You have to have any number of slots that are not useful at different times. Depending on my build design there are times I wish I didn't have a helmet, or racial skill or an attack skill etc. In SP I would really love to completely get rid of my shield slot and keep my armor slot as armor is much more useful for firestorm farming. For the sake of SP I'd be quite unhappy if armor was removed entirely. And there are definitely some MP builds that use tanking to achieve their goal. I'm also not sure how the keyword "keep" reduces the value of armor. I almost never equip armor without "keep" because that, in my opinion, is when it becomes really worthless. It seems the frustration is that because one is allowed to keep armor there becomes a decision angst at the end of a round about which cards to hold on to. You're not forced to keep armor just because it has the keyword. Let me say first, I'd rather have the choice which cards to keep, then be stuck with what's left because all my armor discarded automatically. Secondly, strategic decision angst is imperative to sustaining a quality high level game. While we naturally think we would prefer a straightforward approach where we don't have to make tough decisions, that exact challenge is actually what makes games enjoyable and re-playable without becoming mundane. This also applies to a lesser extent to the challenge of how to deal with an armor slot that must be equipped if you don't like to play armor.
Scarponi, I completely agree with you. Armor is a part of the game. Yes, there are hard decisions to make with armor. You'll see that I've already made my peace with hard decisions earlier in this thread. Also, maybe this discussion should be moved from a post about attachments and to my other thread about heavy armor. It would probably do more good there. However, I will say this: the keyword "keep" reduces the value of armor because armor can only maintain a high value if it can reduce a lot of damage. Because of the keyword "keep," it frequently isn't able to do this job. Simple as that. I'm not saying that armor should become a one shot pony like blocks. I'm only pointing out what I consider to be a design miscalculation. Similar to this thread about attachments and what's in store for them in the future, I'm interested in knowing what your thoughts are on armor. However, like I said above those thoughts might be better saved for a different thread. As for you Flax, I'm interested in exploring different futures of the game. I can picture a CH without armor and it wouldn't be awfully different from this game. You say armor is integral? Prove it. Seriously, I'm interested. But do it in the right thread.
Would you be able to have two cards that have "Armor Mastery" on them? Interesting idea. I could see it in decks where people stall for 3 rounds and then attack all in one turn with a hand of 10 cards and lots of armor. Seems pretty powerful. Maybe too powerful?
I didn't call it "integral" and I don't think I was off-topic. Also how do you expect anyone to "prove" anything in this conversation? There is no way any of us can scientifically demonstrate anything about potential changes to the game of this scale.
I'm saying that this thread is becoming off-topic. Why is it so wrong to want to redirect it to an already existent conversation that is more "on-topic." You said armor is useful and great. I'm asking for you to convince me. What's so wrong with that? This is a discussion after all. Not sure if I've offended you somehow Flax, but all throughout this thread you've been hounding me. So yeah, keep it on-topic please.
Moved to this thread for on-topic-ness. While I think we could have this conversation in either thread just fine, I'll respect the OP's wishes.
I replied to the other thread. I think that if the premise of this thread is, "armor system sucks, especially because of Keep, let's talk about armor attachments and other solutions," and you find people keep arguing about armor in this thread, it might be because you're begging the question (in the actual sense of the word, to come full circle [oh dang!]). If folks disagree with the premise, then it might be worth discussing more. I don't disagree with moving that discussion back to the previous thread, but I thought I would point out that the continued discussion signals something important for this topic as well.
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to keep a thread on topic, however I'm not sure it's in good taste to identify other poster's responses as deviating from the topic if they are a direct response to the content of one's own post.
Well I thought that the premise of this thread was, "there are bound to be more attachments in the game. There can be a time when there are too many attachments. Let's talk about attachments and what that means for the future of CH." I used armor attachments as an example not the premise. People just wanted to talk about armor and I tried to steer the argument back to attachments while bringing the discussion of armor to a more logical place on this forum.
Unfortunately that is a nature of a conversation that one idea leads to another. Call it bad taste or even hypocrisy, I'm just trying to stir up conversation that I want to talk about Scarponi. And in this thread, it is the discussion of attachments and their future. Also I think I did it rather politely as well and without any more judgement than valuing the location of a post.
Nice idea. Also yes attacks are way too powerful. I guess that's why you guys instituted the peasant format, i'll have to play that next time it runs!
I was thinking it would be a trait. So yes, you might be able to get more than one in a deck, but you could only benefit from the effect once. The limited duration would discourage waiting around to draw all your armor before attacking. Also, enemies would be able to trait cycle it off a character.
