Xanatoss

Lyrish Knight has excellent stat efficiency as is. In fact there was a short time in mid 2021 where slightly increased dmg was tested but deemed to oppressive, as Lyrish would have become an all around counter. It does see pvp play though in - Stonekin (where it synergizes well with decks built around ice barrier, homesoil, burrower) - Lost Souls (synergies with Nasty Surprise and Shadow Phoenix) - Fire/Frost (Rallying Banner + Homesoil) Its not a mainstay card but far from beeing useless.

Big thanks to @Metagross31 for organizing that tournament. Cant wait to watch the full Stream, as I wasnt able to participate.

Have sent you a leftover SW from my personal stock. Have fun with the contest.

Any chances that player protection gets pushed to ~110k Elo (around goldrank)? Asking for a friend. I am very proud how Burning spears turned out, as it was my first card as balance developer. Looking forward to implement more cards in the future ... hopefully one day for Fire/Frost as well 😉 Artwork is awesome! Stay strong

Out of interest, I have tried to visualise this large amount of ordinal evaluations. Here are my results: Each line contains the ratings of the guide, weighted by the categories "favourable / skill / difficult matchup" (see legend below right). In each column, this results in the additional perspective "How does every other deck perceive the strength of this deck?" From this, a total value can be aggregated column by column, which I then scaled, once against the deck with the highest value (Stonekin; line 13) and once against the theoretical maximum value (line 14). Column L a

Maybe you could team up with @Eirias in that regard. His guide on Deckbuilding was really helpful too, as I rejoined Skylords :] But my question stands: Almost all mentioned card-choices can be considered flavor/preference, except for Frost Mage. Is it even possible to play anything beyond 1 Well into T2 without that card vs Frost (except closewell iceguardian opportunities) and especially vs Nature T1?

The sheer amount of quality content is jaw-dropping. You guys are just beyond epic.

Can not belive I am the first to comment. This is a hidden Gem of the anniversary content. I think I (re)read the first guide for longer now than you guys have been writing it and am overjoyed to read this one too. Unsurprisingly I started with the Fire/Frost part but was a bit irritated by some of the card choices, like Frost-T1 without Lightblade but Glyph _and_ Coldsnap, or Frost-T1 without Frostbite but Eruption (homesoiled Shielddrake + Frostbite may shred through a ravaged Windhunter even after patch and you have buffed units afterwards), Brannoc withou

I was quite irritated by Zyna talking to herself ^^'

Late thanks to the tournament organizers and all participants. I had a great time and an interesting experience. Looking forward to the next tournament of this kind. Special congratulations to runner-up Dallarian, who showed an impressive development since his pvp inception a few months ago.

@WindHunter Sorry for my late reply. I became a second-time father and was therefore unable to participate for some time ^^` Thanks again for your comprehensive explanation. The floating heads rationale is amusingly specific. I would avoid the hassle to implement that, by arguing that the units temporarily give up their hovering to smush these pesky bugs; like WH40k-antigrav-vehicles (like tau devilfish) could give up their hovering to ram other vehicles, crush infantry models or give cover to own units.

Finally my low winrate comes in handy 😆 Will try to participate, but may get a default loss by still commuting home from work.

I can understand this rationale completely. In particular, the tightrope walk between a supposedly elegant reverse engineering solution and its merciless empirical performance. But because Sunderer and Harvester are currently unique in their size-to-tier-ratio wouldn't it be obvious to add one/two points to T1-Large and T2-XL in the complexity table and scratch the artificial S-Knockback from both unit-sheets? That way potentially future T1-L-Units would automatically be rare and T2-XL-Units automatically ultra-rare while still leaving some design space _while_ being more consistent to th

Was able to read the Rarity-Document now. Once again I am very impressed by the structured approaches to so many considerations regarding SR and thus had a great pleasure reading. Only thing which bugs me is the example of Sunderer "paying" twice for S-Knockback and beeing a L-Unit. Current Mountaineer would fit that kind of budget better instead.

Huge respect to the developer department which, despite all obstacles, keeps pushing the live release forward. You guys are the unsung heroes of SR.