Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
33 Thousand Men is ridiculously overpowered. There's not even really any way it couldn't been seen as okay. I would change it to "If at any time during battle there are three or more Syrians in battle..." which, depending on the type of banding cards gray has (I really don't know), should theoretically be okay. Hadarezer is also quite overpowered. You can't really give possibly CBN protection of Lost Souls without a cost. I would say if you're discarding a card to search deck for a Syrian to protect, that would be okay.
I like Syrians of damascus though.
I like how an evil character that requires 2 other evil characters from the same theme to get bulletproof status is oh noes SO OP yet one angel to one s/a-less hero (that the angel can search deck for) granting bulletproof status is not. I will say again that I think offenses are too powerful and that the root cause of the speed/drawing epidemic is to accomplish getting these OP offensive cards faster. The easiest way I can see to balance that is not to try and curb speed (because it doesn't work) but to make defenses stronger.
You do realize that 33TM is just a moderately better version of a protect fort that only works while he's in battle and is far more vulnerable in territory than a fortress?
Quote from: browarod on October 23, 2011, 03:39:34 PMI like how an evil character that requires 2 other evil characters from the same theme to get bulletproof status is oh noes SO OP yet one angel to one s/a-less hero (that the angel can search deck for) granting bulletproof status is not. I will say again that I think offenses are too powerful and that the root cause of the speed/drawing epidemic is to accomplish getting these OP offensive cards faster. The easiest way I can see to balance that is not to try and curb speed (because it doesn't work) but to make defenses stronger.The angel under the oak and gideon together are terrible, and I don't think there should ever be CBN protect from everything, but at least there you can still do things to win the battle, like say protect lost souls from rescue, or use an end the battle card with your numbers being greater or something like that and he's still only a 6/6 and a stalemate or protecting lost souls from rescue still stops the rescue attempt. Having a 12/12 evil character CBN protected from everything is entirely broken since there is absolutely NO way to win the battle against it. You can't beat it by the numbers (since its just protected from your numbers anyway), and you can't remove it from battle.
The angel under the oak and gideon together are terrible, and I don't think there should ever be CBN protect from everything, but at least there you can still do things to win the battle, like say protect lost souls from rescue, or use an end the battle card with your numbers being greater or something like that and he's still only a 6/6 and a stalemate or protecting lost souls from rescue still stops the rescue attempt. Having a 12/12 evil character CBN protected from everything is entirely broken since there is absolutely NO way to win the battle against it. You can't beat it by the numbers (since its just protected from your numbers anyway), and you can't remove it from battle.
Quote from: Drrek on October 23, 2011, 04:56:08 PMThe angel under the oak and gideon together are terrible, and I don't think there should ever be CBN protect from everything, but at least there you can still do things to win the battle, like say protect lost souls from rescue, or use an end the battle card with your numbers being greater or something like that and he's still only a 6/6 and a stalemate or protecting lost souls from rescue still stops the rescue attempt. Having a 12/12 evil character CBN protected from everything is entirely broken since there is absolutely NO way to win the battle against it. You can't beat it by the numbers (since its just protected from your numbers anyway), and you can't remove it from battle. And that's a bad thing why? CBN battle winners do the same thing, you can't win the battle after those are played, so what's the difference? Defenses need more power if the game is ever going to balance out.
I really wouldn't call this unstoppable. I will consider either changing it to 3 in battle or CBI (rather than CBN) but I really don't think it's necessary. If it means Syrians become another viable defense in this meta then I think it will have accomplished more good than harm. Diversity in choice of decks is never a bad thing.
House of Rimmon doesn't protect from everything. Convert him or any of the other 2 Syrians and, oh look, no more protection in battle. Or use one of the many fort killers in the game to get rid of House and then do whatever you want to him. There are plentiful ways of getting around this, I don't anticipate the ability getting more than 2 blocks before any of the current offenses can get rid of him.
Most decks I've ever seen don't use in territory conversion (because you know with your current wording of the card, you couldn't hit any syrians while your in battle) and not everything has fort destruction, and even if you kill the fort, you have to have territory destruction in your deck anyway. The card is broken, its a simple as that, and your never going to be able to convince me or a lot of other people otherwise.
You're vastly underestimating this I think. Uzzah is considered one of the best ECs in the game, and that's because he's an autoblock, even though he has a cost. You're talking about at least one autoblock, and more than likely more unless your opponent is using Luke or Holy Grail. The point I'm trying to make is that, unless every offense techs for Syrians, and adds fort discard and conversion (the latter of which can be compensated for with Altar of Dagon, with Temple of Dagon so you don't waste an artifact slot).
Exactly, it would be no different. People hate TGT, and people hate Thad. I don't believe any strategy in the game should have to be teched for, unless you're specifically building an anti-meta deck.
postcount.add(1);