|
Post by vermont on Jan 15, 2008 13:55:57 GMT -5
Small suggestion - assuming this will continue for some time, do we want to start adding the year to the header in addition to the month? If it dies out, no harm done. If it lasts another ten months, it will save us some headache.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Jan 15, 2008 17:13:23 GMT -5
I found it to be different... certainly not -un-enjoyable, but different... Usually, a lot of my play revolves around the double threat of PS... but without that double threat, it created the need for new strategies. Which I certainly enjoyed.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jan 18, 2008 10:48:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xade on Jan 19, 2008 4:38:53 GMT -5
youch... 12 damage in 3 turns... nice move.
|
|
|
Post by Citanest on Jan 19, 2008 5:23:42 GMT -5
By the way, did anyone else find that games weren't nearly as enjoyable without monsters running around? It was interesting to try for a few games, but I don't think I'll play this option by choice in the future. I completely agree. PSFW vs PSDF is a mechanic the game hinges on. Without monsters, all attacks must be targetted at the opponent, making feinting near impossible and counterspells far too powerful. The most interesting effect I found was to severely limit the usefulness of the gesture 'D' - Maladroit became near useless, and even DPP for some reason seemed less threatening. Since D was less useful for disruptions, and DFFDD was even harder than usual to get through, it was often used to heal. The increased use of heals, increased use of Wounds, and the increased power of countering made W a more powerful, versatile gesture than usual. I found the battles reminded me of FDF games - pretty much 2 people standing in the circle punching each other until one falls over. WFP and WPFD were used more often to circumvent superpowered-counterspells, and paralysis is used more (monsters are the best way to stop a para chain). Interestingly, Xade likes FDF and was quite keen on the no-monster games. Did you notice any similarity, xade?
|
|
|
Post by xade on Jan 19, 2008 6:22:27 GMT -5
Not overly, I find FDF to be *very* unforgiving. Generally, there is a lot of FDF going around, and making the wrong 50/50 call in it generally cost you a *lot* of initiative in it. In this game, I found myself getting thumped while trying to adjust to the weakness of Charm. Though I got lucky in one game charming an opponent into a double P. Against you, you kept the thump up. Against maven, I snuck in an FoD while on the ropes. And the other, I managed to squeek out a double death after being 14-3 down... All in all though, I found that the better way to play was all counters and disruptions, while FDF is all about the FDF...
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Jan 19, 2008 9:47:18 GMT -5
Feinting is not near impossible. The classic feint is DPP vs DPS anyway, and that doesn't involve monsters at all. But you're right that the game loses some dimensionality without monsters. Wounds are more important because the two main ways to win are wounds, and FOD. I agree about the gestures, too. I found myself converging on FFF in all of my games, partly because of the attractiveness of FOD in this format, partly because paralysis lost a weakness (opponent having monsters), and partly because the best spells in this format are all (except WPP) vulnerable to FFF, compare to PSDD which isn't really. Anyway, I think that's why DPP was less attractive. Opening theory changes drastically since PSFW is no longer an option, and therefore PSDx is no longer necessary. FFF is quite viable, which makes D much less useful. With D less useful, W in turn becomes less useful -- opening W was always playable, but with lost initiative unless combined with DPP. S is good, however, for SWD, as a para counter. The format did seem stale to me, but even stale formats are good for a few games. In my last game, I got a kill with a fire storm, after summoning two fire elementals, the first of which I summoned when I didn't have resistance, protection, a health advantage, nor enough initiative to guarantee any of those things. Talk about normally horrible moves. I would never be able to do that outside of this format! Finally a question about FDF. Xade, I have to wonder if one of the reasons you like FDF, is that there are zero players above your Elo who are willing to play FDF...
|
|
|
Post by xade on Jan 20, 2008 1:06:19 GMT -5
Nah, there's hardly *anybody* who plays it, and because of the nature of it, I wouldn't play "lower" players for ELO very often anyways...
But it's a fun varient that shakes up the mechanics of the game fairly well.
The only thing I wish for it is that DFD didn't count as a para... which would make for a para every second turn...
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jan 20, 2008 3:06:43 GMT -5
You could just agree with your opponent that DFD must be targeted at nobody.
But my biggest gripe with FDF is WPFDF, SPPFDF, and DFWFDF. The latter completely throws off the standard PSFW defense.
And on that note, I found my experience with the lack of monsters to be completely different from those described above. My thoughts are a bit scattered, but in no particular order:
PSDF may have lost a bit of its flexibility, but I managed to do quite well with twin charm into bolt. I think the loss of PSFW was more than made up for by the increased strength of SPFP, leading to nasty junctures with PSD, PSPF, PSPSD, etc. The Goblin/Troll followup to Antispell wasn't there, but it wasn't too hard to get a Bolt going on the other hand.
F was a bit weaker, as Fireball was the only exit option for it. I wound up landing it once or twice, but upon further analysis I think that the best play out of an F is to completely ignore it and do FDPP, FSWD, etc. jes went Fireproof at one point, and F became pretty much a dead gesture altogether. WFP was decent for sneaking in damage, but without the Giant follow up it didn't really seem as worth it.
Invis took a slight hit, owing to the lack of PPWS/SFWS, while Blindness benefited from it. I think FoD was a bit better, but I surprisingly didn't see too much of it. I never tried opening D/P (I was having too much fun with opening SPFP), but I'll bet that would go into a double delayed antispell standoff.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Jan 20, 2008 10:04:47 GMT -5
When is Troll ever a significant exit option from F? Troll and Fireball are both slower than switching gestures entirely and often, they're no better than, say, FDPP. It's an option all right, but it's loss doesn't really "weaken" F as a gesture option.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jan 20, 2008 16:43:20 GMT -5
True, it's not, but it still requires your opponent to do *something* to stop it. An Ogre can occasionally be worth giving up in exchange for a Lightning Bolt and initiative or something, but a there's no good way to come out ahead when your opponent has anything bigger.
My preferred exit from F in standard play is FS into FSS or FSW, but I'll occasionally gesture FP if it's actually a credible threat.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Jan 20, 2008 17:25:48 GMT -5
I kind of like FS an en exit to F. more ofter that not, you'll force a W onto one of the hand of the opponent... which I find generally allows for a dummy into goblin at the least...
|
|
|
Post by xade on Jan 20, 2008 17:26:12 GMT -5
(which wouldn't quite work in this varient either... )
|
|
|
Post by mclizard on Jan 21, 2008 5:02:19 GMT -5
Dear People (Slartucker in particular),
I recieved the following message from Loyus:
Message from Loyus: I'm withdrawing from the league for some time, you have a default win.
The question is: how should I book this in the results thread? surrender or death?
Thank you, M.C. Lizard
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Jan 21, 2008 9:45:40 GMT -5
Surrender. Concessions are normally surrenders.
|
|