Be clever and just calculate your chances of drawing zero, one and two attacks per turn. Then calculate your average damage per turn, as I've did in this thread. After that you will be able to tell how many turns (on average) your warrior will need to kill various enemies. This often demonstrates that you should add a MF priest, for instance, or that even a MF priest isn't going to save you Only if you want a "Dodge warrior". A Dodge warrior should have 3+ dodges and some ways to attack after Dodge: range 2 stabs, step attacks, and so on. Wrong. Jade demonstrated a build where Reaper's Scythe is better right in this thread. But it's much more difficult to build a good Scythe warrior than a good Axe warrior. Only if you have low number of attacks. The reason is you will often find your warrior sitting with a single attack and Blind Rage. One attack is too little to engage the enemy, so you'll have either keep it hoping to draw more attacks (and suffer the damage from Blind Rage) or discard it. If you have 18 attacks, you may have any number of Blind Rages - the more, the better. This isn't a rule. But yes, a Cone can do wonders for a wizard party versus a warrior party. Didn't understand that at all. Hope it sounds funny enough
Not the cycling of the traits themselves, the movement cards I draw each time I get hit increases the odds I draw an attack in all subsequent turns. Why is it fine to put all the movement capabilities of a warrior on support characters but it's taboo to rely on a draw priest for attacks? You can have 1 Team Runs and 2 Sprint, Team! on a human priest or wizard(if you're willing to be Slowed). You can have 2 Team Runs, 2 Sprint, Team!, and 1 Dash, Team! if you're willing to screw up your other human warrior to accommodate the other. Why don't you calculate the odds of having one in your starting hand? I'm not questioning the age of your build. I'm questioning your ability to give advice on multiplayer builds when you haven't even played a single ranked multiplayer match since the last card update. Name one map where wizards can hit you from their starting positions and there is no cover available. Go ahead, I'll wait. And the stab warrior can return to his spot 2 squares away from you. What's your point? How are these "rogue decks" inconsistent? They want to draw a lot of defensive cards instead of attacks, so that's what's in their decks. Just because a build does not conform to the most popular archetype doesn't make it any less good. The best rogue decks in Magic attack from an unexpected angle. They start losing when they become popular and people account for them with sideboard cards. There is no sideboard in Card Hunter. People also won't accommodate for your cards if you are the only one playing them. They'll be too busy designing builds to beat 14+ attack warriors if the gospel of Ector spreads as fast as I think it will. To all the other Card Hunters out there, I hope you won't stop innovating just because someone tells you it's wrong or won't be good. Keep trying out odd builds and interesting items with as many or as few attacks as your hearts desire. I promise I won't tell Ector.
PS I just realized this. So if I'm understanding this right you would prefer a 13 attack deck if such a skill existed? Blasphemy!
Not jumping into this Dagobah Swamp of a debate to take one side or the other but my math affinities have me commenting again: This would be true if the cards drawn that are not movement cards were replaced on top of the deck, but since they are discarded, the attack to non-attack card ratio in the deck does not have a reliable positive change (though if you have attack/move combo cards obviously you increase your chance of drawing those).
This was already answered, thanks Scarponi! Because a "draw priest" usually has to sacrifice too much for the drawing cards, while any warrior can safely have two Team Runs from boots and Savvy Attacker, and any human can have Sprint, Team! from his human skill without sacrificing his other abilities. I didn't suggest a dedicated support character for my warrior, just stated that a human priest, for instance, can help him with movement sometimes. So this is a personal attack. And you told me that you value a civilized discussion Yes, I didn't play MP for a long time. The reason is simple: I am a bad player, but a good deckbuilder. I build good chars, but make a lot of mistakes and lose the games I should win. After the rebalance I've got the chance of collecting the items I've dreamed of, and I'm doing right that now. Plus, the MP offers little reward for my time and energy compared to Loot Fairy, so I will play only when I will be ready to test some Uber-Build(tm). My burning wizard, for instance, lacks only two Azgul's Orbs now. Oh yes, the cover is available everywhere. But your warrior is designed to grab the victory area, isn't he? Are you going to hide him behind a cover until he gets all the needed cards instead? OK, a dedicated stab warrior (with all or almost all stab attacks) will kill me, no doubts. I just hope to stay at the victory area long enough to collect enough VPs for the win. But remember, this thread of discussion started when I said that Jade's build will kill you, and that build is far from a dedicated stab warrior, he has only 6 stabs, albeit the strong ones. My warrior can stand his ground versus him, yours cannot, since the elf is low on hit points, and my dwarf has far better blocks. All this would be right if your build wouldn't be countered by just one card, and there are many such cards. Any encumber card or Entangling Roots will disable all your Dodges, Boiling Armor will discard all your armor, etc. etc. And most of these cards aren't needed just against you. Come on, this is just stupid. Innovating is great, but being able to analyze your innovations is even better. A good theory may save you hours of testing and even a lot of gold spent on the wrong items.
I don't consider my builds or my theory "holy", so there cannot be any "blasphemies". A number of attacks is only important to have a stable, consistent warrior able to inflict enough damage per turn. In this case, I would sacrifice my weakest attack for a trait that would pump 10 of my other attacks. This would be a hard choice, but I guess I'd go for that. My calculations show that the damage per turn (DPT) loss wouldn't be large, and it would probably be compensated by the extra buff. On the other hand, if the warrior is meant to play with the Mass Frenzy priest, then the loss of any attack would be very painful. I guess I'd swap Eixocl's Hammer to Porior's Nimble Mace and use Advanced Crushing in such party, if I had the latter. 16 attacks and two boosts for 13 of them would definitely provide me much better DPT, for a price of losing some tech.
I agree with this, I rarely use draw priests. However, I make sure my warriors do no rely on others for movement. I'm not sure how this discussion veered towards pointing out weaknesses in your build. That wasn't my original intent and I will stop commenting on it. This is not a personal attack. You will only know what is played in multiplayer if you actually play in multiplayer. How can you know your decks are good if you don't know what you are up against? How do you know how much movement you need to get where you want to go? A great example is your mention of Cone of Cold. Not only did you not know that decks do not need to account for it, you didn't know why it isn't being played despite being great against Dodge. Having played fairly regularly, I can tell you that Cone of Cold was used primarily to halt characters in combination with other frost spells and damaging terrain attachments. After the update, no character could be halted with moves in hand so damaging terrain attachments, besides Volcano for a short while, went out the window. Cone of Cold lost half of its usefulness and is essentially dead against opposing wizards. Now we live in a world of Force Cones, Gusts of War, and Telekenisis for control and movement is extra important. I wouldn't tell people how to build decks in multiplayer if I weren't actively playing or at the very least watching a similar amount of games in progress and I hardly think that is too much to ask of others. I think this is an instance of you not know how to play against certain match ups. If you are facing wizards they will rarely be actively going after victory points unless all of your characters are far away. If you position your warrior close enough to the vp to threaten an attack but still maintain cover wizards with only damaging spells will generally stay away, giving you time to craft a hand. If they do go for the vp you know they have controlling spells and/or good defenses so getting close shouldn't result in taking too much damage. Damage wizards these days mostly pack burn so you can also go in if you have some armor and hope they haven't drawn armor removal yet. Six to nine stabs is a stab warrior. There are no items with that have enough of the 8 or 9 damage stabs for any more. I would take my Dodges over your "better" blocks any day. One Dodge essentially doubles the amount of attacks your opponent needs to kill your character. Your dwarf can only absorb 1 stab worth of damage over my elf. My blocks work more often when you most need them to. Yours will fall to any test attacks thrown. Again, this will be the last time I discuss your build. It was a mistake to bring it up before knowing how defensive you get. You just keep on pulling me back in. Last time, I swear. If you actually played multiplayer you would know that almost no encumber cards of any sort are played. Entangling Roots wasn't even played often pre-balance changes. Priests have way too much other stuff to do. Boiling Armor is certainly played but generally just as a 2 of from Akron's Amulet. You will be defenseless for 1 turn and have one less card to worry about from the wizard that cast it. This is only if you decided to expose yourself of course, which means you hopefully have the attacks needed to kill or severely wound a wizard. Yes, of course, what was I thinking? Scientist don't do experiments to test out their theories. A good think should be sufficient. It certainly is easier than doing all that nasty work. If others do experiments on your theories and tell you you're wrong just stick to your guns and say you thunk extra hard.
I just wonder, choosing attacks with less damage for the sake of more seems feeble to anything with range, or special abilities like remove armor. As the current state of game is already to use an MF priest in warrior builds (in general), you're competeing with guys who prefer fiery stabs, strong hacks and vicious thrusts that use larger DPT. Lunging bashes have the curse of keep away (I suppose that's what they're for, but whatever), and since the suggestions here go along the line of, need more attacks; where's the extra movement going to come from to accomadate these bashes? On a sidenote, since MF priests have become so popular, alot of players have priests with purges just to counter this. It may be that mass frenzy can be stacked to accomodate, but crushing/blind rage skills are much harder to come by.
You exaggerate too much. I didn't pretend that my build is "good in multiplayer", just that it's better than yours Because being able to kill reliably and consistently is the basic requirement for a warrior, and my build is better in grabbing the victory areas too. You may not believe me, but I know all this pretty well, since this was inevitably going to happen. Moreover, I knew this even when the encumbrance rules was changed, and was actively arguing against the change. It wasn't very difficult to predict this. Now the encumbrance is only good in winning your wizards some time versus the enemy warriors - and disabling the opponent's Dodges. I will not recommend the "winning builds", right, since I don't know the metagame, but the basic principles will always remain the same. Having enough damage per turn for the warrior is one of such principles. It was valid from the very beginning of the game, and it's valid now. Sorry, but I didn't understand this. The wizards shouldn't go for the vp, they should take a position to attack your chars, mostly from 5-6 distance (I know the burning wizard build very well). So I didn't understand why they should "give you time to craft a hand". How can this be true? If your opponent knows that you have Dodge (and he will know after the first Dodge), he will just come close to you and stab you. Dodging won't save you from the range 2 attack, unless you're ready to yield your victory area. You have one Surging Shield Block (4+) and two Wounded Blocks (5+ or 3+ if you're below half health). I have two Disorienting Blocks (3+) and two Bloodied Blocks (5+ or 2+ most of the time). Your blocks may "fall to any test attack" too, and they have much worse chances to block the real attack. As I've said, your build can exist only because people don't play the cards needed to fix it. If such builds would ever become popular, people would play the cards and shut them down. Scientists do experiment to prove that some theory is right or wrong, yes. But the theory of probability can't be wrong, it's just mathematics! Pardon, but you sound like a roulette player who thinks that he had invented a "winning system". Once the theory of probability proved that roulette is a game that favors casino, there cannot be any "winning systems" there! But people like you don't believe in theory, they need to test themselves, and even huge losses of money don't prove anything to them.
Wizards have push cards to buy time. They double as a way to get people off vps. Wizard are also already favored against Dodge. Why would they play a card to beat something that doesn't need to be beaten? Encumbrance isn't good for anything right now. We keep going in circles. How do you know that warriors need to be able to kill to win? You refuse to even try. Other people have tried and are telling you your principles are a figment of your imagination. I said they rarely go for the vp. If they are keeping a distance and not going for vp what is keeping you from staying behind cover and accumulating attacks? I think you've got the two of us confused. You claim have a winning warrior system. You are pushing this system on others rushing to the warrior roulette wheel based on no physical evidence. It may certainly work for some people but as you mentioned yourself, there is no system.
At least it's good to protect your wizard from enemy warriors. Isn't that enough? How do I know that the warriors need to be able to kill to win? It's just a simple logic. If your warrior cannot kill a wizard in 3-4 turns, then the wizards will kill him. This is not a sandbox where characters can play peacefully, is it? Nothing besides they're actively trying to kill you You're trying to lay your fault at my door (if I've translated that correctly). You're ignoring the theory and proclaiming that "only experiment can show", not me. And I never ignore the theory: my warriors can be good or bad (you're right that I won't know exactly until I try them), but they will always deal enough damage per turn. If not, the experiments aren't needed, since the theory already stated they're invalid. I guess the thread is degraded to the personal level and should be closed. We already said everything we could here.
Encumber is a one trick pony that is nearly dead against wizards and support priests. I'll be honest, I have not tried playing with it much since the update. If anyone has had success with it though I'd like to know. I will repeat what I said before. When up against wizards you are less likely to be pressured to capture vp. You have time to seek cover and craft a better set of cards. I'll bet you lost games you were "supposed" to win because you tried to rush the wizards with the cards you were dealt. I know I've made that mistake before, especially starting out, but I've changed my play style against certain parties. What are you talking about, burst spells? Can't really play around those other than keeping a distance or really careful cover placement. I'm ignoring theory that I think is wrong, have tested in matches, and proven wrong? I'm willing to believe that it is easier to win with a higher number of attacks. I don't think anyone questions that. However, saying a low attack warrior can't be as good as a high attack one is just wrong. I agree, I wanted people to think for themselves instead of following a paint by numbers character construction. I've not seen one person agree with you yet so I probably had nothing to worry about. This will be my final post here. I hope this was at the very least entertaining for everyone. If anyone needs me I will be the one curled up in the corner in a fetal position.
I've tried not to reply to this thread anymore, but you've wrote so many wrong things that I simply have to point that out. Only if these wizards don't need to move far. And you have some measures to control whether they need to move far or not For instance, if your team is 2 warriors + wizard, they will need to move far. Yes, you're right here on most points. But do you really plan to hide all your party behind a cover for long? And do you really hope to get more than one turn before the enemy will claim the victory area? What theory is wrong - a theory of probability or statistics? Facepalm. My rule of "14 attacks mimimum" is just a shortcut to avoid calculating DPT for every warrior if it's likely to be low. And you don't even agree that a warrior has to deal enough damage per turn. You can certainly try to compensate for the low number of attacks with their power. But that will hurt the deck consistency (you may lose just for drawing too little attacks for several turns in a row), that will hurt your damage buffs like Mass Frenzy, as it pumps every attack, and that will make you extremely vulnerable to Elven Trickery and the enemy blocks. Will you argue with that? Thinking yourself is great, but ignoring the theory is just stupid. Because the humankind invented theories right to make "reinventing the same things for yourself" unnecessary. That's just the crowd behaviour. When a stranger challenges the member of "our crowd", nobody will support the stranger. But I'm pretty sure that people who really think themselves will easily decide who was right here.
