Amarr is known for their tanks, and the slow methodical way they wage war. This deck is more a defensive deck, letting the opponent get the feeling of the 'inevitablity' of his demise. Income is generated primarily through outer region mining. Kyonoke Pit coupled with both Ice Ores will prevent almost all frigages from attacking you, allowing your Tormentors and hopefully Sigils to conduct their isk farming in peace. Any mining operation should be anchored by a Guardian. If you get Cathedral out, you force victory conditions on your opponent...which is very good against decks that are built to win without killing the starbase.
The deck is very 'anti-news' with the Censor Office and Bad News/Damage Control. News and super-quick starting decks are the primary vulnerability of this deck. Also, it is a bit of a slow starter...only countered by the Executioners and Impairors in the deck. Sigil is a nice ship as it brings out your Bestower to your hand. I shouldnt have to explain out much isk you will be generating with Kyonoke Pit + Ice/Ark + Tormentor(s) + Bestower...all anchored by a Guardian (or two).
Dam Torsad is there as an alternate way to ramp up your isk, but not as secure. Tierijev is there mainly as a backup and a low cost alternative until you get things rolling more later in the game.
Cards (56): Arkonor Crokite x4 Crumbling Moon x4 Pyroxeres x4 Sublet Station x2 Center of Astrogeology x2 Juggernaut Platform x4 Warp Disruption Field x3 Apocalypse Arbitrator Armageddon Augoror x4 Bestower x2 Executioner x4 Maller x3 Omen x3 Prophecy x2 Punisher x4 Sigil x3 Tormentor x2 By the Emperor's Decree x2
It has some serious problems getting set up. It's spectacular when you can, but that only happened for me in about 10% of games. Most of the rest of the time you get just spanked.
Sigil/Bestower is nice, but too much assembly and too expensive.
Good luck, but it's been problematic for me.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Karash
User Frigate
Posts: 64
Re:Amarr "Inevitability" Tank Deck (v.1) - 2007/04/19 20:30I think the main difference would be the ship costs. While half my ships are cost 6, they are no greater than that. The other half is 1, 2, and 4 isk cost ships. You have some very high cost ships in your deck
On IRC we were discussing it some...I could replace the Warp Disruption Fields with Advanced Shipyards. That would help the deck a lot I think. The Tormentor is there to 'hold the line' as it can only be targeted by one ship...doesnt prevent Kami decks however.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Buhallin
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 514
Re:Amarr "Inevitability" Tank Deck (v.1) - 2007/04/19 20:36Well, if you go with small ships, I have to ask why you're mining at all? For what it takes to get your good mining going, you could bring out 4-6 frigates and end the game.
I played the turtle to set up the big mining or the big ships. Never got SCC Global Markets, but they were one goal. Armageddon + Arbitrator is another expensive setup.
You mining could, if it comes together correctly, draw in 48 ISK a turn from a single location. That's very cool, but what are you going to DO with it?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Karash
User Frigate
Posts: 64
Re:Amarr "Inevitability" Tank Deck (v.1) - 2007/04/19 23:48Attack with 4 Augorors and 4 Guardians, backed up with Hired Enforcers . The multiple Guardians can sustain up to 20 points of damage (unbuffed) before losing a ship. Even if you have a huge defending fleet, the battle will go multple phases...wearing down a defender.
Edit: The extra isk is for reserves, playing anti-news when played and starbase structures. I have a lot of cost 6 cards in the deck, and to be able to play more than one at a time requires a lot of isk.
However, running out of cards is a real problem...thats why the Augorors are in there.
Great points however, this is what im looking for. The Locations may need to get reworked in a big way...see my post about Omber and Crumbling Moons in the rules forum.
btw, send check your email about Tabletalk
Post edited by: Karash, at: 2007/04/19 23:52
Post edited by: Karash, at: 2007/04/19 23:54
The administrator has disabled public write access.
