Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: New Rules Variant

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    But Torgan didnt stink bc of being in the midfield: his event set sucked and his ability sucked in terms of cost and timing. It's viable for some summoners to play in the midfield. besides you're overlooking the fact that this rule may be useful even if walls are rarely played on opponents side of the field: it will force a scrum in the mid field, which is anti-turtling.

    Also, if Torgan had been able to place any wall next to him, maybe that would have been decent but the fact was MiWs w/2 life just weren't worth the candle lots of times, at least not without Glacial Surge. Regular walls have longevity that MIWs don't. Also, all summoners would get this ability in addition to their other tools. And every summoner has stronger tools than Torgan.

    So no, Torgan is not a fitting analogy.
    "His ability sucked in terms of cost and timing." Exactly. And placing a wall adjacent to your summoner during the event phase has better timing how? You also forgot to mention the terrible range of his ability. It's long been common knowledge that adjacency-based abilities are incredibly difficult to use, and an adjacency-based ability that can only be used before moving is worse. Remember, the #1 requested fix for Torgan was a fix to his ability, usually letting him use it after moving.

    An ability that forces offensive summoners to come out in the open is not going to be "anti-turtling." That's exactly what turtles want. I've played Prince Elien a few times since the most recent set of second summoners, and here are two telling matchups:

    -Prince Elien vs Brath: Prince Elien gets curbstomped fast. Gem golems swarm and high dice punch through his attempts at blocking.
    -Prince Elien vs Saturos: Saturos steps forward, gets hit in the face with Spirit of the Phoenix a few times, and dies.

    Remember, when Saturos was previewed, they said the exact same thing you're saying--he would break turtling summoners out of their shells by forcing them to battle for control of the midfield, since Saturos is rewarded for crossing the midfield. Well, anyone who's actually played Saturos vs. a turtle summoner can tell you that's not how it worked. The price of bringing Saturos forward in the first place far outweighs the benefits of free units and ignored damage. Do you think that the opportunity to maybe place a wall on a few, heavily restricted spots on your opponent's front row will be so much more valuable than anything Saturos got?

    In short, it's not "anti-turtling" if it gives a tiny reward for playing in a method that turtles excel at punishing you for.
    Last edited by prometheuslkr; 11-21-2016 at 05:32 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheuslkr View Post
    "His ability sucked in terms of cost and timing." Exactly. And placing a wall adjacent to your summoner during the event phase has better timing how? You also forgot to mention the terrible range of his ability. It's long been common knowledge that adjacency-based abilities are incredibly difficult to use, and an adjacency-based ability that can only be used before moving is worse. Remember, the #1 requested fix for Torgan was a fix to his ability, usually letting him use it after moving.

    An ability that forces offensive summoners to come out in the open is not going to be "anti-turtling." That's exactly what turtles want. I've played Prince Elien a few times since the most recent set of second summoners, and here are two telling matchups:

    -Prince Elien vs Brath: Prince Elien gets curbstomped fast. Gem golems swarm and high dice punch through his attempts at blocking.
    -Prince Elien vs Saturos: Saturos steps forward, gets hit in the face with Spirit of the Phoenix a few times, and dies.

    Remember, when Saturos was previewed, they said the exact same thing you're saying--he would break turtling summoners out of their shells by forcing them to battle for control of the midfield, since Saturos is rewarded for crossing the midfield. Well, anyone who's actually played Saturos vs. a turtle summoner can tell you that's not how it worked. The price of bringing Saturos forward in the first place far outweighs the benefits of free units and ignored damage. Do you think that the opportunity to maybe place a wall on a few, heavily restricted spots on your opponent's front row will be so much more valuable than anything Saturos got?

    In short, it's not "anti-turtling" if it gives a tiny reward for playing in a method that turtles excel at punishing you for.
    I can tell you have your mind set up against this and that you will come up with a rebuttal and counterattack against whatever I have to say regardless of the merits. I'm going to end this just by saying i think you're wrong and I'm surprised you'd have such a strong opinion about it without ever having tried it. And because I think you way overstate your position and are disingenuous to the merits of my arguments I'm just going to say that I'm going to try this rule.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    I can tell you have your mind set up against this and that you will come up with a rebuttal and counterattack against whatever I have to say regardless of the merits. I'm going to end this just by saying i think you're wrong and I'm surprised you'd have such a strong opinion about it without ever having tried it. And because I think you way overstate your position and are disingenuous to the merits of my arguments I'm just going to say that I'm going to try this rule.
    I liked your concept and was trying to help you make it work. How is that disingenuous? I don't need to try it with a 1-space range, because I already know it would never actually change my behavior. I'd never move my summoner up to the midline in order to place a wall adjacent to them, and if my opponent did I'd respond the same way as I would if the rule didn't exist. So the only matchups it would change would be ones where the summoner is already on the midline, matchups that aren't prone to both players going defensive in the first place.
    Last edited by prometheuslkr; 11-21-2016 at 07:25 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,855

    Default

    If I understand you correctly, you're saying: rule won't have any effect on the playstyle of any summoner or strategy against a summoner so won't have the effect of creating more aggression and besides, even if it did, you'd respond the same way to that summoner as you would without the rule. I think these are good points but I respectfully disagree.

    Regarding improvement of offensive play, I think the following summoners would receive a not-insubstantial benefit in a way that helps that allows them to play more offensively or play offensively more successfully:
    (1) Vlox
    (2) Sneeks
    (3) Little Meda
    (4) Nikuya Na (not like he needs it)
    (5) Rallul (not like he needs it)
    (6) Farrah
    (7) Sunderved
    (8) Maldaria
    (9) Scraven
    (10) Selundar
    (11) Grognack
    (12) Sam
    (13) Warden
    (14) Glurblub
    (15) Moyra
    (16) Melundak at the margins with Track+Wall play
    (17) Saturos with Relentless Advance+Wall play

    Whether or not the reward is great enough for the cost is a great question...For you, you say no and ousay it won't change your playstyle. I would say it wouldn't change my playstyle for a summoner like Oldin. It probably changes my playstyle in a deck like Grognack, Scraven (I prefer to be in mid-field with him, and not on opponent's side of the board, but with this rule I could try the latter). In other words, I don't think it changes playstyle for many summoners in terms of whether you are going to be "defensively" or "offensively" with a summoner. But I think for others, it changes what "offense" means, allowing you to do more pushes instead of just being the first aggressor or placing an "action starter" on an opponent's wall.

    So in that way, I think "offense" for decks like the summoners I list above could really take new meaning. So I think the rule would change "playstyle" (I "" it bc we haven't defined what playstyle means for this argument and it's a loose term). As for whether it changes what the player defending against the pusher does: maybe, maybe not. I know it is your view that definitely not. But when you play with a summoner like Ret you don't care as much about giving up some mid-field position bc your walls aren't as valuable. But Ret player may care more about defending mid-field now. Similarly, although it's not good strategy usually to let someone control the midfield on you, some players give it up, and this punishes them for doing that, and that's good bc it will result in those players fighting in the mid-field more and engaging more, early.

    But even if the defending player does nothing different--they challenge at the midfield as they would have always done--that doesn't mean that the rule has not done anything I don't think--because: (1) the attacking player may gain a foothold and be able to land a wall; (2) perhaps that player may not have attacked otherwise, bc I do strongly believe that it will improve certain summoners--albeit already inclined to do so--better at pushing.

    But even if I'm wrong about (1) and (2), I still think that it will speed up the end game, when it starts to emerge that one player is probably going to win, and I think that's a good thing bc I think SW end game can be notoriously slow.

    Again, it may be true that the incentive is too high of a cost for too small of a benefit. You might be right, but I am not sure. "Adjacency" often does stink, but adjacency for being able to place a wall is very different from adjacency boost like Raldag-Common. For one, most support adjacency is tenuous because it involves commons and common-hate or other negating stuff is quite rampant Ensnare, Taunt, etc., Burn, Greater Burn, Null Machine. So it's just not reliable. But the placement of the wall is not quite the same: it's not an adjacency boost in the same way you just need an open space next to a summoner which is not as tenuous or disruptable. And then you just place the wall and there's no "maintenance" like there is with other adjacency boosts where you have to keep the two things adjacent to one another. It might be the case that it's hard to get an open space on the opponent side of the board where you can place the wall, but that's different.

    I would argue that adjacency abilities are not super difficult to use: Urick. Some, like the Gem Priestess, just don't get have enough benefit to justify the setup. Some, like the Defender or the Priest, are more difficult, but that's bc it requires you to do 1+1 with your Units which is set up and investment. With a Unit like Urick, it isn't the same. True, to get the Summoner Wall placed is some investment--BUT only if that's not how you would have played otherwise--bc you need to put self in position where opponent may be able to get you.So maybe Summoner Wall is something in between Gem Priestess or Defender and Urick. But the ability to place a wall onto opponent's side does seem like a pretty good benefit to me.

    In the current meta isn't it true that turtles win bc of: (1) "replenishment issue;" and (2) defensive-wall protection issue (i.e. defensive summoner gets to be up against their walls without worry about having to block summoning points on walls BC it is their own wall, while aggressor has to worry about continuing to block summoning points on walls bc it's opponents walls; I think Summoner Walls lets you block some of their summoning points with Walls and also a huge offensive move bc now they have to worry about summoning points on your wall when in old meta they could just be protected and not worry about something like that). I'm sorry this second point is not well-communicated: don't have time to be super clear, but it's part of what we mean when we say that defense has positioning advantages (in addition to easily being able to replenish their forces).
    Last edited by commandercool; 11-22-2016 at 02:22 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    have you both ignored magic walls? or you just dont like it? for me this is much more important than placing a wall anywhere.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lcanela View Post
    have you both ignored magic walls? or you just dont like it? for me this is much more important than placing a wall anywhere.
    I have played it in the past but it hasn't really taken off on VASSAL. Felt like too dramatic of a change for me, and very steamrolly, basically whoever's on offense wins all the time in Magic Walls which screws over summoners that just can't do a traditional offense. I'll still definitely play magic walls with someone who wants to, but I'd like to see a smaller change that can negate defender's advantage without creating an attacker's advantage that's just as big.

    commandercool, I think we're both on the same page on the idea that letting you get walls on the opponent's side would be a boon for the meta. I think you'll find adjacency to be a very difficult requirement for most summoners, but I'm mostly drawing on my memories of Torgan and the extreme difficulty of placing walls in useful places without using Glacial Shift. Maybe I'll be wrong. If you want to meet up on VASSAL to playtest it, I'm online a lot--just shoot me a PM or a message on Facebook.
    Last edited by prometheuslkr; 11-22-2016 at 11:15 AM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,429

    Default

    basically whoever's on offense wins all the time in Magic Walls which screws over summoners that just can't do a traditional offense
    Will play any summoner you want, I particularly like maldaria, I think this statement is extremly far from reality.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lcanela View Post
    have you both ignored magic walls? or you just dont like it? for me this is much more important than placing a wall anywhere.
    Haven't played much. I have nothing against it. I kind of liked it. But I liked the possibility of Summoner Walls to create/boost a different type of offensive play.

    @Prome. I'd be happy to take you up on that but just don't have time to play on Vassal these days. Maybe a month or so from now. Thanks, though.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterd View Post
    Will play any summoner you want, I particularly like maldaria, I think this statement is extremly far from reality.
    Possibly it was a little extreme, but I do think the advantage lies with offensive summoners in magic walls. I'll have to take you up on the offer to play against your Maldaria some time. Always interesting to find someone who plays a really good Maldy.

    Anyway, I don't think the VASSAL meta is at a point where it needs an extreme change like Magic Walls to rebalance it. There's not really a turtling problem now, and if I see one start to manifest maybe I'll reconsider but as is I'd prefer to have a small change.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,855

    Default

    New version of competitive house rules:

    1. Magic walls (once per turn) (anti-defender's advantage rule)
    2. Summoner walls (within 2 spaces of summoner) (anti-defender's advantage rule)
    3. Once per game, may look through draw pile, select 1 card, place that card into your hand, then shuffle your draw pile (anti-variance rule)
    4. Once per game, may reveal 1 card from hand and place at bottom of deck (anti-variance rule)
    5. Once per turn on own turn, may increase 1 die result during attack phase by 1 (anti-variance rule)

    And once I think of a good procedure:
    6. You can remove any number of units from starting set-up before match. Those unit cards can be "deckbuilt."


    #1. When combined with #2, it remains to be seen if it needs to be more restricted, such as to 4+ or 5+ or 6.
    #2. @Prome, I think you're right that within 1 space is just not a big-enough advantage.
    #3. Alternate idea was that every player adds 1 Chant of Salvation into their draw pile.

    I call #5 the iElien route (@Waterd for a version of iElien route as an anti-variance rule). I could have gone re-roll (Stink route). But I don't like re-roll bc re-roll doesn't get rid of variance: you have no idea what you're going to get on the re-roll. Also, re-roll can result in a very "swingy profit." For example, let's say you rolled a 2 with a Slasher. If you apply Stink you could roll a 6, which feels unfair and is still variance (you go from no hit to 3 hits). In the same situation if you apply iElien, you just get 1 hit as opposed to no hits.
    Last edited by commandercool; 12-02-2016 at 12:32 AM.

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
  •