QUOTE (fishfleas2000 @ November 12, 2007 11:48 pm)
In my opinion Hasbro's version of Vader seems fairly well thought out.

Thank you for saying this, Fish; I agree 100%.
QUOTE (fishfleas2000 @ November 12, 2007 11:48 pm)
I do think though however, that Hasbro underestimated the power levels on some of the cards.

Did you mean "overestimated"? I would say perhaps they overestimated the power of DSD as an A3, but I don't see how anything is more powerful than it seems.
QUOTE (hags888 @ November 12, 2007 11:01 pm)
I don't think that Vader goes from Tier III in 1 vs 1 to a sudden Tier I in 2 vs 2.

Fair enough; in the thread ranking the decks for 2v2 you have him as 4th, and since the 1v1 Tier I has four characters, I called it top-tier. I'll also point out Fish has him ranked 2nd, and I'd rank him 3rd (behind Obi, Maul), somewhat offsetting Roman's still low ranking.
QUOTE (hags888 @ November 12, 2007 11:01 pm)
The deck is weak, but it is weak *because* of a design flaw.

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but aren't you still assuming a priori that his deck was designed to be strong? I have no problem with a statement such as, "[Attrition] is a poorly supported Path" (Sultan, Nov. 10th), though I might argue about the degree of the adverb, but I do object to your statement above because it assumes a poorly supported Path is a design flaw.

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