Cactus Game Design Message Boards

This is basically the same line of reasoning that lead to the creation of Stonewall.

A decktype I pioneered a few years back. I've only told like three people about it and it's taken a few hits the past few sets, but I may dust it off now that High Places is coming out.

well, what is it?

well, what is it?

Though I don't know myself, Pol did give a hint in his first post.  Apply similar reasoning to a defensive strategy.  The reasoning that I used (though not necessarily his) was to make your opponent not want to defend you (or put characters in play), since after battle their character would likely be discarded.  Perhaps a stonewall defense is one that either prevents or discourages your opponent from making rescue attempts.


Am I in the ballpark, Pol?  I like a good guessing game.

Stonewall is an offense?  Are you sure?  It's just not a very offensive name.  How would a wall made out of stone possibly do any attacking?

Whatever.  Anyways, when I can get my hands on High Places, I'll definitely be trying out making a pale green paralysis defense.

A warrior class enhancement on Ahimaaz won't work like you want it to.  They ruled a couple years back that Ahimaaz's ability activates and must complete before the WC enhancement can activate.  Therefore, if you withdraw, the enhancement never activates.  The best possible card to play on Ahimaaz was Sword (gray WC).  I pioneered that combo to great success in T1 and T2 for a few weeks before they made a ruling on it.  I did not lose a single game with those decks.... I am Holy + Ahimaaz + Sword.... your opponent lost 2 cards each turn from his hand.

Kirk

Oh well.  It would have been awkward trying to set up that combo anyways.  Thanks for the info.

Quote from: jtay on July 19, 2009, 10:59:48 PM

Stonewall is an offense?  Are you sure?  It's just not a very offensive name.  How would a wall made out of stone possibly do any attacking?

Rolling stonewall.

LOL.  Fixed.

The name stonewall is derived from the defense, but describes an entire deck.

Seriously though Stone wall is awesome I don't play something like it just because of my play style but it's so cool

You hated having to play against my Stonewall deck.  Or at least I think it is a Stonewall deck.

Pol has kept it shrouded in mystery unlike heroless which is obvious

HeroLESS?!?!?!?!  How can you win without heroes?  This is a complete mystery to me.   

answer: "I don't know."

I don't remember that thread, but as a former Heroless player, I would have to say that it was good because it was a perfect counter to Speed decks...which were quite popular in Heroless's heyday. I can't tell you how many times I played someone who drew out their whole deck in a few turns, only to have their huge offense run into a wall time and time again, before they just ran out of cards to play. Then I would convert an EC, play an AoC on their pitifully small defense, and walk in a few more times for the win.

I don't remember the record of my Heroless, except that I know I won at least two locals, a district, and took second at a regional, all while only losing one game (and it was a 3-2 loss, because my opponent activated Altar of Dagon and Lampstand and never attacked again for me to use my fort killer *grumble JSB grumble*).

Also, my least favorite card during that span was Chamber of Angels. It made me put a PotA in my black crimson deck. It's hard to decimate an offense when heroes with 10 or 12 strength just won't die.

Side battles, thats how heroless wins.