General New Game Discussion

[Achilles]

Setup luck is not exactly "luck" it's how well you apply the meta, both within the game as a whole, and your approach to a specific player.

I have a Stone Golem. My opponents Muddy is able to immediately tele in and negate it. I now have a useless unit. Yeah, you could argue that I should understand the meta better, but if the meta is "the Stone Golem is now irrelevant," then the game is flawed. I guess that's my point.

[Aristocatt]

I have a Stone Golem. My opponents Muddy is able to immediately tele in and negate it. I now have a useless unit. Yeah, you could argue that I should understand the meta better, but if the meta is "the Stone Golem is now irrelevant," then the game is flawed. I guess that's my point.

I agree with you, and I realize I am being a bit pedantic, but I do believe the way that we approach and describe the concerns we have is important. I just want to make sure I am on the same page as everyone else when they discuss their gripes with the old game.

The freeturt was used in many games in tournament play at the end. Guide would squash people that weren't at a similar skill level to him by simply playing defensively. I had beaten prof 2 or 3 times in tournament play, but I don't think I ever beat guide once in tournament games or otherwise, and it was because his approach to the game against weaker players made it so hard edge out any kind of a serious advantage in a few moves.

[The Professor]

I have a Stone Golem. My opponents Muddy is able to immediately tele in and negate it. I now have a useless unit. Yeah, you could argue that I should understand the meta better, but if the meta is "the Stone Golem is now irrelevant," then the game is flawed. I guess that's my point.

The stone golem isn't automatically irrelevant. Depending on sets and skill, you could still conceivably win said game. If you're playing a high level player, maybe not. But if said player also got the wrong side, then you have a massive advantage.

It sucks if you're on the wrong end of it, but I've always thought that's what makes this game great and fascinating. Making sets to counter one or many, and then able to create another to counter and counter again.

Also, if one player likes to try to play with set advantages, you could also use that in your favor beforehand. It's no different from sports. Just takes preparation.

Another reason why knowing who you're playing is important and why secondaries are a nuisance.

[|AFO|]

What do you all think of having a larger "no man's land"?