Let's chat: Katophrane decks

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, CJPT said:

Beta rule update!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/05/15/may-14th-warhammer-underworlds-beta-rules-announcedgw-homepage-post-2/

Relics now cost 2 glory to play, and GW will be running this beta rule at future events that they run (perhaps including the LondonGT Grand Clash this week?)

My gf and I were pondering what GW could do to keep nest W:U and current W:U (Shadespire) compatible without the new one being just a re-skin.  We thought that some objects requiring more than one Glory would be a fun new addition.  Maybe GW feels the same and this is a preview?

 

Also regarding the conversation about differing playstyles between hobby games and TCGs and between different types of players within each, I agree with @Skulltula that it's on GW to decide - and they have.  Underworlds is their self-proclaimed competitive game.  A new gamer picking it up would have very, very little to indicate to them that they just got into a hobby.  It's positioned as a tournament-focused competition. The fun comes from the win. It's like Hearthstone - the only investment is money (or the time it takes to replace purchases with lots of wins and slow build). There is no real concern for the flow of the game, what makes "sense" to go in a deck from a thematic view (I have "Orruk" cards in my Axes, for example), or really even the interaction of players.

 

You can layer those things on of course, but that is not the game GW has created or sold here. That's what pretty much every other GW game is for - the hobby, the artistry, the interaction, etc.  Not Warhammer Underworlds.

 

I'd also like to add that one of the benefits of having a game like this vs. a hobby game is that they can make instant changes to rules - even swapping back to prior versions - without wrecking an players commitment to the deck.  By this I mean that it's not like a player spends lots of money on models, then weeks or months painting them, just to find two days before an event that they have an unplayable army.  In Underworlds, you've lost nothing.  The cards are not even collectible, so there is really no loss when your deck gets thumped by the designers. I really like that aspect of it.  GW has set up a great system here. It's even better than Hearthstone where you may have 'destroyed' card you paid money to get just to craft other cards - that are then consigned to Wild play only (for the uninitiated, Wild play is where all the non-current expansions go - after two years, many of the cards you purchased or earned can no longer be used in most of the games you will play).

[TheOtherJosh]

Having lost to a Stormcast Katophranes deck in my last tournament with my opponent holed up in the back corner of their map doing nothing other than hiding, anything to get more interaction would be good. That game was the least interactive of all of my games at the event and my least favorite.

I feel that the beta change is solid initial initial attempt at a solution without redoing the relic cards themselves. If it changes the dynamic slightly for the relic deck player to require more than just sitting in the back corner of the map... that would be positive.

[Malakree]

15 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

I feel that the beta change is solid initial initial attempt at a solution without redoing the relic cards themselves. If it changes the dynamic slightly for the relic deck player to require more than just sitting in the back corner of the map... that would be positive.

I'm trying to work out how, if at all, this will affect my aggressive relic deck. The big issue is that I really want the 2/3 up for the second round, that said I will gladly sacrifice my current experimental deck if it ensures that the Steelhearts Relics is rendered to the annals of history.

[Skulltula]

2 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said:

Having lost to a Stormcast Katophranes deck in my last tournament with my opponent holed up in the back corner of their map doing nothing other than hiding, anything to get more interaction would be good. That game was the least interactive of all of my games at the event and my least favorite.

I feel that the beta change is solid initial initial attempt at a solution without redoing the relic cards themselves. If it changes the dynamic slightly for the relic deck player to require more than just sitting in the back corner of the map... that would be positive.

It won’t change the dynamic for a competitive relic deck because competitive relic decks do not exist. It was a package of 7 cards basically that traded the ability to mulligan for silly glory if your game plan worked. Now the cost is a lot higher on it and I don’t think relics themselves are worth the risk any more than Claim the City is for Guard.

for the defensive deck you faced...it can still run the same objectives, ploys (maybe swap spoils of battle) and upgrades (6 slots and arguably deathly fortitude loses attractiveness if moving turn 3 can happen) and run the same plan. Unless your margin of loss was less than 16 (assuming they went off) then the bad news is you didn’t lose because they had relics. You lost to being controlled.

[Malakree]

2 hours ago, Skulltula said:

for the defensive deck you faced...it can still run the same objectives, ploys (maybe swap spoils of battle) and upgrades (6 slots and arguably deathly fortitude loses attractiveness if moving turn 3 can happen) and run the same plan. Unless your margin of loss was less than 16 (assuming they went off) then the bad news is you didn’t lose because they had relics. You lost to being controlled.

Which is exactly the issue I have with the beta fix.

It targets the win condition without actually hitting the core problem of the deck, that being the objectives deck it's running. Honestly my opinion is they will end up banning half the objective cards the deck runs. Bloodless, Sigmar's Bulwark, Honest Opponent, Perfect Planning and Concecrated Area all not only promote avoiding interacting with your opponent, they actively punish it. They are the root of the problem rather than Katophrane's and until they're dealt with any sniff of a win condition will make the deck go nuts.

Also Honorable mention to Great Concussion which I believe is the only mandatory inclusion in every deck no matter what you're doing? The fact it makes alone in the dark hilariously easy for 2 glory is the icing on the cake for it.

My hope is that with round 2 of the releases they will ban those 6 cards (the 5 objectives+GC) from competitive play and be careful not to release anything similar in the future. 

[Goblin-King]

So GW is kinda making a statement they want "interactive" gameplay. That is fair, I can respect that. 
This seems to be a recent realization though, as why else in the world would they make those non-interactive objectives in the first place then?

[mmimzie]

I think none interactive objectives are okay. I see none interactive objectives as being like lands in other resource cards in other TCGs. 

 

You kind of need those cards to unlock half of your power deck, and all of your game olan, whatever it may be. 

 

That said easy objectives shouldn't score you more than 1 pt. 

[acadmo]

6 hours ago, Skulltula said:

It won’t change the dynamic for a competitive relic deck because competitive relic decks do not exist. It was a package of 7 cards basically that traded the ability to mulligan for silly glory if your game plan worked. Now the cost is a lot higher on it and I don’t think relics themselves are worth the risk any more than Claim the City is for Guard.

for the defensive deck you faced...it can still run the same objectives, ploys (maybe swap spoils of battle) and upgrades (6 slots and arguably deathly fortitude loses attractiveness if moving turn 3 can happen) and run the same plan. Unless your margin of loss was less than 16 (assuming they went off) then the bad news is you didn’t lose because they had relics. You lost to being controlled.

Well at least it pushes objective decks back into the meta, ever so slightly, as one Great Concussion is  not enough to stop them, but free 16  power in last turn was.  The defensive stormcast cannot sit back while obj deck scores upwards of 5 points per turn. They have Great Concussion? Okay, just score Supremacy next turn.

Also, can we stop calling passive, "sitting in the corner decks" control decks? I very much respect control players from the days of Magic, however playing passive stormcast is anything but. Control, in an aggro matchup was under great pressure since turn one, and often the game could end after one crucial decision that went wrong. You also needed to smartly conserve your rescources, knowing when not to counter or kill creatures while waiting for bigger threats. Playing control required a great deal of decision making.

Passive Stormcast is not pressured at all, it actually puts the pressure on your opponent, and not by smart decisions but by setting fighters as far as possible, without thinking. People playing against it are not losing to ""being controlled", they are losing to the strategy of mindlessly pushing the draw button.

In it's gameplan, the deck is much more similar to Burn deck or some aggro deck like 8Whack Goblins. It executes the same moves over and over, with little regard  for what opponent is doing and no interaction other than dealing more damage(getting glory points). Calling it "control" unnecessairly dignifies it.

Skaven, Fyreslayers and obviously Guard are all much more similar in their playstyle to what could be called control, at least in Shadespire.

[Red_Zeke]

19 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I'd also like to add that one of the benefits of having a game like this vs. a hobby game is that they can make instant changes to rules - even swapping back to prior versions - without wrecking an players commitment to the deck.  By this I mean that it's not like a player spends lots of money on models, then weeks or months painting them, just to find two days before an event that they have an unplayable army.  In Underworlds, you've lost nothing.  The cards are not even collectible, so there is really no loss when your deck gets thumped by the designers. I really like that aspect of it. 

Really great point, and one I hadn't considered, but I think it really explains why I feel so much more comfortable with "on the fly" changes.

[Skulltula]

3 hours ago, Red_Zeke said:

Really great point, and one I hadn't considered, but I think it really explains why I feel so much more comfortable with "on the fly" changes.

Yep, this is actually a positive point.

the key thing is they don’t do it too frequently and as an excuse for balance. Hearthstone is particularly tiring for frequent upheavals.

My main concern from this whole experience is how the game shapes out. If as some people would seem to prefer the game becomes purely combat then to my mind the TCG element is dead and I’ve lost interest. If we’re reduced to different combat factions, whether to increase dice or damage then that’s solveable in an afternoon with a calculator. The act of having to build a deck capable of competing with someone who may have a different plan is the element that I’m interested in and keeps things fresh a lot longer.

[Malakree]

3 hours ago, Skulltula said:

Yep, this is actually a positive point.

the key thing is they don’t do it too frequently and as an excuse for balance. Hearthstone is particularly tiring for frequent upheavals.

My main concern from this whole experience is how the game shapes out. If as some people would seem to prefer the game becomes purely combat then to my mind the TCG element is dead and I’ve lost interest. If we’re reduced to different combat factions, whether to increase dice or damage then that’s solveable in an afternoon with a calculator. The act of having to build a deck capable of competing with someone who may have a different plan is the element that I’m interested in and keeps things fresh a lot longer.

Specifically a Warband should be spending the majority of their actions on activating fighters in one manner or another.

Additionally anything which carries some level of risk (attempting to claim objectives, attacking into enemy territory, attempting to defend your territory or trying to kill enemy fighters) should be STRICTLY better than something which carries less risk and/or disengages from the opponent. 

If a deck doesn't care about territory, fighting or objectives then it should lose to those that do the majority of the time. It should never been the best deck in the game.

[mmimzie]

4 hours ago, Skulltula said:

Yep, this is actually a positive point.

the key thing is they don’t do it too frequently and as an excuse for balance. Hearthstone is particularly tiring for frequent upheavals.

My main concern from this whole experience is how the game shapes out. If as some people would seem to prefer the game becomes purely combat then to my mind the TCG element is dead and I’ve lost interest. If we’re reduced to different combat factions, whether to increase dice or damage then that’s solveable in an afternoon with a calculator. The act of having to build a deck capable of competing with someone who may have a different plan is the element that I’m interested in and keeps things fresh a lot longer.

I'll say most of the heartstone community have been of the opinion that changes have been coming far too slowly. They have a similar but less dramatic rotation than say magic the gather, and  they some times do a once per 6 month card needing  (into oblivion <. < similar to what sorta happened to the relics).  If you think hearthstone is constant uphival  steer clear of aos 2.0 and 40k.

 

8 minutes ago, Malakree said:

Specifically a Warband should be spending the majority of their actions on activating fighters in one manner or another.

Additionally anything which carries some level of risk (attempting to claim objectives, attacking into enemy territory, attempting to defend your territory or trying to kill enemy fighters) should be STRICTLY better than something which carries less risk and/or disengages from the opponent. 

If a deck doesn't care about territory, fighting or objectives then it should lose to those that do the majority of the time. It should never been the best deck in the game.

That or the margin for success should be exceedingly narrow. So much so that it will require you to in some way interfere with your opponent game plan to succeed.

[Skulltula]

7 minutes ago, Malakree said:

Specifically a Warband should be spending the majority of their actions on activating fighters in one manner or another.

Additionally anything which carries some level of risk (attempting to claim objectives, attacking into enemy territory, attempting to defend your territory or trying to kill enemy fighters) should be STRICTLY better than something which carries less risk and/or disengages from the opponent. 

If a deck doesn't care about territory, fighting or objectives then it should lose to those that do the majority of the time. It should never been the best deck in the game.

You're talking at cross purposes to me, I don't object to a risk vs reward weighting where the riskier actions are rewarded better. I imagine that's why you receive a glory point for killing. But expecting an opponent to just meekly comply with combat? No thanks if you're better prepared for it. The fight can be on my terms. If you like, think of my plucky band of unlikely lads, trying to merely survive the cursed city...seeking and attuning relics of legend to attain godhood.

In seriousness though, a majority of the meta plays aggro currently. You are built to find the additional damage, to snowball glory off it and then dominate. All we were doing is exposing the greed of such a plan. You'll have to bake in a bit of movement and/or some passive glory yourself. That seems fair to me - I have to put in +wounds and soultrap etc. and have to pack pushes for hold objective decks. The latter who should outscore and expose my greed in not being prepared to engage over the objectives. The problem is GW printed a really silly card in Great Concussion to go with multiple other hosers. I will happily support some kind of disarming where Great Concussion can FRO and we lose some objectives and have to engage a bit more. That would be a bit more balanced.

[Skulltula]

11 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

I'll say most of the heartstone community have been of the opinion that changes have been coming far too slowly. They have a similar but less dramatic rotation than say magic the gather, and  they some times do a once per 6 month card needing  (into oblivion <. < similar to what sorta happened to the relics).  If you think hearthstone is constant uphival  steer clear of aos 2.0 and 40k.

 

That or the margin for success should be exceedingly narrow. So much so that it will require you to in some way interfere with your opponent game plan to succeed.

Hearthstone isn't so much the constant upheaval...it's the constant having to live with ****** half the calendar, half where the ****** has been nuked from orbit. Then they break it again and the cycle continues. It's much closer to Yu-Gi-Oh in that respect and that was a game I walked away from as a result.

I am interfering with my opponent's game plan. A considerable amount of times, s/he wants to bash me over the head. Preferably with me having walked on up there. Instead I've cunningly walked backwards and it appears he has no kind of cunning plan other than walking after me, through distraction and various loud noises,  awaiting a wall to assist him. If only he'd enlisted the help of a can of red bull (it gives you wings) or not skipped those leg days...

I mean, it's not like the odd bit of speed and movement couldn't get into my models and interfere with my game plan to keep my armor clean...

[Malakree]

11 minutes ago, Skulltula said:

I am interfering with my opponent's game plan. A considerable amount of times, s/he wants to bash me over the head. Preferably with me having walked on up there. Instead I've cunningly walked backwards and it appears he has no kind of cunning plan other than walking after me, through distraction and various loud noises,  awaiting a wall to assist him. If only he'd enlisted the help of a can of red bull (it gives you wings) or not skipped those leg days...

I mean, it's not like the odd bit of speed and movement couldn't get into my models and interfere with my game plan to keep my armor clean...

If we drew our entire power decks that would be fine, problem is there's only one deck that reliably does that. Even putting spectral wings, shardgale, trap and hidden paths into a deck doesn't allow you to reliably interrupt it if they win the board setup roll. That's using an inspired Farstrider with 8 hex threat range...

The Steelhearts Relic deck is a cancer upon the game, you might like but honestly it should never have existed and deserves to be killed dead. More importantly measures need to be taken to ensure that nothing similar rises again. There are three ways a deck should be trying to win a game.

• Territory
• Objectives
• Fighting

[acadmo]

1 hour ago, Skulltula said:

I am interfering with my opponent's game plan. A considerable amount of times, s/he wants to bash me over the head. Preferably with me having walked on up there. Instead I've cunningly walked backwards and it appears he has no kind of cunning plan other than walking after me, through distraction and various loud noises,  awaiting a wall to assist him. If only he'd enlisted the help of a can of red bull (it gives you wings) or not skipped those leg days...

I mean, it's not like the odd bit of speed and movement couldn't get into my models and interfere with my game plan to keep my armor clean...

You are not though. You are only interfering with his plan before playing the actual game - at the deckbuilding stage. During the game you hardly do anything to interact with your opponent. So you might have outsmarted their deck but not outplayed them during the game. You winning just doesn't feel right, since we usually want to be awarded for good play and punished for bad. In the case of playing against kato/passive stormcast this doesn't  work - since the game rewards it for staying as far from any interaction as possible, it "does not have to do anything" and wins. At the same time it cuts away any decisions for your opponent and makes the game boring.

For most people deckbuilding aspect of this game is minor and the gameplay takes precedence over it. If a deck completly removes out the latter it soaks the fun out of the game. I understand you like the TCG aspect of it but there is plenty of room for deckbuilding - decks based on aggression, decks based on holding objectives, hybrids, all of which reward skill both in deckbuilding and during the gameplay.

There is no room however(or at least there shouldn't be any if we want this game to survive) for the decks that go directly against the idea of what this game is about - interaction. And from my experience no one finds this type of gameplay fun, even the players using the deck themselves.

[Keget]

Hello all,

I am long time reader, but first time poster.  I don't want defensive decks to disappear, but don't want them to be able to not be engaged at all.

My suggestion is to outlaw the long board placement.  Thoughts?

 It seems to me that without long placement, it gives the opponent of the most defensive army a chance to engage and play the game.

If enough people like the idea I will submit it.

Thanks,

Keget

[Skulltula]

1 hour ago, Keget said:

Hello all,

I am long time reader, but first time poster.  I don't want defensive decks to disappear, but don't want them to be able to not be engaged at all.

My suggestion is to outlaw the long board placement.  Thoughts?

 It seems to me that without long placement, it gives the opponent of the most defensive army a chance to engage and play the game.

If enough people like the idea I will submit it.

Thanks,

Keget

The reason long board placement exists is because there has to be something other than just meet in the middle and fight. If that's literally the only element of the game, then it's a case of picking the warband with the best model stats and attack cards and trying to just win the brawl.

The long board exists to give warbands that aren't immediately favoured in a brawl an advantage sometimes. Or to balance the match for such as Dwarves and Farstriders who have builds that change their plan based on the opponent.

It's not about 'giving the chance to engage and play' through changing the rules. That's wanting to have your cake and eat it. There's a clear intention when you look at the card pool and the mechanics that the developers intended you to get round this problem through use of speed. Either by some warbands being more attractive naturally (Skaven, Reavers, Farstriders) or through power cards to improve your lot. Increase your own chance to engage.

 

The onus is on you to build a better mousetrap. The problem I'm seeing for a lot of players is their deck is running trap and twist the knife, every ploy they can squeeze in to get more attacks, double strength upgrades and all the attack based equipment, weapons for their weaker models, oh and some healing and health buffs maybe to be better against the opponent doing the same...you're giving yourself the best advantage in straight up fights, but that comes at a cost when it comes to moving over the board. You might have to make the choice most competitive games with building elements enforce...do I want to be better against A at the cost of being worse against B? Otherwise we'll just build an aggro deck that's the oppressive deck that just beats everything and that's not healthy either.

 

As for the defensive player, there's no difference in one sense between hold objective and turtle in that neither are keen on you coming over and attacking. The difference on objective is it's more likely due to how they get deployed. That was fine when the potential reward (keys, Supremacy) was big enough to balance the risk. In fact I played objective Skaven mainly prior to the latest release. But GW kinda screwed the pooch with Great Concussion and right now it's a better chance of winning to play a turtle deck that has a lower max score but more consistently wins games.

[PlasticCraic]

Very interesting topic this one, for someone like me who enjoys the game but doesn't play very often / keep up with the meta.

We are relatively inexperienced with this game and last week I stumbled across this issue in microcosm.  We both picked up the new expansion sets, and my friend went with Magore's Fiends (we both thought they stood out as particularly powerful), and I went with the Farstriders.  We both have all sets available, but haven't played a huge amount of games. 

Straight away I looked at it and thought if I step into the lion's den, I'm screwed.  No way can I go toe to toe with these guys.  So I built what I called an avoidance deck (don't know if that's the common terminology or not).  Lots of pushes, Objectives based around not getting hit, standing next to each other or on the board edge, etc.  He stacked his deck with maximum killing power and barely got to swing an axe in anger. 

We both assessed it afterwards and agreed that he'd been greedy in his build.  "Skipping leg day" is exactly the right terminology - he'd win the fist fight anyway, why try to table me Round 2?

We're going to do the reverse matchup this weekend.  I can't guarantee that he will go avoidance, but I know I won't be blowing my whole Magore deck on redundant killing power.  

One card I will definitely take is the one that lets you appear on a board edge - you will be deep striking straight into melee.

NB I'm not trying to claim that I'm some sort of genius for building an avoidance deck, I'm sure that everyone reading this is better than me at this game.  Just pointing out that logically you can do more engage an aggro build and help it "get there", rather than turning the aggro up to 11.  That being said I could agree with @Keget that banning the "long board" would not be a bad move.  

[PlasticCraic]

I hope that doesn't come across as rude to those people who do have an issue with avoidance decks, especially considering you know the game better than I do.  I do find it very interesting to discuss and can see both sides - I have definitely had more fun going out krumpin' with my Orruks, and once you're actually in game it's fair to say that there isn't a lot of difficult decision making with avoidance.

And I should say I'm talking about avoidance decks in general here, as opposed to Katophrane in particular.  I have no particular problem with what they've done in the Beta rules - particularly in a Grand Clash where the magnitude of victory matters greatly, and the amount of glory can get a bit daft. 

But I think what nudges me towards "come up with a solution" rather than "swing the nerf bat again" is that we all have a great range of tools at our disposal.  I believe those answers are out there.  I definitely find it harder to win games with my Chosen Axes than my Boyz for example, but in AOS terms when I use my Gutbusters against Khorne it's like I'm playing a different game.

[acadmo]

@PlasticCraic Great to see new people come and enjoy the game.

There is no problem with defensive decks per se, there is only a problem with their consistency. Base stormcast hit the critical mass of passive objectives which lets them hit upwards of 5, 6, 7 points each game for not doing anything. If they can use this to generate further 16 glory it is just unfair. Without kato though they are not as oppresive and i am hopeful that holding obj decks can still outscore them.

There are still two concerns with the game that only become apparent when playing against them tho.

1. Inadequate cardpool. There are ploys to make you faster but thats it. There are vast amounts of cards that can directly stop aggresive based objectives and hold based objectives - great concussion, earthquake, mischevious spirits all of which say "you do not score this round". Last Stand, healing potiond, Indomitable, my turn are their aggresive equivalents. There are no cards that say "you do not score passive objectives". The closest we have is Hidden paths and a number of things can go wrong with it, mainly you not hitting the target and even if you did getting instagibbed by 3 stormcast. I think introducing a few cards that interact with opponents movement if they are on edge hexes like reverse hidden paths or just making them do a normal move withoit adding the token would go a long way.

2. Unfair card advantage. Due to the fact that the passive decks do not need to move they can generate huge hands and thus overwhelm their opponents with options. It doesn't help that they can draw any ploy they want and you can just hope to topdeck spectral wings or hidden paths.

None of this problems appear when playing against holding objectives deck as they still need to move to score and can be countered with cards or even the combat, dreaded by some. That is why they are such well designed element of the game as opposed to poorly thought out base stormcast and neutral passive objectives.

[Karol]

On 5/16/2018 at 12:19 AM, TheOtherJosh said:

Having lost to a Stormcast Katophranes deck in my last tournament with my opponent holed up in the back corner of their map doing nothing other than hiding, anything to get more interaction would be good. That game was the least interactive of all of my games at the event and my least favorite.

I feel that the beta change is solid initial initial attempt at a solution without redoing the relic cards themselves. If it changes the dynamic slightly for the relic deck player to require more than just sitting in the back corner of the map... that would be positive.

My expiriance with card cames comes from MtG, and while it isn't great, the Katophrane decks seem to be control decks, and those always play more or less solitaire, and the counter to them are always either some sort of rush decks and mirror matchs that go to time. I know it ain't fun to play when your opponent plays his own game for 30 min, but decks like that are needed to otherwise everything would be dominated by mid range decks, or if the game really degenrates by aggro.

 

2 hours ago, acadmo said:

Unfair card advantage. Due to the fact that the passive decks do not need to move they can generate huge hands and thus overwhelm their opponents with options. It doesn't help that they can draw any ploy they want and you can just hope to topdeck spectral wings or hidden paths. 

That is kind of a how control works, they draw their deck faster or more efficient with tutor cards. If they didn't have that ability the deck would be just bad, and wouldn't be played. And I doubt all the people who bought all the starters to get all the cards for their katophrane decks, want to now hear they wasted money.

[acadmo]

@Karol You are right, Katophrane decks are solitaire decks, they shouldn't however be called control decks for the reasons I have posted above.

Also don't know where you get "control decks are uninteractive" meme from. This might be true for few degenerate decks like Lantern Control but most of them are the epitome of reactiveness and interactivity. Whole early game of control deck, mid game too, is searching for right answers and reacting to threats accordingly.

In general I am opposed to using Mtg terms when talking about Shadespire decks, since due to how the game is structured, we are tempted to call the decks that like to fight aggro and less keen on it control. This does not work at all though.

Control decks in Magic are revered for the amount of decisions one needs to make and make well in order to win with them. Aggro on the other hand is often scoffed at for apparent mindlessnes in which it executes its gameplan.

In Shadespire, a skirmish game, however, most of the decisions made are made during the combat. Thus it is aggresive decks that have most to lose for playing wrong, and most to gain for playing right. The passive decks remove almost all decision making and as you said are playing solitaire. It is completly opposite of what is expected of controll in mtg sense of the word.

I can't force anyone not to use these terms but I think it would be best if we would stick to aggresive - passive - objective based as the definitions in order not to confuse ourselves with the implicit meanings mtg terms have.

 

[Skulltula]

So...what is anyone else's thoughts on competitive viability of the relics (the 6 cards themselves) now with the beta changes?

I'll nail my flag straight to the mast - I think they're borderline unplayable in a competitive sense. They now represent too much of a downside compared to just running more straightforward equipment and the cost of trying to equip them is prohibitively expensive. Not in terms of just 'defensive Stormcast can't use them' but in terms of any deck using them will win less games in the long run than if they replaced them with awakened weapon, trusted defender and 4 upgrades chosen at random.

[Anthony225]

Yeah I think 1 glory per relic is to little while 2 glory per relic is to much. Not sure what else they could do about it though.

Maybe something like relics cost 1 glory like normal, but they can only be played one time every other action or max 2 times per phase. So max you could play is 2 per phase.     Or maybe just say you can't play more than 3 per phase.     Or you can only play a number of relics equal to the phase #. So 1st phase you can play 1, 2nd phase you play 2, etc... That way at the very least the opponent would have a chance to play ploys to disrupt the Kato player or they'd at least know which fighter will have the relics during the game.

Idk, it'd be pretty hard to change them without modifying the physical card rules at all.