--- I was underwhelmed by the Devil's ability (not how devil players used it, mind you, but the ability itself). It just seemed like it didn't slow down Team Avacyn as much as it should have, considering it did area damage.
--- Cultist worked very well; I chose Cultist entering the game because, sizing up the three of them, Cultist seemed like the one I would have the easiest time using to good effect.
--- Wolfir seemed quite balanced as well, and I wouldn't have changed a thing about it.
--- I had mixed feelings about the Cathar. It was pretty darn powerful, but I acknowledge the fact that much of its power was derived from strategic use - such as capitalizing on my blunder in the first post I made here. Strategic play, however, always gets my thumbs up, so no complaints here.
--- Now, for my main gripe (and I hope I don't irk anyone) - I thought the Angel's ability was overpowered, and figured it would stunt Team Demon's efforts. I would have preferred the Angel's power be based on allied blocks, rather than enemy blocks. However, having been one of the two main members of Orzhov in GWIII, I suppose I'm in no place to suggest a lifegain ability is too strong.
EDIT: Reconsidering the Demon, I suppose it was more powerful in practice than it was on paper. Its ability to bite demon-controlled blocks was a non-factor.
Also, still haven't decided whether I want to give Selin a flavorful right-off. The fact that my team lost doesn't matter (see the Eldrazi voting game for that precedent), but I didn't really become attached to him, and when that happens, my motivation tends to wane (see Hazidai in the Phyrexia game).
"I don't like X, they should remove it." "I like X, they should keep it." "They should replace X with Y." "Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better." "Why don't they include both X and Y." "Yeah, everybody can be happy then!" "But I don't like X, they should remove it." "X really needs to be replaced with Y." "But they can include both X and Y." "But I don't like X, they need to remove it." "Remove X, I don't like it."
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived.
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up!
We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and....
One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison...
MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development.
TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment.
You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :|
I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
I was most bothered by the endgame mechanic. Intuitively, the game feels like it should be about claiming and holding territory, but the endgame punishes you for holding territory, since the more you have, the more points you lose.
The demon ability is clearly the most powerful ability in the game. It is the only ability that lets you deal extra damage and gives you extra life. You just need to be surrounded by 2 to double the effectiveness of your turn, which with the angel and devil abilities happen when you are surrounded by 4. (effectiveness measured in own points + enemy points). It is also the best ability for concentrating points, which is important because of the endgame.
It's clearly better than the angel ability, but both contributed to making the game counterintuitive. I think that in future games, stuff that feels powerful should be powerful.
I think we were very lucky that they only had one demon. I think they were lucky that we only had one cathar.
Overall none of this mattered much. We outnumbered them severely in the mid game and just barely in the endgame, and neither abilities nor strategy were significant enough to overturn that advantage.
But it aggravates me when people do strategically suboptimal things. The demon ability and cathar ability, in particular, meant that one can attack and reinforce in such a way as to help the opponent, and this frequently occured. I think I might have to avoid voting games in the future to protect my own fragile sanity.
Overall none of this mattered much. We outnumbered them severely in the mid game and just barely in the endgame, and neither abilities nor strategy were significant enough to overturn that advantage.
Oddly enough, that was actually my main concern coming into this game, knowing that there would be only two factions, as opposed to the Phyrexian civil war game or GuildWars.
My greatest fear with two teams on even terms is that if one side can attract a noticeably larger number of players, the other side has essentially no way of putting up a fight. There are special cases where two sides are bound to work given the nature of the game, such as the Eldrazi Awakening game, in which three players were designated to be the Eldrazi Titans (complete with super abilities and massive amounts of health), while every other player entered as a Zendikar defender, who was, by comparison, a pipsqueak who had to rely on strength in numbers to take the fight to the Titans.
When I saw that Avacyn would have two balanced sides, my thoughts turned to the Scars of Mirrodin game, in which the Phyrexians, acquiring more players in a short amount of time, quickly overwhelmed the Mirrans and won in a few days. Lucky for us, this game wasn't anywhere near as quick as that one was.
But it aggravates me when people do strategically suboptimal things. The demon ability and cathar ability, in particular, meant that one can attack and reinforce in such a way as to help the opponent, and this frequently occured. I think I might have to avoid voting games in the future to protect my own fragile sanity.[/spoiler]
Yep, it's always a bit awkward to play right into the other team's hands - you know, like I did in my first move in this game. .
"I don't like X, they should remove it." "I like X, they should keep it." "They should replace X with Y." "Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better." "Why don't they include both X and Y." "Yeah, everybody can be happy then!" "But I don't like X, they should remove it." "X really needs to be replaced with Y." "But they can include both X and Y." "But I don't like X, they need to remove it." "Remove X, I don't like it."
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived.
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up!
We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and....
One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison...
MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development.
TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment.
You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :|
I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
.
