Jaszczurr said:

I strongly disagree (nothing personal, though ).

- Empire is NOT for mediocre players. A strong empire deck is based on little sinergies...And a single mistake is a game loss. I see very strong players playin'. The demonstration is (I can bet everything I own) that the win/loss rating is pretty different for the same deck played by 2 different players.

This doesn't mean that the PLAYER is more important than the faction, but that a strong deck is not an "auto-play".

- Rodrik messes with Verena? Never had this problem. If I hit your QZ, you'll have nothing to destroy with JoV. Considering I can play Rodrik 2 times in turn 3 (one as istant with CfR), you won't drow more than 1 card or get more than 3 when I'll get 6 + 2 cards or 5 + 3 cards or the like...

My turn: Long Winter + Verena on the zone I didn't rodrik-you...Game over.

And even if Rodrik would become a "problem" for Verena, no troubles: it means I wont' focus on Verena to win (as a current empire player never does)...But you still HAVE to develop, unless lettin' me an easy Long Winter.

- What High level games are we talkin' about? Define "high level" please. I don't know who is the best players, and I don't care...But I see focused and ongoing tournament play: that's "high level" to me. And in that environement, Empire is the strongest faction. Period.

Then, BELIEVE me: if a player will win a 25+ people tournament with a non-empire deck against reliable opponents with well built decks (let's say, a 65% of competitive decks) I would be VERY happy.

And even if ORC Rush wins a single tournament in a top 8 with 6-7 empire decks, it's not a good sign.

DB

DB.Cooper said:

Is that really a problem in Italy - no one can win with non-Empire decks?

Lately in Poland we had some tournaments which were won (and dominated) by empire decks (69 and 32 players). After those tournaments many players have found that we were so focused on empire and its great control and economy but have forgotten that there are other fractions that can be as strong as emp. Now we almost always have Dwarfs or Chaos on top - both of these can easily fight with great empire decks.

I believe that people in general are very lazy - they don't want to seach for some solutions that are harder to find and just want to play with some of the best cards in a game. Does Verena win games - no, Rodric - no. They are just some economical tools that help you dominate a bord.

What can empire do if they have great economy, no damage on capital, opponents don't have anything on the board (like after Verena) - apart for some developements and cards in discard, and their opponent wins the game in thier next turn (not too hard to do) ?

BR,

Jaszczur

Can you please post, or send me privately, one of your winning Dwarf decklist? I'm really curious and i really want to know how to evolve this game.

Jaszczurr said:

I personally know persons who use to playtest about 30-40 hours per week, almost like a job!

It's not their case, they are not lazy... they are the best palyetesters i have ever met!
They have found more a few strong archetype, superior to others... but the base is always blue and cards we wish to make restricted are always in.
The only archetype non blue is the rianimator but is always weaker then best empire decks.

Dwaves are nice to play but too weak after the restriction...

I'm really courious, like Big the Fifth, to see a winning dwarf decklist!

cuttingrage said:

I really think this would be the best move on FFGs part. Obviousely it couldn't be exactly the same as D Forge but I think every race should have some sort of cheap 1 cost support (in addition to CV) thats meant for playing early in the game like the Forge. Not only would it put these races starts on par with the insane starts of the Empire, thereby balancing the game, but spreading out resources on numerous purchases early in the game lowers the variance we tend to see in the first couple turns of control heavy games. FFG should just embrace a game structure where 2 or 3 power can be easily laid down on initial turns (in K and Q zones) if the deckbuildier would like to do so. It would be good for the game imo.

all italian players quote BigV and Stormer..

pretty interested to hear these decks that can go toe to toe with empire

BigV said:

Maybe after Stahleck

BR,

Jakub Serafin

Fair enough,gluck in stahleck

But... after stahleck it will be no more considered like a winning deck!!

stormer said:

True true... so maybe I will post them the day before

BR,

Jaszczur

Feels like i need to prove something with my Orcs at Stahleck

Ok, Challange Accepted

II don't know what will happen at Sthaleck.

I don't know if someone will destroy Empire...I hope.

But a single tournament it's not a proof. It's like sayin' that Dark Elves are strong before they've won Worlds.

They're not "that" strong, I'm sure about it.

And the "lazy guys" playtest (as stormer says) a lot (like 30-40 matches a day) with any possible deck and there's no reason to them to play a single faction.

I'm a bit faction-dependant, but every single competitive player I know it's not: they are not interested in Karl Franz, Tzeentch or Grimgor...They're interested in the best sinergies/deck. If Chaos becomes the strongest faction, they'll discover it and start to play with Chaos.

Just to say that our interest is not to "ruin" the game, but to make it better (that's the focus of our WAR against VTHC).

And about Stalheck, just to be precise...Last year, one of our players lost for a mistake of the judge (recognized early, after the tournament). It happens, no problem. It's not a 40.000 euros/dollars torunament and it's a GREAT moment for players to gather and play...Just to be precise, as I said.

So, I really trust our top players and when they said "hey guys, VTHC is broken", NOone around here was playin' it.

I see players playin' cards that noone even consider as playable or worth of consideration.

If we talk about SINGLE tournament results, we're talkin' about the VOID.

If we talk about ongoing result-traking, we talk about the state of the game.

So, post a deck that wins against Empire on a regular basis like empire does with others during tests (like 10-2 or 10-5) and believe me, I'll be pleased to say you're right, I'll make a party, dress as a Dwarf and destroy my house's doors with my head.

DB

DB.Cooper said:

Hmmm... I won 3 last tournaments with Dwarf deck in 20+ player tournaments and beat good empire players. Second place is typically Chaos or Orc. I had to side out cards that are great against empire only to have better matchups vs destruction decks via to metagame shift in my location.

The problem with Dwarven decks is that people tend to rely on gaining control (Demolition, Spite, Verena) and/or developement dependant finishers (Serpent Slayer, Hellblaster) which being good against most of the decks is very weak vs empire.

Dwarf race is very sneaky one, and really want to win in sneaky manner

BR,

Jaszczur

DB.Cooper, what was the wrong ruling? As far as I remember no judge was needed in (half)-finals.

The german championship had 4x empire in finals. The decks were pretty much the same, 3 around Reserves,Elite,Rodrik,... Each with Verena package.

jogo said:

The guy placed 4th played without Judgement. And the champion had no Elite in his deck.

So: 4x Empire decks in the semi/finals and we still have doubts about empire's strength?

And good empire cards are on their way: the ZOO is totally insane. I pay 2 for a 2-powers support. Nothing in the game gives the same cost-power ratio. Period.

FFG really needs a design and testing improvement. That's a fact.

jogo said:

Activated the HE quest's ability without a unit questing on it for infinite combo with Peasant militia. It was a dwarf deck. The player said it was legal and the judge assured it was...

No problem, though. Seriously...It was just to say that our player (Gianluca, probably the best player in our country) wasn't eliminated because "dwarf" are stronger than empire. They've never been.

Ah, that thing I remember.
As far as I remember Tim and I did not like the ruling but we found nothing against it in the rulebook/faq. Only the official ffg answer forbid it.
(And the deck would have worked with a unit on the quest, too)

I am looking to have one polish, one italian and one neutral judge. Can you recommend someone from Italy?

rzarectz said:

A balanced game doesn't mean every race has the same cards. If Chaos has lots of heavy-hitters then the game is more unbalanced in a world where Chaos has a version of Derricksburg Forge since they get more money faster which they can spend on units no one else has. In that world we're just playing to see who gets the better starting hand, and that doesn't sound like a fun game to me.

Yeah, I understand what HappyDD is saying. Derriksburg Forge is worth more in some races than others. The problem is any restriction will have the Empire fans crying unfair and as someone pointed out before, neutrals will not pull the same punch.

There are so many cards that need erratas maybe FFG should release a cheap errata pack, with the staples (Contested Village, Warpstone Excavation, etc) thrown in? I do not think they have tried this before. I wince even now when I look at some of the Traits and pictures for cards.

jogo said:

To be precise:

1- I've NOTHING against YOU or your friends. You're very kind and worth of respect for what you do for the game. Peace.

2- Ok, it would have worked. But no as an infinite loop at "that" moment, without a questing unit. And, by rulebook, a quest doesn't function without a unit on it.

Anyway, I repeat: I took this out because someone, a bunch of times, pulled out the "stalheck" event and I'd really like to explain why our player lost.

Now, let's move on.

About the judge: let me ask to the teams and I'll let you know as soon as I can!

Is the same story every month:

Ban, restrict, overpowered... bla bla bla

This game ALWAYS, ALWAYS have a dominant deck: better think new cards and strategies and surely the new cycle give us possibilities to beat empire with D forge, RR and verena.... as we beat orcks, skavens, and DE:

PD: retire from the list soulstealer and minning tunnels perhaps was better solution than new restricted

/banned cards

One question I have is this: with some of the cards being talked about, is it enough to restrict that card itself? For example, Rodrik's Raiders have been mentioned several times. I'm I mistaken in assuming that the issue with Rodrik's is not just the card itself, but also the fact that empire decks can now return it to hand, then play it multiple times with the aid of something like Osterknacht Elite and Call for Reserves? If so, do these cards need to be restricted as well? I remember the big thing with the original restricted list was the it was looking to break up combos and synergies more so than to punish a single card.

Seems to me that in this game, more problems arise from the multiple card combos than from the cards alone. In other words, it isn't just card A, but the interactions between card A + card B and C and D.

Perhaps we need to talk abaout the new OVERPOWERED quest of chaos in the future... Or there is only an issue with order decks.

Last day i loose 3 games consecutive (playing DE and empire) vds chaos because this quest. But thence to request that restric it...