Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: A deck guide per summoner

  1. #21

    Default

    @Joseph:
    Thanks for the feedback, your comments are very useful. Right now the guide is too focused on the assassination role of the Jungle Elves. Just as you say in your second post, some events or units are much better / worse when playing defensively then assassination style. I should add that situational increase in usefulness to some of the events / units.

    What I should be stressing more in the Jungle Elves guide is that the deck can be both played defensively or assassination oriented depending on the opponent / hand dealt / board position. My preference right now is to maneuver until I can either start an assassination attempt and if not, I switch to a more defensive style. What I'm still having trouble with is evaluating in which situations I should go for that assassination attempt (i.e. sacrificing a Lioneer + 1 magic to do a possible 4 wounds on a 5-6 health summoner). Right now I'm generally being very conservative with those, meaning I'll rather switch to a defensive style then go for a a few wounds on a summoner and lose in terms of magic economy. This is partly the reason I don't (yet) value Archers that highly as I don't play against a half-wounded summoner that much (yet).

    @sitnam90:
    Fixed the Skeletal Archer mistake. Thanks!

    1/1/1 units: Yeah, I think the basic reason is a dislike of feeding magic to an opponent and that the implicit cost is generally two magic as you could be building them instead and you are using a magic to summon them. So it's rare for me to summon a 1/1/1. Even in the case of the Archer I dislike spending the CoH on it as it will negate any magic advantage you get from kiling a unit. Playing the Cave Goblins should be interesting, I have sofar only played Frick once and only won that one due to insane luck ;-).

    @esper88/TAU:
    I noticed I'm not really paying attention much to the SSSCF valuation right now while selecting which cards to use in a deck. I'll probably eventually analyze whether or not I even find it useful to keep calculating / listing in these guide's.
    Last edited by Quantum; 10-12-2014 at 03:28 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by esper88 View Post
    You can easily make a case for it being -4, it's just still subjective at this point. I've gone mutant by mutant below with me subjective opinion:

    (Higher numbers mean they're better than the average champ of the same cost)
    Absorption: 0
    I'd put his ability as a +1. Compared to Khan, he's 1 less life and 1 more summon cost, but his ability is tons better.
    Bestial: +1
    I agree with this. If I was being finnicky, I'd put him slight above +1 and Absorp slightly less, but it averages out.
    Claw: +1 (3 attack would be baseline, easily above that)
    I'd put him above that even; it's rare I find he has 4 or less attack.
    Corpulent Mutant: 0 (needs to negate around 3/4 wounds to break even)
    He's basically a 1/8/4 unit, which I'd put at +.5.
    Edible Mutant: 0 (1 attack units are not properly represented in SSCF)
    I'd agree with this one.
    Horror: +1
    I'd say horror's ability is a +2; he can take down 7 cost champs without breaking a sweat sometimes.
    Incanter Mutant: 0 (Hard to gauge since there are no champs this cheap.)
    I agree he's hard to determine; for that, I wouldn't make him 0, I just wouldn't include him in analysis. If I had to, I'd say +.5 here.
    Spew: 0 (Not equivalent to 3 attack, equivalent to 2 and change with no ability)
    Spew is basically 3 attack range with no ability; he averages ~1.9 wounds, and is more likely to do 3 wounds than 3 attackers. That would put him at 0, except 3R attackers in general get a +1 (Jake and such)
    Stoneflesh: 0
    I'd say stoneflesh is as hard to figure as Incanter, so I would be disinclined to include him in any analysis too. If I had to, I'd say +.5
    Tentacle: +1
    I'd agree here
    Void: 0
    Another hard one to price. I'd say maybe +.5.
    Winged: +1
    I'd agree here too.
    What about Sucky? He's another one hard to price, but given he is one of the best mutations, I'd put him at ~+1.5 if I had to.

    Newbies:
    Barbed: 0
    Bone: 0 (probably like +.5)
    Burrow: 0
    Grotesque: 0
    Legion: 0
    Poison: +1
    I'm not sure I can comment on these without having ever played them.
    Mutants are definitely more likely to be undercosted than the average unit, but not consistently enough to qualify for the -4, imo.
    Individual comments in bold above.

    Overall, they averaged to +1. -4 makes sense logically too; when playing them, mutations are as good as champs in general. They are affected by common killers that cause problems, but they also can mutation swap for flexibility, which champs can't. I find mutation playing is as powerful as champ playing, which, since mutations are at a 1 cost disadvantage because of the common they are summoned on, means they have to cost 1 less to be equal.

    Apologies for slightly derailing the thread, let's agree to disagree and return to the main topic.
    Relax and enjoy your shoes.

    I LIKE TAU! is Oldin the Boring in The 12 Masks of the Summoner
    I LIKE TAU! was Blur the Scholar in The Great Marsh. Life. Don't talk to me about life.

    Check out VASSAL, the free online SW program! We are always looking for more players, so learn how to use it here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Waterd View Post
    Im with I like tau on this one!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,429

    Default

    They are -3, clearly,

  4. #24

    Default

    I've added the Oldin and Sneeks deck builds to the first post. Still without second summoner units and mercenaries of course. With this I have gotten all factions on iOS / android done for now (excluding the mercenaries).

    The next one will probably be Rallul so I can start updating all the guide's with mercenaries included. That should be interesting .

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,429

    Default

    SSCF of climber is 0,not -1

  6. #26

    Default

    I've added two new deck builds since the last post:
    - Rallul (2015-04-28)
    - Moyra Skylark (2015-05-24)

    I'll probably do the rest of the first summoners first before doing all the second summoners / alliance summoners.

    @Waterd: Thanks, fixed (fixed that in february ;-)).

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,429

    Default

    I dont know if you care, i mean maybe you dont want your articles to be very precise and are more interested on them being entertaining (which is totally fine thing)
    I will say to start, that the very agressive draw strategy was used by Damian as his main strategy, and he got good results both in vassal and against me. its totally different on how other players play, but I think its the best strategy vs some factions, like Dema.

    I really do not like your vermin and rouge, they are ok vs very agressive factions, Rallul already does fantanstic vs them, , I dont see the need to target them even more, is like playing Khan queso or something like that, sure its great vs agressive factions, but rallul weakness are economic/defensive factions like Tacullu, dema and tundle, so if anything i would shift the deck to have better chances vs those.

    Also strongly disagree that factions that can do a lot of damage to walls quickly are of any danger, you have events to bring back walls, if someone spends resources to take down your walls, he is losing the game.

    The rest is all fine and I mostly agree with, good article!

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterd View Post
    I dont know if you care, i mean maybe you dont want your articles to be very precise and are more interested on them being entertaining (which is totally fine thing)
    The idea definitely is to be as precise as possible. This will probably take some iterations on some of these deck builds though as I tend to write an initial deck build after a handful of plays (some, like this one are a newer version of a deck build I played with previously). I'll update them after follow up plays (or if someone points out obvious errors / very convincing things I missed. Thanks in advance for those .

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterd View Post
    I will say to start, that the very aggressive draw strategy was used by Damian as his main strategy, and he got good results both in vassal and against me. its totally different on how other players play, but I think its the best strategy vs some factions, like Dema.
    Very interesting. I tried it out myself, but not against very defensive factions like Dema. I'll have to try that eventually. Any clue what kind of deck build he ran doing that? I'd assume definitely Rune Mages.

    I changed that paragraph.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterd View Post
    I really do not like your vermin and rouge, they are ok vs very agressive factions, Rallul already does fantanstic vs them, , I dont see the need to target them even more, is like playing Khan queso or something like that, sure its great vs agressive factions, but rallul weakness are economic/defensive factions like Tacullu, dema and tundle, so if anything i would shift the deck to have better chances vs those.
    Good point. I included them to add some diversity to what you can do with your commons and expecting them to get built most of the time. When I play Rallul next I'll see what else would be interesting to include, probably more expensive commons like Time Mages or even more Rune Mages to combat the economic / defensive factions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterd View Post
    Also strongly disagree that factions that can do a lot of damage to walls quickly are of any danger, you have events to bring back walls, if someone spends resources to take down your walls, he is losing the game.

    The rest is all fine and I mostly agree with, good article!
    Agreed. I removed that line. Thanks!

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,429

    Default

    His units would be only AP mages, Stone golems and rune mages. And he would play mundol, Urick and Hulgorad. But I think maybe Duggle would be better instead of hulgorad, otherwise the deck becomes too expensive, he would most of the time only cast 2 champs, and burn the 3rd.

  10. #30

    Default

    I've added two new deck builds since the last update: Krusk & Selundar.

    Next up will probably be the last two first summoners (Tundle & Mugglug). I'm also working on Hogar, which is proving to be the hardest one sofar.

    I've also just realized this thread would be much more interesting if I actually post the deck build here (with how the deck building went) when I update. So I'll try that for this update. Also, as a reference, I tend to only play a very limited amount of games, so this is at least 50% pure analysis and the builds might be optimized after more play.

    Krusk deck build (no mercenaries, no alliance units)
    - 1 Silts
    - 1 Biter
    - 1 Sand Wyrm
    - 2 Scavenger (2 initially)
    - 6 Javelineer (2 initially)
    - 5 Shaman (1 initially) (only 5 in the pack, I'd include 7 online and remove a Javelineer & Slayer)
    - 5 Slayer

    This deck build was awhile ago, so I'm not entirely sure anymore how difficult I found it. From what I recall I wanted to make a deck build that would be able to be both aggressive and defensive / go common heavy or go champion heavy. Which is something I like in general when building decks. Champion wise I decided pretty quickly to include Biter & Silts due to their general value / flexibility. The last choice was the toughest one and I might change that one if Sand Wyrm doesn't live up to it's expectations. Common wise I dislike Bombers (not enough rewards for the risk) and Scavengers (more of a liability then an asset), so that made that choice pretty easy as it only leaves 3 commons to fill the deck.

    Selundar deck build (no mercenaries, no alliance units)
    - 1 Hydrake
    - 1 Melek
    - 1 Kuldrid
    - 6 Swordsman (3 initially)
    - 3 Ranger (2 initially)
    - 2 Scout (1 initially)
    - 5 Hunter (only 5 are included; online I'd probably include 6 and remove a Ranger)
    - 2 Blade Master

    I found this one of the easier Summoners to deck build due to it's inherent aptitude for aggression / lack of economic tools to win drawn out conflicts. Because of that I wanted to include lots of aggressive champions / commons. And I really like Hunters (and Swordsman); as they both throw two dice and Hunters can be summoned very flexibly. Also, economically, I dislike commons that throw little dice and are very likely to give up magic like Scouts and Rangers. The champions were the toughest selection. Melek was pretty much a certainty. Hydrake (high cost) / Kuldrid (high risk ability) I'm still not 100% sure about. Xaserbane might very well be exchanged at some point for Kuldrid or Hydrake.
    Last edited by Quantum; 11-07-2015 at 02:46 PM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •