Definitely not debating that Honour is *not* good, but have things slowed down that much? Masons are still losing to Fish and Alchs very easily (looking at post-errata Longshanks), and while Midas and Co and Shark are taken down a notch, they're still going to be very hard for Masons.
Again I respectfully disagree. I just looked at the data many ways post-errata, and they're still losing to Alchs/Fish/Butchers, even with 3 other teams, and win against 3 (not counting Farmers because their top lineup is not legal yet, and not counting Blacksmiths because the data is based on 2 games). So like I said, middle of the pack. Their win rate is above average, which is a nice change from "bottom tier" at the beginning of S3. I'm not really talking about the GICs here, I'm just talking about the team itself. Considering Masons are my most played team (in both casual and tournament play), I know how the team works, and while they're powerful in the hands of a top player, I don't feel they're more powerful than many of the teams out there (except probably Hunters). They have great and bad matchups, but again, claiming that she's an "absolute monster" seems a bit far fetched from my experience.
Interesting, not sure how Masons went from "bottom tier" to "best guild" with one errata in S3. Nothing has changed besides Hammer, whom there's still debate in the Masons forum on whether he got better or worse with the errata (I think it's better). Alchs and Fish still beat Masons, the only difference is everyone is avoiding those teams like the plague but after the post-errata hangover gets better, they'll start coming back again. I mean, I'm not going to complain if Masons are actually that good now, considering how much I toiled with that team when it was "bottom tier" and still loved every moment of playing them. Then again, what do I know? I'm just a small fish in a small pond.
Agree with you here. The card is good, but best GIC and over the top? That's the first I've heard of it.
Another data point. Canadian Nationals, 0 Masons. GenCon, 0 Masons. I guess people just aren't getting that they're good, yet.
You just described EVERYTHING that Masons have had since... the beginning of the game? If anything, they've been slightly nerfed from S2 to S3 (besides Tower getting better, and then the Hammer errata). They're good, they're my favorite team (and the team that got me into Guild Ball), they're also the team I've played the most (probably over 100 games by now) but "top tier"? Sorry, I don't believe it until I actually see Masons win a major tournament for once...
I actually appreciate @Jamie P and Co speeding the game up. I love this game but the one gripe I have is that it takes too long. Most of the time games still last 2 hours or longer if you don't use a clock (sometimes 3 hours), and when using a 50 min clock, almost everyone in our entire area clocks out a few times in tournaments. I'd prefer a game that plays leisurely in 75-90 min, and the clock can be at 70-80 min. It definitely makes tournaments run faster, you can fit more rounds in a day, and in league nights we can actually fit 2 games in instead of barely finishing 1 before getting kicked out of the store.
Just wanted to put out a different perspective than EpicChris so the designers don't feel like most of the community *don't* want the game to be shorter/faster. I can safely say that a majority, if not most, of the people in my meta wished it were a little faster, and really love the Alternate Deployment rules because of it. I'm also a huge fan of HR3 as a average to speed things up, because nothing is more frustrating than even having beater teams take a model down to low HP, then after a bad roll and not killing them off, they heal back 8 HP and it's like starting over again. It's as bad as the "tackle-fest" that happens sometimes, but that's a little harder to fix.