Subject: Guardians: Disputed lands and draw modifications
From: casmith@ksu.ksu.edu (Charles A Smith)
Date: 1995/09/04
I would like a little better understanding of the rationale for LDL and MDL draw modifications.
Apparently, if you have control of more disputed lands you get to draw more cards [both Guardians in my two player game have +1 MDL] while if you have control of the fewest disputed lands you get a reduction (-1 LDL). So, in a two-player game with the Guardians I now have, the player with control of more disputed lands gets two more cards a turn than his opponent.
Hmmmm. This seems to be a pretty significant difference. Drawing fewer cards puts you at a sig. disadvantage. What is the rationale for this? At first blush, it seems to me that the losing player should be given a slight advantage to be more competitive, reversing the current rule. However... if my understanding of the rule is correct, I might offer the following rationale:
"We wanted to prevent players from building large armies safely tucked away in their strongholds. We wanted to promote aggressive play right from the get-go. We wanted to encourage this attack style by rewarding those who took the initiative to capture and take control of disputed lands."
Is my interpetation correct?
Subject: Re: Guardians: Disputed lands and draw modifications
From: locjlb@telerama.lm.com
Date: 1995/09/05
Its a big advantage, but a necessary one, as you have concluded:::
Is my interpetation correct?
Very good account. The game rules force the players to be aggressive. This makes the games go quicker.
Joe
Subject: Re: Guardians: Disputed lands and draw modifications
From: billj@postoffice.ptd.net (William Jordan)
Date: 1995/09/05
Your interpretation is right on. The game is meant to be played fast. Luke Peterschmidt is one of the most aggressive players I have seen. If you get a land up on your oponent, you are rewarded.
If you penalized a player for being aggressive (ie. giving the extra cards to the other player), many players would sit back and never attack. I know a lot of players like this. Even by giving the aggressor the advantage, many people will still try to sit back and stockpile. This rule allows these "safe" players to being quickly crushed so you can move on to other people who actually want to "play" the game.
My advise is to never be at a land disadvantage. Even if you think your shield is a little weak, you must attack to avoid giving your opponent the card advantage. If you sit back and try to build up your shields on two cards per turn, I guarantee that your shields will be weaker than your opponents. I've seen a lot of games played, and seldom (but not never) has anyone come back from a disputed land deficit to win.
BTW: In a 4 player game, the disputed land bonuses are not as devistating. At most, one person gets the bonus, and one person gets the penalty. To stay in the game, you just have to make sure that one other person has the same number, or less disputed lands as yourself.
There appears to be missing messages here.
Subject: Re: Guardians: Disputed lands and draw modifications
From: locjlb@telerama.lm.com
Date: 1995/09/07
In article <42kspa$hup@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, uk41@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
says...
Actually, when both players have only a very limited amount of resources
(cards) available (as in the first few turns), high-vitality creatures are
much better than low-vitality creatures; more hitting power in the beginning
=> gain land superiority => more hitting power later on due to drawing 2 more
cards than your opponent.
At least that's what it seems like (to me), after playing some starter vs.
starter games.
Nice cards, though.
This also makes it much more important to get a good starting card draw. If
your opponent is lucky, and has lots of high-vitality creatures (and some
shields to move them), and you only have some low-powered creatures and
"other" cards, he will probably gain land superiority in turn 2.
One thing that is definitely overlooked in this scenario is this:
The opponent has two shields, each has two 14 point Creatures in it.
I have one Shield, thirty points worth of Creatures. (lets say 6 five point ones)
I attack you. You kill two of my Creatures. I have four Secondary attackers. Which I definitely kill one of yours, and possibly both if I use off-color, Channeling, or one of my spell.
The main thing, to me, is this:
In combat, you can only kill one Creature for every one of your own. (ok, there are some exceptions....).
So when you put two big Creatures in a deck, you can only kill two of mine. Meanwhile, when I kill one of yours, half your army is gone. Two attacks by me will destroy that Shield.
Big Creatures--it ain't that simple.
Joe
Subject: Re: Guardians: Disputed lands and draw modifications
From: uk41@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Arne Gabriel)
Date: 1995/09/09
I agree that it is not that simple. But in the above example, you still need more cards for your small-creature shield than your opponent does for his two big-craeture shields. Suppose that with 9 cards, your opponent could get three shields with two 15pt. cratures each, while you could only get one "winning"-shield if all you had was 5pt. creatures. Wouldn't your opponent have it easier to conquer more terrains at the start of the game (and gain land superiority) than you ?
Well, maybe, maybe not. I have just played a few games with untuned starter-decks, so I necessarily have a limited point of view on those apects of the game. But that is what it seemed like after playing - and I still think that having a better starting card draw than your opponent is rather helpful for winning, and can be decisive, in fact.
Could be that these observations are misleading. Maybe you just need to spend more money on cards to make the game better ? I certainly won't complain if the game turns out to be more interesting than I thought at first. :-)
Arne Gabriel
Subject: Re: Guardians: Disputed lands and draw modifications
From: billj@postoffice.ptd.net (William Jordan)
Date: 1995/09/10
At first, I assumed that large creatures were naturally better. But that has not proven to be the case.
First, your opponent cannot gain land superiority on the first turn without flying creatures.
Second, your opponent doesn't know that those shields with four creatures only total 15 vitality. Use secrecty to your advantage.
Third, many big point creatures can be bribed. If you have a lot of low point creatures, make sure you have plenty of bribery.
The best decks seem to have a mix of creatures. That is not to say that any given starter deck will do well. Go through your deck and pull out worthless cards. For instance, if you only have one or two knights, pull out St. Ballantine's Evocation.
Bill Jordan
Subject: Re: Guardians: Disputed lands and draw modifications
From: locjlb@telerama.lm.com
Date: 1995/09/10
In article <42s371$hr4@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, uk41@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de says...
I agree that it is not that simple. But in the above example, you still need more cards for your small-creature shield than your opponent does for his two big-craeture shields. Suppose that with 9 cards, your opponent could get three shields with two 15pt. cratures each, while you could only get one "winning"-shield if all you had was 5pt. creatures. Wouldn't your opponent have it easier to conquer more terrains at the start of the game (and gain land superiority) than you ?
No. cause on the first few turns, the number of controlled lands is going to be three apiece. The disputed lands directly in front of you are considered yours until the opponent takes it.
Well, maybe, maybe not. I have just played a few games with untuned starter-decks, so I necessarily have a limited point of view on those apects of the game. But that is what it seemed like after playing - and I still think that having a better starting card draw than your opponent is rather helpful for winning, and can be decisive, in fact.
Well, excuse my audacity, but I've run playtesting for at least a thousand hours of games, with some deadly playtesters, and I dont see this happening.
Could be that these observations are misleading. Maybe you just need to spend more money on cards to make the game better ? I certainly won't complain if the game turns out to be more interesting than I thought at first. :-)
You simply CANNOT buy a winning Guardian deck. I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
Joe
Send email at cjburke@io.com.
Return to Guardians page.
All other content are copyright by their authors.