Chronic Logic

I like the idea of portals being weaker and gates being stronger.  Maybe lower portals to six total range?  It's just a bit of an issue that they're 2 range longer than everything else.  I don't like solo or duo units that say "you must fight on my turf or you lose".

One army that proved to be an issue in 2v2 (I can't remember who was playing it) was two conjurers and a priest.

Quote from: Kran on June 16, 2009, 04:55:18 PM
I see a ploblem with multiple confessors. With 2 confessors the murderers will die more quickly, so, less murderers to attack.

So walk up and smack people with them.

What it sounds like is that hubris prevents allies from targeting the unit, but doesn't prevent passive abilities.

Right, but it's a 50-point unit that sacrifices itself to render anything organic killable by a power-4 blow (FS aside) that very turn.  Isn't it a little on the cheap side to be a dragon/elephant killer?

Just for clarity's sake, Lunaraia, there are (with Sycophant being the last unit added) 79 different units in Zatikon.

Quote from: Kran on June 09, 2009, 04:41:01 PM
Yep, i'm sorry for that. But you can mimic a gateguard, get in castle, mimic a diplomat, truce each other.
Also, you can get pushed by a ballista.

Two diplomats can't truce each other.  If diplomat A puts a truce on diplomat B, when diplomat B puts a truce on diplomat A, it'll lose the truce on it.

You mean you don't like that when you stun and kill the knight's horse, the knight wasn't actually hit?

I just worry when people talk about combo units in general.  I'd hate for every unit whose primary purpose is to affect allied units to be lumped into the "bad for Zatikon" category.

Archangel can only be permanently dealt with if transformed or stolen.  Possessed needs to be stolen, killed by inorg, abjured/purged post-possession, or rocked.  They require people to include units from a very small pool of foils.

mongolian, it's kind of moot because that's not how Zatikon's unit design works.  Each unit here has a unique role.  Power/stat comparisons are irrelevant, as balance is really based on the value of the unit and how well it fulfills its purpose.

I don't see how every kind of synergy (aka combo play) is a bad thing.  Combos have a major weakness, in that they usually require one or two support units to function.  Attrition isn't the only way to win; sometimes you need to sacrifice a unit or two to pull the linchpin from your opponent's machine.

(That said and considered, there are some problem units - particularly archangels and possessed - which, even alone, can only be removed by a handful of units.)

Wonder if it's an attack and a spell...


On another note:  I'm not sure if this is working as intended but in co-op, after an armistice, I can still take the castle on my next turn.  I don't know if the intent was for it to last two of my turns, but I assume it must be counting my ally's turn and fading before mine.

Detonate seems fine to me.  The ability is a spell that causes an attack.  It can't directly destroy an inorganic, but they can be hurt, and the center can't dodge or parry being destroyed, but can dodge or parry the explosion.  What does warrant an investigation is whether an archangel preventing the center unit dying will stop the explosion (no angel yet, I can't test this one).

It really wouldn't help separate good players from bad; it would just mean some units didn't get played and would make for more complaints in random.  The other major reason (aside from justification for bad balance) that MtG has a high variance in the balance of cards is to keep the trading economy strong.  Sometimes a lesser card will become significantly more useful when a later addition combos well with it, and its value will increase (but we all know how much you hate combos, mongolian, so I don't know where you're going with this).

Kran, balanced in what format?  Enchanter is incredibly powerful in 2v2 or coop.  Skinwalker really depends on what your opponent is playing, and is usually undercosted vs. the AO (the AO tends to play a larger variety of units, so you're more likely to see a magus, necromancer, possessed, or templar to give you a permanent, high-value unit).

I'm a range junkie, so I don't use them much, but Golem ranks pretty high on the list of what I'd consider balanced.

Any within 3 is the most obvious answer.  Triggering twice with full coverage in a shorter range still makes it a good defensive unit, and limits its offensive capability.

Move should cost 2.  Again with the range 7 stuff?

Even so, if you can afford to move any allied units out of the way, it can still hit anything within 7 for 6, twice.  It would be the highest-power *and* highest-range unit in the game.