SUBTERFUGE Forums

I have noticed that a lot of people want a king nurf and I can see were they are comming from but I also realize that for the most part the king is balanced. However I do have an idea that may make the king a bit more balanced. Instead of after the specialist phase you could apply his effect after the shield phase. This would cause help the defending player be able to whittle down the force. I am in a game and a player has a king and subs with about 100 drillers on each. He is probably going to attack my queen so yay. Anyway if your outpost had 10 shields then his force would go from 100 to 90 I stead of completely decimating any force of less than 33 he would only decimate a force of 30 without taking losses. That is what makes the king powerful. The force never gets smaller unless it is met with a massive force that you may or may not be able to conjure up but it would still probably decimate it. Do you think this is fair or am I just throwing out an unthought out idea?

chariot rider wrote:I have noticed that a lot of people want a king nurf and I can see were they are comming from but I also realize that for the most part the king is balanced. However I do have an idea that may make the king a bit more balanced. Instead of after the specialist phase you could apply his effect after the shield phase. This would cause help the defending player be able to whittle down the force. I am in a game and a player has a king and subs with about 100 drillers on each. He is probably going to attack my queen so yay. Anyway if your outpost had 10 shields then his force would go from 100 to 90 I stead of completely decimating any force of less than 33 he would only decimate a force of 30 without taking losses. That is what makes the king powerful. The force never gets smaller unless it is met with a massive force that you may or may not be able to conjure up but it would still probably decimate it. Do you think this is fair or am I just throwing out an unthought out idea?

My initial reaction was that this was a brilliant solution, but it just occurred to me that this makes the king irrelevant on offense, because the battle has to be won without the king to take the outpost anyways. To illustrate:

Situation A
Red has a king.
Red attacks an opponent, Blue's, outpost with 60 drillers. Blue has 50 drillers and 10 shields.
If your rule change is implemented, the following happens:
Red and blue enter combat. Blue loses 50 drillers and 10 shields, Red loses 60 drillers.
The king's effect takes place, destroying 20 drillers which are no longer there.
Tie goes to the defender.

Situation B
Red attacks Blue with 30 drillers. Blue has 50 drillers and 10 shields.
Blue wins combat with 30 drillers left over.
Red's king destroys 10 drillers.
Blue wins with 20 drillers.

Situation C
Red attacks the same outpost with 90 drillers.
Red wins combat with 30 remaining drillers.
Red's king destroys 30 drillers, but there aren't any drillers left.


So basically, the king is only relevant on offense if you lose the battle... Kinda kills its purpose.

the king is balance the way it was ! he has "king" name for that reason.

roadkiehl wrote:

chariot rider wrote:I have noticed that a lot of people want a king nurf and I can see were they are comming from but I also realize that for the most part the king is balanced. However I do have an idea that may make the king a bit more balanced. Instead of after the specialist phase you could apply his effect after the shield phase. This would cause help the defending player be able to whittle down the force. I am in a game and a player has a king and subs with about 100 drillers on each. He is probably going to attack my queen so yay. Anyway if your outpost had 10 shields then his force would go from 100 to 90 I stead of completely decimating any force of less than 33 he would only decimate a force of 30 without taking losses. That is what makes the king powerful. The force never gets smaller unless it is met with a massive force that you may or may not be able to conjure up but it would still probably decimate it. Do you think this is fair or am I just throwing out an unthought out idea?

My initial reaction was that this was a brilliant solution, but it just occurred to me that this makes the king irrelevant on offense, because the battle has to be won without the king to take the outpost anyways. To illustrate:

Situation A
Red has a king.
Red attacks an opponent, Blue's, outpost with 60 drillers. Blue has 50 drillers and 10 shields.
If your rule change is implemented, the following happens:
Red and blue enter combat. Blue loses 50 drillers and 10 shields, Red loses 60 drillers.
The king's effect takes place, destroying 20 drillers which are no longer there.
Tie goes to the defender.

Situation B
Red attacks Blue with 30 drillers. Blue has 50 drillers and 10 shields.
Blue wins combat with 30 drillers left over.
Red's king destroys 10 drillers.
Blue wins with 20 drillers.

Situation C
Red attacks the same outpost with 90 drillers.
Red wins combat with 30 remaining drillers.
Red's king destroys 30 drillers, but there aren't any drillers left.


So basically, the king is only relevant on offense if you lose the battle... Kinda kills its purpose.

I checked the official rule book and checked the order of phases. I said that the Kings action would take place after shield phase, not after driller phase. So I think it would work like this

Red (who has a king) has 60 drillers and is attacking blue who has 50 drillers and 10 shields. The shield phase would happen first since no specialists apply effects yet. So after the shield phase red has 50 drillers and blue has 50. Now the driller phase happens. Red would destroy 16 drillers as opposed to the 20 he would in today's rules. red takes the outpost left with 12 drillers to spare.

I could have been more clear when I described this and said that the Kings ability takes place before the driller phase. According to the official rulebook I think my version of the king is still useful on offense.

Ah, I see now.
Sure, that sounds like it would work. Not sure if it's a big enough effect (On ten shields, it only saves 4 drillers per king), but that's a question that could only be answered through playtesting.
All together, though, I think it's an elegant solution.

roadkiehl wrote:Ah, I see now.
Sure, that sounds like it would work. Not sure if it's a big enough effect (On ten shields, it only saves 4 drillers per king), but that's a question that could only be answered through playtesting.
All together, though, I think it's an elegant solution.

It would make a huge difference road.

I've played almost 22 games and I HATE the king mechanics.

During the TET finale me and stefen got Pink down to 0 drillers.

Pink had 40 shields with his Queen and an inspector. Me? I just sent 6 driller subs until he had nothing left.

I fully support King effect taking place after shields but before drillers.

Think of the king as a global thief, but with the downside of going after shield phase and losing shields on your bases.

Is that too much of a nerf? No, because it's a global effect.

yottawatts wrote:

roadkiehl wrote:Ah, I see now.
Sure, that sounds like it would work. Not sure if it's a big enough effect (On ten shields, it only saves 4 drillers per king), but that's a question that could only be answered through playtesting.
All together, though, I think it's an elegant solution.

It would make a huge difference road.

I've played almost 22 games and I HATE the king mechanics.

During the TET finale me and stefen got Pink down to 0 drillers.

Pink had 40 shields with his Queen and an inspector. Me? I just sent 6 driller subs until he had nothing left.

I fully support King effect taking place after shields but before drillers.

Think of the king as a global thief, but with the downside of going after shield phase and losing shields on your bases.

Is that too much of a nerf? No, because it's a global effect.

I don't know. Sounds complicated. And doesn't change the fact that there is no additional negative stacking ability with the addition of more .kings

topkilla wrote:

yottawatts wrote:

roadkiehl wrote:Ah, I see now.
Sure, that sounds like it would work. Not sure if it's a big enough effect (On ten shields, it only saves 4 drillers per king), but that's a question that could only be answered through playtesting.
All together, though, I think it's an elegant solution.

It would make a huge difference road.

I've played almost 22 games and I HATE the king mechanics.

During the TET finale me and stefen got Pink down to 0 drillers.

Pink had 40 shields with his Queen and an inspector. Me? I just sent 6 driller subs until he had nothing left.

I fully support King effect taking place after shields but before drillers.

Think of the king as a global thief, but with the downside of going after shield phase and losing shields on your bases.

Is that too much of a nerf? No, because it's a global effect.

I don't know. Sounds complicated. And doesn't change the fact that there is no additional negative stacking ability with the addition of more .kings

What if they made negative shields possible so stacked kings would weaken you?

aclonicy wrote:What if they made negative shields possible so stacked kings would weaken you?

Then it's even more confusing. Why would a shield charge negatively to hurt you? And the negative ability still wouldn't counter the positive ability.

topkilla wrote:

aclonicy wrote:What if they made negative shields possible so stacked kings would weaken you?

Then it's even more confusing. Why would a shield charge negatively to hurt you? And the negative ability still wouldn't counter the positive ability.

Isn't this what I suggested in the other topic? And it's not confusing, just reasonable, to have negative shield when the description says -20 shield per king. If following the system I described, It would hurt you because the shield charge would become the shield charge of the sub attacking the outpost, meaning that the drillers at the outpost would have to get through a layer of shield as well as drillers, so of course the negative ability would counter he positive one.