Author Topic: The Viability of Defense Heavy with the New Rules (Read 6380 times)

Chronic Apathy · « **on:** March 15, 2012, 10:11:24 PM »

Thoughts? I'm undecided as of right now how much more viable this makes defense heavy.

Redoubter · « **Reply #1 on:** March 15, 2012, 10:20:04 PM »

Well if some people get their way and it is 2-3 doms on each alignment, you'll have to run a heavy defense. Where before you could Grapes to get rid of a huge banding chain, SoG to rescue defensively, Bury a 2-liner (or other accessible soul), CM a hero in territory to stop a combo or single hero in battle, Mayhem for a lot of reasons (both offense and defense, granted), DoN for pesky artifacts that result in your demise, Fall Away a soul, and on and on, you only have a couple of options.

I see two things likely to come of this:
1. Defense is played even less because of the need to speed faster, and it becomes even more luck-based.
2. Defense is played more, but still can't stop everything all those doms could do and be small enough for a good offense, and people resort to option 1 to compensate.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #2 on:** March 15, 2012, 11:48:16 PM »

Now that people can only rescue their opponent's LSs, there will be less incentive to draw out their deck so quickly as they'll have to wait for LSs to be available. Considering that offenses are already capable of drawing out their deck extremely quickly, there is no need to put in more speed.

Therefore, all the doms that come out will probably be replaced with either 1) defense or 2) more ways to win battles or 3) LS generation. 2 of those will lead to more battles, and therefore more interaction.

Redoubter · « **Reply #3 on:** March 15, 2012, 11:54:35 PM »

To clarify/qualify my statement, it was based on the 2-3 dom rule suggestion/option. I am a firm believer that dom cap is a good idea, but I think that goes too far to the other extreme and see it being detrimental to the ability to block in the end.

Ken4Christ4ever · « **Reply #4 on:** March 16, 2012, 10:14:23 AM »

It would make huge decks more viable.

I would have no problem taking out Mayhem and then my deck would only have 2 good and 2 evil dominants in 154 cards. There would also be less that my opponent could do against me that I couldn't protect against, so I would enjoy that change...

stefferweffer · « **Reply #5 on:** March 16, 2012, 10:48:52 AM »

Quote from: Ken4Christ4ever on March 16, 2012, 10:14:23 AM

It would make huge decks more viable. I would have no problem taking out Mayhem and then my deck would only have 2 good and 2 evil dominants in 154 cards. There would also be less that my opponent could do against me that I couldn't protect against, so I would enjoy that change...

I agree. I'm optimistic for more competitive 70 card decks (which would allow for 9 dominants).

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #6 on:** March 16, 2012, 01:56:50 PM »

I honestly think legit defensive decks are even less viable with the new rules. The intrinsic problem with defense is that every defensive card in your deck inherently is in opposition to the way in which you win the game (rescuing souls) because it contributes nothing to that goal. Because these rules are designed to make that goal harder, I see no reason to add more defense.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 16, 2012, 02:14:53 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on March 16, 2012, 01:56:50 PM

I honestly think legit defensive decks are even less viable with the new rules. The intrinsic problem with defense is that every defensive card in your deck inherently is in opposition to the way in which you win the game (rescuing souls) because it contributes nothing to that goal. Because these rules are designed to make that goal harder, I see no reason to add more defense.

? If anything defensive heavy just got a lot better. Now your opponent has to choose between cards like Mayhem, Grapes, Goys, Destruction... etc all of which help offenses in the early game and you don't. Sure you can't auto block with SoG NJ but then again the best defensive decks won't have NJ anyway.

Master KChief · « **Reply #8 on:** March 16, 2012, 02:19:13 PM »

I dunno, I think decks can still go all aggro with their dominant selection. Lampstand can still cover a lot of bases.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #9 on:** March 16, 2012, 02:20:05 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on March 16, 2012, 01:56:50 PM

I honestly think legit defensive decks are even less viable with the new rules. The intrinsic problem with defense is that every defensive card in your deck inherently is in opposition to the way in which you win the game (rescuing souls) because it contributes nothing to that goal. Because these rules are designed to make that goal harder, I see no reason to add more defense.

I've always said that the goal of Redemption is to rescue five lost souls faster. With that slight change in mind, defense becomes important, as it slows down your opponent.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #10 on:** March 16, 2012, 02:22:27 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on March 16, 2012, 02:19:13 PM

I dunno, I think decks can still go all aggro with their dominant selection. Lampstand can sitll cover a lot of bases.

Which is exactly what is going to happen. There's virtually no point of playing Falling Away or Burial now, because every aggro deck worth anything is just going to plop in a Lampstand, and use a spread of SoG, NJ, Grapes, Angel, Harvest Time, CM, and Mayhem.

Quote from: SomeKittens on March 16, 2012, 02:20:05 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on March 16, 2012, 01:56:50 PM
I honestly think legit defensive decks are even less viable with the new rules. The intrinsic problem with defense is that every defensive card in your deck inherently is in opposition to the way in which you win the game (rescuing souls) because it contributes nothing to that goal. Because these rules are designed to make that goal harder, I see no reason to add more defense.
I've always said that the goal of Redemption is to rescue five lost souls faster. With that slight change in mind, defense becomes important, as it slows down your opponent.

That's fine, but heavy defensive decks are crippled by not having much space for offense. I'm a big fan of WS, but the fact is, it's not a viable deck type because it only has one way to win the game. The key to winning games is having options. Big defense decks force your offense to be largely a one trick pony, and then hope your opponent can't stop that trick.

Master KChief · « **Reply #11 on:** March 16, 2012, 02:25:59 PM »

I do think though Dom cap is a step in the right direction. Drawing 1 card is still harder than drawing 1 of 2 luck-sack cards.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #12 on:** March 16, 2012, 02:32:11 PM »

I agree with Alex (in that the key to winning is to have options. I don't agree that defense heavy is less viable). For a while now, I've said that that when building a deck, the most important concept is utility in many situations.

Although, RDT, Hanno(numbers), and Westy all disagree with me, so.............

Then again, what Westy thinks is kind of stupid...... <3.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #13 on:** March 16, 2012, 09:09:32 PM »

I'm not sure that defensive heavy got more viable but I think that balanced decks became a lot stronger. The reason being that there is more room to put in a larger than standalone defense. I really think that this will bring about a lot more magicians defenses, and will probably serve to expand on Babylonians too.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #14 on:** March 17, 2012, 02:47:20 PM »

Defense heavy will always be bad, if for no other reason than timeouts. Balanced decks may be better. The biggest change is not the dom cap, but the end of FTM and the soul rescuing rule. You can draw out your whole deck in 3 turns if you want, Sam, but you'll just have to sit in the back and wait while I D3 every turn and spend stretches of time with no LS's. The loss of SoG on Shuffler takes away another speed block, many speed decks won't be able to fit Burial so that takes care of Lost Souls+Burial, and balanced decks will be able to fit Burial which means more time without LS's to rescue.

Overall, speed will always be around. But this is a step toward making it merely viable, rather than required.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #15 on:** March 17, 2012, 03:14:00 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 17, 2012, 02:47:20 PM

Defense heavy will always ~~be bad~~ lose at nats, if for no other reason than timeouts. Balanced decks may be better.

Overall, speed will always be around. But this is a step toward making it merely viable, rather than required.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #16 on:** March 18, 2012, 03:33:47 PM »

We need a FTFY smilely.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #17 on:** March 23, 2012, 11:19:06 AM »

Watchful Servant and Zebulun aren't required for defensive heavy. There are plenty of other options with this lulzy meta defense that you can begin making rescue attempts early and your opponent will wear down quickly. If things shift more towards balanced, defensive heavy will take a hit, but as long as things continue with the 6 card defense, defensive heavy is sitting good.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #18 on:** March 23, 2012, 11:49:45 AM »

You can set up a 10 card Isaiah offense that's capable of beating out most big defenses. Defense heavy certainly isn't weak.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #19 on:** March 23, 2012, 03:17:10 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 23, 2012, 11:49:45 AM

You can set up a 10 card Isaiah offense that's capable of beating out most big defenses. Defense heavy certainly isn't weak.

The last time someone talked about how good a 10 card Isaiah offense was, they ended up coming up with one that had 17 cards. What exactly does this 10 card Isaiah offense look like?

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #20 on:** March 23, 2012, 05:57:27 PM »

Isaiah, Call, Seraph w/ Coal, Cher, Wheel, Hezzy, Live Coal, Obadiah's Caves, Chamber, and Chariot of Fire.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #21 on:** March 24, 2012, 06:15:16 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 23, 2012, 05:57:27 PM

Isaiah, Call, Seraph w/ Coal, Cher, Wheel, Hezzy, Live Coal, Obadiah's Caves, Chamber, and Chariot of Fire.

That won't give big defenses any problems...

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 24, 2012, 06:17:58 PM »

yeah im gonna agree with wraith cause if thats all you got my defense is gonna sit there and laugh

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #23 on:** March 24, 2012, 09:27:20 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on March 24, 2012, 06:15:16 PM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 23, 2012, 05:57:27 PM
Isaiah, Call, Seraph w/ Coal, Cher, Wheel, Hezzy, Live Coal, Obadiah's Caves, Chamber, and Chariot of Fire.
That won't give big defenses any problems...

It can wear down most big defenses over time, because aside from removing the angels and Hezzy from the game, there's a lot of recursion. Most defenses can beat something like this once or twice, but eventually it'll break through. The main exception is against Gates of Samaria defenses for obvious reasons, but aside from that, I don't think many defenses can hold against something like this indefinitely unless Hezekiah and both of the CBN angels get removed from the game. This is all conjecture at this point because I haven't tried the deck, but if I had to guess, I'd bet there aren't any ten card offenses more effective that aren't waiting until the end-game to make rescues (Watchful Servant, Paul, etc).

Professoralstad · « **Reply #24 on:** March 25, 2012, 07:00:05 PM »

Replace Chariot of Fire with I am Holy, and I could see a case for it.

News:

Author Topic: The Viability of Defense Heavy with the New Rules (Read 6380 times)

Chronic Apathy

TheHobbit13

Rawrlolsauce!

Warrior_Monk

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Warrior_Monk

Chronic Apathy