I understand different decks have different advantages, different strategies, different goals.
Some try to win in early turns, some try to go with a bang, some through discard, etc.

I understand you are saying (at least I think you are) that winning through kills and losing through score is part of the kit of high health decks.

So, speaking of practical situations, what I mean is quite straight-forward:
It isn't reasonable to expect any deck to be balanced by compensating an increased chance to defeat the enemy team (because that's what happens if you wipe them without getting wiped), with a penalty in end game score.
Question #1: Are the existing high health decks better than the rest?
Question #2: Of those that are, are they better because of the high health, or something else?

Because, when two decks wipe each other in a very balanced, very fun match, only to get a huge discrepancy in score at the end of the game, can't feel right to anyone...

Being able to wipe without getting wiped more often than other decks, in itself is an unbalanced concept regardless of what compensation you come up with.

Applying my suggestion, does not change the deck's advantages and disadvantages.
The decks that don't try to stay alive, and instead try to win with sheer score, can still do so.
The decks that try to win by wiping without getting wiped, can still do so.
The decks that try to win through discard, can still do so.

By adding the printed health of YOUR characters to YOUR score, what happens is that the one with higher health in his characters will have a higher base score, but if everyone dies, he also gave the oponent a higher score, thus balancing it out.

_________________
Suggestions: Rank, Elite and Ranked Elite Stats | AoE vs Greater Stats | Fairplay Sollution | Overcards

I disagree with these two statements, and I believe your argument relies on them to a great extent. I would say that the answer to the second contention of yours I have quoted in this post is the first (to an imperfect degree).

This probably boils down to opinion. I do not find these two scenarios patently unfair or unfun. The second appears unfair on its face, but it takes a simplistic world view in which there is no player skill involved (which I disagree with as to this game), and one that ignores the third option of neither player's team getting wiped (i.e. discard and stall decks). There are plenty of problems with this game, and you have identified many, but this is not one of them in my eyes. I actually see this "problem" as a complexity within the game that makes it more rich (i.e. different cards are best for achieving victory in different ways).

Fair enough, I guess it does boil down to opinion.

_________________
Suggestions: Rank, Elite and Ranked Elite Stats | AoE vs Greater Stats | Fairplay Sollution | Overcards

Hence, the Suggestion page

Nomads are supposed to be the kings of the healer. Let's take a look at what happenes if a nomad characters goes down to 0 HP and heals full life. Since he has more life that his opponents, He'll heal more than him and have more points at the end of the game.

High health is an advantage in healing and countering direct damages.

Besides most nomads do not use defensive cards but healing cards. Healing grants you points whereas protecting only disminishes opponent's score...

_________________
--EXYLEME--
"-oh mon dieu! ils ont tués Kenny!
-espèce d'enfoirés!"

Hi Nurvus,

I was about to give this one to you, but now that I read your post more carefully I noticed that you might have missed one point. Please, let me know if I am thinking this wrong.

You basically based your argument on power attack. Both characters have the same attack power (16=16), so they both should win right?

No. Because the score system is based on damage. Although they had the same attack power, character A dealt only 13 damage, while B dealt 16. That's why B wins. Even if character A's health was lower, B would obviously still win, which means: the disadvantage is not on the higher HP, but on the lack of defense which can't prevent damage.

You may call that unbalanced if you want. But now, putting that in the context of eredan, I wouldn't sustain the argument that characters with lower defense tends to lose for higher defense (or change that for spirit if you may). It depends on so many other variables... So, not sure about the unbalance at all...

I'm curious to know what you think!

_________________
Tracker
Witchblade / Compendium
War Guemelite / Priest
Shadow Guemelite
Air Guemelite
Corruption

My argument is mostly that if you assume both characters have equal chances to win, regardless of how, those that focus their survivability on defense, spirit and other types of damage prevention have the advantage over those that focus their survivability on raw Health, because Health is added to the enemy's score, since you take more damage.

So even if both characters kill each other fair and square, the one that depends on Health will lose in score to the one that depends on damage mitigation.

So if both characters attack with 15 damage, but character A absorbs 2 with additional Defense, and character B absorbs 2 with additional health, the additional health gets added to character A's score.

This is why, if the Printed Health of each character is added to their owner's score, this unfairness is dealt with.

_________________
Suggestions: Rank, Elite and Ranked Elite Stats | AoE vs Greater Stats | Fairplay Sollution | Overcards

Sorry Nurvus, that sentence is not precise enough for me. It is not the opponent's health that is added, it is the damage you dealt.

Let me show you an example in which your system doesn't work:

Suppose you have two Characters from the Plumber Class fighting against each other, those are their characteristics
Mario
SP 1
AT 0/0
DEF 2
HE 13

Luigi
SP 1
AT 0/0
DEF 1
HE 14

According to your system, Mario starts with 13 points and Luigi with 14.
Let's suppose that on their first turn their special abilities plus the cards they used dealt exactly 15 direct damage to each one. Both die. Who wins? Luigi. Do you think that would be fair even though they both dealt exactly the same damage??? So Luigi wins because he started with more health?? (C'mon Luigi NEVER wins!!!)

I do agree with you that less damage reduction (SP/DEF) is a disadvantage that is not really compensated by higher HP, since HP doesn't influence the score (again, Damage influences the score).
But hey, think about this too: Score is only the second measure used to decide the winner. The first measure is number of kills (whoever kills all the opponents first with a surviving character), and this depends on another infinite array of variables... And... although I can think of several exceptions, I would generally say that whoever starts with higher HP has more chance to survive early turns...
Besides that, higher HP is not the only measurement the game uses to compensate low defense/spirit. Now is where the examples from the other guys come into play, showing that even though certain guilds/castes have low def/spirit, they can sometimes prove themselves hard to beat.

Anyway... let me know if you disagree with anything.

_________________
Tracker
Witchblade / Compendium
War Guemelite / Priest
Shadow Guemelite
Air Guemelite
Corruption

Yes, but the damage you dealt went "through" the enemy extra health, instead of defense, spirit or damage reduction.

If it was 15 damage - 2 Defense vs 13 HP, you'd get 13 Score.
Since it was 15 damage vs 13+2 HP, you get 15 Score.

So the difference here is that enemy Health gives your damage a better score.

_________________
Suggestions: Rank, Elite and Ranked Elite Stats | AoE vs Greater Stats | Fairplay Sollution | Overcards

I's direct dommage, defence does not count.if we are dealing 13 direct dommage, luigi would have win, not bye score but by remaining alive (hp matter to survive, not for score).