Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Natazga: more thoughts

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,364

    Default

    huh where does it state that you can't put a unit on the fury of the fen vw after you moved it? I read it in a way that the VW immediately looses it's "unit/merc" property if another unit moves on it (it's not unoccupied anymore, so the event does not affect it anymore).

  2. #12
    killercactus is offline SW App Champion Summer 2015, but still do what he says.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwalker View Post
    huh where does it state that you can't put a unit on the fury of the fen vw after you moved it? I read it in a way that the VW immediately looses it's "unit/merc" property if another unit moves on it (it's not unoccupied anymore, so the event does not affect it anymore).
    We had this talk way back - you can't move onto an occupied space.
    Latest Customs - KC's Customs

    I need to update this signature. While I do that, go listen to A Doug's Guide to Summoner Wars - the podcast!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Gwangju, South Korea
    Posts
    621

    Default

    Haven't played a ton of Nat, but from four games plus what I've watched, I'm very convinced of my initial intuition that cheap 3s are the way to go, to reduce the reliance on erosion and the number of turns opponent has to build a countering formation.

    The reliable cheap 3-dicers seem to be Glarg/Prong/Murk, although I like Glurp too, as buildable as Nat's events can be and as much as opponent will be singularly committed to killing him. More Zealots than base does seem rather crucial for this plan.

    EDIT: and Savagers, needless to say.
    Last edited by gojaejin; 09-30-2016 at 09:08 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gojaejin View Post
    Haven't played a ton of Nat, but from four games plus what I've watched, I'm very convinced of my initial intuition that cheap 3s are the way to go, to reduce the reliance on erosion and the number of turns opponent has to build a countering formation.

    The reliable cheap 3-dicers seem to be Glarg/Prong/Murk, although I like Glurp too, as buildable as Nat's events can be and as much as opponent will be singularly committed to killing him. More Zealots than base does seem rather crucial for this plan.

    EDIT: and Savagers, needless to say.
    @gojaejin

    I want to play your theory: and I think there are only really two competing theories for strongest Natazga deck: (1) opportunistic assassination; and (2) focus on the walls. I think your cheap 3 AV goes more towards the second. But there's obviously some balance to strike between the two and that's probably the best way to leverage Natazga's tools. But maybe Natazga is strongest if you forget all of her other tools and just go for the walls, using her ability--really not sure.

    Trying some variation of your cheap 3 AV deck, I'm going to try
    - Glarg, Prong, Mik
    - 4 Savager, 4 Zealot, 3 Swamp Rat, 3 Hunter

    Hard to not include Turt though. I understand your point about Glurp, too. It also pains me a little to not include any Swamp Archers. I don't like Murk as much bc his ability doesn't trigger on the walls (if memory serves me--bc it only triggers on units). Then again, I think there's again a difference of philosophy: what balance you strike between wall-attacking and opportuistic assassination (ranged units are better in that, and also units that aren't as "confined" or restricted to VW adjacency/on top of such as Glurp or Turt). I suppose that I'm a little averse to opportunistic assassination bc I'm not as good as judging the proper moments to take the opportunities and the wall-attacking seems more sustainable. That said, I haven't plyed enough Natazga yet and I do maintain a healthy skepticism about wall-attacking as your primary winning strategy (i.e. destroy/choke off all summon points so you win). I could ramp up the wall-attackin even more than I do and add 2 more Savagers and get rid of the SAs. Or I could ramp up the opportunistic assassination even more and add 2 more SAs, Glurp and Murk. I'd say that Mik is probably the most replaceable out of the champs I've picked above (you probably only get him up to 3AV, although you can clearly get him higher) and that if I wanted to strike more of a balance with opportunistic assassination, I'd probably go Glurp. Also, Glurp is just scary.

    Not sure if I agree on the buildability of Natazga's events. Fen is unbuildable and I'd argue the same with Erosion. I'd build Erosion before I built Fen, though. Quagmire is buildable but quite good, but I'd probably build if I have 2 other non-buildable cards in my hand. Battle Champion is almost an auto-build.

    Re: Battle Champion. I suppose Swamp Rats could help you get more from this. Kill a unit w/ST then warp a Swamp Rat to protect the ST. I'll have to try. But do you really want to build Swamp Rats into your deck? Maybe. I guess you can also use them to set up combos with Swamp Archers or if you have other ranged commons in your deck like Glarg/Sklursh/Murk.

    As for Swamp Archer over Hunter, I'm not sure. I could totally see having the Hunters be your ranged unit, though. Actually, on second though, bc Natazga can use some beef, I could totally add them in here.

    One of the neat things about Natazga and an epiphany I've had is that her ability creates economy. Zealots', marginally, too. How? Bc every latent VW is a potential unit. So when you create a VW, you've just created a latent unit

    An alternate take on Natazga
    - Prong, Glarg, Glurp
    - 2 Savager, 4 Swamp Rat, 4 Zealot, 4 Skulltaker

    What I'd really love to hear about though is Sklursh. Anyone have any success/failures with him? What's the general view? Haven't gotten to play him yet and in Natazga where economy is tough, I really prefer a little more health and a little less cost.
    Last edited by commandercool; 09-30-2016 at 02:36 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    @gojaejin again:

    I like the simplicity of your build's concept: cheap 3 AV.

    But I wonder if it's better to see Natazga as liking a few different things: (1) cheap beef that can kill commons; (2) ready access to units 5 cost or less with 3+ AV; and (3) sneakiness for opportunistic assassination.

    For (1), Skull Takers don't fill this role that well; Hunters are probably the second best option for this. Actually Stone Golems would be the best. Boarboons could maybe fulfill this role, too. I actually think the Boarboon is preferable to the Savager on second thought. Skulltakers and Swamp Rats double as blockers. I do like Swamp Rats to help pull off a Battle Champion, which I am starting to wonder if it is invaluable to Natazga's economy.

    I see Zealots as the most removable part of Natazga. Maybe they're what you really want as blockers, though. Drop the VW at a cost of 2 magic. And then build out the Skulltakers. You'd then lose Battle Champ possibility but that's a really tenuous proposition anyway. In this build, Mik, Prong, and Glarg will thrive.

    - Prong, Glarg, Lukestor/Khan Queso/Mik/Turt/Glurp/Sklursh
    - 5 Savager/Boarboon, 5 Skulltaker, 4 Conjurer/Zealot/Hunter

    Swamp Archers are a place where you can gain economy through smart placement. Prong should be a crazy economically efficient unit. Perhaps I'm outthinking myself by not including Turt. Natazga just seems like someone that wants lots of mobility, though.

    Might be better to have Savagers than Boarboon bc if you're lucky you can also gain an economic advantage: they also deter commons, too, which is good, and can prolong their life that way.

    You might even want the Conjurer just for 2 HV for 1 cost.

    EDIT: Skulltakers probably combo well with Savagers. Lukestor or Khan Queso help with the commons in a way that Skulltaker can't. Conjurers are cheap beef. Maybe you want Zealots instead to create VWs for blocking, but Idk. Conjurers, if they're killed, cost 3 magic. Zealots that sacrifice themselves are a loss of 2 magic but give you that VW--not necessarily a loss bc they're easily convertible into units. There's not a lot of range in this deck, though.
    Last edited by commandercool; 09-30-2016 at 04:53 PM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Gwangju, South Korea
    Posts
    621

    Default

    I totally meant Mik instead of Murk as my big 3, LOL.

    On my phone on a bus, so can't write everything I want to now, but thinking about your post...

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Ahh, gotcha. Mik does seem better. There's a slight redundancy between him and Glarg, though: Mik's adjacency most of the time will probably trigger while he's on top of a VW. He'll then be 3AV. That's what Glarg gets in the same situation except Glarg gets range, too. Of course, Mik can easily get higher, but in Natazga, when you're playing optimally, not sure you'll get higher than 3AV much. So then there's a question whether you want that redundancy or whether you want something a little different--there's something to be said for that redundancy (more favorably, you can frame as draw reliability). For me, for now, going to try something a little different in Lukestor--true, not 3AV, but he can go through VWs and is good with commons (which is good for my build bc I want to try to include Skulltakers, which are not particularly good against commons)

    Re: Battle Champion. I think this is a really bad event. Not quite sure about how to think about its economy bc you do basically warp a champion into a specific position. But I don't think that has much value. When you play Battle Champion you spend 1 card, discard 2 cards, and subtract 4 from a champ's summon cost. That's a +1 in magic. Not so hot. If you somehow manage to have 2 units under Skulltaker, that's a +2 in magic. This has to be an event you build every time unless you can readily play it. The only positive I can see is that it makes Skulltakers marginally viable at fighting commons. This seems the best way to think of it for me.

    I have a theory that Skulltakers will be really good in Glurblub where you can Spore them and unit(s) underneath them.

    As for amount of 3AVs in drawpile, I think I want to be able to draw 1 each turn.

    So there are 11 non-unit cards and 17 units in draw in Natazga. To be able to draw 1 each turn (assuming that I "move" 3 cards each turn), I want 1/3 of the cards to be 3AV. So that's approximately 9 3 AV cards: 6 Savager/Boarboon, Glarg, Prong, and Mik (I know this goes against what I said earlier about wanting Lukestor...).

    That leaves me 8 common slots
    - 4 Skulltaker, 4 Conjurer

    So
    - Glarg, Mik, Prong
    - 6 Savager, 4 Skulltaker, 4 Conjurer

    so I guess basically my same build as before, just different numbers.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    Imo, focusing too hard on units designed to smack enemy walls is a mistake. Your opponent knows how Natazga works, so unless you have a particularly good starting position relative to them, they're going to being forward-thinking enough to press you and cut off your access to their wall. Therefore at least some of your deck should be designed around playing as the defender. I'd include Turt and/or Glurp for this purpose. Turt forces your opponent to either spend a crazy amount of resources getting rid of him, or retreat (letting you possibly restart the offensive). Glurp is just a beast, and if your opponent is playing smart, you'll be fighting around your own walls and thus won't be playing many of your events anyway.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheuslkr View Post
    Imo, focusing too hard on units designed to smack enemy walls is a mistake. Your opponent knows how Natazga works, so unless you have a particularly good starting position relative to them, they're going to being forward-thinking enough to press you and cut off your access to their wall. Therefore at least some of your deck should be designed around playing as the defender. I'd include Turt and/or Glurp for this purpose. Turt forces your opponent to either spend a crazy amount of resources getting rid of him, or retreat (letting you possibly restart the offensive). Glurp is just a beast, and if your opponent is playing smart, you'll be fighting around your own walls and thus won't be playing many of your events anyway.
    I couldn't agree more. This is why I run Mik / Glurp / Splub. Mik is a beast in Nats deck, I feel like I have to have him. He gets boosted to 3 when attacking walls, and in the end game, there are usually enough walls around for him to be at 4 or 5! (That said, I also use swamp beast instead of Boarboons or Savagers, so that could be why I value Mik more lol)

    Beyond him, I typically am only summoning 1 other champ (even when I was playing prong, so I figured, I might as well) so I didn't mind looking at they higher end. Both Glurp and Splub can work on offense or defense. Glurp's 4 dice are huge! And Splub adds another way for this deck to get vines if Nat gets stuck in her own end. Splub my be an unconvenable pick, but he's won me a ton of games that Natazga had no right in winning.

    I just don't like having 3 champs which are all focused on my ideal play. Mik is for the main stratagy, Glurp is just a monster everywhere, and Splub adds a fun plan B.
    Last edited by Irisches Glueck; 10-02-2016 at 08:17 AM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Just played based Natazga again v. base Elien. Didn't summon a champ. Won in about 5-6 turns. Played Fury and Erosion. Built 1 Quagmire. Didn't draw Battle Champion. Used the starting Zealot to plant a VW. Went hard and fast bc I knew Elien had a better economy. But my pressure forced him to use his events to keep me at bay (1 SoTP, 2 Burns, 1 Greater Burn). He Fire Blasted a few of my VWs. His squishy units were great for Skulltakers and my Swamp Archers. Opening Swamp Archer lasted a long time. Summoned another one later on to do a combo over a Furied VW. Very economical unit bc can be easily protected. Used my Skulltakers to fight commons--I know, not ideal, but I needed some staying power. Summoned almost all of my Skulltakers. Drew Zur Lak early. Opponent doubled MD in one turn and never came close again to having magic to summon. Penultimate turn, his wall has 6 wounds, I play erosion, put 4 wounds on it and two VWs, he has 1 common on the board and I kill it with Skulltaker. Elien's facing several shrubs. Elien has massive pile of magic (around 10) but he doesn't draw any walls. I finish him in 2 more turns.

    Erosion and Fury are where it's at. It seems tough to me to summon 3 champs bc you want to try to keep momentum up. It is starting to feel to me that opportunistic assassination is Natazga's biggest strength.

    Erosion is devastating when you're able to get 3 units next to the wall. I think Quagmire is an event that is going to be overlooked but is really good.

    I don't see Zealots as super important to Natazga (though in some builds they will be), but I see Swamp Archers as really important. But you do want a 2 AV for 1 magic.

    Low health summoners are going to struggle against Natazga.

    I think Natazga fights really differently than other factions. She doesn't care about the end game or your champs. She just cares about getting to your summoner, first, and your walls, second.

    Counter what I previously said, I think you do use Skulltakers on opponent units when you want to preserve certain units that you have. Also, if you see Skulltakers a little differently it helps: as a 2/2/2 unit, where you pay 1 to summon and pay another 1 on the backend if you've killed an opponent common--their downside is real, though, in that they won't harvest magic for you.

    Skulltakers are also valuable in attracting attention when they have a unit underneath, which is not a to-be-sneeezed-at value. Probably only really deflect attention from VWs and other units you want to protect, though. A smart opponent won't be deflected away from champ or summoner.

    I think you can get Natazga in on the action. I've kept her in my back row, but her range helps with commons, and bc you're keeping pressure up on opponent, they're not really going to be able to bring much pressure on you. This will help getting magic by killing opponent commons and also help alleviate that you probably won't be able to summon all 3 of your champs.

    Maybe Battle Champ is better than I thought. I don't think I was thinking about it right. I said it's a +1 if you have 1 card under Skull Taker. But I wasn't accounting for +2 in negating magic to opponent, bc it does serve that function, too. However, you do lose the unit, and not quite sure how to value it. So it's between a +1 and +3 to your magic economy. But you also get the Naan'Nashi marginal value (i.e. having a champ immediately in a specific positioning)

    I think I'm agreeing that focusing on thumping walls isn't the way to go. I think her combo of commons is great. Not sure I mess with any of that. Maybe swap half SAs out for a couple SRs more combos and to help protect to try to set up Battle Champion (right now I'll try, but might give up on this event later). I think Lukestor is a natural fit in the champs bc so hard to defend against and forces champ play, which clears board of units allowing Natazga for some cool stuff. Turt not so much bc he's not fast. Mik might be even better than Prong bc he's less restricted in space; I also think you really want some range, so I'd add Glarg. Glurp's a beast but I like Natazga's events and her economy is weak. Zur Lak puts the fear of God into the opponent. But Splub seems like another good choice. However, that's so expensive for Natazga. That's why I like Duggle in the last spot (and also bc of his reach) and also bc he can kill a unit protecting a wall and move onto that spot to get an opening for you--that's marginal value, though. But 2 merc champs isn't great bc you want to be able to take full value of Erosion. Also, range unit is still better than Duggle I think--plus I don't like his cost so much. However, you can set up combos with him. There's also a question that even if you go Duggle, whether Murk is better than Glarg.

    So:
    - Murk/Duggle, Glarg/Murk, Lukestor
    - 5 Skull Takers, 4 Zealot, 3 Swamp Archers, 2 Swamp Rats

    I think Natazga's stronger than I originally thought. I think she could be upper middle class

    EDIT
    - Duggle, Murk, Lukestor
    - 5 Skull Takers, 4 Zealot, 3 Swamp Archers, 2 Swamp Rats
    Last edited by commandercool; 10-02-2016 at 01:08 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •