The only thing that's clear to me is that there an equal number of options, if not greater for Reaper's Scythe over Quick Jon's Axe. Putting Reaper's Scythe on a human or elf opens up a whole new damage tier. Where else are they going to get Blind Rage, besides weapons? At least Blind Rage is more useful than Able Bludgeon or something. If the Scythe did have bludgeon/Oblit bludgeon this discussion would be almost a moot point. Don't get me wrong, I think Unnerving Strike is fantastic and should fit into a deck when possible. There aren't too many great weapons with it though... It's a pretty safe bet to equip Jon's Axe in general. You really can't go wrong with it. You know what else is interesting, is that Axe of the Titans has a striking similarity to Quick Jon's Axe.
Let's ignore the fact that the attack in question is replaced with a trait effectively reducing deck size by one and decreasing the difference in all these areas. There is a 4% greater chance of drawing no attack. What do you get in exchange for that? You get greater damage output when you do draw attacks. Do I need to explain what happens when your warrior draws higher damage attacks? The enemy wizard you almost killed is dead instead. How fortunate.
Yes, I know this. But as I've stated long ago, Blind Rage is the best with a lot of attacks. If you have dangerously low number of attacks, you will frequently face the dilemma: whether to rush an enemy with one attack and Blind Rage or just discard the attack to avoid the damage? Both options are bad. Without Blind Rage you could build up enough attacks for the several turns. Overall, I don't think that human warriors currently have something to beat the dwarven warriors, and the elven warriors really can go without Blind Rage, since they cannot just neglect 3-6 damage from it like dwarves. I believe that it's possible to build a good Elf warrior similar to your build, though. Yes, I know. That's why I've just bought a second Shieldripper following your advice Sure! That's what I've meant from the very beginning. You don't have to fix the low attack number, and the movement problem isn't that serious for you, since you may have no Blind Rages at all and don't risk taking damage from it. Yes, it's also a great weapon with little "holes to patch". Different theme (no Dodges, but extra blocks and movement if needed), but also a great implementation. I wish I had a lot of such weapons...
No, I didn't ignore that. Please read the description carefully. If you draw a trait, it's replaced by a random card from your deck (possibly the same trait AFAIK), and all this is taken into account. Only if the wizard really has that much HPs. If he has just 2 HPs left, then any attack will be as good as your Obliterating Bludgeon And if he has a block, then my Unnerving Strike will be much better.
Math ... can't... help... it... ... must... correct... Correct. 14/36 * 13/35 = .144 Correct, by why not just do 14/31? EDIT: Ahh I see now: A trait is replaced with the next card from your deck, and if it pushes an attachment card off of you which is yours (or if it's a non-attaching trait) then that card goes to your discard pile so it could not be drawn again until your discard pile is reshuffled into your deck. So for math purposes you can merely subtract the number of traits from your overall deck size. 14/31 * 13/30 = .196 .419 and .168 (a difference of less than 3%) .329 - less than 1/3. .292, and only .258 with 15 attacks. Correct, but slightly misleading in that it results in a greater overall chance of drawing attacks in both cases.
Huh... I don't know the game mechanics. It's a shame Let's redo the math then for the same 5 traits. 18 attacks. The chance of drawing two attacks is 18/31 * 17/30 = 0.329. The chance of drawing zero attacks is 13/31*12/30 = 0.168. 17 attacks. The chance of drawing two attacks is 17/31 * 16/30 = 0.292. The chance of drawing zero attacks is 14/31*13/30 = 0.196. 16 attacks. The chance of drawing two attacks is 16/31 * 15/30 = 0.258. The chance of drawing zero attacks is 15/31*14/30 = 0.226. 15 attacks. The chance of drawing two attacks is 15/31 * 14/30 = 0.226. The chance of drawing zero attacks is 16/31*15/30 = 0.258. 14 attacks. The chance of drawing two attacks is 14/31 * 13/30 = 0.196. The chance of drawing zero attacks is 17/31*16/30 = 0.292. 13 attacks. The chance of drawing two attacks is 13/31 * 12/30 = 0.168. The chance of drawing zero attacks is 18/31*17/30 = 0.329. 12 attacks. The chance of drawing two attacks is 12/31 * 11/30 = 0.142. The chance of drawing zero attacks is 19/31*18/30 = 0.368. 11 attacks. The chance of drawing two attacks is 11/31 * 10/30 = 0.118. The chance of drawing zero attacks is 20/31*19/30 = 0.409. Of course, there are no vivid gaps between 14 and 13 attacks, as well as between 11 and 12, and so on. But each player should be prepared to face these numbers in the real play. If you play with 13 attacks, then you will draw zero attacks almost each 3rd turn which is waaay too often in my book. You will draw two attacks approximately every 6th turn, and you will draw one attack almost half the time. If you think that's OK for a warrior, go for it. Personally I will try to have at least 15 attacks for my warriors, preferably 16 or more.
Eh, just run attacks on your martial, shield, and boot slots. Impaling Stab, Lunging Bash, Weak Chop... And voila! You just turned thirteen attacks into sixteen.
You cannot be serious, right? Martial skills, shields and boots are usually chosen for the movement cards, blocks, armor and traits, not for the additional attacks. Yes, I've bought Leomunk's Kickin' Boots last week, but nobody seemed to be jealous, and nobody called them an instant buy What boots are the most popular for a warrior now? Sliding Boots, Wlakwa's Boots, any good boots with Team Run, not with the additional attacks. What shields are the most popular? The shields with the good blocks, not with the extra attacks. What martial skills are the most popular? The skills with the nice traits or Savvy Attacker with Team Run. Not the skills with the extra attacks. If your weapon selection forces you to choose the sub-optimal shields, boots and skills, it's a problem. And the problem becomes even worse if you consider that the items with good attacks usually cost some tokens, and you will have to spend a lot of tokens on your weapons to get enough good attacks. Jade's build, for instance, spends 6 tokens on the weapons, including all yellow tokens.
I've been trying out a build with two Eixocl's Hammer and one Reaper's Scythe, it seems to work pretty well. I will admit, sometimes I wonder if I should try Quick Jon's Axe, but then again I tend to discard the Obliterating Chops when I don't need them, and the last thing I need are two more dead cards. Even though the math boils down, the odds of drawing an attack card != the odds of winning/losing. If only the game were that simple.
Congratulations, you've proven that you draw more attacks when you have more in your deck. I've always wondered about that. Can you explain why someone isn't allowed to make a defensive warrior with fewer attacks to soak up damage/protect other characters/control victory points? Why is it ok to have supporting and damaging wizards and priests but warriors must be pigeonholed into killing machines?
I have three questions here: 1). How many attacks and traits did the warrior really have? 2). What do you mean by "work pretty well"? Killed everybody? Managed to stand his ground? Won the game? 3). How many games did you play and how many wizards did the warrior kill in these games?
You're welcome. I've always felt that you need to know the numbers. Surely I can. Because a "defensive warrior" will be unable to reliably kill a wizard, and the wizard team will easily kill him. Your particular build has 11 attacks and 6 traits (Blind Rage, Combustible, Impaler, Slicer and 2 Elven Maneuvers). Your chance of drawing two attacks is 0.1264, and your chance of drawing zero attacks is 0.3931. The opposing wizards laugh at your warrior, especially when he becomes Combustible. Even if you draw a lot of armor cards and they draw no armor melting, they will just kill your other chars, and you will be unable to stop them. I can show you my version of the "victory area grabber", if you wish, just to demonstrate the difference in our approaches to the warrior builds. Spoiler The Bouncer (Dwarf Warrior lvl 18) Reap The Whirlwind Basher's Delight Eixocl's Hammer Captain Cedric's Helm Xander's Mail Bloodshield Of Xoc Bertha's Big Clogs Ferocity Novice Bruising Blocks (4) 2 * Disorienting Block 2 * Bloodied Block Traits (5) 3 * Blind Rage 2 * Bruiser Moves/Tech (5) 3 * Violent Spin 1 * Dodge 1 * Walk Armor (8) 3 * Reliable Mail 5 * Officer's Harness Attacks (14) 3 * Strong Hack 2 * Strong Bash 1 * Able Bash 5 * Lunging Bash 2 * Pressing Bash 1 * Bludgeon This warrior is also designed to grab the victory area and stay there. But he doesn't rely on just speed in grabbing the area! The Bouncer just moves there and pushes the enemy away with bashes, Violent Spins or Disorienting Blocks. If he eventually meets your warrior, what are your chances of keeping the victory area? The Bouncer has 3 Violent Spins, 2 Disorienting Blocks and 2 Pressing Bashes - 7 cards total that would immediately grab the area for me. That's a lot. Please note that this build wasn't designed specifically against you! It's my old build. The Bouncer can work as more or less universal warrior. He has 14 attacks (absolute minimum in my eyes), and 10 of them are bashes that can be pumped by both Blind Rage and Bruiser. He has pretty good chances versus wizards: 4 "block any" cards (two Disorienting help a lot to chase the wizard), a lot of step moves, many team moves. He has his weaknesses (don't collect too many Officer's Harnesses versus Punishing Bolts), but overall he can perform many tasks. Your warrior can do just one thing: run to a victory area and stay there. Because the game has virtually no support cards for the warriors. What exactly your warrior can do for the other chars? Advanced Battlefield Training?
OK now that's funny. Here we are talking about what roles a warrior can fill besides killing. You insist that such a warrior doesn't exist. And then you go and build The Bouncer. He's pretty impressive! I'm shocked that you used Eixocl's Hammer instead of that Crimson Morningstar you've been going on and on about. Especially since your warrior only has 1 dodge (breaking yet another Ectorule), but I guess that just means he's better at getting the VP and less good at "killing wizards".
Facepalm. Do I really write in so strange manner that nobody can understand what I was saying, or it's just a mockery? I guess people just like to laugh, even if that's simply stupid. Every warrior should be able to kill. But once that primary ability is present, a warrior can have a "specialization". The Bouncer is a killer specializing on capturing the key points (usually victory areas) by bashing or pushing the opponent's characters away, which takes much less time than killing them. But he can still chase the enemy wizard and kill him, or engage the enemy warrior and overcome him. He is not a pacifist! There is no such "Ectorule" as "never play with one Dodge". The "rule" you're referring is "a Dodge warrior should have at least 3 Dodges" We were discussing the weapons with two Dodges, and it was logical to use these weapons in a Dodge build. But The Bouncer isn't a Dodge warrior, he has a different theme. Still, he will use that Dodge very effectively when he will draw it: he has a lot of movement and can return back if needed. Why not Crimson Morningstar? Because this build is not trying to maximize the damage. If the enemy has no wizards, The Bouncer is quite happy just sitting at his victory area. Do you remember what I've said about the Morningstar? That weapon has its niche, and that niche is an aggressive Crusher build, not the techy Bouncer. Why Eixocl's Hammer? Because The Bouncer needs Pressing Bashes. They are his primary specialty: push the enemy away and move at their place himself. This build also has two Bruisers, so all bashes are welcome here. Dodge is also welcome. I don't like the 3rd Blind Rage at all, since I think that he has too low number of attacks for three, but I have to live with it since there aren't many decent weapons with Pressing Bashes. BTW my previous version had Porior's Nimble Mace instead of the Hammer and Quellic's Boots, but I've decided that in this build (definitely not in every warrior build!) Pressing Bashes and Dodge are worth lowering the number of attacks to the dangerous level (14 attacks). The Bouncer is the most peaceful warrior I have - but he's still quite a competent killer. Is it funny now? Nothing to laugh about, right? Yes, I'm not crazy. I can be wrong (and quite often alas), but that doesn't mean that my builds are weak, and my statements always have some logical explanations. If you didn't understand the logic, don't hesitate to ask: I am always ready to explain.
I'm so glad this thread exists and is active. I'm learning a lot of useful deck building tips, and I'm even learning new rhetorical techniques.
Bashes are terrible for killing wizards. Not only are they weaker than average they are designed to keep others at a distance which wizards actively want. You also only have Violent Spins as "long" movement so you probably had a hard time chasing them down. Did you win most games because this warrior killed with attacks, because I find that hard to believe? My build may have had fewer attacks but they are mostly high impact and it has the ability to chase down wizards. How do you win against stab warriors? You seemed particularly concerned about it with my build but completely ignored it for your own. I'd also like to point out that this build counts the martial skill attack as one of it's attacks, the very thing you admonished Flaxitive for in his attempt at injecting humor into this increasingly depressing thread on.
Awesome thread. These Ectorule are really the bees knees ! Here's some I've compiled so far for everyone's benefit [New Players take note : Helpful Tips Ahead!] Ectorule 1 : 14 Fourteen attacks shall be thy minimum number of attacks for thy warrior build, there shall be no exception to this rule Ectorule 3: 24 Thine dodges shall be found most idealized in dispensation of a triumvirate, for thy warrior build, unless in a specific circumstance as told in Ectorule Book I : The Addendum Ectorule 4: 9 Quick Jon's Axe Shall be found superior to any in similar likeness or analogous in comparison, for thy warrior build Ectorule 3: 54 Thou shall be found wanting if thy blind rages dost exceed the the prescribed number Ectorule 5 : 43 If thy opponent do be overly swift and hard to manage, a trinity of Cone of Cold shall be thine answer. Ectorule 7: 82 Thy warrior must be a lethal brute of stature hale and hearty, failure to follow any above prescribed Ectorule exactly shall result with thy warrior having sickly composition, lo, the very manifestation of meaningless.
This warrior is much worse in killing wizards than an average warrior, no doubts, but he still has much more chances than your warrior. You have one 17-damage attack, two 10-damage, three 8-damage, three 6+3+3 damage and two 3-damage. Average damage is very high, 8.545 if we count Fiery Stab as 9. I have five 8-damage attacks, three 6-damage and six 4-damage, averaging only 5.857. But my traits pump damage much better than yours: you have just one Blind Rage, and Impaler/Slicer pump just a few attacks, while I have three Blind Rages, and my Bruisers pump 10 attacks of 14. So I guess my warrior deals more average damage per turn than yours, though it would be difficult to prove. When he happens to get both buffs, the "weak" bashes deal 8 damage each. Plus, don't forget that the warriors like having Mass Frenzy from a priest, and I have 14 attack vs. yours 11. Right, but the other chars can help here with Team Run or even Sprint, Team! Don't forget that Disorienting Block makes The Bouncer two squares closer to the wizard, and I have five Lunging Bashes that can be used to move if needed. This build is meant to gain victory points, as well as yours. But it killed a lot of wizards Yes, you can chase them. But remember that your chance of drawing two attacks is 0.1264, and your chance of drawing one attack is 0.4805. So your average damage per turn, without pumps, is roughly 8.545*(2*0.1264 +0.4805) = 6.30 damage per turn. Actual value with the pumps will still be less than 7 damage per turn. Will you still pretend that your warrior can kill wizards? Really? I was "particularly concerned about it in your build" only because your build is totally defensive and if the enemy has a way to penetrate your defenses, you have to run away or die. Yes, the stab warriors are a big problem for my warrior too, but at least he's a dwarf with higher HPs, he has much better blocks, and he can deal much more damage in return. If he would guard his victory area for 2-3 turns and deal some damage to the stab warrior, that may be enough for the win even if he dies after that. I'd happily take a skill with three Bruisers instead, but it costs a token I didn't have So the attack (a weakest in the build BTW) is just a card I have to live with, though it's definitely has its uses. Is this thread really "depressing"? Sorry about that. I guess you hoped to laugh. But... you can laugh at your "peaceful warrior", for instance. He's really funny.
And my traits allow me to cycle to my attacks more easily while giving me extra movement cards. You are right though, it is difficult to say who has more average damage per turn. And my other characters could just as easily pack card draw. Another reason why your 14 attack minimum is wrong. Are you sure? I wouldn't fault you for having a hazy recollection on that one seeing as your last match was 12 weeks ago. When you play do you run up to wizards with one attack in hand? I wait till I've accumulated a few strong ones before I go for kills. Your warrior doesn't have that luxury as he has to spend movement cards as soon as possible to even get close. I can tell you however that I personally did not kill that many things with my warrior. Wizard murdering is another one of your weird rules for warriors. How exactly do you deal more damage in return? Your only way of reaching a stab warrior is off of a Disorienting Block or Lunging Bash. Both require you to give up the vp. Depressing as in it almost hurts watching you dig yourself deeper into a hole that multiple people are trying to get you out of. You seem to be under the impression that I'm out to get you and that isn't true. I did have a lot of laughs when I played my warrior, but you know what, it won more often than not. I know this because I delete losing builds and this one is still around. You on the other hand will never be able to enjoy a build such as this yourself if you keep clinging on to your ideals of what a warrior has to be.
Your trait cycling was already taken into account. You have 6 traits, I have 5, the difference isn't that much. As for the damage, my average damage per turn is 5.857*( 2*0.196 + 0.512) = 5.295 per turn without the buffs. But as long as I have 5 buffs compared to your one, I believe that my damage output is higher. I can try to calculate this if you wish. And it will surely be higher with Mass Frenzy. Your average damage with Mass Frenzy is 8.466, mine is 7.763 without the other buffs. With my buffs, my warrior will deal more damage. That's the value of having enough attacks compared to not having them. Facepalm. If your other characters have card draw, are they going to waste it on a warrior with the low number of attacks? Really? Most of the time the warrior will just get his 3rd copy of Dodge or another armor, but not the extra attack. Mass moves are always useful for everyone. As I've said, this is my old build. A very old. The early versions had some differences, but the idea was the same. Another facepalm. Do you really believe the wizards are going to leave you enough time to build up your hand? On some maps they can attack you on turn one. But I can return back to the victory area most of the time. Or just bash the stab warrior away if he grabs it. Even a bigger facepalm. How exactly I am "digging myself deeper"? By avoding to say "come on guys, all that was just my jokes"? Really, I've said some things that are obvious to me, but you (and some others) consider them false for some mysterious reasons. I bet most people are just laughing to support the laugh. That's stupid in my eyes, but who am I to keep people from laughing? As I've already said, your warrior can do something only because your opponents aren't prepared for his tactics. It's like a "rogue deck" in Magic: you win until people learn how to beat you. Then you start to lose. You may not believe me, but actually I am a big fan of rogue decks and other crazy builds. I just don't pretend them to be good and consistent.
