite that same path, but that has a lot to do with the extreme competitiveness of players on the national and international scenes (due to the money involved) as well as the collectible nature of the game. When everyone has equal access to all the power cards, new cards are released in small packs with little break, and there is no money involved in the game, only enjoyment and bragging rights, you get a different end product experience. This game is not really going to scratch that super competitive destroy the field and prove your prowess while gaining international acclaim and a six figure salary. If you aren't playing this game for the love of the mechanics or theme, you may want to consider this as more an "alternate" game for a more socially competitive experience (think And1 versus NBA).

Fair point dormouse RE: casual v competitive approach to the game. Both are certainly valid - there are plenty of really 'cool' decks to be made that I fully admit I dismiss at a glance as being non-competitive.

I am in no way arguing that Warpstone Excavation (& innovation, cv) should be banned for the casual crowd, and too I acknowledge that the vast majority of players are what I would describe as casual. But casual is not immune to their negative effects either, even if they are much more likely to mitigate the problem via a 'gentleman's agreement' soft ban approach. Tuned decks like Orc/Skaven "Rock" that leverage the cheap resource acceleration available in the format are often very oppressive to the fun casual decks. You've seen as well as I have the amount of complaining on these forums about 'rush decks' from the casual crowd. That's a manifestation on the kitchen table of the problem that is warping the format (pun halfway intended) at the competitive level, keeping down decks like Chaos control, any pure aggro strategy, etc.

I appreciate your point that if power creep is the inevitable result of a card design (or a strata of card designs), then bans are preferable to "chasing the dragon". My point all along has been that the prevalence of cheap resource acceleration is a design idea that needs to die, and a ban is probably the only way to undo the damage.

Worryingly, we are absolutely seeing a move in the power creep direction though... compare Derricksburg Forge and Mining Tunnels to the resource generation available in the core set. Those two are MILES better, just strictly better in every way, to the options available when we first started playing this game. This is, IMO, a direct response to the power level of the core 9, and it is not a good sign for the future direction of this game.

Clamatius and I tested some decks yesterday and it is looking like Empire might just be vaulted into Tier 1.5-2 status solely due to the power of playing 12 turn 1 accelerators via the core 9 + derricksburg forge. It seems like going from 9 to 12 has substantially improved your odds of opening with a turn 1 accelerant, enough to where it is happening nearly every game. I'd need to do the math to know for sure, but anecdotally the jump in power level for Empire was *huge*. To be fair, this was single set testing and we have some more work to do getting back to building for standard, but that one card looks like it has swung that entire deck around on its head and it may be competitive now. Don't get me wrong here, I am not complaining that we now have more competitive archetypes... what concerns me is that the devs have clearly realized the power of resource accelerators and are applying them as fixes for perceived underpowered factions or deck strategies. If that's the case, where do we go from here? It's not doomsday, yet, but it is a cause for concern.

I think we'll probably get to the point (maybe Dwarves are already there) where decks hit a ceiling on "accelerants."

Derricksburg Forge is a really good card. But, how many would you play if you weren't limited to three? 12? 20? Well, ideally, you'd want to open with two, then play one or two more on turn two. After that, you'd probably rather play Units or Tactics. But, if you run enough Derricksburg Forge to reliably get four of them in your first ten cards, your later draws are going to have some unwanted Forges.

Again though we are at the point of what you thoughts are on how this game should or was meant to be played versus those of the design team. Guess who wins that one? I said it before, this game is intended to be a fast and furious game. You are discussing purposefully stepping away from that design concept and replacing it with a different one. Why? What makes your's right and Eric, Nate, and James' wrong?

The complaining of Rush came with the Skaven for the most part. When it was just a CS there was "Ohnoes!!!1!!1!ELEVEN!!!" about every race on here and BGG. The Skaven definitely skewed the environment towards a Destruction domination and rush, you will get no argument from me, but seeing the holes in rush isn't hard. They are a mile wide. The question is will the Aggro and Control decks get the cards to exploit them? DF seems to indicate that yes they will, but that control, and Aggro will be fast type decks for a short brutal game rather than the slower more pondering decks that were originally being posted. For some card games 45 minutes is not that uncommon. I would be shocked if control decks didn't follow the same suit as Longclaw's and have the ability to close out both games of a tournament seating in far less time than that.

Just as I said back in October, about not expecting playable factions for every WH race, don't expect this game to slow down by much.