Chronic Logic

All good points.  I would agree with most.

1. Some sort of campaign would be awesome (and hard to program, I am sure).  The player starts with a few units and must use them again and again, gaining some as he goes and losing them for good in the campaign if he loses them.  That would be pretty cool.
2. Perhaps challenges?  "Win with only ranged units" for example.  Leads to badges?
3. Have designated nights where you hold tourneys?

Keep up the good work!

SLOTH

This just happened to me as well.  When my Dracolich took control of his units, the computer still used them as his own (which also wasted my actions, btw).  On my turn, I too was able to use them but I started with reduced actions.

This message is specifically a reply to Mongolian and his question;
"Can someone post a deck where Towers are being abused, cause I don't see this as an issue, even with a geomancer. 
"

This is my recipe for the "Unbeatable, tower army of death"  which is an unholy, deadly army, that must be neutered 'else the universe explode.

UNITS
General
Sergeant
Geomancer
Scout
Tower x 5
Gate Guard

(Hopefully this army gets to go FIRST, otherwise it is QUITE vulnerable, especially to RUSHING)

Turn One:
General, Sergeant, Geomancer, Gate Guard, Scout

Turn Two:
Sergeant moves Geomancer north one space.
Scout movers to protect Geomancer from rushers.
Geomancer MOVES Castle north.
Tower #1 is played as far north as possible.

Turn Three(A):
(If opponent is pathetic and has not advanced and instead has played out a WEAK magic-using army that just sits around, the following occurs)
Sergeant moves Geomancer one north.
Geomancer moves castle north
Tower #2 in played as far north as possible, which now is able to reach to the opponents back row.

Turn Three(B):
(If opponent has taken the fight to me my low number of actions preclude me from placing another tower or moving the castle.)
Geomancer stones a near opponent.
Other units move to defend, leaving...
Less than the commands needed to play more towers.

Turn Four(A):
(Assuming I have established towers in the middle)
Game over as I am now within range of his castle.  I play more towers as I see fit, using the Geomancer to stone any problem units.

Turn Four(B):
More towers are played to defend.  Position is probably degrading rapidly as one tower falls a turn and they are expensive to play more.
I cannot keep people off of me and the towers are ineffectual.  Surrender occurs rapidly.

And there you have it, in all of its unfair, nefarious glory.  Ignore the fact that it can be defeated by a slew of units and strategies.  This is just posted as an informational exercise. 

oooOOOoooo.  Cool!

A VARIETY of towers, like in Warcraft.  Towers that do different things.

I think the Tact is fine as is.

I prefer the general to a tac/quarter.  General has the ability to move two and attack, and as stated, the first turn play is important.

Depending on the army, the healing ability of the quartermaster is wasted.

BTW, the footsoldier IS scary.  I keep forgetting the ability and get tied down in hand-to-hand combat with the little pest! 

I think Lumen succinctly and accurately summarizes my opinion on this issue.  Nothing against anyone who is terrified of forward towers, but as Lumen stated, they are not a problem in any manner and can be dealt with in a variety of ways.  I think they are pretty weak, actually, and think the 100 price was fair.  They are easily destroyed/spoofed/avoided.

I especially like Lumen's quote, "When about half of all available units can be used to combat this strategy, it's not a question of "my army is paper to your scissors" but rather that your army has a huge gaping hole in that it cannot respond to ranged enemies, and/or has no power of attrition."

I do not think it can be stated any plainer than that.    Now, if the designers feel the change needs to made and have been considering making the change for a while, which they have stated is the case, the full speed ahead!  I will be interested to see how many people run the 150 point towers now.  Maybe after a few weeks we can start a poll to see if the change has had an effect. 

My guess is that we will see nearly no towers on the battlefield, unless they come in as random units.  They were already used rarely, at 100 points, and I would assume at 150 points they will be a rare sight indeed. 

Just my 2.5 cents.    Great Game!

This is a interesting, robust discussion.

Yeah, this army (or many particular armies) RPS other particular armies at different times.  I do not know that there is a solution for RPS conflicts.  If the towers were due for a change, so be it.

I do know I used to get very annoyed and stopped playing construct for a while because you would face UNBEATABLE armies, unless you played the COUNTER army to beat only THAT army.  It made it very un-fun to play.   There were a couple of people that played a couple of armies that had this effect.

I guess this was just a ramble....  anyway!  Game on! 

<please: no flaming> 

Well, I guess I am "proud"(?) that I managed to "break" the game(?) with my towers? 

I assume there has been raging back-and-forth discussion about towers ELSEWHERE in the board, because the ONLY person I have seen complain about towers is Kran, and now they are changed.  Should I complain to get them back? 

I have to assume it was changed b/c of the Geomancer/tower army.  If this is the case, I think it is overkill as the Geo can no longer be moved with the sergent so why change the point value of the tower?  Is there a universal agreement that they are under-valued?  Did I prove this point?  Just riffing a bit I suppose.

Just funny, I think.  Now to "break" the......ummm......ACOLYTE.

I like the new angel as well.  I did not think it was worth the price before.

I like the idea as well. 

Good points.  Maybe reducing the number of commands the first turn is the best idea.

New one to me.

Game matched me with a person with CHINESE CHARACTERS for a name, and a ranking of...#2046924317.

Game then crashed.

??

While we are on the subject,

Is it possible yet to REMOVE your offer of a DRAW?

This is just a little picky of me, but many times I have been losing or thought perhaps to be fair I would offer the draw, maybe to save time.

My opponent refuses my draw, for whatever reason he sees fit.

At some point, I realize he will not take the draw, but I cannot take it back.  Then, when I have him on death's door, he takes the draw like 15 turns later.

I do not think this is in the spirit of the game. 

Any ideas?

I am curious as well...

If it is not a top-secret security issue, I would appreciate knowing how rankings are determined. 

I am unclear on the subject.  I will admit I have ben hesitant to play ranked matches as I do not know how my points will be affected.

Clarification would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

SLOTH 

I will admit, I believe I may be the major designer/user of this army. 

A quick synopsis.  You play the Geo, and walk it forward, as Kran states.  When you have the commands and opportunity, you begin playing towers.  If you are lucky, you can inch your Geo forward and advance your tower line.

I have run this army about 20 times since I have come back to the "fold" of Zatikon.  I do not think it is unbalancing, but I will say I have probably won PvP all but twice. Probably 10 and 2.
Against the computer, I win less than half of the games, and in Co-op I have split my wins.

This army can be beat handily by an army with ONE shieldbearer.  It can also be beaten by a RUSH deck, or armies that can stay out of range or use catapults, etc.

Kran IS correct, that if you are running an army of mages (the army I hate playing against and in some aspects the army this design is prepared to defeat) you are going to run into some trouble. 

I feel for Kran, as he has lost to me a couple of times, but I do not think this is a huge problem army.  He is a good player. 

I appreciate the feedback on this subject, however.