Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
If your opponent plays it, you have have >10 Kredit slots, it will be easy to fill the board again. If you had many units on the field, your hand probably won't be that full, so it's just a delay. If you didn't have many, Leopold won't have a great effect.
The 6/4 artillery isn't much of a deal either. Sure, there are times you have nothing to counter, but they are rare. At this stage of the game, you probably have a nasty surprise for your opponent ready for such occasions. I'm talking blitz units, removals, pins, units with additional instant damage, such things.
Leopold is a fine card, but far from OP. Its effectiveness is highly situational, most of the time it's manageable to counter it with a reasonable amount of resources.
Like all late game cards, they are probably often clogging up your hand at a stage where you simply don't have the kredits to play it.
All in all, a balanced card in my opinion.
Edit: aardvarkpepper said most things while I was typing. Well, you have a short version here :-)
I do apologize if my answer was rude, it was not my intention.
I would very much want to dispute the statement that the offered scenario was somehow precise.
If there was an indignant tone to my answer it was because I didn't see the specifics I was asking about and it sounded to me like hand waving.
Looking at the described scenario the Leopold was removed by (best case) a 4k order leaving about 3-6 k to spend on redeployment and repositioning. Even without any movement cost that's at most 2 early game planes (possibly 2 cheap mid game planes)
I fail to see relevance of throwing in Leopold as a 2 card removal. There are plenty of better tools for that in the game (all of them cheaper and pretty much none of them Elite)
More to the point, Leopold still clearly bought him a full round of respite. Not many cards can do that in such a desperate situation.
Leopold is an issue in any scenario where someone flips the table by playing Leopold. Typically I would see it as removing 4+ well positioned/buffed opponent units about round 7 and then going on to win a BS victory because there was nothing the other guy could do to come back from that one card trick.
Finally, we are talking about a card in a game. We can be objective about it. There is no need to make it personal
Worst case scenario? You bought yourself one more round of life and forced removal order/blitz unit. Best case? You win, game over.
What should be tech card against token/buff decks is bordering on auto-include (if it wasn't the case we wouldn't be havin' those threads popping up every few days).
It's only bad pull against balls-to-the-wall aggro (too slow, but control decks have to have cheap answers for agro anyway) and US bombers ('cos deploy effect are worth more than bombers but nobody plays those kinds of decks high on ladder anyway).
On a sidenote: Anybody ever tried using reichbank(s) and next turn popping Leo and some countermeasures (or discards)? I managed to cheese whole lotta games against slower decks with that (playin' ♥♥♥-ger control + burn). Not viable in the long run, granted. Still, disgusting when opponent falls for that.
Imho all undonditional bounce cards are problematic one way or the other.
Aggro beats control. Midrange beats aggro. Control beats midrange. That's a generalization that came from other CCGs but I think it applies to KARDS as well. You can put in tech cards to help you in the matchups you're weak against but it's always an uphill struggle when you fight against type.
Aggro swarms control and finishes with direct damage. Midrange puts enough board on the field that it can fight aggro off then uses more costly cards that outperform aggro cards on a one for one basis. Control fights off midrange's early board presence then uses various mechanics to gain a late game advantage, from card draw to high utility cards to removal..
Though I'm using vague generalizations, that still provides a better picture of what's going on in deck design terms than a general question "what if you will be forced to use your removals on other units". The question should really be, what's the role of removal in different deck types, and how does each deck type play out?
Aggro decks will typically run 1-2 big removals, possibly a few more if they're multipurpose and especially if they're cheap. The idea is they push for early damage on board, maybe use some fliers for additional damage near when board control is being lost, then use direct damage orders for the finisher. Or variations of that. Most of the deck is comprised of 1-3 cost units, perhaps a few 4s and 5s, plus cheap removal. The deck doesn't want its hand clogged up with expensive removal cards that aren't going to let them establish board control. You run a lot of expensive removal, you no longer have an aggro deck.
So in aggro decks, if the aggro player exhausted all their big removal early or didn't draw it, and if the control deck gets a lot of early counterplay, then the control deck makes a big play - Leopold or a big Guard unit - and the aggro deck has no finishers and no big removal, at that point the aggro deck lost control of the game. If the aggro deck doesn't draw into finishers, the game is over. And that's how it's supposed to be.
It's not that aggro is supposed to always kill opponents before they can ever play Leopold. Ideally, sure, but what with chance draws and counterplay, consistent early kills aren't a sure thing. But if for whatever reason aggro can't push for the early win, it inevitably loses control of the game to the control deck, because that's how the decks are built. If you have one deck filled with low cost cards and cheap removal that can't destroy big units, and you have another deck filled with high cost cards and expensive board-clearing effects, if the deck with low cost cards doesn't get a decisive advantage and secure a win early, inevitably it's going to lose.
So if you're playing an aggro deck and you haven't managed to press on your opponent's life points enough that you have any potential finishers, if you don't have big removal in your hand, if your control opponent is making big plays, that's that. You lost control of the board and it's just a mopup operation from there.
In that situation there's nothing you can do, and there's nothing you're *supposed* to be able to do (except maybe draw into Enigma to try to draw into a finisher, or draw into a finisher, or whatever). An aggro deck is supposed to have a specific purpose, and it should be built to that purpose. You're not *supposed* to have answers to everything, especially lategame, with aggro. (Well unless you count damage to the face as an answer; damage to the face can be the answer sometimes.) The more expensive stuff you put in, the more you blunt your aggro, the less likely your deck is to win.
In plain English - a deck is supposed to do something specific, and should be built to that specific purpose, accounting for likely enemy counterplays. You run one or maybe two big removals in an aggro deck, you know probably you're going to push into later stages of the game then your opponent is going to drop something nasty on the board that your regular aggro can't deal with then you want big removal. But only once. After that big removal, you need to push for board into face into direct damage finishers and game over. If you even had three big removal cards in your hand, by the time you play each of them out in response to opponent plays, your opponent already delayed the game to the point they have a load of credits to make big big counterplays, and you lost anyways.
Midrange and control are variations of the same idea. The question is what the deck is supposed to do. For midrange, you know your late game won't be as early as your opponent's lategame, so you have to try to press a little harder to end things on your terms. And yes, that means sometimes you're going to use up your removal and you won't have an answer for an opponent's late game play. But then, it's the same idea. You might have had more removal in your deck, and you might have had stronger units, but in the end, if the control player managed to delay the game until the late game, the control player's going to have an advantage. For control versus control, you need to know the likely cards your opponent has and save your cards for a key play. That's how control versus control matchups have been played in other CCGs and I think it applies here as well.
Maybe your opponent bluffs they have a big threat by holding cards in hand, or maybe you don't draw the removal you need. But that's how it goes. If you're going control versus control and you just don't have the answers to the control versus control matchup, well, if you have a big cardpool to draw from, you had all the same options your opponent had. So is that really unfair? Or OP, as one might say?
There's always going to be exceptions, and players are going to run tech cards in different matchups. But generally it's not a matter of "what if I don't have an answer" as "why don't I have an answer; what should have been in my deck"?
If it turns out that a player just doesn't have the cardpool to build a more competitive deck of the sort they want to build, and if they really don't have an answer to their opponent's parade of cost-effective cards, that's as it goes. If a player doesn't have the strongest cardpool and says "well I don't have an answer to Leopold" - my thought is it's probably not Leopold that's really causing all the problems, but all the other cards that were used before it and after it that basically just beat the player up and made the player feel they had no chance. Maybe Leopold stood out in their mind, but I don't really think *Leopold* was the deciding factor, it could have been any big late game play.
One of the biggest things to note is how it takes up almost you're entire turn to play. 10K is a crap ton and prevents you from really doing anything but playing leopold. So often times these slower german decks use it as a board clear and don't ever rely on the body to even get 1 attack off since it usually dies the turn it's played. The issue of burning units bounced to hand isn't that bad since it either means that you have a massive hand which means the body of the leopold shouldn't be an issue to kill or you had a ton of units on the board so you were already winning and can just reflood the board since the german player only played a single unit.
On top of that many of the better units have deployments effects and it can actually hurt the german player more so than helping them due to stuff like the b17 and what not. The general consensus among top ladder players is that the panzer IV F2 is much stronger due to how it's cheaper and can come down in the mid game instead of just the late game becuase the leopold is also only a card for the late game and is a dead draw until at least turn 10 which can be really bad against faster decks taht don't want to draw out the game.
I really don't understand why people pretend Leopold is fine just because you can possibly remove it after it was played.
1) The fact that it clears all your opponent's cards from the table (undoing several turns of placing, positioning and buffing i.e. actual gameplay) and possibly kills every single one of them is OP AF already.
2) The fact you also get the best(?) artillery piece in the game is just a bonus (making it even more OP)
Yes, you can remove it but you can't stop the main OP effect, e.g. the removal.
That is what makes the card totally BS
The arty piece is nice and all but totally secondary to the unpreventable loss of up to a quarter of your deck to the deployment effect of a card
After reading that post for context, perhaps other posts in this thread will make more sense.
I think we agree Leopold is a powerful card. However I see it as more a situationally powerful card, where I think you may see it as more a generally powerful card suited to all circumstances.
What I feel has happened through this thread is that those that provided evidence against Leopold being OP provided specific details, but the reasoning behind those details was lost in absence of context - context which I tried to provide in my later response to Saiko001. Without context those details would seem like hand waving, but I think we may agree no disrespect was really intended, even though I can understand how it could come off that way absent the necessary context.
The assumption that the opponent has 7 kredits while the Leopold player has 10 is a bit of a stretch. It's not a big stretch, mind, certainly there are decks that run kredit acceleration while also decelerating opponent's kredits; it's certainly possible. But even in such decks that's a pretty big difference.
As to the 4k order, I didn't write that. I *could* have written it, and I may as well have written it, it's just that I happened not to, at least to my recollection.
Well anyways, what's the hypothetical scenario as I think you might picture it? Pretty much I've been reading your posts to this point as assuming there's a big board and there's no counterplay. My guess is you're running some sort of midrange against control, or maybe you're trying to run control but have no late game reversals in your deck. Possibly you're running an underperforming aggro deck, but whatever the case, whatever the reason for a deck not performing the way it ought - whether it's because a player doesn't know the meta or doesn't have a good enough cardpool, it is what it is. As I wrote to Saiko001, midrange isn't favored in the control matchup, and I think I mentioned if you don't have late game reversals a "control" deck isn't really control, and that's how it's supposed to be.
But back to Leopold - so far what do we know about the German Leopold deck? By the time a 10-drop rolls around, we know it's running acceleration and/or deceleration (according to PolishViking's stipulation in another unquoted post which isn't unreasonable really), we know the Germany player is using Germany and also its allied power, we can guess it's control and not midrange and certainly not aggro. We know all this from the cards the German player's been using.
My point *to this point* was, you hold your removal for when you need it. That was in the context (which I didn't mention) that f you're running midrange or control, and you know your opponent's running German control, then you know your opponent is going to drop some nasty stuff. Maybe it's Leopold, maybe it's that superheavy German tank that draws stuff, maybe it's air nastiness, maybe it's that Russian thing that pops out tokens. Whatever. Something nasty is coming.
Besides knowing your opponent is probably running some major threat units, you know they're also probably running mass removal. Maybe your opponent doesn't run mass removal. But they probably do. They're control, an archetype that runs to the late game. They need a cost-efficient way to control the board, possibly of multiple enemy units, possibly enemy tokens, possibly cheap enemy units, whatever. They need something. And the game's cardpool just doesn't really have a mechanic I've seen that supports card draw into cost-efficient multiple single target removal cards that is sufficient to blunting the force of aggro, that also neutralizes possible multiple buffed enemy tokens in the midgame.
So you *know* your opponent's deck. What do you do? You can try to preserve your board and walk face-first into Carpet Bombing or some mass removal order that wipes out all your weakened units (because they WILL be weakened even if you've wiped your opponent's board). Or you can try to trade out your board so your opponent has less mass-removal counterplay.
So do you play right into that mass-removal counter? No. At some point you stop developing your board and go for face. If you have board control, and you keep deploying more units to try to get more and more board control, you're overcommitting, leaving yourself open to a mass counter, and deploying more units leaves less kredits to pay for activation costs for units to attack face. And you need to hit face. Because if you don't have the tools to go long-term against control, then what other option do you have? Control will outdraw you and outvalue you in the long term; even if you're playing control yourself you *still* don't want to walk into a mass-removal counter.
Meanwhile you hold your key more powerful removal for their killer units like that buffed 11/11 tank with Guard and Heavy Armor or whatever. It's not about swarming the board with all the units in your hand. It's about establishing field control and pushing for face, forcing your opponent to deal with it, not playing into your opponent's counters, and having more units to deploy after your opponent uses their removal so you can keep up the pressure, and saving your key removal whenever you can for the really big nasty stuff.
Seems like a lot to think about? Well that's what you get when you play midrange or control, which is precisely what I'm guessing is happening. You need to know the game's cardpool, you need to know the meta, you need to guess at what your opponent's deck is trying to do, and you have to make the right plays and know when a play is right in one matchup and wrong in another matchup and why, or you won't get the most out of your deck.
That's the context in which I was saying you hold your removal - assuming you're running midrange or control and perhaps just not making the optimal play, which I think a reasonable assumption. When your opponent is probably running stuff with heavy armor and/or buffs, you don't just dump your x-removal to get rid of their seriously inconvenient 5/5 tank. You hold your removal because you will REALLY need that removal when they play their big stuff, and you KNOW they have big stuff because they've been playing all these crazy rares and stuff all game and showing they're German control - right?
No, in my hypothetical scenario, what I had in mind was the Leopold player just straight up dies. It goes something like this - Leopold player plays Leopold into a board while opponent only has two 5/5 fighters or whatever, opponent plays the two fighters out again on the next turn, Leopold player can kill one fighter but doesn't have an answer for the second fighter (has other units but they won't make a difference to what's about to happen), second fighter hits face plus blitz or direct damage and that's game.
Variations of that scenario are how it's *supposed* to play out. If you're running aggro maybe the fighters are 3/3 and when destroyed do 2 damage to opponent's HQ. If you're running midrange maybe you only have one fighter that gets bounced then you ram a buffed blitz tank into your opponent immediately after Leopold got deployed. (Mind that midrange isn't favored against control and maybe midrange just doesn't have that answer, as I wrote in response to Saiko001's post. That happens. It's supposed to happen.)
Though you could certainly make a valid point about midrange versus control and the likelihood of various scenarios, the point in either case is - Leopold is super expensive, doesn't leave much room for playing anything else significant that turn except in niche scenarios, and Leopold just doesn't stop what an opposing deck *should* be trying to do. It's too expensive, it's too slow (no Blitz), it doesn't permanently remove threats.
Which isn't to say Leopold isn't good, or that there aren't ways to use Leopold more effectively rather than less. But the point is not that Leopold isn't good. The point is that it may not be "OP" (overpowered).
I hope my response to Saiko001 earlier and my post here has addressed this.
1) If your aggro deck couldn't finish the job by the time Leopold came out, then you didn't have Blitz / direct damage order or other such finishers, your aggro deck failed. It happens, even if aggro is favored in the aggro-control matchup. That's okay. It happens. If your aggro deck consistently can't beat Leopold, you might want to consider fixing your deck. Maybe you don't have the cardpool for it, but just because you don't have the cards to build proper aggro doesn't mean Leopold's OP in the matchup.
2) If your midrange deck couldn't finish the job by the time Leopold came out, them's the breaks. Midrange isn't favored against control. That's not to say there's nothing you could do. But again, if you're losing every single time, maybe it's not Leopold that's the problem. Maybe your deck needs fixing. Maybe you're running a lot of slow units and have no potential finishers, maybe you have too much mobility and not enough base stats, maybe your removal isn't what it ought to be. Could be any number of things.
3) If your control deck can't handle Leopold, you need to fix your control deck, period. A control deck needs ways to pull off late game board reversals, it's practically a definition of control decks. I mean, a control deck that doesn't control, that isn't much of a control deck now is it? Even if you thought it was a control deck, well, it's just not, not without late game counters.
==
The way I see Leopold, it's run in control decks as an appropriate, necessary, and not OP (though very nice when it's played especially in the right situation) component of control decks. It's *supposed* to do what it does, potentially reverse a bad board situation. A lot of proposed "fixes" to Leopold try to get around Leopold's effective removal via bouncing. But I feel that's really besides the point. It's like saying Magic the Gathering control decks shouldn't use Wrath of God. It's a control deck, that's what it does.
It's like saying that order card that does 4 direct damage or whatever it is is OP. Aggro decks go for early board into face, lose control of board then burn to face. It's how aggro decks are supposed to operate. A card's OP because it fulfills its role? That can't be right can it?
==
I'm not saying Leopold is *not OP*. Sure I say I personally don't consider it OP, but I could certainly be convinced to change my mind. If it can be demonstrated that the meta breaks down into Leopold decks and anti-Leopold decks then arguably Leopold is having a disproportionate effect on the meta and needs another look. Or if it can be demonstrated with a number of decklists from different archetypes that a player's only responses to Leopold are such that their decks cannot perform the way they ought because of the necessity of including counters to Leopold that dilute the purpose of the deck, hence most of the cardpool is rendered irrelevant and useless by Leopold, then again, there's something to look at. (Mind "responses to Leopold" doesn't mean a hard counter after Leopold is played; it can just as easily be something like aggro players killing Leopold players before Leopold comes out, or control players have counterplay, which they certainly ought). Or something else, with nice details.
But without more details and more evidence, I can't personally consider Leopold OP.
. . . now if you're talking Monty or Red Banner, um. Yeah. It's not that they go in EVERY deck that can include them, but I'd say it'd be close. Does that make them OP? Well other nations have other nasty stuff so - maybe not. But maybe. Anyways I'd certainly be giving Monty and Red Banner a closer look than Leopold if I were saying anything was OP.
I wrote later that you go for face because you want to press the issue. So which is it, you go for face, or you trade out? The answer is both.
Ideally you go face until your opponent dies. But probably your opponent will do something nasty, play some super heavy with Guard (then you may use removal you've been saving) or play fighters to stop your bombers, or whatever. And maybe their units top your units and they get board control. At that point you try to trade out your weaker units to finish off their stronger units and drop stronger units that hopefully they won't have an answer to. And if you're thinking "well that's not very likely!" well again - if you're midrange, that's not a favored matchup against control; it is what it is. And if you're control then you wouldn't be thinking that because you have stuff like USA's M18 Hellcat in your deck or whatever nasty nasty tricks.
The point is, yes, you go face. But you don't just go face, you also think about your opponent's board; you don't want them to play Cadet Nurse Corps or whatever and get a lock on board control that you can't reverse (unless you're control and you play Leopold yourself). You also don't over-commit. Midrange and control decks need to know what their opponent can do and what they'll probably do (based on cards already played, both opponent's and your own), and make appropriate counterplays.
This can be read as implying if you're a really good player that you remove the element of chance, that there's always a 'right play'. That's not the case. You have to play the odds.. The top players don't have some supernatural abilities. They know the meta, they know the odds, they play those odds *and sometimes they lose*.
When I write a player needs to save their removal - it's more in the sense of -
Hypothetically - if you're playing control versus control, and you drop your TBF-1 Avenger (7-drop 2-activation 4/4 bomber that destroys random enemy unit with defense 5 or more) the moment your opponent drops a KV-1 1941 (6-drop 2-activation 3/6 tank with heavy armor 1 that deals 2 damage to enemy HQ when they draw a card), great! You just stopped chip damage that might have lost you the game. Then if you play Death from Above onto Panther G (5-drop 2-activation 7/5 tank with heavy armor 1), well, that could have been inconvenient so good job again!
But then - again hypothetically - say your opponent plays Iosef Stalin II (10-drop 2-activation 8/8 tank with heavy armor 2; when the unit is sent back to hand play a copy in your support line.) And say all your big removal's gone from your hand. Then suddenly you realize that your opponent also runs Panzer IV F2 (6-drop 2-activation 5/5 tank, target unit must retreat, if it costs 2 or less it's destroyed instead). So now your opponent has three 6-drops 5/5 tanks in their hand that also generate 8/8 tanks. Also YOU run three Panzer IV F2 in your deck yourself, and you'd been keeping one in your hand because you wanted to not overextend while also keeping some counterplay to opponent plays, and that's sort of a dead draw now because anything you play it on is just going to put another 8/8 tank on the board for your opponent. So what looked to be pretty okay suddenly starts looking really really bad. And sure, you might be able to dig yourself out of that hole, but maybe you won't. Maybe you'll lose because you didn't save the right removal for the right time, you didn't know the meta and didn't predict your opponent's playing Iosef Stalin II, etc. etc.
That might seem ridiculously complex, but midrange and control players just need to know that sort of thing - they need to know what their opponents can do and what they're likely to do and how they should play or save their removals or push or not overextend.
If you're not thinking on that level of detail, if you just have a vague idea "I need to remove big enemy stuff before it can hurt me" - there's no shame in that. Everyone starts somewhere. But realize when players are talking about saving removal or making the "right" plays there's a reason for it.
And no, you *don't* always save all your removal. In that hypothetical example, if that Panther G was going to punch you for lethal and you had no way to stop it other than immediate removal, then you have to play your removal out. Or maybe some other scenario against another deck in which you're removing Britain's Grenadier Guards, a 6-drop 1-activation 6/9 infantry with Guard, because you're trying to push face and end game. Sometimes you need to play your removal out to avoid losing immediately, sometimes you want to play your removal out to go for your best odds of winning (if that big Guard infantry was stopping you from going face and you had no other way of dealing with it, and you're piloting midrange, well you don't want to try to go the distance against control so - you play the odds). And sometimes, yes, those odds don't play out favorably; midrange isn't favored against control, some control decks have bad matchups against others, maybe you were evenly matched or even favored but you just had bad draws. But that happens.
As I wrote, it's not necessarily that top players have supernatural abilities. They lose too. They can read the meta, play the odds, try to use decks that they feel counters the current meta so affect their win chances. They may tweak decks and substitute different key tech cards; there's a lot that can be done. But because they know the cardpool and the meta, they're less likely to make unnecessarily bad decisions that can lose them games. That's their edge. But at some point they're still taking chances, and you're still taking chances. Even if your knowledge of the cardpool and meta improves, you will still be taking chances. It's a random game with random card draws and some random card effects; even if you construct your deck carefully there's always going to be a chance you just don't draw the answer you need, even if it's in your deck.
The best you can do is play the odds.
But if you're insisting on just playing out your removal at earliest opportunity - sometimes that's playing the odds, sometimes it's not. Knowing the difference between the two and making the right call is what players need to do if they want to be good
And again - even if you ARE good, sometimes you just have a bad matchup. Sometimes even if you have a bad matchup you get lucky draws or make chancy plays that pay off and win. Or maybe you have a good matchup and get bad draws or your moderate-risk plays get punished and you lose. It happens. There isn't a perfect answer to every situation, you have to play the odds.
That said - it's not just some luck sack game either. Luck's involved, but if you build a good deck and pilot it effectively and take the right chances at the appropriate times your odds go up. That's why certain cards or certain tactics or strategies are suggested in preference to others - not because they *always* work, but because they're more likely to work when they need to, compared to other things you may try.
==
That said, sometimes recommendations are made by players that don't know what they're about. You can get confusing and conflicting advice. Sorting through it all, or figuring things out on your own is just part of improving. But then if there were just a simple manual or a chart or something to follow, it probably would be a less interesting game.
In reference to your first point, sometimes a player has to play leopold as a last ditch effort and sometimes they send back units that are 5/5's (or potentially bigger) with 1-2 health left, so basically its a wash wether you're undoing turns of positioning and buffing or giving an opponent cards back that were at low health which acts in their favor.
That 5/5 American Inf spent 2 turns traveling to the frontline and did so at a heavy K cost.
Playing Leopold undid all that and also saved that player from a 5 strength attack.
It really can not be emphasized enough how destructive an unpreventable mass board removal is.
No other card does that, which should be a clear indication of how OP that is
It doesn't matter much since it is the deployment effect that is OP AF.
The arty is just a bonus. The unpreventable damage is done on drop and it will take on average 2 turns to get the units/positioning back... and that assumes that everything survived and the opponent doesn't move anything into the empty front line