I was hoping to wait until the posts actually showed up on the board to respond, but that doesn't appear to be happening... what I'm wondering is if these are all going to disappear when something actually posts, the way my response to OWJ did. Anyhoo... I have no problem with Vader's "effectiveness" level. If the game is going to have variety, some decks will necessarily be weaker than others. I don't think it would be as fun to play Obi-vs-Obi, even if the decks are completely even. And I still disagree that his PtV's are divergent. I don't see aggression as a PtV for Vader, and I thought I'd been pretty clear on that. However, it seems there is still confusion as to what I'm labelling his "attrition" PtV. I've looked up "attrition" again to make sure I've used it correctly, and I believe I have: "a gradual wearing down or weakening of resistance." There is no place for aggression -- Vader needs time to work. My argument is that ATE supports this path by making opponents think twice about getting near Vader -- they need to be able to defend any attack Vader throws at them, so it takes time to build a hand. While this is happening, Vader is whittling away at their HP with his DD -- the "gradual wearing down" -- so that when they finally do approach Vader, around half their health has already been taken away, while Vader is at full strength. Then Vader finishes off with his basic attacks supplemented by the DSD, for the most part absorbing the opponent's blows in order to hit back. Having higher-valued power attacks wouldn't follow the attrition model, because that breaks from being "gradual." One would expect his attacks do between 1-3 damage each against non-power combats, which is more in line with the gradual elimination of the opponent.
Now, what I think the crux of the matter is, is that this just doesn't pan out for Vader most of the time. For every one time he finishes off an opponent, there are two times he just falls short (with some leftovers where he gets wiped out). Whether or not this is "effective enough" is something that I'm not particularly interested in arguing (is 40% victory rate "effective enough"? 45%? To me that degree of evenness would be pretty boring); I'm trying to stick to the topic of his PtV, of which I haven't been convinced is divergent at all.

In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace. And what did that produce? The cuckoo-clock.
- Orson Welles