Stahlek or however you spell it, has come and gone. How did the Empire do?

Hi!

A dwarf deck (basically anti-empire) won, but at least our empire demonstrated what we talk about: too many stuff for a single faction. Nerf empire, please!

Important tournaments? Worlds was played with less than a half of the player we have in a big national tournament. What's the most important? The name or the numbers?

About Sthaleck: look at the whole report, nor just the winner. Listen what the stahleck champion (a powerful player) had to say to our co-nationals empire decks. They won with an anti-meta deck: you can lose at a one-shot tournament, but not on a regular basis. Empire demonstrated to have almost any counter-measure and that's not ok. Every time a new "anti" deck showed up, one tournament later it was KO.

That's the point with this "war" against Empire (and I repeat I'm not that happy since it's my favourite faction since day ZERO).

Cheers

DB

saldo said:

So, Empire lost at Stahleck...or however you spell it. Who was it that said, "let's wait for Staleck"...or however you spell it, before deciding about the power of the Empire? OK they lost. They lost a big tourney. Can we please stop complaining about them now. Are they strong? yes. Are they unbeatable? no. Obviously. Quit whining about them now. They lost in Spain and now they have lost in Germany...or wherever it was. and I bet they will continue to lose...especially to Chaos and Dark Elf. Stop griping!

I am casual player, so maybe I should not chip in here, but if most tournaments are won by either an Empire deck or a deck explicitely designed to counter this Empire deck, then maybe something is not quite right with the current meta...

Doc9 said:

Hi!

Everything's already been said. Let's see what FFG does. If you think that we're just "whiners" you didn't get the point, really.

Ah...

Dark Elf and Chaos don't win against Empire, not that much.

Isn't Empire doing well also a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy? If 75% of people bring an Empire deck, is it any wonder you see many Empire decks toward the top?

Hi all,

Most of the things that I think about current metagame was already said in this topic. For me only one card needs to be restricted - Derrickburg Forge.

Some of the people just don't understand that Empire is the best fraction for controling the board. They have the best tools and they have the best economy (without strong economy empire can't win while other fractions can). In my opinion most of the players wrongly think that wining the game can only be achieved by controling the board. This game is so complex and different to others that some need to change their mindset, and search for new decks/possibilities.

In my city Wroclaw (we won all the tournaments at Stahleck) empire decks have a hard time because of high density of Dwarf and especially Chaos, which is far more better deck against empire than mine.

@DB. Cooper and some other anti-empire people:

I believe that I will have to write it in many topics as this thread is almost everywhere:

MY DECK WAS NOT DESIGNED TO BE ANTI-EMPIRE!!

As I knew that there will be many empire decks and not so many Manfred/Hekatri I changed ONE card - one of the Pilgrimages to one Burrying the Grudge.

Jaszczurr said:

****... so it was a winning deck after all .

BR,

Jaszczur

and now? with the new BP a orck deck has the possibility to put in play Grimgor at turn 2 with a probabilty higher than 20%(aprox 30% in turn 3; aporx 40% in turn 4))...is still necesary ban/ restrict DF.

Hi all is there a chance for the decklists of the top 4 to be posted,would be interesting to see it.Cheers!

@Vamosamorir :

Mork’s Teef Ritual.
Orc Tactic. 0 OOOOO. Spell.
Action: Sacrifice an Orc unit to put a unit into play from your hand. Then, deal 3 damage to a section of your capital.

So turn 1 for example, a random 1 or 2 cost orc unit

You can even do it turn one with innov + dev.

Nothing else needed

Turn 2

Grimgor is in play... Maybe have destroyed one card maybe not.

Turn 3 grimgor is destroyed

You have a 3 power icon card in game that "cost" you 3 cards (Unit sacrified + tactic + grimgor). So you have increased your power by 2 (cause your sacrified unit got one), and maybe have destroyed a support card, but nothing less sure. So maybe a differencial power icon of 3, at the cost of 3 cards... It's just .... lol

Next turn Wight lord on Grimgor power icon differencial 5, card played 1, but not "lost" as it is still in game. Ok you can shake your opponent hand, pass fast and ask for the next round :x

In early game it's not even efficient for a rush deck, it start to becoming later during the game.

Maximum investment for a very risky move. A lot of card have been spend in the only way to play a fast big guy.

- Any destruction faction can manage early grimgor with a better % than you are able to play him at this time.

- Almost the same for order factions.

Nothing to compare to a "strong" and solid set up depending on multiple cards in play and harder to control (cause you must control more cards).

Shindulus said:

Really?, I had not thought !!!!!.

And if you play this combination to destroy one support card... you are a pathetic player .(I' m not referring to you, but a player doing something... ejem) Even more if you play against a deck of wight lords destruction. But here we are talking about the advantage that the empire have with a card like DF, that you can play in KZ for 1 resource like contested village. Then assuming the same luck: if you, empire player plays:

Turn 1 KZ: Contested village + DF . QZ: huntmen

ORC Player: Lobber crew in KZ + Warpstone in QZ and Spider riders in BZ. Attack!

Turn 2 KZ church of sigmar (i have no support to your Rodrik raiders) QZ: Knights panther; and a second DF or Contested village

Orc PLayer: Snotling Pump wagon in BF and contested Village on QZ. ATTACK (6 damages on BZ of your opponent). You already have 1 resource. PLay the tactic with your 4 loyalties for one resource. You destroy NOTHING in your KZ, and destroy probably: 1 Church of sigmar, 2 DF and 1 Conteste village.

Then is a good card for you!!!!.... I talk not just to play it, but the possibility of doing so. An additional possibility, to revive from the discard pile like the rest of destruction decks. As i say, we are talking about Derricksburg Forge and Roddik raiders and the great economy of empire Decks (nothing about destruction and Wight lords), and how this tactic can penalize this faction when many talk about restricting his principal cards.

Shindulus said:

Really?, I had not thought !!!!!.

And if you play this combination to destroy one support card... you are a pathetic player .(I' m not referring to you, but a player doing something... ejem) Even more if you play against a deck of wight lords destruction. But here we are talking about the advantage that the empire have with a card like DF, that you can play in KZ for 1 resource like contested village. Then assuming the same luck: if you, empire player plays:

Turn 1 KZ: Contested village + DF . QZ: huntmen

ORC Player: Lobber crew in KZ + Warpstone in QZ and Spider riders in BZ. Attack!

Turn 2 KZ church of sigmar (i have no support to your Rodrik raiders) QZ: Knights panther; and a second DF or Contested village

Orc PLayer: Snotling Pump wagon in BF and contested Village on QZ. ATTACK (6 damages on BZ of your opponent). You already have 1 resource. PLay the tactic with your 4 loyalties for one resource. You destroy NOTHING in your KZ, and destroy probably: 1 Church of sigmar, 2 DF and 1 Conteste village.

Then is a good card for you!!!!.... I talk not just to play it, but the possibility of doing so. An additional possibility, to revive from the discard pile like the rest of destruction decks. As i say, we are talking about Derricksburg Forge and Roddik raiders and the great economy of empire Decks (nothing about destruction and Wight lords), and how this tactic can penalize this faction when many talk about restricting his principal cards.

Shindulus said:

Edit because answer twice

Vamosamorir said:

I don't see where does it really penalise Empire, nothing more than 2 empire deck facing. "Do i have to play my support or not, is he able to rodrik + bounce..."

It's look like awesome, I agree but the investment is too high for being a real treath...

Let's see 2 cases :

1- Grimgor is bounced : Action fail, for sure this could have been dangerous, he will have lose not more than 2 support cards (unless he is the same pathetic player you are refering to ).

Now what do you do with your Grimgor in hand?

You have spend 2 cards for "nothing" your opponent eco is by far better than yours.

2- Grimgor is not bounced : state of the game after turn 2 :

You : +3 power icon, 2 or 3 cards in discard (if you have sacrifice lobber)

Opponent : he has from 6 to 8 power icon minus the 3 or 4 you make him lose, he has 2 to 3 cards in discards.

so your opponent still have +2 to +4 power icon for a same amount of cards played.

Something around "equal" position, but next turn empire player continue as nothing happened, you can't do that again, your are still in late compare to your opponent.

In any case no matter if you destroy 1 or 2 support cards, event 3 but you won't (cause your opponent is not pathetic), it's a fail.

In fact, if I'm not pathetic I do not put in play 3 supports at kingdom. So if you do not put in play 3 or 4 support in KZ in the beginning of the game ... is necessary to limit Derricksburg Forge?.
This is my question, no other. Idont say that this tactic is a mistake. I say that it is not necessary to limit imperial cards (DF & RR) because this and f.e. the new quest of chaos. In fact I argue that the game is well balanced now...

Personnally I don't think that a faction getting access to very fast start at anytime is balanced. A very good start of the game leads for a very important part to the way of victory, no matter what are the strategies used by other deck. They win just because they are faster in almost any case.

and what cards give to empire empire this this great start??.

Derricksburg forge. 1 card (that could not be in the first hand) unbalanced the game more than a recurrent PK iike the DE quest or the sorcerer of chaos ?????. And the new chaos quest??? recurrent destroyer of supports???.

No empire (neither anti-empire ) win Gen con or european Championships (or spanish).

I sometimes feel that some people think that who has better starts and board control wins the game. Let me remind you that 2 zones need to be burning to win, not board domination. I have seen numerous games in which empty chaos (only loyalities from quests) burned 2 zones via Unleashing the Spell against Empire which had 10 resources and 5 cards each turn....

Dwarfes that I played on European Championship are designed to burn two zones from scrap even in situation when I don't have anything on the board (except for some developements).

Can Empire do that (either Dwarf or Chaos case)? Empire cannot deal any damage other than combat, and their combat damage is in 99% Hemmlers power. Just think how to use this constraints that empire has.

Derricburg Forge needs to be restricted because it is used in all competitive order decks. I use it in all my Dwarf and HE decks, and this situation is not good.

Jaszczur

Vamosamorir said:

Vamosamorir said:

The european deck (strong player) won by surprise. A single tournament/win doesn't say anything. What's important is a regular basys.

After you know how to play against a deck, Empire wins. That's it. That's playtesting.

I repeat: I don't even consider worlds: it was smallest than any average tournament around the world.

Stalheck told us a lots of things: one of 'em is 7 empire decks in the TOP 16. 3 of them in top 8.

And those players are the ones who someone describes as "whiners". Oh yeah, a whiner that flys to sthaleck, gets 3rd place against a deck that has a good win/loss ratio against empire. Not build against it, as the CREATOR says, but if we didn't became stupid in a single moment, that deck wouldn't go to far in a league.

The paradox, is that he WINS against empire and lose against decks usually weak against empire.

Not anti-empire? Maybe not willingly.

But this discussion is not about "respect" to the winner, that has ALL our respect.

The discussion is abot what Empire can do with 5 resources.

Tell me something in the game that has the SAME effectiveness and impact on the game as a turn 2 double rodrik. Something. for which I gain 1 power and you lose two.

Tell me something in the game that has the same everending effect as Rodrik/Skinks + Osternacht + Call for Reserves. Is a looping recursion.

Find a single card in the game that force the oppo to "lose" cards as Verena does.

Find a non-neutral contested village with no drawbacks.

And we saw the "zoo". And the new "2/2" guy?

Ah, and if needed, you have Iron Discipline to protect your hero, the BEST cost/power/drawback hero in the game (turn 2 Frederich in the QZ or BZ), the ONLY legend able to protect herself, plus a 1/1 with no real drawback (QZ only is something like a favour).

Oh, and you have, if really needed, the chance to play ZOO, avoid Warpstone and put in Wilhelm, for the "move/destroy" Verena thing, as the old times. OOOOHH, the old times. How I miss Visit The Haunted City. A mistake recongnized by the designers. Banned by "whiners".

And if you really think isn't enough, think about the fact that there's a "funny" synergy between the old big ass Pistoliers + Shrine to Taal...What a bad synergy, uh? Get 6, draw 3 turn 3 with no effort.

Ok, but everyone else has this sturt, uh?

You're right, from a side point of view: it's not a matter of DOMINATION.

It's a matter of taking some time to analyse cards before lettin' em out.

I repeat: I LOVE FFG. I play all of theri LCGs and something more...but the Empire thing is not good.

And the solution is not putting out insane cards to get a new high level balance. Is to admit mistakes, ban and restrict. A "divine intervention" that saved the day lots of time in any game.

Sorry for being a bit "aggressive", is not against you. It's just my bad attitude of passional player.

Peace

DB

Hi, mate.

I don't agree, at least not with the first part.

I've never seen a game in which the starting hand and board is important like this one. Starting is already a good step to victory; then, what do you need to play? Resources and cards, unless you're rushing, that defines a different style.

If you want me to be honest, here's the thing: I do think (I've ever do and I've written a bunch of guides about it and here we discussed it a lot), this game finds its perfect balance between aggro-ing and board controll-ing.

Unlike other card games, the "common" winning strategy is aggro-control, where big-fat guys close the deal while you undermine opponent's engines with control-ish stuff. THat's how the game has been presented by FFG and that's how it looked for a while..

But since the start of Empire domination and since the "short" Skaven domination, I noticed two things that I really disliked (and still dislike): total control and rush.

Rush it's just like "cheating" in this game: you'll ALWAYS have your 3 resources and your single cards.

If the game gives you chances to customize the way you build up your capital, I don't see how a deck shoudl get a chance to win in 2 turns, when none of the players hasn't tried the game yet.

And in the same way, pure control cards/recursion should be avoided, 'cause undermine the basics of the game (just as VTHC did).

Then, there are exception, yes, but this is the "core" of the game, as shown by FFG.

Now: I really like your deck, 'cause I do like the concept of control-combo, even if I'm generally not a combo player. You show what the game has to give and to do that you have to suffer (you're a great player and that list is pretty hard to play out): you have capital building, you have contorl and resource management and you have your winning condition.

From a certain point of view, I can live with rush decks too, 'cause they really don't cut through finals during leagues: too dependant to luck.

I do like "chaos" (even if I would have never design a card like Tzeentch's the way it is) and I do like DE (they're slowly coming out and still represent the core of the game).

I do LOVE High Elves: lot of control/damage play, but full of tough choices.

But Empire? (my fav since the first preview, actually)...Empire has everything..:Read my previous post and discuss about it with me, I really care your opinion, but I do trust your common sense too and I know you can easily see what's wrong.

Making a MTG comparison, is like playing Blue/White/Black with just the islands.

DB

Jaszczurr said:

DB.Cooper said:

I'm with you at this point - at certain levels good empire will almost always win (I mean the decks that all your friends brought to Stahleck - great starts, strong economy, and perfect use of maybe the best legend - Karl). Empire in right hands is almost unbeatable at the moment. But there is still hope.

What I want to see is for players to realize that you cannot win control war with empire and you will always be somewhat behind. If you can find a way to breach empire defences even from behind than this "unbeatable" race can be beaten.

For me the situation we are in is almost balanced. One small restriction for some forge would be enough. If they can achieve board control a little bit slower than I would be elated. It wouldn't be good if empire lost it's "control the game" possibilities.

Would you like to see the situation where Chaos with Sorceror of Tzeeneth and Unleashing the Spell is the best controling race?

Jaszczur

DB Cooper said:

Everything's already been said. Let's see what FFG does. If you think that we're just "whiners" you didn't get the point, really.

I think that you are "whiners", sorry but I'm so sick reading all those posts. To be honest, that's the reason I'm reading this forum like once in month. Whining, complaining. Words, words, words like Hamlet said ; ) Hmmm so probably I really do not get the point ; ) Playing more than two years, since the beginning of the game, being twice Regional Champion, making an articles about the game, playing in the strongest league in Poland, winning 1st place in Nations Cup, 6th place with Chaos - in Stahleck (I'm not complaing, but that should be better place, but I changed my deck at the saturday morning to be stronger against Dwarfs, removing 3rd Unleashing, and you can ask, how many dameges on capital my empire opponents had in last turns, when I lost waiting for the UTS for 2-3 turns) But..still, I'm not getting your point.

DB Cooper said:

The european deck (strong player) won by surprise. A single tournament/win doesn't say anything. What's important is a regular basys.

He did not won by surprise, you focused so much on playing Empire, that you didn's see other strong builds. Your player - Stuch said to me, that you couldn't made a good Chaos deck, and he admit that my deck is something that you did not think about. Also my deck proved that can beat Empire at least in 50-60% of the games (and well played probably more).

RTF dack piloted by Jaszczur and Mamut is really strong against more factions, It already won many tournaments in Poland, his weaknesses are Volkmar decks, DE control and HE with Disdain - that's a lot. But this is the game like it should be. Many strong builds, any of them without counter build. So if you are tired playing Empire or something - just make a deck that can beat it! That simple.

DB Cooper said:

After you know how to play against a deck, Empire wins. That's it. That's playtestin g.

After you know how to play against Empire, and had tools to do it - you can always win ; ) And about playtesting, you are not the only ones; )

And the last from me: please, less talking, more playing (yeah,I know 40 hours per week and that stuff...maybe to much : > we in Wroclaw are playing weekly about 2 tournaments 5 round each, and that's it ; ) Maybe not the quantity, but quality?

rasdsaris said:

Hi.

1- 40 hours per week, maybe, it's kinda joke. It's just to say "a lot". And, I'm not with them. I'm 50 kms far the nearest player. I meta-play and test with "quality" when I can. That's what keeps me here.

2- If you report what stuch told, I report what other guys told: empire is sick.

3- this is a forum . It's about talkin. Tournaments and friends are about playin'. Here we discuss: I bring my opinion, you bring yours and everybody does. Nothing more.

Then, I really trust the international guys I know, maybe you, the jazzc or others...But I trust my mates too: the "third" player in europe is a good player, cannot be otherwise...And if he says that Dwarf deck is no more efficient as it was 5 days ago, I believe it.

And I trust what I see, too.

I read reports, lists as YOU do, and I play tournaments and games with my fluff (sometimes) deck against very powerful players as YOU do.

What I know is: our empire deck has been stopped by the Dwarf deck, now it doesn't anymore.

Do you really think they don't care about their decks? They learn from their mistake as everyone should do.

Why should I quit trusting players I know? Because they didn't win Stalheck?

If that's the point, well, this conversation gets grotesque.

@ Jaszczurr: the discussion is not about beatable or unbeatable. Is about a bunch or "insane" cards that give the empire an advantage that other races don't have. That's it.

And Rodrick is worst than Derricksburg. If you have straight resource advantage (as you said) with a bit less resource control on the oppo, you're normal.

I can't see Osternacht/CfR banned/restricted, is a non sense...So..Restrict Rodrik.

There aren't weak factions, actually: there are factions that are "normal" and empire that has absurd boosts.

DB Cooper said

Then, I really trust the international guys I know, maybe you, the jazzc or others...But I trust my mates too: the "third" player in europe is a good player, cannot be otherwise...And if he says that Dwarf deck is no more efficient as it was 5 days ago, I believe it.

And I think that was the best Empire player, he played really fast, cold blood, made excellent decisions and without mistakes - respect.

I belive, that Empire deck can easily put some cards to have a lot better match-up with RTF, the question is, does those changes weakes it against other decks? I would say - yes, and that way it should be in this game.

DB Cooper said

3- this is a forum. It's about talkin. Tournaments and friends are about playin'. Here we discuss: I bring my opinion, you bring yours and everybody does. Nothing more.

Yeah, but most of those talking, are like talking about poems without truly reading them ; )

DB Cooper said

Do you really think they don't care about their decks? They learn from their mistake as everyone should do.

I know that very well since I spoke with them ; )

DB Cooper said

Why should I quit trusting players I know? Because they didn't win Stalheck?

If that's the point, well, this conversation gets grotesque.

I did not said anything about trusting/not trusting. But still I read enough of post in this and so like threads that I know - I cannot make some people change their mind and the way they are thinking about the game. So, Hope to see you in some tournaments and good luck with Empire ; )

rasdsaris said:

I can't agree with you. That deck is great, but is focused against empire meta... and it really was a big suprise.

It was a good choice, a winning bet, because in top 16 over than 2 decks on 3 were Empire decks.

But a deck like this, the greatest choice in that contest, is not versatile and "generalist" as Empire.

Let me say I usually play Rush in tournaments (because I can't do enough playtesting to master easily a strong control deck) and i'm quite sure that dwarven deck is not able to resist against a good Rush (and in staleck there were no good Rush, that's sure).

And again I'm not sure it's strong against a good Rianimator like against an Empire.

In other words, I think it was "the right deck in the right place", because is an anti-meta and an unexpected surprise, but in a "normal" tournament it's hard to for it to get in TOP (in my honest opinion)