Author

ZephyrPhantom · « **Reply #12 on:** December 03, 2012, 04:28:42 am »

Here's a hastily thrown-together duo for Volunteer 2, whoever the combatant plans to be.

Spoiler for If you plan on deckbuilding Volunteer 1, do not look.:

jawdirk · « **Reply #13 on:** December 03, 2012, 08:10:34 am »

Not really sure if this would work or not for Volunteer 1; it's just an idea. I am guessing it wouldn't be extremely strong. I'm sure the quanta needs some tweaking too:

Spoiler for Volunteer 1:

Relics are Imps of course.

In my opinion, imps are not immensely powerful when stacked. They do nothing until the enemy actually plays a card. So the enemy can just build up quanta until they have imps+cost of the quanta they need. Even a couple of enemy pillars dominate any number of Imps you can play. It seems to me that devourers are a lot better since they eat quanta every turn, before you can use it. I don't think they would do much against a rainbow deck either. You just "try" to cast all your mono spells every turn, and get lots of free quanta until eventually you can cast whatever you want.

Blackhole seems like the way to exploit Imp, but I'm not convinced it is going to do enough.

Interesting question: Say you have 1

in your quanta pool, and your enemy has 1 Imp out. You cast nova. Do you lose the

and get an additional 3? I assume the nova succeeds no matter what happens since it is free?

Hyroen · « **Reply #14 on:** December 03, 2012, 08:15:50 am »

Thank you for the submissions, I will attempt to playtest and submit the results of 5 games.

@jawdirk: Thank you for the insights. It's true that the effects of Imp are at the mercy of the opponent's actions. And yes, if Nova is played your quanta would be unaffected due to the effects of Imp as you are essentially paying 0 quanta and therefore are not touching any quanta pool.

OldTrees · « **Reply #15 on:** December 03, 2012, 09:28:42 am »

Good system for acquiring playtesting decks with minimal bias.

Hyroen · « **Reply #16 on:** December 06, 2012, 09:18:29 am »

Thank you jawdirk and Zblader. Volunteer 1, the user of Imp won the first round. The match lasted 11 turns and jawdirk's deck won with 72HP remaining. The transcript of the match is found below.

If anyone finds any errors with the way the playtesting was run, please notify me and I will correct them, however I did my best to ensure there be no errors. All randomization was done with www.random.org/lists/

Spoiler for Transcript of Playtest:

Boy, playtesting takes a while. More matches to come.

OldTrees · « **Reply #17 on:** December 06, 2012, 09:49:23 am »

I have found only recording new information in the log* each turn results in shorter playtesting times.
*I have a separate field being updated which is the current game state.

Spoiler for my initial analysis:

Hyroen · « **Reply #18 on:** December 06, 2012, 07:45:32 pm »

At the end of Player 2's second turn they were left with 5

. They needed all of it in order to play Gargoyle, when they tried playing Gargoyle in turn 3, 2

were affected by 2x Imp and therefore initially removed. 1

was returned by the effect which is why in that same turn playing Gargoyle was negated:

1x Gargoyle {[-2(dar)][+2(dea),+1(air),+1(dar),+1(gra),+1(aet)]2x Imp} NEGATE

OldTrees · « **Reply #19 on:** December 06, 2012, 10:08:29 pm »

Quote from: Hyroen on December 06, 2012, 07:45:32 pm

At the end of Player 2's second turn they were left with 5 . They needed all of it in order to play Gargoyle, when they tried playing Gargoyle in turn 3, 2 were affected by 2x Imp and therefore initially removed. 1 was returned by the effect which is why in that same turn playing Gargoyle was negated:

1x Gargoyle {[-2(dar)][+2(dea),+1(air),+1(dar),+1(gra),+1(aet)]2x Imp} NEGATE

Yes, they had 5

. However with 2 Imps in play the likelihood of Gargoyle being negated and losing quanta was very high. They lucked out that game to merely have the Gargoyle negated and convert 2

=> 1

+ 1

+ 4

.
Losing 2 quanta was a (10/12)^6th= 33.4% chance.
Losing 1 quanta was a (10/12)^5th * (2/12) * 6 = 40.2% chance.
Losing 0 quanta was a 26.4% chance.
If they had 6

vs 2 imps then the chance of some positive result would be 66.6% rather than 26.4%.
If they had 7

vs 2 imps then the chance of some positive result would be 100% rather than 26.4%. (see turn 4)

So you did not make any mathematical errors. I believe this move on turn 3 was a misplay (73.6 chance of only negative results) but fortunately it did not impact the game (no quanta was lost).

Hyroen · « **Reply #20 on:** December 06, 2012, 10:25:49 pm »

It may have been a calculated misplay, however a misplay that took into account human error, and the desire to beatdown the opponent first. I did play using what I would think were good moves for most of the game, however any misplays made should have evenly been made for both players.

I could have another version of the game where Gargoyle was not attempted to be played if you wish OldTrees, it should only affect a few numbers.

That's the good thing about a playtest transcript, you get to manipulate variables. ^_^

OldTrees · « **Reply #21 on:** December 06, 2012, 10:34:48 pm »

Quote from: Hyroen on December 06, 2012, 10:25:49 pm

It may have been a calculated misplay, however a misplay that took into account human error, and the desire to beatdown the opponent first. I did play using what I would think were good moves for most of the game, however any misplays made should have evenly been made for both players.

I could have another version of the game where Gargoyle was not attempted to be played if you wish OldTrees, it should only affect a few numbers.

That's the good thing about a playtest transcript, you get to manipulate variables. ^_^

I have spent a lot of time thinking about indirect counters especially to denial. Against Imps the most dangerous thing is letting the Imps hit (destroy valuable quanta) twice due to a negation. I considered it a misplay so I informed you so you could decide for yourself in the future playtests.

Another version of this game is not necessary. The lucky result meant

was converted to

. This resulted in a conversion of

to

and insignificant healing for the opponent's unknown blackhole. I did not see anywhere where the +1

-1

had a huge impact.

Transcripts are useful indeed.

I eagerly await playtest 2.

blarp · « **Reply #22 on:** December 07, 2012, 08:28:20 am »

In my knowledge of upped play without stacking this card would be very underpowered. A cool effect, but not very useful. one possibility is that the ability itself should have a % chance of activating and then allow stacking. maybe based on total quanta.

might also think of limiting the effect to only cards of the opponents mark. because cards from a single element doesn't exclude very many cards...

have to consider if this is too good if used as additional druid fodder. probably not, but that's a factor.

if not used in combination with discord, this is like a slightly worse pest I think.

could limit the maximum number of times the effect could activate per turn. there's a lot of cards that are really good if you have a fractal'd field of them, so don't take that too heavily.

in a 30 card deck, with a bunch of these discord and fractal and enough aether pends/towers to pull it off, it doesn't leave you with much else. And since this doesn't lockdown as fast a normal DBH or discord sofo spam I don't think you're more likely to not be able to pull out a win. looking at my current discord decks I'm not sure what i would take out to replace with this either.

probably should make it so the effect per imp can only activate once in a turn. otherwise it could get a little iffy.

idk. Good to see that you're play testing it. Hope my rambles have some little bit of goodness in them.

Hyroen · « **Reply #23 on:** December 12, 2012, 12:56:04 am »

Volunteer 2, who wasn't using Imp won the second round. The match lasted 14 turns and Zblader's deck won with 65HP remaining. The transcript of the match is found below.

If anyone finds any errors with the way the playtesting was run, please notify me and I will correct them, however I did my best to ensure there be no errors. All randomization was done with www.random.org/lists/

Spoiler for Transcript of Playtest 2:

Sorry for taking even longer this time. Not only were there more details, but I have some side projects I'm working on as well.

More matches to come.

Author

ZephyrPhantom

Re: Imp | Imp https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=44915.msg1019172#msg1019172

jawdirk

Re: Imp | Imp https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=44915.msg1019209#msg1019209

Hyroen

Re: Imp | Imp https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=44915.msg1019211#msg1019211

OldTrees

Re: Imp | Imp https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=44915.msg1019217#msg1019217

Hyroen

Re: Imp | Imp https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=44915.msg1020034#msg1020034

OldTrees

Re: Imp | Imp https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=44915.msg1020040#msg1020040

Hyroen

Re: Imp | Imp https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=44915.msg1020157#msg1020157

OldTrees

Re: Imp | Imp https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=44915.msg1020196#msg1020196

Hyroen

Re: Imp | Imp https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=44915.msg1020212#msg1020212

OldTrees

Re: Imp | Imp https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=44915.msg1020213#msg1020213

blarp

Re: Imp | Imp https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=44915.msg1020303#msg1020303

Hyroen

Re: Imp | Imp https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=44915.msg1021545#msg1021545