ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 129
Dec 11 13 10:52 PM
Roman Farraday wrote:With all due respect, Tim, you really think Vader's deck isn't broken? His win-loss record speaks to his effectiveness. His ineffectiveness isn't an opinion so much as it is a fact. I've heard arguments that Vader shouldn't be very strong, but I'll go back to my original argument: A weak Vader isn't fun. A strong Vader would be more fun. I'll proceed with all arguments based upon this premise. The ideal relative strength of Vader is a topic for another thread (along with actual tweak suggestions). The victory through attrition path that you suggest really only works against the weakest of decks. His deck doesn't really support this path -- a victory-through-attrition deck would have more than 3 power attacks (higher than A3) and likely some defense cards. If his path to victory is attrition, then his is a very poor deck. I'm not picking on you with this statement, but whenever someone states "A deck sucks," there's always someone to say "Well, not if you know how to play it," and/or "If X, Y and Z happen, it can be effective." Best example is not Vader, but Luke. Luke sucks. Yes he can win and yes, you need to know how to play him. He can be extremely effective, in fact. But look at his win-loss record. He loses most of the time. People know how to play against him. You need to get your cards in the right order, and only then do you have a good chance of winning. If you don't get them in the right order, you lose. Second best example of a deck that has merit but ultimately sucks is Vader. Sure he can win and yes he can be effective. Especially if you're going to single out decks like Jango, Han and Luke, he can win, and win often. But for every Jango, Han and Luke there's an Obi-Wan, Maul and Yoda. I think more telling is Vader vs Dooku or Vader vs Mace, because Dooku and Mace are pretty much average decks. Vader may have swept Mace once, and his record vs Dooku might improve upon 0-6 with more playing, but I would expect him to lose 75% or more of his games against these 2. I can't see him achieving victory without a good draw for him accompanied by a bad draw for them. This is where Luke's design is superior. Luke, at least, could whip either one with a good draw and good use of IWNFY, not necessarily requiring them to get a bad draw. Vader requires them to have a bad draw to win. Vader can't really win an attrition game, or really any game, against the other Jedi/Sith except for Luke. Now, strategy vs path to victory. To me, strategy is an overall playing focus such as aggressive, keep-away, etc. Path to victory is what you're going to use to win the game. I think Scott captured the reason for Vader's lack of success: He has 2 paths to victory that don't support each other, and that require divergent strategies: Either a keep-away strategy where you use your direct damage, or an aggressive strategy where you use ATE. He'd be so much better a deck if he just did one or the other, and all his cards were organized around that concept. More power attacks and defense could support an aggressive strategy that would lead to victory through ATE or victory through attrition, and the 2 paths to victory wouldn't work against each other.
Share This