[CAMS18] codexnewb [Future]/Peace/Balance vs RathyAro [Demon/Necro]/Finesse

Fixed it. @codexnewb

1 Like

alright, thatā€™s it. GG. not even a moral victory.

gg, this deck feels really oppressive against the multicolor decks that want to get to tech II. It makes me wonder how necessary the multicolor penalty really is.

I mean without the multicolour penalty, this deck could replace Necro with something to apply even more pressure at the tech 1 stage. Force your opponent to deal with hasty zane as well. Or truth for mirror/illusionsā€¦ It could get really brutal really quickly.

1 Like

If the multicolor penalty didnā€™t exist Iā€™m confident that Black would be the only monocolor codex that could be considered viable, and even then as Shadow_Night_Black says people would probably use Demon/Finesse/X (though I think Necromancy would fill in the X at least some of the time since Garthā€™s stuff does have lots of synergy with Demon/Finesse). The problem isnā€™t the penalty, itā€™s that Black (especially Demonology with the Black starter) is so oppressive even without multicolor.

I still think that the minimum change needed for Black is to make Deteriorate and Dark Pact both cost 1 to cast. Thereā€™s no cost if you play the two together, since Deteriorateā€™s only cost is to hand size (which Dark Pact covers) and Dark Pactā€™s only cost is base damage (which is irrelevant in most games unless your opponent is playing for a base race, which very few non-Red codices can do. If either one gets an added gold cost they both have to so that Reputable Newsman can still block both of them, so the natural way to handle it is to make both cost 1. Even with this change Iā€™m sure Black players would still use them both a lot, they just wouldnā€™t be able to use them quite so oppressively. Black probably still needs a few more tweaks, hence why I said itā€™s the minimum change needed, and Blue probably needs some buffs (Law in particular), but I consider this to be the most important part.

4 Likes

I agree with the black changes, but on the point of no other monocolor deck being viable, I donā€™t see that as an issue. The viability of the few mono color decks doesnā€™t compare to the many possible color combinations. Even now we could just play zane with black but we donā€™t because the monocolor advantage is more powerful than what you get from some other color. Iā€™d rather get rid of a seemingly unnecessary rule before balance changes.

Edit: btw 1 mana deteriorate seems reasonable but even 1 mana dark pact seems ridiculous. I donā€™t understand how it got such an insane rate. Its literally a better rate than ancestral recall. Same rate as gush like wtf.

I would caution strongly against direct comparisons to MTG. There are just way too many rules differences.

3 Likes

I canā€™t disagree with you more on this. The whole point of it is so that if someone just buys one of the Codex products at sirlingames.com (either the Core Set or one of the Expansions) and decides to try entering an IRL tournament with it, they would have a similar chance of winning as someone who owns all the colors and can mix them freely. The whole point of Codex was to make it so that neither the pre-game decision of what you bring with you to the tournament nor how much youā€™ve spent on the game matter as much as the deckbuilding decisions made during the game, and Sirlin didnā€™t originally want multicolor to exist, but he knew people would do it anyway so he made some rules to codify it and prevent it from getting out of hand.

Thatā€™s the rules working as intended, then. I donā€™t see this as a problem, and Iā€™m certain that if any updates to Codex ever happened Sirlin wouldnā€™t remove the penalty.

3 Likes

You can tell that the costs from codex are inspired by mtg. Of course itā€™s not going to be a 1 to 1 comparison, but thereā€™s no reason you canā€™t take a few lessons from a similar game with 25 years of chances to make mistakes. Cheap card draw has been consistently broken in mtg and the basics of card advantage and tempo are similar enough between games that you can expect similar results in codex.

I understand this philosophy and disagree with it. The value of being able to enter a tournament on a supposedly level playing field is overrated. Accessibility is something that is nice to have, but really is totally irrelevant compared to making sure the game is interesting and fun. There are plenty of successful game that both are and are not accessible. So if the trade off is giving more power to interesting decisions (pre game deckbuilding) vs some sense of fairness for a 1st time player, I would go with the former. Anyway new players love bringing in homebrews, itā€™s easier for them to appreciate the coolness of a combo then it is for them to appreciate an expertly played deck. The part in bold makes it clear that mixing is something people would obviously want and I donā€™t see the point in fighting it.

Youā€™re probably right, because he values competitive integrity so highly, but from a pure stance of how to maximize interesting and cool decisions it would be better if demon/finesse/x didnā€™t always have to be demon/finesse/necro. Of course every combo wouldnā€™t be equally powerful but if even 2 more options were viable that would be a net positive.

1 Like

While costs can be can be compared, just because a cost would be broken in magic, does not make it broken in codex. One thing to realise is that card draw is less powerful in codex then it is in mtg for many reasons:

  1. Gold, unlike mana, is conserved, therefore efficient spending of resources on each turn is not as required, and therefore card draw is not as required to gaurentee that you have the options to spend all of your gold/manaā€¦
  2. Cards are not conserved in Codex. Drawing into a card that you canā€™t play this turn means you have to wait an additional cycle to play it. This means that drawing too much on one turn can weaken your following turns, which is not the case in magic.
  3. People maintain the maximum ā€œhand sizeā€ in codex by default. In mtg, you only draw 1 card a turn, while often playing 2/3 cards (land and creatures/spells). This mean in magic you often have space in your hand for card draw spells to fill. In codex, due to the fact that the number of cards in your hand directly impacts the number of options you have the following turn (and the speed at which you draw into your new teched options), there is not this space to automatically be filled. And if you drop your handsize incase you draw into a dark pact, then you also reduce your chance of drawing the dark pact, which is obviously not the case in mtg.
  4. Default draw speed. In Magic, you only get 1 card a turn by default. In codex you get two. Even more importantly, in magic 1/3 ā†’ 1/2 of the time those are lands that do nothing by themselves, in codex, you chose if they are ā€œlandsā€ or gas, so drawing cards is less valuable, because you are already often drawing enough to play out each turn.
  5. Spells can be dead cards in Codex. In mtg, there is nothing stopping you casting your card draw spell, in codex, if Vandy is killed, dark pact is now a dead card and unplayable.

There are far more reasons as well, and many more reasons for more specific archtypes, however similar codex/mtg have rules wise, the difference between them rules wise means that although it should seem like you can directly compare mana costs etc, it really is best not to, as more often then not it can cause your to draw the wrong conclusion from what seems like valid premises.

7 Likes

With all that said did you think dark pact was a reasonable card when you first read it and what was your reasoning?

1 Like

When I first read it? I didnā€™t give it a second glance, I was far more interested in boosted Hooded Executioners, that I thought it was insane that Sacrifice the Weak was a starter deck card for how good I thought it was, and how spreading Plague could just wipe only your opponentā€™s board. Its only been fairly recently (last few months) since Iā€™ve read things like the Nudging the Tiller thread that my attention has been pulled to the card. Do I think its the sole reason that Demonology/Finesse/X is good? No. I think its a good card, but its a combination of many things thats demonology strong.

Personally I think that everyone is overreacting to the power level of Dark pact, but if they do want to tone down the power level of demonology (and making dark pact worse is a good way of doing that) then we should first decide what we wish demonology to feel and play like, as there are many possible nerfs (toneing down the speed at which Vandy levels, her combat stats, her resist at midband, the ability to fetch meta on demand, etc)

At the end of the day, you have a spec with a strong combat hero with strong spells that can be tutored for and a very strong ult. Is it really that surprising that it combines well with a spec with a strong aggressive tech 1 options and mass unit debuffs, and a starter that is known for its strong tempo plays and mechanisms that allows those cheap units to be reused?

If you want my opinion though on Dark Pact, I think the downside needed to be something other then base damage. Against any deck other the Red, you donā€™t really have to worry about your health, as very few other specs have options for punishing you for your low health once youā€™ve gained control of the board with your cheap units, personally I would have wanted it to be about sacrificing a unit to draw cards, but thats a much bigger rework then i would want to do on a card at this stage of the games life.

2 Likes

Iā€™ll be honest and say I thought it was garbage when I first read it. Playing on these forums quickly taught me how valuable card draw and cycling are, though

Garth already has thhe sacrifice a unit for card draw. Making dark pact similar seems counter intuitive. Making it ā€œdeal 1 damage to a hero you control and 1 damage to your baseā€ would be an interesting change, I think.

1 Like

Removing Vandy resist is a must. Sheā€™s such a strong combat hero, the answer to her should be spells, but they cost extra. You either lose gold or lose units, and itā€™s such a terrible trade most of the time.
Itā€™s also entirely superfluous, since she already has a bonkers mid band ability, and it feels like the resist was tacked on becauseā€¦ She needed to be less weak to spells??
Her ult also means whittling her down doesnā€™t work, because sheā€™ll just go big and invisible and kill you anyway. You have to take her out in one shotā€¦ After getting through her patrol zone, or spending all your gold and having no defence.

1 Like

Just looking at all the heroes, I get the impression sirlin was trying to put each kayword ability with a hero in some form. Vandy resist effects past, red, white, neutral, and black, which seems to be a large set of matchups. Iā€™m not saying it shouldnā€™t be removed, it just has pretty far reaching consequences. As a secondary design goal, making sure some hero has resist would also be nice. I could see Argagarg or Quince having resist, just as a thought.

1 Like

How about Bigby? Law is still one of the most underplayed specs, and in my eyes itā€™s not bad thematically either.

Well I could see that thematically, but bigby is also a hero you donā€™t really need to survive, sorta. Vandy having resist means you can more easily rely on her spells, she is that much more likely to be around to cast, particularly the ult. Bigby can use his spells whenever, even his ult. And without a Max health of 5, bigby is that much easier to remove with attacks. With quince, resist improves the usefulness of his ult and his spells in general. I also think there is thematically sense to putting resist on one of the two ā€œpureā€ casters.

1 Like

Calamandra already grants resist to units, so itā€™s already used in a way.

Yea I mean, if anything I think Troq perhaps deserves Resist, but I donā€™t think there must be a hero in the game w/ resist. Quince and Arg already have plenty of complexity on their abilities, same with Vandy. I think it would be appropriate as a topband for someone without a topband, the problem for Troq getting it is I think it doesnā€™t apply to anything in the Finesse matchup, and thus serves to confuse new players :confused:

I really like Dark Pact damaging a hero you control though. Feels more on theme than the base damage (which as has been pointed out, is basically free in most matchups). Iā€™d still tech it often, but it at least really limits its use in Vandy being such a bully.

1 Like