Author Topic: New Expansion Pack? (Read 8324 times)

LordZardeck · « **on:** August 14, 2012, 09:48:58 PM »

Okay, so I've been off the scene a bit. Was there an expansion pack released at Nats?

Red · « **Reply #1 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:49:23 PM »

Nothing. nothing at all.

LordZardeck · « **Reply #2 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:52:38 PM »

Whoa. Really? The first year in forever they don't release a pack? Huh. Well, makes my job easier.

Red · « **Reply #3 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:53:27 PM »

Quote from: LordZardeck on August 14, 2012, 09:52:38 PM

Whoa. Really? The first year in forever they don't release a pack? Huh. Well, makes my job easier.

Starters coming out first of the year.

LordZardeck · « **Reply #4 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:56:05 PM »

Quote from: Red on August 14, 2012, 09:53:27 PM

Quote from: LordZardeck on August 14, 2012, 09:52:38 PM
Whoa. Really? The first year in forever they don't release a pack? Huh. Well, makes my job easier.
Starters coming out first of the year.

Aww. almost got out scott free. :p

Master KChief · « **Reply #5 on:** August 14, 2012, 10:24:56 PM »

I'm wondering if this will now push back the release date for all subsequent releases by half a year. :/

Drrek · « **Reply #6 on:** August 14, 2012, 10:26:28 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 14, 2012, 10:24:56 PM

I'm wondering if this will now push back the release date for all subsequent releases by half a year. :/

Actually I don't think this would be a bad thing. Seeing what happened with the previous set at nats each year while still being able to change the new sets could be good for the game.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 15, 2012, 12:56:36 AM »

Quote from: Drrek on August 14, 2012, 10:26:28 PM

Seeing what happened with the previous set at nats each year while still being able to change the new sets could be good for the game.

I think I disagree with this. Everyone knew that TGT and Thaddeus were problems well before their respective Nats. Nats doesn't turn up problems with play balance (if anything it helps cover them up). If the design team wasn't willing to nip TGT (for example) in the bud after nine months of tournament dominance--why would throwing Nats in there make any difference?

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #8 on:** August 15, 2012, 01:06:08 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 15, 2012, 12:56:36 AM

Quote from: Drrek on August 14, 2012, 10:26:28 PM
Seeing what happened with the previous set at nats each year while still being able to change the new sets could be good for the game.
I think I disagree with this. Everyone knew that TGT and Thaddeus were problems well before their respective Nats. Nats doesn't turn up problems with play balance (if anything it helps cover them up). If the design team wasn't willing to nip TGT (for example) in the bud after nine months of tournament dominance--why would throwing Nats in there make any difference?

Agree completely, people had ample time to playtest cards and now we are in a lull period...which sounds like a good number are going to take a break until after Christmas at this point...could be interesting to see what happens with the player base...

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #9 on:** August 15, 2012, 01:09:30 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 15, 2012, 12:56:36 AM

Everyone knew that TGT and Thaddeus were problems well before their respective Nats. Nats doesn't turn up problems with play balance (if anything it helps cover them up).

I disagree. Going into last year's Nats everyone was talking about how Thad was super-powerful, and thought that everyone would be playing Disciples offenses at Nats. But then we got to Nats, and there was actually a LOT less Disciples than I expected. On the other hand, the power of First Turn Mayhem was demonstrated in its full glory. Since cards had already come out we had to deal with this problem by creating new rules (Mayhem can't be played 1st turn anymore).

This year, I really thought that there would be a wide variety of decks at the top of Nats. Sam was strong (with several possible variations), but so was Genesis, and even Red. Plus the TGT decks and Disiciples decks looked like they still had potential as well. But then we got to Nats, and it turned out that almost all the top players were playing decks so similar that they just called them "The Deck". I really didn't expect that, and am glad that we now have the chance to at least talk about doing something with the new cards to help prevent Nats 2013 from just being a repeat of that.

Drrek · « **Reply #10 on:** August 15, 2012, 01:22:01 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 15, 2012, 01:09:30 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 15, 2012, 12:56:36 AM
Everyone knew that TGT and Thaddeus were problems well before their respective Nats. Nats doesn't turn up problems with play balance (if anything it helps cover them up).
I disagree. Going into last year's Nats everyone was talking about how Thad was super-powerful, and thought that everyone would be playing Disciples offenses at Nats. But then we got to Nats, and there was actually a LOT less Disciples than I expected. On the other hand, the power of First Turn Mayhem was demonstrated in its full glory. Since cards had already come out we had to deal with this problem by creating new rules (Mayhem can't be played 1st turn anymore).

This year, I really thought that there would be a wide variety of decks at the top of Nats. Sam was strong (with several possible variations), but so was Genesis, and even Red. Plus the TGT decks and Disiciples decks looked like they still had potential as well. But then we got to Nats, and it turned out that almost all the top players were playing decks so similar that they just called them "The Deck". I really didn't expect that, and am glad that we now have the chance to at least talk about doing something with the new cards to help prevent Nats 2013 from just being a repeat of that.

To be fair, while a large number of top player played "The Deck," and it was dominating halfway through T12P, several of us dropped out of the top 10 by the end, Chris had a very unique take on "The Deck", and there were actually a relatively good amount types of decks at the top in the end. I agree though that this year what ended up getting played was a rather large suprise.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 15, 2012, 08:20:38 AM »

These comment are sorta what I meant when I said Nats helps cover up problems more than reveal them.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 15, 2012, 01:09:30 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 15, 2012, 12:56:36 AM
Everyone knew that TGT and Thaddeus were problems well before their respective Nats. Nats doesn't turn up problems with play balance (if anything it helps cover them up).
I disagree. Going into last year's Nats everyone was talking about how Thad was super-powerful, and thought that everyone would be playing Disciples offenses at Nats. But then we got to Nats, and there was actually a LOT less Disciples than I expected.

Last year Disciples decks were a large proportion of the elite decks despite the fact that everyone and their brother knew they needed to tech against them. Yes, there was a smaller proportion of Disciples decks than TGT decks the couple of years before that, but that was because TGT was ridiculous. Disciples still distorted the game. It is a little surprising that the last set had few effective counters against Thad and brothers, given that by the time the card design was done everyone was expecting Disciples to rule.

Quote

On the other hand, the power of First Turn Mayhem was demonstrated in its full glory. Since cards had already come out we had to deal with this problem by creating new rules (Mayhem can't be played 1st turn anymore).

Just out of curiousity, what types of cards do you think would have been effective counters to Mayhem? You already had Nazareth, 4 Drachma Coin, and others that protect your hand.

Quote

This year, I really thought that there would be a wide variety of decks at the top of Nats. Sam was strong (with several possible variations), but so was Genesis, and even Red. Plus the TGT decks and Disiciples decks looked like they still had potential as well. But then we got to Nats, and it turned out that almost all the top players were playing decks so similar that they just called them "The Deck". I really didn't expect that, and am glad that we now have the chance to at least talk about doing something with the new cards to help prevent Nats 2013 from just being a repeat of that.

Players chose not to play Genesis/red and abandoned Disciples/TGT not because they were bad, but because they the judges/angels/splash prophets were OP and all the top players recognized that. TAUtO and Sam/Birth and Gideon/Isaiah were the cards that received the most complaints over the past year (were there any similar claims for Genesis or red?). All of them found a home in "The Deck" and played a featured role. We are really in trouble if it takes their performance in Nats before the PtB start contemplating adding some counters to protect-from-everything characters with free drawing.

Cards that distort the game are allowed to go on for multiple years with no effective counters being printed. Although I would like to hope that delaying until after Nats might help, I am dubious that one additional tournament will do enough to make that much better given the fact that tournament performance up to that point doesn't appear to have much effect.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #12 on:** August 15, 2012, 08:45:07 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 15, 2012, 08:20:38 AM

Yes, there was a smaller proportion of Disciples decks than TGT decks the couple of years before that...It is a little surprising that the last set had few effective counters against Thad and brothers,

Thanks for supporting my point that things have improved since creating TGT. And there were counters printed for Thad, primarily giving other slower brigades like Red, Prophets, and Judges more draw abilities so that people didn't feel that Disciples were the only theme with enough speed to compete. These counters seemed to work so well that almost no one played Thad at this year's Nats, so in a way that was another success. Granted that while the counters worked at dealing with the Thad problem, they also created another different problem that we'll need to deal with (namely stopping people from putting all the speed stuff and CBN stuff from many brigades all together in one deck).

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 15, 2012, 08:20:38 AM

We are really in trouble if it takes their performance in Nats before the PtB start contemplating adding some counters...I am dubious that one additional tournament will do enough to make that much better given the fact that tournament performance up to that point doesn't appear to have much effect.

We contemplate counters all through the year. However we are hesitant to pull the trigger on some until we've really had the chance to see how things work out once everyone gets together. Last year there was a lot of talk about a Type 1.5 deck down in Florida that was dominating the scene (and in fact beat a well respected long-term player, RTSmaniac, in a Regional tournament). This year, and all angel deck won the MN State tournament (which is arguably the most challenging state tournament in the country). But I'm really not interested in printing a bunch of cards to deal with those until they show what they can do against the country as a whole.

Red · « **Reply #13 on:** August 15, 2012, 09:38:06 AM »

People say that Gardensciples was nowhere during natz... Myself and Polarius piloted two gardensciples decks to tenth and sixth respectively. Of course tenth isn't that good but hey they still top tenned.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 15, 2012, 10:33:27 AM »

Honestly I'm not sure gardensciples should be a top tier offense anymore I would consider them tier 2 I played them all the way through the year and rarely beat a good Samuel deck. It took some what of a good draw to for me and a bad draw for my opponent to beat Sam.

I feel like Water Garden is much stronger then straight gardensciples and perhaps deserves to stay a tier 1 offense.

Red · « **Reply #15 on:** August 15, 2012, 11:37:31 AM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on August 15, 2012, 10:33:27 AM

Honestly I'm not sure gardensciples should be a top tier offense anymore I would consider them tier 2 I played them all the way through the year and rarely beat a good Samuel deck. It took some what of a good draw to for me and a bad draw for my opponent to beat Sam.

I feel like Water Garden is much stronger then straight gardensciples and perhaps deserves to stay a tier 1 offense.

Talk to Polarius. He smashed The Deck twice.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #16 on:** August 15, 2012, 03:00:47 PM »

Well The Deck although solid went 6-4 which is good for sure but obviously a beatable deck.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #17 on:** August 15, 2012, 03:24:40 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on August 15, 2012, 03:00:47 PM

Well The Deck although solid went 6-4 which is good for sure but obviously a beatable deck.

My version did. Here's a breakdown of how The Deck (with various differences, probably less than 10 cards though) ranked:

2nd place: John Earley
5th place: Matt Townsend (though separately built, so it had a few more differences)
7th place: Chris Ericson, Alex Olijar, Josh Brinkman
13th place: James Roepke (the original The Deck)
15th place: Andrew Wester
19th place: Nic Marshall (same as Townsend)
28th place: Blake Maust

Pol was my one loss that I really have nothing to complain about. He played it perfectly and dropped the Mayhem at a crucial time, which gave him a +20 card advantage or something ridiculous like that. I still wouldn't say "smashed" though. Pol's games against The Deck were 5-4, 5-3, and 3-5.

Chris · « **Reply #18 on:** August 15, 2012, 03:42:37 PM »

To clarify, half of the top 10 were within 10-15 cards of each other.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 15, 2012, 03:45:41 PM »

Yeah which is boring to be honest and the main reason I converted to type-2 in less then a year of playing redemption. type-1 became so similar, the majority of people play the same deck with slight variations. Nothing interesting new or exciting about that.

Drrek · « **Reply #20 on:** August 15, 2012, 03:48:45 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on August 15, 2012, 03:45:41 PM

Yeah which is boring to be honest and the main reason I converted to type-2 in less then a year of playing redemption. type-1 became so similar, the majority of people play the same deck with slight variations. Nothing interesting new or exciting about that.

I have to say though, while The Deck was very successful (except in my hands, where it wasn't really the Deck's fault in at least 2 of the games I lost), there still was a relatively good variety of decks at the top.

Chris · « **Reply #21 on:** August 15, 2012, 07:08:16 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on August 15, 2012, 10:33:27 AM

I feel like Water Garden is much stronger then straight gardensciples and perhaps deserves to stay a tier 1 offense.

Disagree. John Earley, the founder and most successful player of Water Garden dropped it this year after unsuccessful showings at states and regionals. There's no way anything other than spread offenses is tier one anymore.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 15, 2012, 07:12:57 PM »

That's probably true but if anything else was going to hang around on tier 1 besides spread I would think it would be Watergarden.

I will say I didnt know that about John.
It's still sad that only one offensive strategy is viable.

Chris · « **Reply #23 on:** August 15, 2012, 07:18:16 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on August 15, 2012, 07:12:57 PM

That's probably true but if anything else was going to hang around on tier 1 besides spread I would think it would be Watergarden.

I will say I didnt know that about John.
It's still sad that only one offensive strategy is viable.

I'm not sure where I'd put it, since I swore that Earley would win until I found out how bad Water Garden did this season. I think Disciples, Gardensciples, and Water Garden can all share a tier.

Gabe · « **Reply #24 on:** August 15, 2012, 07:22:19 PM »

The problem with Watergarden was not the offense, it was the defense. John himself told me that it just doesn't get many blocks against the current meta offenses.

News:

Author Topic: New Expansion Pack? (Read 8324 times)

Warrior_Monk

Chris

Chris

Chris