Last week I started a thread about Heavy Armor and how we use it. I received a lot of positive feedback on Heavy Armor and armor in general. Throughout the discussion, I heard different takes on how to make armor useful. You see, the main problem with armor is the keeping dynamic of armor. Armor gains in value the more damage it can reduce. Unfortunately, keeping the armor at the end of the turn can be hard. So the community introduced 'fixes' for the keeping dynamic of armor, but one in particular got my attention. Ben mentioned that he thought that armor could be a trait (AKA an attachment). I started to think about attachments in general: How many can we have attached? How many are in the game now? How many are self-induced vs. enemy applied? How many support attachments are worthy of carrying (I talk more about this in a discussion over my build, 2 Warrior 1 Priest from 1200 - 1500)? I like that we can only have three attached at a time, and that we can knock them off as we add more to a unit. However, once you start thinking about making some or all armors into attachments, you start to think about the future of attachments. In all hopes, CH will be around for a long time. This will include new cards over the span of its life. As more cards are rolled out, new attachments will be available. So this begs the question: will there become a time that CH will have too many attachments? I'm reminded of using a control wizard and all the attachments (traits) I used to cycle through my decks for good cards. I would go through four to eight attachments at the beginning of a single turn. As the game progresses, I imagine this cycling of cards occurring for each unit in a game per round because almost each card in a deck will have an attachment. Is this the future of CH? Picture it: new melee cards for warriors that add attachments to enemies (similar to Fiery Stab); priests have even more support attachments and maybe a new type of priest (a Dark Priest) has become popular with the invent of new curses; wizards have new spells that get attached to enemies (maybe a future build for a type of control wizard: Attachments Wizards?). So one of two scenarios is bound to happen as more attachments become available for play: Attachments become too universal in a given match. New cards have just been announced. At the beginning everyone is throwing out attachments all the time. However, support priests will quickly become obsolete because the value of their support cards has gone down since the attachments don't last long in a match to be worthy of deck space. If armor cards have become attachments, their value will be reduced as well. Which leaves traits, attack cards, and curses (attachments that don't deal damage but hinder similar to a priest's Bad Luck) as the main usage of attachments. However positive traits have become almost as bad as priest support cards, except that they can cycle a deck. As time goes on, wizards will be the most adept at attachment abuse because of their range unless priests and warriors gain new ranged attachments. Warriors and priests will now have to build for this new abuse by wizards, reducing the pool of useful cards in a build. Attachments exists in larger abundance, but this hasn't changed gameplay. At first this sounds great! BM has done a good job at releasing new and balanced cards. New attachments exists but not in over-abundance like in Scenario #1. However, if we think again about how many attachments can actually exist in the game until we reach too many, we have to ask how many more attachments must exists until we reach that number? This isn't a science (although I'm sure it's mathematics). But if there is a set limit to how many attachments can exist in the game before they become useless, than there are a set number of attachments BM can release. If you thought that Fire Spray was bad now, it will actually reduce the flexibility of CH to release new cards. So what's the solution? I believe that the first priority of BM should be that they rework cards like Fire Spray and those black traits that everyone avoids so that every attachment in CH is useful. Otherwise remove its attachment ability or the card in general from the game. Secondly I believe that they should consider adding more cards like Shrug It Off. If attachments are more prolific in the game, then we need to increase attachment removal. However, what if attachments were less prolific? How would this change the nature of CH? In closing, balance between all the attachments is important for CH's success. Since I believe that there are a set number of attachments possible in CH before the system breaks, each attachment (no matter how bad it is) limits the future of card diversity. Diversity is what everyone is craving right now in CH. They want new cards; they want different options for each class; they want to find new and fun tactics. Balance is the key for this. However, this requires a lot of man power, which I know they don't have right now. What are your thoughts?
Just curious, how are you supposed to read that? I searched for 'attach' and found 400 occurrences of the word.
PSA: That's not how those words should be used. Begging the question is to make circular arguments. What you mean is "raises the question." Sorry, pet peeve
You're both right. beg the question 1 (Of a fact or action) raise a point that has not been dealt with; invite an obvious question: some definitions of mental illness beg the question of what constitutes normal behaviour 2 Assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/beg-the-question?q=beg+the+question
Nah, #1 is a disgusting and unnatural pattern of speech exhibited so constantly by the feeble human race that more progressive dictionaries have decided it is de facto correct language. I object to this, and hold to the True Meanings Of Things.
Okay. So when the semi-literate weather bimbo says there is presently a tornado in my neighborhood, I'll know it's a gift.
Hi guys. As amusing as this argument is over English usage (and any good grammarian will tell you the English language is always changing Flax), please take this argument elsewhere on the forums. Kalin I was able to read that giant html doc of text with your help. Thanks! I'm still not sure if removing cards will be beneficial to the game. However, cards like Mystical Wyrmhide might be a path in the right direction. Not only will it improve the value of armor, but simultaneously it will increase the value of priest support cards which I think are in danger of becoming obsolete (maybe in the far future ). However, I still believe strongly that armor is flawed with that keyword 'keep.' Either units will have to prioritize armor over movement and attack cards, or else armor will remain an afterthought as it is in the current meta. What do you guys think?
I prefer having Keep armor and making the player prioritize. It's often a tough choice, and making poor choices is part of learning. Or so I'm told. In my case it's more of a favorite pastime.
It should be everyone's favorite pastime. You're probably right about armor having to be the hard decision that it is. That won't stop me from critiquing its usefulness. I think we can agree that making armor an attachment is one of the worse ideas out there for 'fixing' armor.
I like the current system. Armour was undervalued and everyone switched to blocks. So armour became unexpected and thus more powerful. I find armour is used a lot more now. The priority also makes sense. Any attack on you and armour becomes the last line of defense behind blocks and evades.
Good point about the history of blocks and armors. I definitely agree with your analysis. My point is this: Armor is a card that you HAVE to have on a character because of the armor slot. There are ways to reduce how much you have in a deck, but you have to have it. People have complained about Rusty Armor and how it is just a deck filler. Well how many times have you had armor in hand and your unit doesn't get attacked, but you have to discard that armor at the end of the turn because you need the two cards for something else more critical? That keyword 'keep' seriously reduces the value of armor. I find that armor cards are comparable (in value) to an afterthought. You have to get it early (for maximum damage reduction), be attacked frequently (which means your unit with armor has to be a threat), and not have to make many decisions that would cause you to discard armor at the end of the turn. The best scenario for this is on a map like Koi Pond where you can just plop a unit down on the only VP. Instead of having to include armor in a deck, I wish it was more of a choice. If BM insists on keeping armor cards, I wish they would do one of the following: Replace the armor slot with something different like a utility slot (this could mean more use of cards like War Cry), and incorporate armor cards into other items that are viable for use. More realistically, make new armors items that have very little armor on them. Wizards and priests already have a lot of armors like these. However, why don't warriors? They could have berserker armor that have more attacks on them, or use more utility like above. Lastly (and most unrealistically), they could change the nature of armor in a way that the 'keep' keyword isn't a detriment. There are many ideas floating around about what would be the best way to accomplish this, and currently I think the best is just damage balance on the hard hitting attack cards. Some might say that becoming a 'pro' at CH is learning how to make the best decisions in a given round. This includes knowing when to keep armor and when not to. I would agree. Lately, I've been trying to practice this more often along with other skills like knowing when to pass a turn even if you have ways to attack. However, why build a system into a game that is flawed? That's just how I view armor, and it won't change.
The armor system doesn't seem flawed to me, just eclipsed by high-damage attacks (and availability of buffs for step attack damage). If damage were lower I can all but guarantee you that your qualms with the system wouldn't exist. And honestly, finding a good point where armor isn't too weak OR too strong is probably hard.
I agree. Finding a point where armor isn't too weak OR too strong is probably very hard. That's why it should be phased out .
Lolwut, "it's hard to solve this design problem, clearly let's throw out a great and useful part of the game"
How about a trait called "Armor Mastery" or something, with an effect like "For each armor card in your hand at the end of each round, you retain one more card at the end of that round". It could be on armors (which are lacking in good traits), or even on warriors skills (which could really use some help). Maybe with an exception for Officer's Harness or something.
