Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleon
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne
Double Grimnak is probably fine, and double Tornak is definitely fine (you can already double up on the enhancement by running both Grimnak and Tornak). If you're running 2x Grimnak and Nerak, you're only running max of 3x Heavies, and then you just lose to Braxas and Firestorm. You're better off having something to deal with her than running 2x Grimnak.
I guess where I split from a large majority of the community in my army building philosophies is that I don't believe in making my good matchups better. I'd rather hedge my bets and have answers to as much as possible. I don't need to win more in matchups that Heavies excel in; rather, I need to make sure that I don't have any bad matchups where I can lose to an inexperienced player due solely to the matchup. Double Grimnak is the epitome of a "win more" strategy and I don't think it's very good.
|
That's a good point on the different philosophies. It's hard to take my mind out of what I usually value and how I usually weigh and gage the metagame I'm playing into.
Also glad to see you thinking of Braxas, I'm proud of you 
|
I never said Braxas isn't good, I said she isn't great
. She's also disproportionately better against worse armies than she is against better ones, hence me not valuing her as much as you do.
She's a lot like the plot First Snow of Winter in the Game of Thrones LCG: when it released, it wasn't the greatest plot ever. However, it still had an important impact on the meta game: because it exists, every single deck, until we got better resets, had to be built with it in mind. If your deck got wrecked by it, you needed to rebuild. The same applies to Braxas.
February 18th, 2019, 11:06 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode