Reaper's Scythe Infused Greatclub Perilous Ringmail Crusty Helm Raging Battler Savvy Attacker You are left with three slots to fill and 2 gold and 1 silver token. The possibilities are great. You could add a Rusty Buckler with Goat Boots, which adds another trait and parry cycling. And a a simple Bejeweled Shortsword to keep the high damage and add two step attacks. Or to debunk the theory that 13 attacks are a bad thing, use a Bloodchopper, another trait and a good block. Of course this build should have a Priest to deal with the damage but it is a very tight attack machine. But there are a lot of variants which are possible, which go well with the base build.
Frankly, I would use Reaper's Scythe/Double-Edged Sword/Double-Edged Sword, Rusty Buckler and then your tokenless boots of choice. (I like Flanking Move, so I would pick Mouse Boots/Captain Cedric's Boots with Novice Impaling). I would not recommend Goat Boots + Savvy attacker, having too much trait variety leads to pushing your own Mass Frenzy/Blind Rage off more easily (I'm not sure if this character gets a frenzy priest or not?). You might use Sticky Slippers + Raging Battler + Novice Slicing if you aren't dependant on multiple buffs. (EG a priest with Nimbus/Martyr/Mass Frenzy) But if you had to use Reaper's + Greatclub for the, wow OBLIT factor, you would be insane to fill the last slot with Bloodchopper, even with Dodge you have virtually no mobility. Those 2 weapons favor damage, you really need a Vibrant Pain/Lochaber Axe to fill up that last slot. Or something. Even Reaper's/Bloodchopper could work, if you put something like Excellent Rapier in the last slot instead of Greatclub.
It's a great build but I don't think many people need to be convinced of that. Reaper's Scythe has been considered one of (if not the) best weapon in the game, and Infused Greatclub is one of the best as well. It's a no brainer.
Those are just suggestions Jade, it is about the trolling attempts from Hector. If he wants to talk about the Scythe, he should do it here and not spam the Randi thread.
I don't think Ector is trolling, I just know that a person that believes they are right about something is always going to be right, no matter how wrong they are.
Hm. This is completely unfair and even stupid. I believe I am right until somebody proves that I'm wrong, and that's normal. If I would change my opinion because N people said me that they don't like it, that wouldn't be normal. In this case, I've just said that Reaper's Scythe has less attacks and worse synergy than Quick Jon's Axe, and having less then 14 attacks is dangerous for the warrior deck. You don't seem to argue with these statements, as all your examples (Infused Greatclub, Double-Edged Sword etc.) include enough attacks. So you admit that you have to play 6-attack weapons to compensate for the low number of attacks on the Scythe, and that's all I was trying to say. I've never said that the Scythe is bad, I've just said that the Axe is much better, and the primary reason is you don't have to play 6-attack weapons with it. As for the builds, I really like Jade's build with Double-Edged Swords, but not Questor's build with Infused Greatclub. As Jade said (and I've said long ago in Randi thread), you need some step attacks. You also need something to grab the advantage of your Dodge, and the long-ranged attacks of Double-Edged Sword fill that slot. I believe this is the best build with the Scythe and probably the only build where the Scythe would be better than the Axe. Thus, it really proves that I was wrong in my initial ratings. Thanks for demonstrating this! Still, I prefer the weapons that don't force me to play the single good weapon setup. With the Axe, I have much more freedom in selecting weapons. I can have more movement, for instance, with a lot of Lunging Bashes, or more blocks.
And we're trying to say you don't have to play 6-attack weapons with Scythe. This was one of my warrior builds in a vamp party I used around 1500s. Those with weak constitutions avert your eyes. Spoiler Rimeelear Level 20 Elf Warrior Reaper's Scythe Bolg's Club Of Evasion Blazing Shortsword Yolotli Armor Eeygonnic's Shield Helm Of Reinforcement Kelharin's Clogs Cautious Mobility Savvy Attacker 1 x Blind Rage 1 x Clumsy Chop 3 x Fiery Stab 1 x Combustible 1 x Reliable Hide Armor 5 x Dodge 1 x Impaler 3 x Enchanted Harness 2 x Wounded Block 2 x Team Run 1 x Stab 2 x Obliterating Chop 2 x Officer's Harness 2 x Elven Maneuvers 1 x Mail 1 x Surging Shield Block 1 x Cautious Sneak 1 x Barbed Platemail 3 x Strong Bludgeon 1 x Slicer 1 x Obliterating Bludgeon Yes, that's right. Eleven whole attacks. With so few attacks the point of this character wasn't to rush up and kill other people. It was to camp out victory points with a ton of armor and Dodges. There are no hard rules on deck construction and thinking that way is just limiting yourself.
Have you ever met a bashing warrior? One bash, and you're pointlessly staying out of the victory area with all your Dodges and armor. Violent Spin will work too.
Unless it's a Pressing Bash you can get back on without any problem since there are so many movement cards. I see Violent Spin once every thirty games probably. Everyone runs Team Run instead. Come to think of it, I see almost as few bashes as Violent Spins.
Then you just exploit the weaknesses of the other builds - in other words, it's a "metagame warrior". Yes, it will hold its ground versus the mindless brute with range 1 attacks, but encumbrance will kill you (you don't have that much armor and blocks), Violent Spin will just move you away (BTW I have a nice build with 3 Violent Spins), and Jade's build will either kill you with range 2 attacks or force you to retreat. I don't know whether Entangling Roots is played nowadays, but it kills you too. Actually, I guess even Mind Worm may be enough to kill you, since it's hard to defend without cards. Plus, I bet you know that a good wizard team with armor-melting is going to incinerate your elf in a few turns. Heck, I like this build, since I am constantly dabbling with the Yolotli Armor myself, but the warrior should kill. This is his primary task.
This warrior is not built to exploit a metagame. I have Parry filled builds for that. I don't know if you've been playing recently but frost mages have become all but extinct. Violent Spin is only a problem on maps with only one victory point. I have 2 other characters to help kill people if the sole point gets taken. Stab attacks are only undodgeable if they are right next to you which defeats the purpose of running stabs. I also have my own stabs to attack back with. Entangling Roots is almost never played over Mass Frenzy and Impenetrable Nimbus. We can discuss every scenario you can think of if you'd like but it is impossible to have a warrior that can beat everything.
There is no need to have a dedicated frost mage. Just one Cone of Cold item will be enough. Surely it is. And we shouldn't discuss the details of your build here. Personally I prefer a dwarven warrior when I want to grab & hold victory areas, just because of high HPs and good protective skills. But that's just my preference. Staying on the topic: I really think that Quick Jon's Axe would be much better in your build than Reaper's Scythe. You would have more attacks and would be able to discard the opponent's blocks. Blind Rage isn't very good in a deck with just 11 attacks. If you have Blind Rage and just one attack in your hand, would you rush to the enemy to spend that attack or suffer 3 damage from Blind Rage? I don't like both alternatives.
I have seen exactly one Cone of Cold since the encumber nerf. You seem to be missing the point of the build. Attacks don't matter. If the warrior isn't winning through attacking then trait cycling is better. Since you aren't relying on attacks they are the first cards you discard as well. You will never take damage from Blind Rage if you play correctly. By the way, this thread was created especially for you so don't worry about getting off topic here.
This is really strange since people should play a lot of Dodges. I don't believe in the warrior "winning without attacking" at all. A wizard will just kill him. If this thread was created to discuss me, I am leaving it, since that's pointless. But if it was meant to discuss my opinion, then it's possible to get offtopic, and it's actually quite easy.
Given the items presented to me, I came up with a build that seemed to fit. I was never given a chance to argue, discuss or admit anything. You simply assume that one post means that I contradict myself, therefore I agree with you. Nope. You can build a succesful warrior with only 9-10 attacks. That being said, is this warrior going to be drawing 1-2 attacks most turns? No. And therein lies the point. Making a warrior with a limited number of attacks isn't going to be very effective on turn-by-turn offense. Which is pretty standard for this game. It works quickly and it defeats a broad spectrum of opponents but it's a basic playstyle that is not that hard to predict and outplay, especially with Nimble Strike : Step 4 out of the picture. In order for some warriors to work effectively, they deviate from the standard, rush-your-opponents-and-kill-them-strategy, but that isn't the only strategy or even the best strategy. But when everyone's strategy is rush, the "best" build is the one that rushes hardest and deals the most damage. Which means big attacks, and lots of them. OK Ector, you have a very strong opinion and on top of that, you inflict restrictions on your deckbuilding based on imagined weaknesses in your items. How is that beneficial to you, or anyone? Things like: Can't use any number of dodge besides 3. Must use 3 or less Blind Rage. Must use 14 attacks or more. Strict rules based on a rule of thumb or a personal feeling/experience bias aren't very good rules. Every person imagines deckbuilding differently, some people think in card numbers, others in percentages and type ratios, and others still think of items as being other items when you need them to be. Your only restrictions are the items available to you and your power tokens. And your creativity. I see new players running around with Yolotli Armor and even Mail of Absorbtion quite often. It's pretty funny. But yeah, if your Warrior should kill then your Warrior should probably run attacks. Lots of them. Right? Spoiler There's no way a warrior with less attacks is *better* than a warrior with MOAR attacks. It's not possible. But that's like saying, Priests should vamp. Vampirism is their primary task. Well it's cool and effective but it's not their only build. That's like saying you don't believe in the Loot Fairy. You are missing out, man. So having 1-2 Cone of Cold, maybe 3 in a deck is enough to shut down an enemy with dodge? That doesn't seem economical to me. Remember, having Blind Rage + 1 attack means that you actually have one extra card, PLUS Blind Rage attached. Back in the good ol' days, if it was a Nimble Strike or Oblit it certainly didn't hurt to keep it and even tank the 3 damage. If it was a Weak Chop it would be discarded most often. Even showing your opponent your attack wouldn't make a big deal, since now they position their characters to avoid or counter my attack, and I play around them.
This is contradictory. You're saying the Scythe is worse because it has less attacks, and therefore forces you to play 6-attack weapons. However, if "less attacks" is worse, then you wouldn't want to play anything except 6-attack weapons in the first place. Therefore being "forced" to play 6-attack weapons would not be a drawback at all. And therefore the Scythe would not be worse. In other words, the Scythe is only "worse" if it is "better." If it is better that makes it worse because it prevents you from using sweet <6 attack weapons. But if it is worse it must be better, because all those low-attack-count weapons would be useless and the drawback would disappear.
Look, I didn't have any serious counterarguments prior to this thread, just the stupid personal attacks. And by "you" I mean not just you, but everybody who was involved in that. No you cannot build a successful warrior with only 9-10 attacks since that warrior is going to do just nothing. You can build a pure support priest or a pure support wizard, but not a pure support warrior, since the warrior has almost no good cards to support the other character. Building a warrior with only armor, movement and Dodges means that once the opponent will find a way to disable his defenses, he will be dead. And there are lot of such ways even without building the special anti-decks. I know about some strategies without much "rush & kill", but every warrior should at least be able to kill a wizard if needed. It's just stupid to allow the wizards to safely incinerate you, and the only way a warrior can prevent that is killing them first. Unfortunately, this is a flawed logic, and the final solution is totally false. My restrictions aren't just biases as you seem to think, I can back them up both with math and my own experience. A warrior needs a certain number of attacks to be able to kill enemies reliably. As I've said, I don't believe in "nondamaging warriors" at all. The warriors need some movement to reach the enemy. And they need some protection to increase their chances to survive and reach the enemies - or just to force the enemies to come for the victory area they're guarding. The proportions may wary, and some combinations make a good synergy while the others don't. I can play 2 or 5 dodges, but I just want to have one copy of Dodge, but not several copies of it. After all, I need the other cards too. BTW, your deck has exactly 3 Dodges I can play more than 2 Blind Rages, but I just prefer not to trade too many protection or attacks cards for them. After all, Blind Rage is good only if you have enough attacks and enough movement to have a target for these attacks. Your deck has 3 Blind Rages and 15 attacks, which is quite good. I really doubt that you would ever replace your Double-Edged Sword with a Flashing Longspear or Rageblood Dagger, since you feel that having more than 3 Blind Rages and less attacks will be worse. Why I cannot feel the same? I've never said that, and that's just stupid. A warrior with 15 attacks and a good tech will overcome a warrior with 18 attacks and no tech. But there is a point after which the warrior becomes unable to kill reliably, and I believe that 14 attacks is the point. As I've said, Priests have a lot of good supporting cards, warriors don't. So you can have a healing priest, a MF/Martyr priest, a Savage Curse priest, and many many others, but for a warrior you can only choose how he's going to kill, to move and to defend. I have a funny warrior build aiming to grab the victory area and stay there, but it also must have enough Bashes to move the enemies away - and to kill the enemy wizard if needed. Great example. Building a warrior with low number of attacks is like relying on getting the good epics from the Loot Fairy. Yes, you can get them... sometimes. But a really good party should be consistent, while the Loot Fairy isn't. Cone of Cold is a great way to save your damaging wizards from the opposing warriors. Just one action and one card almost guarantees you two turns of safety, especially if your opponent doesn't have a lot of step attacks. My support wizard (the guy helping my burning wizard) always has some freezing spells. Plus, Cone of Cold disables Dodge and can be pumped by Savage Curse. I can't get this. Blind Rage just replaces itself, and you have the same number of cards + Blind Rage attached.
Don't be trapped by such primitive logic, it isn't mine. I've never said that having more attacks is always better than having less. But there is a threshold after which a warrior becomes unable to kill the enemies consistently, and I believe that 14 attacks is minimal. As long as the Scythe has only 3 attacks, it "forces" us to play at least 6- and 5-attack weapons to reach 14. Jade's build has two 6-attack weapons, and he's safe with 15 attacks total.
Where do you pull the magic number 14 out of? I can make a warrior with 12 attacks and still be able to kill a character "reliably". It depends on specific items on a specific character in a specific party. You can't just stick a number on Reaper's Scythe, and go "14!", which can never be allowed to deviate from. One of the best items is in fact Blocking Mace, which only has 3 attacks but has 2 Parry. You can often designate one warrior a tank/blocker, or even tech one Mace in just because Parry, like Dodge, can provide phenomenal advantage. If you can get past the fact that having 1 less attack in your deck still gives you plenty of deckbuilding options, instead of limiting you somehow, that would be great. If you can't, you'll never understand the value of Reaper's Scythe, no matter how much we discuss this.
The theory is quite simple. Your warrior draws two cards every turn + his racial move card (without the extra draws from his priest) When he is trying to kill somebody, he wants both these cards to be attacks, especially in the most popular MF/Blind Rage party. If you have 14 attacks out of 36 cards, your chance of drawing an attack card is 14/36 = 0.389. Your chance of drawing both attack cards is 0.1512. But, of course, you have some traits that should be taken into account, let's say 5. Then the total chance of drawing one attack will be 14/36 + 5/36*14/36 + 5/36*5/36*14/36.... the math provides 0.4516 in this case, and the chance of drawing two attacks is just 0.204. If you replace 14 with 13, you will get 0.419 and 0.176. More importantly, the chance of having zero attacks in the last case will be 0.3372 - more than 1/3! With 14 attacks the chance is roughly 0.3, and only 0.266 with 15 attacks. The more traits you have, the bigger will be the difference. Do I need to explain what happens when your warrior draws no attacks? You were chasing the enemy wizard and almost killed him, but you drew no attacks and allowed him to live (and attack you!) one extra turn. That's a disaster. Yes, Parry is a great card, but only versus melee. It's a dead card versus the wizards, and it became much worse when Unnerving Strike arrived. You have 50% chance to fail blocking it and just lose your Parry, 100% if backstabbed. I admit that it's possible to build a deck where the Scythe will be better than the Axe, as you've demonstrated this. I don't know how much is "plenty of deckbuilding options", but it's clear to me that the number of options will be much more for the Axe.
