Hi!

As you might know, there was a CoC regional in Munich the 3rd of June. FFG has been nice enough to let me have an article about it published (you can find it here: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=3343 )

Anyway, I want to add some more considerations that were cut out from the final version and that I think might start an interesting discussion.

Kopesh: how to be worried about a not so good card.

I claim here that Kopesh is, at most, a situational card. The only merit of Kopesh, in my opinion, is that it has made people more aware about attachment and support cards and this is positive for the game. If it wasn't Kopesh, it would have been Stygian Eye to have the same effect. Both cards are clearly good cards, but saying that they deserve to be banned or restricted is for players who cannot adapt. The positive thing about Kopesh (and, in part, Stygian Eye) is that with their sole presence they make sub-optimal decks not tournament playable. And this, for a competitive environment, is good. From now on, you have to consider Kopesh while building your deck. This means you have to consider attachment/support cards. And this is just good by just looking at the future cards that are coming out (the Necronomicon cycle, the new Hall of Champions…all supports, just like Kopesh). These new cards will have impact on the game, but they will be better absorbed just because players had to deal with Kopesh. (BTW, I would like to point out that if Kopesh is so powerful, you just need to play Syndicate and Dutch Courage. And Kopesh is just so less powerful…).

Current and future metagame.

Right now, I think it is possible to identify in the metagame some trends.
The first is represented by deck like mine: a lot of board control (mainly destruction/wounding plus some bouncing), some strong characters and the possibility to deal with Kopesh and/or using it directly.
The second is represented by rush decks (even though they didn't perform well at this tournament, I have built a couple that performed well in some playtest): cheap characters with good icon distribution, cheap events/support and an intrinsic resiliance to Kopesh.

Those two categories will soon face, in my opinion, the emerging of new deck types:

- the first one is a deck that can bypass the resource matching problem. Already now there is a good number of characters that can be cheated into play: Master of Myths, The Terror of the Tides, Dirk Sharp, Descendant of Eibon, Stalking Hounds, Dreamlands Fanatic. Add to this the new Dogs and the Hall of Champion, and the deck is basically there. Is it competitive? I don't have playtest proof, but I think yes. Simply because already now most of these cards have proven their strength, that is given mainly by the fact that they are surprise cards.

- as a response to the above deck, people will probably start to realize that the Flux Stabilizer is a great card (even more than now). Incidentally, a very good Miskatonic character is Museum Curator, that can bring into play for free supports. Someone said Stygian Eye? Infernal Obsession? I think you got the point.

- in the "true" control sector, I would say we have enough elements to come up with something consistent. Be it a Glimpse of the Void deck or some sort of control-lock that can take care of everything that is in play in a consistent and continuous way, control is behind the corner.

- finally, I expect to see a combo deck. I'm not a good combo player/deckbuilder, so I cannot point you out if there is a viable competitive combo out there, but I have the feeling that more experienced players have found something (they are just waiting for the next tournament…). If I were you, I would be prepared for something surprising.

Finally, as a side note, I really want to thank publicly Ulrich (alias mischraum.de on the forum) for the organization of this wonderful event (and for having me there as a guest for 3 days!)

Discuss!

I have to disagree about your assertions of Khopesh. While I agree that it is overrated, it is also a card that can and has established a new meta, by your own admittance.

And since it has caused such a dramatic shift in meta, it is certainly worth restriction lest we see it grouped together with other cards that makes games rather unfun in multiples.

Frankly, when you say that people who feel Khopesh is powerful enough to be restricted that they are people who cannot adapt… well, such statements make it very hard to take you seriously with your otherwise nicely written stuff because your description of that position borders on strawman fallacy and could be considered insulting.

As for simply playing syndicate dutch courage. yes, it makes it more difficult to easily wreak havoc on the board with Khopesh. But when was the last time you saw a Cthulhu faction deck IN THE PAST DECADE that did not run Deep One Assault…. Any decent cthulhu destruction deck will laugh if Dutch Courage is the answer to Khopesh.

Concerning the future of the metagame… I think we will see more shifting away from icon struggles and even challenges at stories. The card pool is now deep enough to at least taste what decks such as that are like. When people get tired of Glimpse of the Void, etc. being played on them, they will adapt.

Evan Hall made a rather compelling Yog/Hastur mill deck that uses no characters whatsoever. How it fares against creature decks I do not know as the one time I played against it, it was with my own mono-Yog mill deck. Regardless, his deck was rather fun and a neat twist illustrating where deck builds can and likely will go in the near future. Combo/control/

Concerning deck that lack resource matching… well you can only go so deep down that rabbit hole before it bites you on the ass. if you were to throw each of those characters you mentioned in a deck, it may work but then you come across the possible problem of resourcing for the rest of your deck. If one We will see what will come in future sets but I am not confident at all that decks that abuse a lack of resource matching will be enormous contenders as tier 1.

I am more interested about meta discussion about restricted cards. For me the choice is almost always Khopesh or Negotium. Khopesh works amazing in a rush decks and decks which activitely tries to win stories. Negotium is IMO the metagame changing card. You have to design your a deck about what to do when you face it. There is so much character destruction also so I prefer more characters with powerful effects than icons.

EDIT Also I don't understand the point playing Dutch Courage against Khopesh. You should be thinking more about how your deck could abuse Khopesh (if u choose it as your restricted card) and have anti Khopesh at the same time. It is very easy to mix factions and Dutch Courage and Khopesh work great in the same deck.

Hellfury said:

Hellfury said:

I'm sorry if that statement is considered insulting (it's obviously not my intention to be insulting toward anyone), but I won't change it. Too many times I've seen people complaining instead of adapting, and I simply don't think it is a positive attitude. First you playtest, then you show me the results and, after that, we can discuss about banning or restricting. (where you is a generic person, not you in particular )

I go a bit more in deep in the analysis, and I make another strong claim (this one is a bit of a provocation, so don't take it too literally ): the only reason why the restricted list exists, is the descendant (BOOM). I would say (but I have no proof for that, so it's obviously my opinion) that if you take out Eibon from the game, the other restricted could be played together with no danger (maybe Doppelgager is still very good)

What I'm trying to say, is that Kopesh was restricted too soon, without any real proof that the metagame cannot adapt to it. Now, we see that everyone can adapt (and incidentally what happened? that people is already ready to deal with Stygian Eye).

Hellfury said:

Well, of course I'm not saying that the best (or the only) answer to Kopesh is Dutch Courage. I was just presenting 1 card that I don't see often played that makes Kopesh so less powerful. And if Cthulhu laughs at Dutch Courage because of DoA, I can laugh at DoA with some other card. As you clearly point out here, there is (Almost) always an answer to a card.

Hellfury said:

Clearly, I wasn't suggesting to just trow together a bunch of characters. You need, I would say, at least one "faction" that is dominant. It's the concept of the deck that is interesting, since it permits a reaction strategy…about this deck being a Tier1 or not only test can tell it but I wouldn't be surprised to see it working^^

I am more interested about meta discussion about restricted cards. For me the choice is almost always Khopesh or Negotium. Khopesh works amazing in a rush decks and decks which activitely tries to win stories. Negotium is IMO the metagame changing card. You have to design your a deck about what to do when you face it. There is so much character destruction also so I prefer more characters with powerful effects than icons.

If you can present me a deck that can abuse Negotium I would be happy. To me, it looks like my deck can deal with it without any problem (of course, it depends on what you play around Negotium, that is wahy I'm asking about a list)

EDIT Also I don't understand the point playing Dutch Courage against Khopesh. You should be thinking more about how your deck could abuse Khopesh (if u choose it as your restricted card) and have anti Khopesh at the same time. It is very easy to mix factions and Dutch Courage and Khopesh work great in the same deck.

• "First you playtest, then you show me the results and, after that, we can discuss about banning or restricting. What I'm trying to say, is that Kopesh was restricted too soon, without any real proof that the metagame cannot adapt to it."

You are never going to get "Real Proof" beyond consumers anecdotal evidence of a card making the game aberrant.

In the very first FAQ for the LCG, Aspiring Artist was outright banned without any feedback that I saw from consumers.

If there is enough of an outcry from people and the designers agree (Or at least think it is a problem enough to shut the whiners up) then you will see restrictions and bannings occur.

Same thing happened with magah Birds who I personally did not think was the problem card in a certain Hastur Agency combo from a couple years ago. Yet enough people whined hard enough about it and it among other cards found themselves in the dog house.

I mean, one single person talked on here about "Scouting" and suddenly we have a new paranoid tournament rule. I never in the nearly 3 years I have been playing this game ever saw anyone complaining about scouting in CoC. Yet one person lobbies for it and here we are.

If destruction was not such a powerful archetype right now, I would be right next to you saying that hating Khopesh is just a silly kneejerk reaction.

But destruction is so good that Khopesh is just the cherry on top of an already nasty archetype. A rather nifty board control element I might add.

So there is no 'results' to show you. I am not going to video tape every game I play to satisfy your hunger for empirical results which can never be realized. I doubt anyone else will either, nor should they. Which is why all we have is anecdotal evidence.

We discuss why we "feel" such cards are good or bad after playing them. Because that's all we got to go on.

This isnt Magic: The gathering where there are hundreds of people involved in the design process. There arent even that many tournament players on the planet for this game.

The restricted list is there to ensure the game doesn't devolve due to card interactions. And more importantly to keep the game fun. This is why otherwise innocuous cards such as Itinerant scholar are restricted to keep certain combos from breaking the game.

That's enough out of me for today. I have horses I have to get back to taking care of.

The way I've chosen to deal with Khopesh is to hardly ever have creatures on the board. Or, if I have them out, they are expendable AND I have a way to deal with Khopesh in my hand. While I agree that it has a huge effect on the metagame, I still don't find it that intimidating as I'm usually capable of dealing with it. I'm also extremely arrogant… so take that into account when assessing my opinion.

I'm more interested in hearing Glimpse into the Void is affecting the meta. I've never built a deck with it, and while it is annoying, I'm having a hard time seeing how it locks down.

I also have a question about Negotium… well, all Conspiracy cards. Is there any way to destroy them? I assume the answer is no, since every bit of literature I can find says that Conspiracy != (or <> if you like VB) Support. If that's the case, go go Shub/Syndicate + Negotium.

I also see that Yog is making a resurgence. Is it through its destruction cards? I'd love for it to be milling but alas, it can't be for now…

Hellfury said:

As I'm the person who first brought the scouting topic up in this thread:

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

I will assume you're talking about me.

I want to clarify that I wasn't lobbying for anything. I was, however, asking for clarification on such matters as pertains to judging an official FFG tournament, and I think that's a fair topic to bring up.

If FFG wants to move aggressively into organized play (and it appears that they do, e.g. hiring an Organized Play Associate), then they need to have clearly defined rules and roles for their judges. The same goes for managing their banned and restricted list.

Just because the rules change or a card such as Khopesh is placed on the restricted list doesn't mean the fans cried foul. Besides, I would hardly call my query about scouting to be categorized as such, or lobbying for that matter. Maybe our questions or concerns simply coincided with those of the designers? It's hard to know the truth when looking in from the outside. The best we can do is accept the official rules as they stand and build our decks and judge our tournaments accordingly.

Yipe said:

Don't worry. I wasn't.

im sure its a mix of reasons (YOG), but my often lauded (haha) inclusion would be for the recursion. it is a bit of a strange situation (in my opinion), that it is sometimes a 'support' deck, that through being combined with certain factions, can become more of a frontrunner for a deck.

for example the milling aspect becomes so much more powerful when combined with the hastur hand milling and limited deck milling, or the recursion when combined with shub for support destructions, or cthulhu for its destruction cards, bringing back DOA repeatedly which is a self protector against snow graves.

it can also be used as a nifty 'shocking transform' deck, which is the one i'm currently working on, with limbo gate, twilight gate etc. my tournament deck, with a little help from luck, was consistently throwing out ancient ones in turn 3, and combined with shub, consistently kept me with a support destruction in hand. it is a very good faction to ensure solidity in a deck, and 'banking' on a card or 2 to repeatedly use and have in hand thank to speak to the dead / gathering at the stones, which, once 2 have appeared, create quite a nice loop of recursion (though i'm pretty sure it needs cthulhu/shub to be practical, and in hindsight the cthulhu might provide more diversity).

a faction strengthening card in my opinion is definately the inconspicuous pawn broker. putting high costs in discard to be later used with a low cost 'summoner' i have found to be extremely useful and can create a 'high cost rush' if the situation / deck has been carefully planned.

it was probably just fortune on my account, but i had no problem with the khopesh, though i guiltily admit i was one of the complainers to begin with (in my own defence i'm also new to card games 3 months ago, this being my first, and it IS a very intimidating card to the newbie). i have learnt the error in my ways and from now on will simply work ways around these supposedly super cards. any support card is simply made useless with recursion S.destruction, so i'll take no heed to importance / superiority being delegated to them.

continuing with YOG, i think it is really coming into its own, and walk the path and such, are transforming it into an event defence deck, which i'm loving with my new deck construction. it is my favourite faction and probably always will be, and i'm finding it hard to drag myself away from a shub / yog dual faction for this event and support defence mix. the movement towards play revolving around out of story manipulation only strengthens this resolve, and any deck builder should take this into consideration when designing decks.

i'm not sure if it (or any of my 'advice') is useful, but when constructing my own decks, every single character i include i think to myself, 'how would i like it if this card were in my opponents deck', thanks to stygian eye etc. for example, lady lu chu will never make it into my syndicate decks, as i would HATE to play this, have it controlled by my opponent, and then used as a single comitter to a story against me. YOG is now making this applicable to event cards as well, where you may have to begin thinking, 'if i play this, how will that effect my own troops / strategy if copied'. i am simply loving it………

in other words, im hoping that decks will in the future become a mix of tactics, as relying on a certain strategy which can simply be copied or defended against should be a concern to players.

my new deck, in the deck construction topic (though a VERY rough and initial projection), titled 'copy cat dirty rat', will hopefully transform through diligent playtesting and refining into a deck which can successfully 'dopplegang' some popular strategies and include its own. fingers crossed it can become competitive enough for me to successfully play with.

Hellfury said:

You brought up many different arguments (most of them, I wasn't even mentioning in my OP) so I'll try to be brief and divide them.

1) Real Proof: by real proof I mean the same thing you said. Empyrical proof. And we don't need big numbers to have empyrical proof. Some major tournaments are more than enough.

2) As you say, destruction is a strong archetype (and I've never denied that). Point is, better destruction is not equal to Kopesh, even in a deck that is built around Kopesh itself. I'm claiming this bringing here some empyrical evidence. The same thing did Graham some time ago (read the post The Shivan Kopesh, if you didn't at the time). Now, you can consider me a crappy player (nothing to say about that), but I think that Graham has proven is value each time he has played this game. And again, he has brought some empyrical evidence to support his claiming. TL;DR: destruction is strong, but NOT because of Kopesh.

3) You are not going to videtape (and I was clearly not asking for that). On the fact that people shouldn't report their test and tournament results, instead, I disagree. If you want to let the game grow, you definitely need those. I would love to see some report with some technical details. This is what the game needs, and this is what I mean with "real results".

4) if we discuss how we "feel" after we played those cards, as you say, this is already bringing empyrical evidence.

5) About the decision process on banned/restricted/rules: yes, we are a small community. yes, one person can make the rule change. That doesn't mean that I cannot say what I think about those rules, especially if I bring my experience (empyrical proof) as support of that (I'll write something about scouting in the thread that is already open).

TL;DR: desctruction is good not because of Kopesh (it was already good before). People should write more reports and analysis of games.

Basically, we are just saying the same thing, but I'm complaining about people that complains and you are not

bye

Konx

Ignore this post. I am just posting to get rid of the "New" notification on this thread that wont go away until a new post is made.