Page 3 of 96 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 955

Thread: Real errata--master thread

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    The no more than 6 units in a deckbuilding is a great way to phrase that, thanks!

    Thanks for these results! It surprises me that Grog is so high. It doesn't srurprise me that Farrah, Warden, Sneeks aren't higher because they are some of the most difficult summoners to use. It doesn't surprise me that Melundak isn't lower because he's a "surprise" Summoner and I think such summoners are generally seen as stronger than they actually are.

    As you know, I disagree with replacing CUEs for this project because I disagree with make any more changes than necessary and I think for most summoners a change can be made with 1 card. I disagree with needing OP champs for the sake of doing so. I agree with doing that ONLY if it equalizes one of the very strong summoners or very weak summoners and affects that Summoner alone or is the least overbroad Change available. For that reason I disagree with a Baldar nerf because unless it's once per turn, it really affects Hogar and Bolvi who don't need a nerf. For that reason I think the best place to start with Olson is Gror and to add the following restriction that his ability can't be increased by more than 3 or 4, whichever is deemed necessary to fix Oldins power.

    As a result, you see that I will also disagree with making CUE changes as part of this project. The goal of this project should be minimalistic equalization, and not I think NPE fixes. I too hate CUEs but changing those into custom events is both unnecessary for the meta, and more difficult to predict its effect on the meta. I think there's a place for CUE replacements, but I think that's in more of a "fun" errata pack and because they're less likely to be accepted, to not include in this project.
    Last edited by commandercool; 03-16-2017 at 08:43 AM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    I agree that a spatial limitation for Freeze is good if Freeze is targeted.

    But I think a more minimal approach is to target Grognack. Either adjust his stat line -1 health and AV or his ability can only choose 1 Wall he controls. Or both if needed.

    I hate Freeze, but again, I think the goal should include minimalism in terms of that amount of cards to change. This is basically the view that less cards is best AS LONG AS the requisite power change can still be accomplished.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    Oh yeah, I also agree we wait until the poll is closed and then test errata on vassal. I'll continue trying to figure out card making in the meantime. You're right that it doesn't hurt to ask plaidhar but it would also be nice to know we can make these cards in the likely scenario plaid hat does nothing

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by commandercool View Post
    The no more than 6 units in a deckbuilding is a great way to phrase that, thanks!

    Thanks for these results! It surprises me that Grog is so high. It doesn't srurprise me that Farrah, Warden, Sneeks aren't higher because they are some of the most difficult summoners to use. It doesn't surprise me that Melundak isn't lower because he's a "surprise" Summoner and I think such summoners are generally seen as stronger than they actually are.

    As you know, I disagree with replacing CUEs for this project because I disagree with make any more changes than necessary and I think for most summoners a change can be made with 1 card. I disagree with needing OP champs for the sake of doing so. I agree with doing that ONLY if it equalizes one of the very strong summoners or very weak summoners and affects that Summoner alone or is the least overbroad Change available. For that reason I disagree with a Baldar nerf because unless it's once per turn, it really affects Hogar and Bolvi who don't need a nerf. For that reason I think the best place to start with Olson is Gror and to add the following restriction that his ability can't be increased by more than 3 or 4, whichever is deemed necessary to fix Oldins power.

    As a result, you see that I will also disagree with making CUE changes as part of this project. The goal of this project should be minimalistic equalization, and not I think NPE fixes. I too hate CUEs but changing those into custom events is both unnecessary for the meta, and more difficult to predict its effect on the meta. I think there's a place for CUE replacements, but I think that's in more of a "fun" errata pack and because they're less likely to be accepted, to not include in this project.
    aw pile

    no more than 6 units in the draw pile is what I said

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    Got it, thanks!

    I'm going to remove the following from the front list, but "index" them here because I think they were good solutions. And may need to come back depending on final results of Lcanela's poll and/or after determining how many summoners to equalize.

    6. Abua Shi. “Twice per turn after moving Abua Shi, you may spend 1 Magic Point to increase by 1 the Attack Value of a Jungle Elf this turn."
    13. Legions of the Dead. "This turn, Ret-Talus gains the following Ability: GREATER RAISE. Instead of attacking, you may spend 2 Magic Points to choose up to 3 Fallen Kingdom Common Units with a summon cost below 3 from your Discard Pile and place them adjacent to Ret-Talus."
    14. "
    16. Amoeba Mutant. "Whenever this Amoeba Mutant is placed into its owner's Magic Pile, it is placed at the bottom of that pile. Whenever it would be placed into a Discard Pile, it is instead placed into its owner's hand."
    18. Torgan. Set-up card. Move everything up 1. Swap left berserker with Shooter.
    19. Melundak set-up. Replace top left Shadow with Stalker. Replace Stalker under wall with Shaman.
    21. Return of the Fallen. "Remove 1 Fallen Kingdom Champion from any Discard Pile and place it in your hand. If that Champion has a Summon Cost of 6-8, spend 1 Magic Point. If that Champion has a Summon Cost of 9, spend 2 Magic Points."

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    I think a question we need to start thinking about is this: how far do we want this equalization to go?

    For four reasons think minimalism is the operative philosophy here, too. First, and makes less total changes to the meta. There will obviously be winners and losers in this resulting meta, and bigger winners and bigger losers. The biggest winners will be those at the bottom that receive a benefit and those that were just weak enough to not receive a nerf from being too powerful. The biggest losers will of course be those summoners that are receiving the power nerf and those at the bottom that were just strong enough to not get a power increase.

    An important tangent is that the summoners that were just weak enough to not be nerfed, it's not that they should be made king of the new meta: that's the same level we should aim to bring down those that we're nerfing; on the flip side, the summoners that were just strong enough to not be nerfed, we should aim to make those summoners that as strong enough to not be buffed. However, we relax should relax the standard when it comes to buffing the summoners: it is not disaster if we accidentally buff one of these summoners to a 4 or a 5. But we should worry about missing the mark while nerfing the strong summoners. Why this asymmetrical approach, being more lenient to mistake on buffing the weakest summoners as long as they're a 5 max but saying that we can't overnerf the top summoners? I think the strongest argument is acceptance from the community. I think community members would have an easier time if we missed the mark on Sera and accidentally buffed her to a 5 than they would if we missed the mark on Rallul and dropped him to a 4. Why? Because we get attached to our summoner that helps us win games. And we don't want to see that thing we're attached to be harmed. And a nerf is a harm.

    Another benefit to making less total changes to the meta also means less moving parts. Less chance for mistake. Better chance to get it right. Easier to grasp the consequences broad-scale of all the changes we're making. You get the point. So again, the first reason minimalism is good in choosing which summoners will be nerfed is less total changes to.

    The second reason that minimalism is the best philosophy in choosing which summoners are nerfed/buffed circles back to my tangent above about acceptance, but comes at the point of acceptance in a different way. I think the fewer summoners we nerf/buff, the greater chance of acceptance. I think there's a direct relationship between amount of card changes and acceptance. At least in part, it lends credibility to our project. It shows: (1) thoughtfulness/carefulness; and (2) integrity. The first two points are self-explanatory. By analogy: think of the old adage that it's always harder to write a good short letter than a long letter and takes far more time to do so. What do I mean by integrity, though? I mean this: this project must have the full appearance of objectivity. We have to try hard to not bring any of our biases into this. We all have these. For example, I really like Melundak: I truly don't think he's very strong, but I do know, deep down, I would be happy if he were buffed precisely for the reason that he's one of my favorite summoners. I'm sure some people feel the same way about certain weak summoners. Or some people say that some of the top summoners aren't truly too strong because they don't want to see that summoner harmed. Etc. Etc. I think it's apparent when we indulge these feelings in ourselves: it would be like if I told everyone that I thought under no means is the Demagogue too strong, that he's a 3 at most, and that under no means should he receive a nerf. (If this is your opinion, I apologize: I promise I'm not targeting you. I just tried to choose a summoner that I think there's a really strong consensus about being too strong.) Obviously, it won't be so exaggerated. However, we lose credibility when we say stuff like that. And when we lose credibility, we decrease our chances of acceptance. So the second reason that minimalism is good in choosing which summoners are nerfed/buffed is that it increases community acceptance.

    The third and fourth reasons that minimalism is good in this project are time and cost. On the issue of time: it takes me about 45 minutes/card, from acquisition of digital image to photoshop to readying for order. A second issue of time is that the fewer amount of cards, the less debate, and the less amount of testing. On the issue of cost, it's pretty obvious: it will decrease the cost of your order. +/- 5 cards is really negligible in cost--just a couple bucks. You may even think that +/- 10 cards is also negligible--I think it's also just a few bucks. Keep in mind the other merits of minimalism that I've pointed out above, though. That said, 18 cards is the fewest amount of cards we can set up for a single pack of cards.

    To conclude, minimalism in choosing which summoners to nerf/buff is good for these reasons: (1) less total changes to the meta; (2) increases chance of acceptance; (3) decreases time needed; and (4) decreases cost needed.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    With my previous post on the table, I'm going to make the following initial proposition: we errata the following power brackets: 1-3.5; and 5.5-7.

    This would result in erratas for the following, as the polls currently stand:
    Rallul 6.33
    Tundle 6.15
    The Demagogue 6.04
    Krusk 6.00
    Tacullu 5.98
    Nikuya Na 5.96
    Oldin 5.86
    Grognack 5.51
    Melundak 3.50
    Queen Maldaria 3.45
    Malenatar 3.45
    Abua Shi 3.43
    Mad Sirian 3.31
    Endrich 3.31
    Hogar 3.12
    Marek 3.08
    Sneeks 2.80
    Sera Eldwyn 2.67
    Bolvi 1.98

    I have adjusted my initial list to adjust the power of each of these summoners. I have attempted to affect no more than these summoners. Those at the very top and those at the very bottom received the greatest nerf/buff. Those that were very close to not being included in this list received a minimal nerf/buff.
    Last edited by commandercool; 03-16-2017 at 10:42 AM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    I am indexing this Tacullu errata bc I think the Rallul merc unit restriction may be enough for him.
    15. Tacullu. "Per turn, you cannot use more than 1 card effect that takes or discards an opponent's card. Once per turn, at the end of your Attack Phase, you may choose a Unit within 3 clear straight line spaces of Tacullu and spend a number of Magic Points equal to the chosen Unit's Summon Cost to discard that Unit."

    Note that one summoner that will be affected that is not on the list to change is Mugglug. He will lose apprentice Mages. However, seeing as how annoying VWs are anyway, I doubt many people will lose sleep about that. This is one bullet we have to bite I think.

    Two more that will be affected are Brath and Endrich by losing Lun's ability to pull enemy commons. I think a similar analysis to my Mugglug-Apprentice Mage point, however. The only way to really limit Lun change to just target Tundle is to say Lun can't choose opponent Unit if in Tundle deckbuild. That's a really specific restriction and such specific language is nowhere in SW. It's true, I've limited Dinky so Taunt cards can't be played on the same turn as Dinky's summoned.

    Ok, I'm going to bite the bullet and change that to the Lun restriction. So Brath and Endrich are unaffected. It's hard for Endrich to lose that in Lun, as Endrich is on the list to boost (no pun intended).
    Last edited by commandercool; 03-16-2017 at 10:50 AM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    I am indexing this change, as Ret-Talus is somehow did not make the cut:
    - "No more than 6 cards of the same Unit may be included in any draw pile to begin a match."

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,852

    Default

    I am torn between doing this with Marek: 3/6 to Marek or changing one of her bad EAs like Retribution to Vlox's Master of the Art" or "Tough." She's weak because her economy is weak and she's bad against the rush.

    Ah ha! I really like this: 2/6. And her ability can either "teach" her EA or one that's in her discard pile. That: (1) improves her economy, which helps against the rush; and (2) the +1 HV helps her against the rush. That's better because she has that to start the game, as opposed to 1 EA, which she has to luck into drawing.

    I am also torn on this on Grognack. First, he needs very little. But is that very little a change to his statline or to his ability? If it's to his ability, that weakens his defense. If it's to his statline, it affects more than just his defense. The statline change changes him less, I think. However, it might not have much effect: the statline change is to move him to 3/6. The ability power change is to make it 1 wall he controls. I think the better change is his statline because it doesn't change the way you play him when he plays defense: that is, to attack his walls with ranged units. But the statline change makes it slightly worse to rush with him and makes him worse in the end game, which he is such a haus in.

    For now, I'm going with Grognack's statline change and indexing the ability power change here:
    16. Grognack. "Instead of attacking with Grognack, you may choose a Wall you control and roll a die. On a result of 4+, each enemy Unit adjacent to the chosen Wall receives 1 Wound Marker."
    Last edited by commandercool; 03-16-2017 at 11:20 AM.

Page 3 of 96 FirstFirst 123451353 ... 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
  •