jogo said:

Yeah, I wanted to write red instead of black, got it somehow confused.

ddm5182 said:

My reasoning would be more along the line that with this game so much of each game is based on moment to moment decisions, that even a "proven" championship deck is not going to play as well in the hands of someone who doesn't understand how the deck is to be played. The BT decks are pretty brutal, they and Aggro dwarves to me are the decks I want to face the least. I definitely don't think they are as hot and almighty as you all make them sound, but they are very **** good.

I don't disagree that play skill & correct strategy has a lot to do with how a deck performs. That's obvious. But it's not a reason to refrain from participating in community testing discussion, unless you think we are guaranteed to play the list wrong or something. And even then, why would you presume we can't listen to your thoughts on how to play the deck and get better? For my part, I have nothing to hide on deck discussion. If you think my idea sucks, tell me so and give me a list and some strategic insight I can test to experience your pov. I will either agree with you or I will explain why I don't, but either way we both stand to gain something from the exchange.

If I am doing something wrong or something that can be improved, then I'd want to know about it so I can fix it. Don't you & Wytefang feel the same way? My ultimate point here is, if you don't provide decklists and strategic insight, how can we even have a conversation about the metagame, which decks are strong, etc? You know my frame of reference because all of our decklists are in public. I have NO idea where you are coming from though, so basically I either disregard everything you say or....? What, just trust you? That's hard to do when literally every conclusion you come to is way off the mark from my pov. Do you see why your refusal to participate in deckbuilding discussion is frustrating given how opinionated you are?

jogo said:

Again, probably best to steer clear of such analogies - this is its own game, by all accounts.

DDM, for me, part of the issue is (also) that typically among our geeky kind (LOL) these things devolve into exactly what you've seen here and there in these very forums - name-calling, arrogant attitudes on occasion, and/or just general disagreements that are simply too subjective to ever really sort out properly or accurately.

I find myself weary of this BUT more importantly, I'm as opinionated as the next guy and very prone to being misinterpreted due to my direct style of debate and to a lesser extent, writing. This leads to growing conflicts that I'd rather not be a part of or the cause for.

I really wanted and had dearly hoped for this to be a fresh new community that did not bring crap from other games into the mix and yet that has happened already, bringing with it the associated arrogance and know-it-all attitudes that I cannot stand among gamers (myself included). That being said, most folks here with that M:TG background have actually been surprisingly helpful so I suppose I shouldn't let myself get too negative about things, either.

The other thing is that I don't entirely (I must admit) feel as qualified to share my thoughts since I don't seem to have the time to play and research as much as some of you lucky devils seem to have and in light of that, I don't feel that my opinions are terribly worthwhile. The only thing I potentially have going for me around these parts is the tiny factor that I had the game a couple of months before everyone else due to a kind friend getting it for me from GenCon 2009. So I have a fair bit more of historical experience with this game's progression and that's about it.

That being said, I'm confident at least in what I do know about this game and it's, sigh, "Meta." (Someone throw me a cookie, I used my most hated term, LOL. Soft Batch please. Thanks.) But really it just comes down to having time to discuss things and time to play more games to feel much more confident about my opinions, such as they are.

Well, here are my thoughts on that. I share deck lists when I've come across something truly novel. I don't think any of my decks are that. I think that my ability to beat the Thrower decks I've played, and my own BT decks inability to beat my own aggro-control and rush decks with a high enough win percentage that I can declare it dominant means that it is really just play ability.

Either I'm making mistakes or my opponent is, or you are or your opponent. But the decks have little to do with it, my lists are not dissimilar to what you guys post (barring my non-rush decks occasionally having 2-6 cards more than yours, a penchant for slightly more effects that give or take away card advantage, and general hate cards that your meta seems to eschew)... which leads me to believe that it is the player not the decks, and you playing my decks will only reveal how you would play them. I could play your deck and get schooled like a n00b, despite your deck being better than the one I'm playing, or the exact opposite could happen. The best test is head to head competition, which would determine both player skill and deck strength, preferably several games with us trading decks back and forth. If I was attending Gencon this year (trust me I wish I could) I'd happily schedule some time to play.

In the end though, you dismiss my statements because they run contrary to yours. I do not do the same to you. You dismiss my gaming skill, my deck building skill, and my knowledge of the game. I do not do the same to you. You dismiss my understanding of game design. I do not do the same to you. Given that, I don't feel my presenting a deck list or playing yours and reporting back my discoveries would be taken seriously unless they conformed to your own experiences. I just have no vested interest in spending more time than I do now to convince you or anyone else of what I have come to find through my play experiences. You and everyone else can either take me at my word that I am actually getting different results or dismiss me. I'm just not that vested in the opinion of someone I've never met, who rarely presents themselves as someone open to dissenting opinions. I present a different point of view, and that is about as much interest I have in the debate. When it degenerates I lose interest.

Results are not subjective. There is only one perfect way to build a deck at any moment in time, and there is only one perfect play in any given circumstance. Even with imperfect information about the meta or the gamestate, you can use EV calculations to determine the most optimal deck construction or line of play given the information available to you. (note that I acknowledge it may not be knowable in all cases what the best line of play is - this is a very very complicated game - but regardless of whether we know it, my point is there is always an optimal, highest-EV play and deck, no matter what).

If you agree with this statement, then you will understand why I will never "take your word for it" that you are getting different results than I am. That is not good enough. I have posted in detail my strategic thoughts for different matchups, the decks I am playing, etc. You know where I stand, and you are welcome to critique anything I have ever posted. I am FAR from a perfect player of W:I, I make mistakes all the time. But I am constantly striving to improve my understanding of the game and my technical skills while playing it. I have nothing to hide.

The only possible conclusion I can draw from you getting strikingly different results than me is that one of us is doing it wrong, whether in deck construction or in technical play. If I am making mistakes, it should be the easiest thing in the world to criticize my lines of play because all of that is out in the open. Let me ask you & wytefang this point blank: do you think, based on the information I've posted here, that I am playing these matchups or building these decks incorrectly? If so, how? Please be specific, or else ask me for specific details if you feel you don't have enough information to comment. I want you to tell me what I am doing that you feel is wrong.

In this thread I have offered the same kind of criticism of your deck construction and lines of play. That offer stands forever as far as I'm concerned. But realize, until you either take me up on that or you start providing some actual commentary on my testing, we are at a total impasse and we will never come to a common understanding. For that, I really have to lay the blame on you though, because I don't see what else I can do so long as you refuse to participate in any actual hands-on testing and disucssion of the results.

Anyway, I think we've about exhausted this topic until you guys agree to get on board with actual testing and discussion. For my part, I still cannot understand what you have to gain by refusing. Wouldnt that be better for everyone, if we could work out our differences by comparing data and come to a consensus? Isn't that worth putting aside our egos and admitting we might be wrong? I'm already here, man, and I'm waiting for you to join me. Lets just put aside the BS and become better warhammer players...

on a competetive level at least, I personally think the next deck type to [severly] cripple Bolt Thrower WHILE keeping rush at hand will be a DE discard finishing w/ Naggaroth Speardudes and/or Reaper w/ orc control, & maybe some chaos corruption to handle straggler units that made it out. More or less devoid of units, save the common utilitarian ones. That's how i see this cycle unfolding with more DE discard options, chaos corruption being amplified, and the tripple banner alliances. But as it's been said, Destruction's access to an analogous resource engine is currently holding them back.

just a thought - what would be more thematic for destruction than a support that increases in hammers as your opponent's discard pile increases in cards

I don't quite agree that there is one perfect way to play in every situation - in some cases, yeah, that's totally true but not in every case. Same with deck-building.

I'm on board with sharing deck ideas and such IF I have the time, which I rarely do. I just barely have the time to squeeze in some matches during the week as it is or to post a few thoughts - not much else. I apologize for that because it leads to me doing way more critiquing that isn't supported entirely by hard evidence.

Artemus Maximus said:

Have I missed something Where was this announced?

LordMalinari said:

when they announced the fourth pack for the enemy cycle.

Wanted to comment on some things:

First, there is 100% correct the right play and the wrong play(s) in any situation. To not believe such is not understanding card games as a whole. While some people play for fun and others for stiff competition, you basically have to be aware of that statement. Obviously, any play you make affects the outcome of the game. Card games are not unlike Chess or any other strategical game in that if you make a series of several "correct plays" that you will win the game. Card games add the random element of card draw to counteract this, but it's still relatively the same. Something I do in Magic and other games that I play pretty competitively is have someone I consider as good as or better than me watch me play games. Then we can compare notes and see where I misplayed and to avoid the situation entirely the next time it comes up. It's little exercises like that that will separate the really good players from not so good ones.

Second, the issue of deck sharing. I 100% agree that in most cases sharing deck lists for decks that you worked hard on can be discouraging and something that you'd rather not do. That said, this game doesn't exactly have a "Pro Tour" or anything so it's not like you're giving away thousands of dollars. I know in Magic or WoW if my testing team comes up with something groundbreaking, nobody is going to run to the public forums and post a list for critique. In Warhammer, it's different. I have no problem sharing lists in this game because the prizes aren't stiff and frankly, I love to help out those that are willing to be helped. If anyone follows my blog (which regrettably hasnt been updated in a while thanks to my malfunctioning laptop and shortage of internet access) I post decklists pretty regularly. It doesnt matter if you play for an hour a week or 20+ hours a week, sharing lists will not only help you out, it could help others who are working on something similar.

For Worlds (and the League at GenCon) I have 2 decks to choose from that I both think are capable of winning. The first is a Destruction Thrower deck that I had previously wrote about and the other is a Dwarf mid-range deck. The Thrower deck is currently the front runner and my current list is only about 5 cards off from the original I posted 3 weeks ago. It has been testing extremely well and I'm happy with the progress I've made. Since not everyone wants to click a mouse button to read my blog, I'll post them here sometime this week for critique, etc.

Like Clamatius' and DDM have stated several times before, the ability of the player makes a HUGE difference in test results. So keep that in mind before you say something is "not good" or "overrated."

- SF

ShubFan27 said:

Sorry, can't entirely agree with you there - there is quite frequently an array of worthwhile choices. It also doesn't really help your point any to make the statement that if someone disagrees with you about this issue, that it's THEY who must be ignorant of card gaming as a whole. I could turn around and just toss out that same sort of blanket statement about you, I suppose - "If you believe that there is always only ONE perfect play all the time in any given situation, you must not understand card gaming."

Do you see how arrogant and/or misguided that sounds? Not the best way to prove your point.

Since many decks provide multiple ways to handle a situation and/or even multiple strategic paths, it seems (to me) that it's fairly difficult to make the claim that there would always be only ONE perfect way to play in any given situation. Sure, maybe once in a while you'll have a limited enough set of factors to consider so that there is only one right play to make but that's rarely the case in this game, from what I've seen.

There's always one theoretically best line of play given the information you have. It's just often impractically difficult to figure out what that is.

Similarly, in Chess, there's sometimes a definite best line of play (forced mate in X moves). However, in theory even for White on turn 1 there's a best move. It's just not practically possible to figure out what it is at this point.

This all looks really cool, I just hope that it will not take 2-3 weeks for this one to got to Europe. In Poland (Europe) we still did not get Burning of Derricksburg - still waiting for this one.

Clamatius beat me to it. Theoretically there is a best play, but the concept of a single best play is of limited use. It is based on the concept of perfect knowledge, that the best play is dependent on you having a clear vision at all times, not just of what is out on the board, but a level of understanding of your opponent, their deck, cards in hand, play style, adaptability, and predictability. Such information could not reasonably be depended on to be at your fingertips game after game (or even play after play in a single game).

As such, the concept in actual play is not worth much more than as an operational guideline. Something to strive for, to look for in every play... with the understanding that you will fail.

For most games there are multiple plays that will achieve the desired end result, regardless if they are the best play at the time. There are times that the correct play for the game to reach your desired result is absolutely the worst appearing choice given the information you have. There are times when multiple plays will give you the same end result with the information you have, at which point the valuation of the play ceases to have meaning in the game... unless of course each play has a potential spoiler and you choose the one that does not correspond to the card effects that your opponent has in hand.

As to the single best deck... that is just as theoretical as the perfect gameplay. The best deck would have to be based on all cards available to all players (much easier to do in this game), play styles of all players, and the perfect reading of the metagame. Things that could not be predicted accurately into a single deck. What you end up with at any given time is the best deck for a given tournament or playgroup, the one with the strongest showing against the field, while being able to be competitive against the outliers.

As to my not posting decks, or critiquing your plays, or offering up play by plays of my own game in opposition to yours... I don't need to prove I'm right. I don't need to denigrate everyone who holds a different opinion than I. I put my own experiences forward, and when someone puts theirs forward on equal ground I have an interesting and most often mutually beneficial discussion. When someone comes in and assumes that their experience (datum) is superior to all others, it stifles productive and friendly conversation.

I accept we may be playing differently, and that one, or even both of us are making mistakes or our opponents are in deck building and playing. Posting play by plays or posting a deck list will not give much insight into why I feel the way I do, and your criticing them will add absolutely nothing to my experience. Either you discover that my statements are reproducible in which case I've gained nothing, or that they aren't and I gained almost nothing, because in my meta the results still hold true. I am extremely unlikely to be playing in a major tournament anytime soon (and you know why), so what works best in my meta is what works best in my meta. I've seen the BT dismantled, I've seen it eek out victories, and I've seen it get rushed to death. I've also seen it just gather steam and roll over decks, strong and weak. It has a high win percentage, but not so high as to make me agree with any statement that gets summed up to it 'choking the environment'.

How many regional tournaments have been won by a BT deck? (honestly I'm asking, I haven't read every regional report) Are you going to Gencon? How many of your meta-mates are going? I assume you are all playing BT decks, so we, by your own statements, should see a larger than 50% of the final cut be comprised of BT decks yes? If this is the case I'm sure James would be very willing to listen to your arguments about ways to neuter the deck to promote healthy growth in the environment.

Actually I'd probably play dwarves if I were going to a major tournament, because its win percentage against people who arent prepared for it is phenomenal, whereas thrower is non-interactive enough that my opponents can basically goldfish against me and that doesn't seem like a good way to leverage a skill egde on the field.

Anyway, I still just don't get it dude. I want us to find the optimal deck construction and lines of play, whether that means I'm right and thrower is opressive, or whether it means you're right and it isnt. I don't care about the results! I just want us to exchange info and figure out what the other one is doing differently so we can analyze it and BOTH become better players.

I am never going to just "take your word for it" that you are playing optimally. No one else should either. I don't ask that of you. You don't have to trust me at all - if you doubt anything I am doing, ask me for more info and I will go into as much detail as you need.

I think this conversation is over man, and it sucks. I am sure we have something to learn from each other, but until you decide that its worth risking being wrong, there's no point in continuing to argue with you. I'm never going to "trust you" that you are playing correctly, so your results as far as I and hopefully everyone reading our discussions are concerned, are just bunk until you substantiate them.

My offer stands - let me know when you want to stop theorycrafting and actually get better.

Are any of our players who seem to really understand the game (and are probably pretty good going by these discussions) going to GenCon, even?

I'm not hearing that many, if any of them, are attending. DDM5182, Clamatius, Cyberfunk, Overseer Lazarus, any of you guys attending GC this year???

I know Dormouse isn't - I'm going to be there and participating in both the World Championships and the league (at the least) but due to my limited ability to play this cool game, I'm not all that confident that I'll be that big of a threat. Plus, as F7Eleven so insultingly pointed out, I do sometimes screw up my decks with a wonky Hate card addition (to use the term familiar to M:TG players).

I used to go to GenCon every year, mostly because I was on booth duty for the wife. These days - well, I have 3 kids and that means that I don't go (although she usually goes for work). Similarly, ddm has little kids and I would be really surprised if he was going.

I'll be at PAX though, since that only involves a babysitter instead of plane tickets. I'm hoping that there'll be a tournament there.

Wytefang said:

Okay a couple things, having read this and other threads in the last week in prep for the coming con. Some observations and comments on a number of topics.

- @SF / Shub - I read your blog and I'm loving it. I do have one question for you though. As practical/competitve as the Destruction Bolt Thrower is doesn't it have like a ZERO chance of beating the Order Bolt Thrower? I say this under the impression that a) it will probably be outresourced thus the Order thrower goes off quicker, b) the Order fog effects can essentially delay the thrower action by cancelling damage for the turn, and c) the Order thrower might even run the odd tactic canceller to knock out Pillages.

- There will always be a disconnect between players that a) play a lot and may have intimate/greater knowledge about the game but don't travel for events and b) the ones that do and have the opportunity to prove prowess at cons or whatnot. I've never seen this disconnect lead to anything particularly healthy in a forum community and I'm hoping we can take everyone's varying perspective into consideration regardless of their ability to participate at events.

- In my opinion test results are great and all, but there is a lot of variance in card games, so much so that player abilty as well as bad luck and draws can seriously skew the results of decks against one another. At the end of the day the conceptual framework and discussion surronding a deck and its pros/cons are far more important than its numerical results as played out by so and so. What/who wins events is really all that matters to most...

- Deck posting is great and all, especially if we expect to have an honest discussion about the conceptual abilities of decks. I am a firm believer in sharing decks 'after' utilizing them in an event. Its just not as interesting an interaction at a live event if someone already knows exactly what the deck across from them contains.

- The battlepacks are looking good, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the cards in the latest make it into the competitve decks seen at gencon.

Just some of my thoughts.

- dut

Like DDM, I'm done arguing points. It's clear that it's impossible to argue or give any constructive criticism to people who are not willing (or not able) to understand it. If you wish to approach me at GenCon and ask any questions, discuss Warhammer, then I'll be available. But typing words on a screen doesn't exactly get the point across it seems.

@dutpotd: To answer the question about Destruction v Order BT decks, yes, the Order deck has a pretty big advantage all things considered. If the Destruction player can Pillage a Contested Stronghold pretty early on then it's a rough road for the Order deck, but it's by no means an easy matchup. Typically, I've found that whoever the better player is in that matchup will win a good bit of the time. A lot of the time you can also S. Domination the order players hand and get the Gifts so they can't fog you. Also, you can always go off "In response" to the fog effect. It's a very complicated match. I've only played it against each other a handful of times and don't look forward to doing it at Worlds if the situation comes up.

I'm also not 100% sure that I'm even going to play the Destruction deck. While it's MUCH better vs Skaven than the Order version is, it's a lot worse against Dwarves and Empire. Ironically, Dwarves and Empire are the other 2 decks I'm considering for Worlds. I am not considering Order BT for worlds for a few reasons:

1. It's a ***** to play.

2. It's boring.

3. It loses to completely random cards that I assume people are going to be playing.

If I was 100% certain that the field was going to be Dwarves, Empire, and Dark Elf decks then sure, I'd play Order BT. I've been pleasantly surprised how much better Empire has gotten with the addition of several cards, the 2 most notable ones being Wilhelm and D. Forge. The Forge is simply amazing and was exactly what Empire needed. Wilhelm is along the same lines as Empire desperately needed a replacement for the other 2 playable Heroes and is someone who is a legit threat in play along side a Shrine. I still think Empire relies quite a bit on Will + Judgement, but at least now if you don't have it you still have a fighting chance.

Hope that helps anyone out and keeps the discussion going.

- SF

ShubFan27 said:

Definately, both a great response and helps the discussion going - thank you.

Oddly enough I'm also looking at Dwarf/Empire as the decks I'm thinking of playing at the con. For the league I'll be packing as many different decks as possible, but the main event calls for a versatile deck, one that lacks any certainly bad matchups but also has enough strengths to pull through in most/all matchups with right decisions and a bit of luck. I'm also looking at Orcs as a toolbox faction, as they seem to be on equal footing to the Order sides mentioned when it comes to 'answers' to commonly played winners.

I think Dark Elf / Skaven is certainly one of the more focused decks out there, and do exceptionally well when facing rush or unit based decks. I don't think they have the oomph to take down decks that have strong defensive properties (and enough draw), but you never know... Skaven have such a strong synergy with Dark Elfs, and 'most' decks do rely on units for a win condition, that I wouldn't be surprised if they go far.

That said, I think the new cards in THIS battlepack, particularly the Dwarf Rune, gives Order a much needed answer to Skaven's heroes.

The only thing keeping me from absolutely loving Dwarfs is their lackluster first turn options when compared to practically any other faction... Going to be interesting to see what I end up playing, and I'm greatly looking forward to meeting everyone on the boards (as well as the many that aren't as active on the boards) for some really good Invasion games.

- dut

dutpotd said:

You're kidding, right? Cannon Crew into Mining Tunnels, ideally, is pretty amazing. Sure, they're not going to get 4 hammers on the board like Empire without double warpstone draws, but Dwarves have decent early options. Even something "pedestrian" like Defenders of the Hold and Mining Tunnels on turn 1 is ok.

Compare with Chaos, which has horrible early options since the Shrine is weak and Savage Marauders leaves you really open to disruption vs. destruction decks.

Clamatius said it best right there.

With the addition of Mining Tunnels, Dwarves have arguably one of the best starting turns in the game of Dwarven Cannon Crew into Mining Tunnels. If you add a Defender of the Hold or Warpstone Excavation into that, then you're pretty far ahead in the game with the potential to completely take over on the following turn.

I still think with the addition of Derricksburg Forge, Empire has the best opening turn potential of any deck in the game with now (obviously, not counting Innovation turns). It's the only deck in the game that can get 4 resources on turn 1 without an Innovation and to me thats pretty important. I put Errant Knight back into my Empire deck just for the option of going turn 1 Forge to Kingdom into Errant Knight to Quest. Adding a Peasant Militia to that mix for a little Lobber Crew protection is icing on the cake. Again, this is not taking into account any Warpstones drawn as those typically blow games wide open.

Also, Clamatius, would you mind posting an updated Dwarf list. I'm interested to see where we differ in opinions. Or email me at [email protected]

- SF