This is a really useful thought experiment, so lets do it--- When talking about how the FW bonus function, I think it's first important to clarify some terms and ideas. You allude somewhat to it, but I want to make the divide very clear between Cheap Champions and Efficient Champions, and I also want to say what it means to be either of those and why it is relevant. Both categories are important when talking about the FW bonus, and they aren't placed together for no reason, but cheapness and efficiency interact with the bonus in different though cooperative ways. Efficient Champions are why the bonus is actually good. Now, I don't mean to suppose or imply that there is some sort of master formula for efficiency (despite that being a common inference suggested by the existence of a costing formula). By "efficient" I am for now going to mean "better in some context compared to other champions." An efficient champion is one that provides more value for its cost than something else. Despite me saying that there is no master formula for it in practice, I think that some concrete numbers work well to represent these abstract terms: we could say an efficient champion might provide 70 nora of value for 60 nora in the cases where it is efficient to use that champion. One of the essential arguments I have made in favor of the FW bonus's strength is that it allows the FW player to more rapidly re-use their efficient champions, and thus accrue value that way. If, for example we are in a matchup where one of your 50 nora champions is especially good and can get about 70 nora worth of value over the course of its life, you would want to play it as much as possible: every time you deploy that champion, you are gaining an edge over the opponent because of its unique strengths. Normally, you only get to deploy that champion maybe 2 or 3 times per game, but the FW bonus escalates that, and thus takes advantage of an above-average champion in a way that other bonuses do not. The FW bonus allows you to pour a larger number of your resources into an instrument with superior returns. (As an aside, these sorts of efficiency calculations are linear, not multiplicative, and mostly assume a trading of resources, which is another argument, considering the bonus, in favor of building FW decks with an eye towards low-resource, grindy game states.) Cheap Champions allow for more frequent cycling -- it isn't so much the low cost as the low cooldown that is relevant. They don't get linearly increasing deployment potential, but rather more like geometrically improved deployment opportunities.* Two more design things to note about cheap champions: they are often much more prepared to die than expensive champions as a matter of design, and so will go on cooldown sooner after deployment (this increases their use of the bonus); also, champions have inherent value by existing because of fonts and engagement, which means that durable cheap champions, although less likely to die, are much more likely to have high general efficiency values and thus benefit from the FW bonus more in manner mentioned above in Efficient Champions. Expensive champions that are ready to die in FW actually make fair use of the bonus -- Blood Phoenix and Carrion Colossus come to mind. In the case of the Colossus, some specifics about its design (filling a strong role within a theme, being Unique, being very dangerous post-death), make it especially suited to take advantage of CDR. Likewise, if we were to imagine a very cheap champion that never wanted to die, it would, both rationally and intuitively, not benefit nearly as much from the bonus, even if it was incredibly efficient. Being cheap is less important than being efficient, because efficiency is really the thing that you are leveraging. There are some other things about the current design formula that also disadvantage cheap champions in terms of efficiency, such as the HP cost curve and the discounts provided to some high-cost champions. I think that this is one reason why some of the cheaper, non-suicide FW champions have lost a lot of their luster in the last couple years. Basically, a low cost is ancillary to an efficient cost, and just makes it easier to leverage that efficiency (within the context of the bonus). So, I think this thought experiment is useful because it demonstrates a potential effect of an often-suggested tweak to the FW bonus (reducing to a flat ~2/6 CD, rather than 60/30% CD reduction): changing to a universal flat CD value would remove the influence of cheap champions on the FW bonus, while maintaining the relevance of efficient champions. This is because all champions would now benefit from the more important benefit of being cheap i.e. the lower CDs and more frequent cycle time. Now, there is one other way in which cheap champions have a relationship to the FW bonus that is worth noting, and that is for the specific category of cheap-efficient champions. When I say "cheap-efficient" champs, I don't just mean ones that are both cheap and efficient, I mean those whose cheapness has some correlation with their efficiency. I would argue, however, that this is a more complicated issue that is as much a matter of design attitude as it is actual mechanics. It is harder to construct and fine-tune champions at lower nora costs and with fewer variables, and thus it is more likely that when a cheap champion deviates into a positive efficiency case, it does so to a greater extent; the efficiency of cheap champions has a higher eccentricity. I believe that part of the association of cheap champions with efficient champions is an accident of this design effect, rather than a product of any game-internal relationship or structure. As a result of this, I think that a flat CD for FW champions would not completely remove the presence or legitimate association of the bonus with lower-cost champions, but I believe that association would be mostly immaterial to our interest in the FW bonus. All that above talking means we can get around to some of these questions. "Lets say FW had no efficient champs below 50 nora" -- I think the bonus becomes weaker but still relevant. For one thing, there are some really important champions that sit in the mid-50s or low-60s that would still function, such as Ed, WZ, and Risen Moga. "Would the bonus be too strong at a higher CDR? Would this lengthen the window of champs that now have to be scrutinized for hyper efficiency?" -- Yes, I think that the bonus would be stronger with a higher CDR, and while part of this effect would be because of more frequent cycling, it would also open up more champions to frequent deployment. This and the response to the previous question suggest to me that, for some % CDR, we can identify a value X nora below which we can reasonably expect champions to see bonus-effected deployment patterns to accrue value. At our present 60% FF, I would guess that the cutoff to expect would be about 65 or 70 nora. Below that number, if a champion is efficient enough in one or more common situations, or otherwise benefits from death like Ed, we would expect the FW bonus to have a substantive effect upon a FW player's ability to use that champion for value. Above that number, although the bonus may have an effect, it would empirically seem diminished.** "Since nora is limited, higher champs are less of a problem than cheap ones" -- I think that CDs are the limiting factor, not strictly nora (although FW decks may lean towards cheap champions so that they can expect to actually use all of them while still using the bonus). Because CDs are defined by nora, a champion's cost is relevant to how strong it will be under the bonus, but it is never a matter of nora cost directly. *Here's some math to illustrate what I mean: Lets take three champions, Champ A with cost 20 (CD 4), Champ B with cost 60 (CD 12), and Champ C with cost 100 (CD 20), and they all benefit from 50% CDR. The average game is about 15 rounds, but we can expect a FW player to, even in a losing case, drag a game for at least another 5 rounds; we'll do math for a 20-round game. In this game, Champ A could be deployed an absolute maximum of 5 times without the bonus, and Champs B and C could each be deployed only 1 time each. With the bonus, Champ A could be deployed up to 10 times maximum, while Champ B could be deployed 3 times, and Champ C 2 times. Those numbers are absolute (and totally unrealistic) maximums; we could expect maybe half of those numbers for each champion, meaning [Champ A : 3->5] , [Champ B : 1->2 ] , [Champ C : 1->1]. In terms of a theoretical percentage, each champion benefits equally from the bonus, but when calculated as a a raw "number of additional deploys" cheaper champions benefit to a greater extent. I don't recall if this contradicts anything I have said in the past, but if it does, what I say now stands. **How much stronger could we expect the bonus to be at, say, 80/40%? Lets do some more napkin math. Currently, 64 nora is an important cutoff between CD 4 and CD 5 in full faction; I said that 60-70 seemed like the present sweet spot, so I am going to assume that CD 4/5 is the magic line over which a champion becomes more functional as a result of the bonus. So, what nora cost, at 80% CDR, makes for the CD 4/5 break? The FW bonus always rounds down (if a champion would have CD 3.7, it has CD 3), so the break with 80% CDR ends up being... 124 nora. That is an enormous jump. And by enormous I mean I think it's literally impossible for a FW champ to cost more than 124 nora, so that makes every champion fall under the FF bonus's theoretical magic line. What about 70%? The cutoff changes from 64 nora to 80 nora. Furthermore, any champion under 100 nora would still sit at CD 5, compared to their current 7 (90-99) or 6 (75-89). Changing the bonus to be 80% would be strictly better than changing it to a flat 4 CD in FF, because you have to remember that the 80% reduction would affect lower CDs as well. The threshold for CD 2, for instance, would jump up to 70 nora, there would be a new CD 1 threshold at 49 nora, and any champion worth less than 24 nora would have literally 0 CD... ----- In short, being efficient is what matters to the FW bonus, but being cheap makes being efficient a bit better with a % reduction bonus. Currently, the bonus seems to have a de facto functional window of about 64~74 nora cost or below. It would be possible to modify the FW bonus to affect both of those facts. Changing the % reduction would widen or shrink the de facto window, without affecting the importance of relatively lower nora costs; changing the bonus to a flat CD value for all champions would remove the de facto window entirely and also remove the influence of lower nora costs. I would estimate that the relative power of the various changes would look something like this: [2/6 ~ 80/40%] > [3/7 ~ 70/35%] > [4/8 ~ 60/30%]. There would be additional effects of changing to a flat CD bonus that could be worth discussing if that idea ever becomes seriously entertained. At present, I am not advocating for any change to the FW bonus.
You can do all the fancy math you want, but the bonus is horribly designed. That alone is reason for a change even if you don't advocate for it.
skimmed through the thread, had a few thoughts: the first- if the FW bonus was made to fully negate every faction bonus it played against, it would be probably the strongest bonus in the game, with an option for a drastic balance shift. also, and this isn't terribly relevant, it would make 2v2 an even bigger joke the second- FW would need a massive revamp just for its own balance if that (or likely any substantial) change went through. which brings us to the third- what is the actual purpose of changing the FW bonus? what would we be hoping to accomplish with a change to it? the bonus doesn't determine the faction's strength in the slightest. how can you change the bonus while moving the game towards a more balance state? and, if you can do that, how much more work would that take than just, you know, not messing with the bonus? in what way could the juice possibly be worth the squeeze?
This is a great post. I'll try to address each point in a concise manner. First, I'm not sure that canceling an opponent's bonus would make it THE strongest bonus in the game. Aside from the obvious grabby hands buff vs IS, the FW faction would be at a disadvantage vs IS compared to their current state. Versus many split decks, which rely more on the runes themselves than the bonus, they would also be at a strict disadvantage compared to their current state, or at the very least neutral. Second on the revamp- I actually don't think they would need a massive revamp, and hear me out before you call me a troll. Right now, many of the FW utility scales off of how strong the opponent is. Heres some examples: essence drain deal 50% of the OPPONENTS health , Doom's worth scales off of the OPPOSING champion's nora cost. Decay works off of OPPOSING player's healing potential. Soul strike works off of the opponents health. Loss of life damage scales off of how many defensive abilities the opponent has. Even attrition decks use indirect damage from unholy tomb and tome of hate, which scale off of how a) how many champions the opponent plays, and b ) how difficult they are to damage normally. My point here isn't just to bring up some (there are plenty more) of the synergy that the bonus would have with canceling the opponents bonuses in terms of playstyle, but to actually show that how weakening the opponent would not always have a large effect on total power level. For example versus ST, soulstrike, essence drain, and doom would all be theoretically less valuable. I'm not sure if Loss of life goes through the SL bonus, but it would also be theoretically less valuable as an ability if it did. So, it seems like ROUGHLY, the average bonus is worth 8 nora per deployed champion. This means that all bonuses worth less than 8 nora will give the opposing player an advantage. Those factions with a higher bonus will obviously be at a slight disadvantage. This bonus can be mitigate. For example, ST players could play higher HP cards to mitigate the value gain from their bonus. Third, the focus of the change is to bring a much needed design change and modernisation to the bonus. Firstly, most FW themes have little synergy with the bonus. Second, The tactic of consciously losing a unit so that he may be replaced later on by the same unit is incredibly gimmicky feeling, both for controller and the opponent. This is one of my most important arguments of why I believe the change would be great. The other is great synergy with the proposed bonus, which I believe to be balanced. Thx for the comment btw dadga
1- every rune is, to a greater or less extent, designed and balanced around the faction it's in. this includes, but is not limited to, the value of the relevant faction bonus. straightup negating a bonus means that pretty much every non-IS faction immediately starts missing out on something that they'd otherwise always play around without thinking of (even IS, but the impact in this matchup should be lower) if the bonuses were just that, just the sprinkles at the very top of a sundae, that'd be fine. but in many senses, they're instead part of the cup that the sundae is served in. i assume that's a cup, i have no idea. we're gonna stick with cup. 2- loss of life certainly used to go through SL bonus, i couldn't swear that it still does. aside from that, in any situation where you use ED (or a similar effect), lower hp pre-cast will mean a smaller number is subtracted, but you'll also always end on a lower number. you only take off 20 for a 40 hp unit, but you only have 20 left to deal with. you take 25 0ff a 50 hp unit, but there's still that 25 left over. it might technically be a knock to efficiency (or, more often, the need to include these tools- which itself would be a factional buff, because it would free up deck space), but i'd argue that it's pretty much irrelevant. things you want to ED, you're gonna ED regardless of what the exact number is that you're taking away. sometimes it's worthwhile to take 5 hp off, sometimes it's not worthwhile to take 40. and again, my argument is that there's what the bonuses are worth in a vacuum, and there's how they actually have affected factional development and balance. you can have a technically less powerful or less efficient bonus, but it the faction it applies to is above the curve anyway, why focus on the bonus? and to be clear, i wasn't saying that other factions would necessarily have to be revamped were that change to happen. there are a lot of FW runes that would need re-tooling, though. 3- a) historically, most of FW's theme decks have tended to revolve around getting out the same core units, and then putting them back out. in that sense, the bonus is useful. it does demand that you lose your units, but every deck has its core units and its less ideal units- FW's bonus means that they get to rely a lot more on the core. i couldn't say what FW is right now, though. b) it may be gimmicky, but from a pro varied-gameplay perspective that still has merit. maybe it's just me, but when i've played FW in the past, i don't think of the bonus in quite the same way as i do the other factions. which is to say, it really is closer to being the sprinkles. when i've played FW, my champions have typically been strong standalone units (when i'm not playing attrition decks, anyway). my spell/relic/equip toolbox is strong and adaptable. the bonus is an afterthought, but a relevant one. it's like a silver lining where the only reason the cloud is dark is because it's an undead cloud if that makes sense. i can understand frustration with the lessened impact of the bonus in non-attrition metas / post 20rune decksize metas, but i suspect it's still good enough that changing it is more trouble than it's worth
Thank you kalasle for your response, I appreciate your well written and thought out posts as always. To go a little deeper into the napkin math I would like to take a rough look at the nora and # of champs availalble. Rough Nora over 20 rounds = 60 (first turn) + 45*20 (shrine) + 12*19 (assume roughly 1 font captured/held) = 1,188 nora non-CDR bonus: (assuming roughly 15 champions) 3 champ C (heroes) = 300*1 = 300 nora (cast x1 per game) 8 Champ B (basics) = 480*1 = 480 nora (cast x1 per game) 4 champ A (cheaps) = 80*5 = 400 nora (cast x5 per game) (or 240 with x3 per game) Total possible spend on champs = 1,020 -to- 1,180 nora CDR bonus: (assuming 15 champs same setup) 3 champ C (heroes) = 300*2 = 600 nora (cast x2 per game) (or 300 with x1 per game) 8 champ B (basics) = 480*3 = 1,440 nora (cast x3 per game) (or 960 with x2 per game) 4 champ A (cheaps) = 80*10 = 800 nora (cast x10 per game) (or 400 with x5 per game) Total possible spend on champs = 1,660 -to- 2,840 nora Initially this would suggest that the CDR bonus allows them to play an additional 8 -to- 168 additional nora in champions during the corse of the game. This obviously means that it is more beneficial to reduce the number of champs in the bg so let's take your bg suggestion based on sweet spots of 60-70 nora. CDR bonus: (assuming 12 champs) 2 Champ C (heroes) = 200*2 = 400 nora (or 200 with x1 per game) 7 Champ B (basics) = 420*3 = 1,260 nora (or 840 with x2 per game) 3 champ A (cheaps) = 60*10 = 600 nora (or 300 with x5 per game) Total possible spend on champs = 1,340 -to- 2260 nora Reducing champs below 12 may risk bad draws and the extra spots for non-champs means your reducing the nora spent on champs.
It's an interesting idea to relate the simulation to available nora -- I like it. I think, however, that the numbers you just presented make too-aggressive assumptions about deployments. I stand by what I said about my use of them: So I think it would be appropriate to adjust some of the deployment thresholds you list for a 20-round game. As to this, I am currently getting that, counting mulligan, an 11-champ deck has a .016% chance of not getting a champ turn one on the play. [100*((19 choose 8)/(30 choose 8))^2] (Number of non-champ combinations possible divided by total number of combinations possible, happening twice for mulligan, times 100 to convert to percent.) To be clear, that doesn't necessarily prevent bad draws, because you can still have some very bad t-1 champs, but I think the canonical wisdom that having too few champs will mean not getting champs is total nonsense. Now, the list I posted is very aggressive about its champ lineup, even given that -- it doesn't want to spend nora to mulligan when it already has Statue, and it runs Ed and DF Xulos, which are both sketchy t-1 plays. Taking a conservative estimate that my list has 7 playable t-1 champs and doesn't want to mulligan, it still has only an 8.3% chance of whiffing on something to deploy. That number drops significantly if you are not going to be punished for playing one of the other champs, or if you are willing to mulligan; mulligan brings the chance, even with 7 playable champs, down to a mere .7% of totally whiffing. In light of those numbers, I think it is possible to push a FW list much, much further down in real champ count than players are presently doing. As a more extreme example, having just 4 playable champs with mulligan leaves you with a greater than 90% chance of finding at least one.
Yeah, it's pretty rough numbers. I used a range with the low end being the 'half' estimation you quoted and then the 'unrealistic' maximum numbers at the high end. Thing is even at the low end the CDR still more then exceeds the available nora to utilize and that's assuming no nora spent on non-champs or nora generators. That's why nora generation for FW is such a powerful ability since it starts allowing them to actually field more champs then otherwise would happen. When the nora is capped though the CDR basically allows you to a little more selection in who you deploy not how much you deploy. So it works well for linchpin champs like essence devourer. The problem with nora generation is that in and of itself that is powerful and wins games. Increasing the amount in the faction would make the bonus more weighty but the nora generation itself would be the main culprit of power and has been slowly taken away. Unholy tomb nerfed in half, death harvester reduction, etc... As for if the juice is worth the squeeze a number of faction bonuses were adjusted that haven't resulted in massive rebalancing of the faction. The most recent being the SL bonus to make it more transparent. FW bonus is complicated and makes for fun discussions on if its relevant or how to squeeze some value out of it by jumping through hoops but it may be worth a look to turn this lemon juice into lemonade.
As for the negation bonus, admittedly, that is more of a troll suggestion trying to be sassy on how other factions get such an impactful bonus. Technically with the formula even if they 'loose' their bonus everything should be equal from a nora perspective. The determining factor then becomes the spells/toolkit of the bg. In all honesty the main reason this idea was scrapped, albeit it was considered shortly, it was deemed to be to 'negative' a play experience. Yes FW excels in griefing but this would be too much and we've seen attrition get smacked with the nerf bat multiple times because of that. From my perspective I would have loved for Boon of the Undead to have remained but changed to just "this champ has %60 cooldown" and the FW bonus be something nora death based. Kinda like the backend of the SP bonus but what balances it out from backloaded is that synergy with the 'boon' and 'rebirth' type champions. That ship seems to have sailed though and isn't coming back so we are left with these threads that keep popping up until we tire ourselves out one way or another. Let it be, there seems to be no will to even look at buying the fruit to squeeze at this time anyway.
Ah, I see basically how you set things up now, my mistake for misinterpreting. Notation wasn't clear to me. I don't think I really agree with this. There are plenty of BGs in other factions that run much more expensive champion sets than FW and nora gen isn't especially good in them (unless it is bonkers good, like Nora Mine). I think that nora gen is strong in grindy FW decks because of how it relates to those decks' resource curves, but much less so because of what it means for champ utilization. Besides, one of the points I was making about efficiency what that it is contextual, and so although looking at full champ utilization is important -- and especially understanding nora values within the context of an average game -- it's also worth remembering that a even a FW deck shouldn't expect to want to play all of its champs as much as it can.
1. I actually agree with your point to an extent. I have brought this up many times, how certain hard counter mechanics make playing certain themes impossible. I quite honestly don't see mechanics which limit theme development going away overnight. Yes, a FW bonus which cancels an opponent's bonus would have a major effect on certain themes. For example, skeezick resilient would probably be much weaker vs FW. Tree units in KF also come to mind. It isn't any different than immunity physical vs certain decks, or immunity magical. Many times you will lose the game due to luck. But since units for the most part follow a formula, the bonuses do need to be somewhat comparable. Currently the FW bonus is only noticeable in a select few themes (low cost units which must die). It is a gimmicky bonus, that does not encompass what many themes are supposed to do (vampires, witches spirits and zombies, liches right now don't benefit from the bonus, which hurts their competitive viability imo). 2. Essence drain is definetly more useful versus high hp targets. Soul bane is -15 lol damage + a curse effect. Any time you are doing 20 damage, you really need to consider if the 15 damage would have been more efficent for 10 less nora. Yes, this means that soul bane would technically be buffed versus ST for instance, but essence drain as is the main reason FW is "strong" according to most players, so it would still be a net nerf. Doom would be nerfed across the board as well. 3. I find forcing your own units to die to be gimmicky. It removes the aspect of retreating front line units from FW, because it is almost always better to let them die. The bonus removes more strategy than it adds when you really think about it.
I think this is total nonsense. It completely ignores that nora cost efficiency remains the dominant consideration in engagements. The FW bonus provides no direct incentive for champion death and to suggest that it does so is not only creates bad strategy but also elides a much more complex set of relationships involved in using the bonus. The FW bonus directly provides neither of the game's most important concrete resources -- nora and AP -- and it is exactly this fact that has so often made it the subject of criticism. It is preposterous in that light to make an argument predicated upon the bonus providing that kind of benefit. The FW bonus by nature cannot alter the calculation that it is better to have champions alive rather than dead, and I am especially shocked that anyone would suggest as much when the bonus's inability to provide a real incentive for death has been a common criticism of its thematic design. If you want to get into the ways in which the bonus might change the calculations involved in tactical decision-making, we certainly can, and that is a valuable conversation, but I disagree that it makes it more often than not preferable to not retreat and instead let champions die. That is tactical nonsense, and certainly does nothing to "remove[] more strategy than it adds when you really think about it." I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything else you said, and am not trying to categorically disagree with anything you say, but I think that one particular comment is ridiculous trash.
You win games by utilizing a bonus to gain advantage over an opponent. The sooner your units die, the sooner you are utilizing your bonus, provided you are playing optimally. Cheap melee units or even mid cost melee units dying should always create an advantage for you if you play correctly, because you are utilizing the inherent bonus that the other faction does not have, and more frequently. This is no different than an UD player utilizing his +damage as optimally as possible, an SP player trying to out deploy an opponent, or an FS player trying to win by passive nora gain. If you can't convert a bonus into a tangible win condition, than it isn't a bonus, it is a non-factor. I'm not saying you will use a bonus every game to win btw, I am just speaking about "optimal" play in a sort of "vacuum" balanced game state.
When tomorrow I get something better than a phone on which to write, we can talk more. In short, I think the argument you are currently putting forward is reductive to the point of absurdity.
I think that people forget that, with no costing formula applying to spells/relics/equips, a faction's non-champion toolset is essentially part of its bonus.
You'd do well to be more open minded. There's such thing as constructive criticism. What you are doing is calling me stupid, which really only makes you look stupid in turn. A better way to argue a point is to stay positive.
This is true. And whether or not something is constructive criticism has little to do with whether it is either substantive or coherent. I'm not even convinced that what we're doing here would mostly fall under "constructive criticism", so if you could elaborate on why you chose that phrase, I would appreciate it. No, that is not my intent, although I realize how that would be an easy interpretation of my tone. To redouble on what I said earlier -- -- I am directing my disapproval at one particular comment you made, not at you as a person. Being smart doesn't matter to me when it comes to evaluating someone's arguments or even whether they are even a good person; intelligence just doesn't matter that much, really. To repeat: I am not and do not mean to attack you, or impugn any of your personal qualities. I am sorry if I have given that impression. Maybe I should be more explicit about that kind of thing in the future. Please elaborate on what you mean by this, because I can guess but am not 100% sure.
Now, to our other argumentative response --- One of the points I was making was that plenty of the older arguments for changing the FW bonus were precisely this: that the FW bonus cannot be converted into any kind of substantive benefit to advance a win. If you want to completely disavow that, by all means do so (and I would tend to agree that the FW bonus is substantively useful), but just be aware that would mean breaking with a fairly central argument of the anti-FW bonus position over the years. Why do you single out this particular class of champions? That Yobanchi and I have talked about de facto cutoffs is insufficient reasoning, I believe, because, first, the relevance of champ cost to the FW bonus we discussed was more complicated and indirect than suggested by your comment, and second, because neither of us ever mentioned melee champions. Could you talk about why you think inexpensive champions are directly relevant to the FW bonus (if you actually do), and why being melee matters? You use these kinds of phrases several times, and it strikes me as very fuzzy language. What exactly do you mean by optimal play? What does this look like? I don't just mean "the kind of play that takes advantage of some bonus," especially because comments like this imply that "using the bonus frequently" is conditionally dependent on "optimal play" in the case when "units die early." What is this "optimal play" that transmutes "early unit death" into the appropriate use of the FW bonus? (I have an argument about what "optimal play" could mean in this context, but seeing as it directly contradicts your earlier logic that I'd rather hear what you have to say instead and maybe get some clarity on your thinking.) Related to the questions about optimal play, what exactly does it look like for another faction to use their bonus in an optimal manner, contrary to FW? Additionally, a theme in this thread has been that the FW bonus has a more significant effect upon decks that use it "optimally" than do other faction bonuses for their respective factions -- do you have any explanation of why that might be? Or do you think it is not the case?
