Can we please stop equating NR's Charge with SY's Coin?

+

rrc

Forum veteran
It is very tempting to equate an NR's Charge with SY's Coin due to the frustration of facing an SY opponent. Coins are un-interactable (as of now) while the Charges are interactable (by killing the units). But there is one one huge difference between the Charges and the Coins. A Coin is almost always equal to 1 provision, a Charge can potentially be huge. On an Arbalest a Charge is worth 1 provisions (as it equates to 1 point to your side), on a Ballista it is 2, on a Trebutchet it is 3, and one a Foltest's Pride it can be much more and on a Kiyan it can even be worth 10+ points, a single charge. You have a unit which can double the Charge (Baron).

Except when used by Phllipa where a coin is worth 2 provisions (for that she pays a huge price), and on SeaJackal it can be worth 1.5 (when triggering Hoard), it is always 1 on 1. A Coin is not nearly as dangerous as a Charge can be. For example an Adept or Pricilla is multiple fold dangerous than TaxCollector or an Imke. If Charges should be made uninteractable (where your leader can store your charge and use it anytime they want), then a Charge should be worth 1 point on the board. Which is just horrible. NR Charges are super premium than coins and hence they have the vulnerability. An uninteractable Charge with the same kind of power will just make NR God Mode.

Just think about it and lets be real.
 

4RM3D

Ex-moderator
Except when used by Phllipa where a coin is worth 2 provisions (for that she pays a huge price)

On a general note, it's better to equate coins with points than it is with provisions because provisions are hard-capped, while points are soft-capped. Also, provision tiers are sometimes more important than the value they provide. A simple example is Portal, which can only be used with 4 provision cards. Another example is Speartip, where you pay 3 provisions for the power swing.

As for Philippa, engines aside, a coin is not worth 2 points (or provisions) for her because, like you've said, you pay a huge price, which should be included in the calculations. As such, it's "only" 1.5 points.
 
A Coin is almost always equal to 1 provision, a Charge can potentially be huge. On an Arbalest a Charge is worth 1 provisions (as it equates to 1 point to your side), on a Ballista it is 2, on a Trebutchet it is 3, and one a Foltest's Pride it can be much more and on a Kiyan it can even be worth 10+ points, a single charge. You have a unit which can double the Charge (Baron).

The problem I see with coins in my games are:

1. They can be safely stored and used later in game for greater effect and even the effect itself can change depending on how the board is. Most other engines are exposed to removal on the first plays.
2. They have zeal, which makes the uses of coins guaranteed.

But surely, I prefer for fees to have a cooldown rather than giving zeal to all units with order.
 

4RM3D

Ex-moderator
As for the topic itself, I understand why players want to compare SY with NR because they want to complain point out how bad NR is. Hell, they have been comparing SY cards with everything, including stuff that has no business being compared. The NR Charge mechanic actually has an overlap which can be compared. However, it shouldn't be used as a blanket statement comparison to lump everything together.
 
while that is true, its the best compairison we have, so for the lack of an alternative i think it makes for a very good fit, because a lot of things that work with one, overlap with why the other struggles so much. namely zeal on fee, the uninteractibility and the ease with with you can stack coins.
a coins costs "1p", while a charge most of the time costs around "2p". so if every charge now returns about 2points of value, we once again have the same 1:1 ratio.
I think thats a pretty close fit to be able (and complain for NR) about these mechanics.
 
Coins and charges use the same mechanic of being given to a unit and that unit then generating points. Both a coin and a charge are supposed to cost around 1 provision. The problem with coins is that they are uninteractable. The problem with charges is that some cards get much more value from one charge than other cards. Two different problems, but the mechanic is the same. Coins can easily replace charges if both problems are solved. And then we can have factions who can steal and use each other's coins. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Coins and charges use the same mechanic of being given to a unit and that unit then generating points. Both a coin and a charge are supposed to cost around 1 provision. The problem with coins is that they are uninteractable. The problem with charges is that some cards get much more value from one charge than other cards. Two different problems, but the mechanic is the same. Coins can easily replace charges if both problems are solved. And then we can have factions who can steal and use each other's coins. :cool:

I realy like that idea. more money for everyone :D
 
Coins should stay only in syndicate, its their thing.

I do think there should be more cards in all factions that would have 2 abilities, one tied to ranged row and other to melee. One ability should interact with coins ( if the opponent have some ) and benefit from them, something like, boost self by the amount of coins the opponent have. That would be a threat for SY players, bcs they would have to think about stacking too much coins... And the other ability should be something not dependent on coins. So if you get a match vs other faction hat card wouldnt be a total brick.

Do you get what i mean? Dont let it binary, rather than stealing/destroying opponents coins, let him keep them and benefit from them too. There are plenty of options for such abilities.

The same goes for artifacts. I would like to see artifact removal mechanic be scrapped and never seen again. Its too binary and artifact removal cards get bricked very often which means they are not played that much which makes artifacts too strong and that leads to endless nerfs. Do you see that? Its a cursed circle.

Why not make cards which would benefit from artifacts your opponent have? I really like those 2 ability cards, you get more options therefore you got to think more.

EDIT: Just an example. Frenzied Dao. Its relatively good artifact removal card, but if there are no artifact to remove its just a 6 points. Why not make it more interesting? IF your opponent has an artifact in his starting deck, gain immunity or resilience which would be dependent on which row it gets played. Ofc maybe it would need some power or p cost balancing.

But i am getting too OT here, so i hope you get what i mean :)
 
Last edited:
... I do think there should be more cards in all factions that would have 2 abilities, one tied to ranged row and other to melee...
Remember when the excuse for going 2 instead of 3 rows was "rows will have more meaning like that"?

Another one of those promises that we are still waiting on.
 
You can't interact with coins. That's the problem. It's a safe play/mechanic. You can do whatever you want when you want.

Orders in the other hand are perfectly balance for me, because you can interact with order units.

Coins = op.
 
Coins should stay only in syndicate, its their thing...
I'm sure that will not work, for the simple fact that creating tech cards against coins is the same binary stuff as artifact removal. You can give a card a second ability so that it "wouldn't be a total brick", but the ability would still be binary crap. Also, if you're getting more faction-specific stuff, you cannot fill your deck with all these binary cards to counter a possible faction-specific mechanic. The game would be completely broken then.

The focus is way too much on creating faction-specific stuff, which makes no sense at all. We need to stop thinking "factions need to be unique and even have their own mechanic". The fun is not created by how factions play, but by how factions play against each other. Playing against each other is most fun when there are a lot of options; when there is a lot of interactability. Coins are perfect for this as they are universal and can replace charges. It would be much more fun when a specific archetype (coins) is present in a subset of cards within multiple factions so that they can combat each other on the mechanic, stealing coins, reusing them, creating unique plays in combination with faction-specific abilities. Compare that to the current coin mechanic and tell me what sounds more interesting and fun.
 
Northern realms needs acomplete rework. They are unplayable unless you engine overload which is cheap to play. Orders should be removed from normal engines and saved for op cards. Make it to where charges cannot be stacked. Every turn the charge should be used.This way engines can get some value and broken cards don't melt the board.
 
Remember when the excuse for going 2 instead of 3 rows was "rows will have more meaning like that"?

Another one of those promises that we are still waiting on.
Only row that seems to have any meaning is the ranged row, since most people fill that one first. I guess making too many cards with reach 1 (whose deploy effect is tied to the melee row) might have something to do with that. I suppose in a vacuum that gives rows meaning. Reality is that it just makes those cards underplayed.
 
So you are basically saying that this faction is fine and balanced comparing to others. Congratulations, this is the dumbest thread I have ever seen.
 
So you are basically saying that this faction is fine and balanced comparing to others. Congratulations, this is the dumbest thread I have ever seen.
You may not agree (and I don't agree either), but that doesn't make it the dumbest thread. It's just a thread.
 
Top Bottom