If this is the set of changes we’re going to use for the (non-experimental) summer tournament, I’d rather it be modest and conservative, as per Bomber’s intent.
2 Likes
That’s what I’ve been saying
Did the post in a hurry, new The Boot proposal should have gone in the “still in discussion” section, ty for calling it out! I do think it’s more worth considering than the 3-cost + Upgrade option one though. Smaller change, simpler.
I think the Gunship cost increase isn’t necessary but is warranted but if that’s contested that’s fine too.
Intent of the summer tournament is to be “standard”.
Updating the Final Proposal w/ latest seeming consensus (speak up if this list is still contested!)
| Nerfs | |
|---|---|
| Vandy | Remove resist 1 at midband |
| Garth | Reduce midband stats to 2/3 |
| MoLaC | If you have no units in play, remove all runes from this |
| Lich’s Bargain | Base damage increased from 4 to 6 |
| Pirate Gunship | Remove obliterate 2, increase cost to 7 |
| Deteriorate | Increase cost to 1 |
| Dark Pact | Increase cost to 1 |
| Bird’s Nest | Sacrifice birds when birds nest leaves play |
| Buffs | |
|---|---|
| Troq | Swap midband and maxband |
| Mid at 4 and max at 7 | |
| Let maxband target any building |
Still for further discussion, may need vote:
| Nerfs | |
|---|---|
| Battle Suits | Change to apply to "Purple Soldiers and Mystics |
| Buffs | |
|---|---|
| Intimidate | Change to “Give a Unit or Hero -3/-1” |
| The Boot | Cost moves to 2, change from “Spell - Debuff” to “Spell” |
… Anything else?
3 Likes
“Base dame”, huh? 
2 Likes
I’m not in favour of the Boot cost down to 2, nor am I in favour of changing Intimidate in this fashion.
If you want the boot to have better trades, the suggestion to sideline then destroy would achieve this without having it win trades with most everything. Now that I’m thinking about the consequences of boot costing 2, I’m not so sure about even this.
As originally designed, the boot is an expensive trade with most things but it gives a tempo advantage compared with summoning a unit. If the boot cost 2, I reckon skipping all buildings, teching 2 boots then 2 final smash, would probably be a winning strategy 70% of the time.
And intimidate can get extra value when in a combo with brick thief, gunpoint taxman, bone collector, etc. It gives you strong trades in exchange for tempo. Making it -3/-1 weakens that role in exchange for putting another deteriorate in the game. Why would we want this?
5 Likes
I agree that gunship cost doesnt need to go up, feels like too much change for one go.
And 100% prefer modest and conservative for the purposes of this tournament.
3 Likes
Adding Troq minor changes as well.
Troq
Swap midband and maxband
Mid at 4 and max at 7
Let maxband target any building
This is still the list I would go with for this tournament, in order to maintain minimal changes. My experience with the XCAPS is that 1 tournament is not enough feedback to truly judge the changes completely.
4 Likes
When I say new Forum Standard™, I mean that we never have to touch these changes again.
That they become a permanent mainstay, a new standard.
This is not an experimental standard, just, the new ruleset that we all use.
Hence, Forum Standard™.
1 Like
I think it’ll take more experimentation before we can really agree that they never need to be changed again, but yeah I think that’s what everyone is trying to work towards, it’ll just take time to get there.
edit: also while I agree with the “fix the broken stuff first” I think the end goal would be having all the specs being viable in tournament play, but I think that’s a really long term goal.
4 Likes
I mean for just this set of changes. Maybe there are more in future.
2 Likes
Respectfully, @Bryce_The_Rice, if this is truly the goal then a lot more playtesting is needed.
I don’t think any consensus or amount of playtesting on changes has been conducted to justify any of the changes being discussed becoming a “permanent mainstay”. The XCAFS22 changes didn’t go nearly far enough to satisfy most players as “a new standard”, and we haven’t done a lot of playtesting on much further.
I think we’re at least two tournaments of iterations away from collectively agreeing to a “permanent mainstay” and we should adjust our expectations to align w/ that reality.
I’m fine w/ making Summer try not to move the needle too far, but I don’t think whatever we land on now will be well and truly dusted for any extended period of time. I expect to need a 2.1 and 2.2 version before a “new standard” emerges.
Unless there’s more to discuss on the Suits, Intimidate, and The Boot proposals, I will put up a vote on how we proceed for the summer changeset tomorrow or Wednesday
4 Likes
Hence why I am pushing for small, iterative, conservative changes.
What change (if any) should be made for Battle Suits?
- Make it apply only to purple soldiers and mystics
- No change at this time
0 voters
What change (if any) should be made for The Boot?
- Cost down to 2
- Add “Destroy an upgrade”, leave card as is otherwise
- No change at this time
0 voters
What change (if any) should be made for Intimidate?
- Modify from -4 atk to -3/-1
- No change at this time
0 voters
“Iterative” and “final that last a long time” are diametrically opposed in my mind but if we’re aligned on “iterative but conservative” I think we’re talking past each other and just trying to align on the scope of “conservative” 
(EDIT since I can’t reply again w/ 3 straight posts)
Thanks to all who voted. The Bashing changes look pretty contested but the Battle Suits change is pretty unanimous. Any further discussion folks want to have to appeal to vote swaps on Bashing before the polls close in 15 hours and we finalize the changeset for CAMS? As of the current results I think the “conservative” play is for CAMS to simply ignore any bashing updates beyond the agreed upon Troq body updates.
2 Likes
In think we have a majority on “the boot needs a buff”, I think we could test a change to it already this tournament. Thoughts?
This is a late entry but based on observing the Bird’s Nest changes in playtesting, I think we are overcorrecting and that change is not “conservative”. In four plays of the card, the birds have died before they were able to attack three times.
Late to be un-finalizing things I realize but I wonder if we should lose 1 bird when it leaves play as a milder change. Thoughts?
1 Like
I’m in favor of the proposal which has been mentioned multiple times:
upkeep resummons one bird only, limit: 2
Do nothing when the nest leaves play
3 Likes
I sorta feel like that’s too conservative. Lose one bird provides some non-tower counterplay to low AA specs (which I believe was the impetus for the sac all birds change).
That said lose one bird is definitely less conservative
1 Like
I agree it does feel like an overnerf so far. Only resummon 1 sounds good to me
1 Like