QUOTE (fishfleas2000 @ November 20, 2007 03:32 pm)
This is where Scott and I finally started to agree. This was scott replying to my breakdown of his original post. As you will see, for the most part we are in agreement. He disagreed with the distribution of Choke, but his solution was just a varied implementation of the same concept (drawing into Choke faster). So you see Lee, Scott and I are on pretty level ground here. I had read all scott's posts and in there he had brought up some comments about the cards being so weak that they worked against each other. This means that the root of it was more to do with power of the deck than design. The design is actually pretty good. Would I call it excellent, probably not. I'ld see a major improvement with the gain power card, but generally the design is good.

So lee, yes I have been in this conversation pretty much every day since it started. I didn't ask you in spite if you read our conversation. I just know you have been in the coversation a bit more sporadically. If you had not read it all, it would be helpful to know that, as you may have missed some key points. Such as the post where Scott and I, for the most part, came to an agreement.

Fish, we did agree on some of those points. We agreed on how, many of the elements work against themselves, and I saw your point of view on why there might be Choke x3. However, I should clarify that while we did agree on some of those things, the next step is where we still disagree. I would not use the phrase, "brought up some comments about the cards being so weak that they worked against each other."

Choke is not a weak card. 6 damage to a minor? Yikes. Wrath is not a weak card. 2 damage to all of an opponents characters? Can you imagine masterplay where you control two decks? That's potentially 12 total DD in one action. But, 4 or 6 total DD in one action is still pretty darn good. I love an opening move of two Wraths: it kills all weak shooter minors and deals 4 damage to the major. While I agree that Dark Side Drain is an inherently weak card, I'm not saying that Choke and Wrath are weak, because when taken individually they are not weak cards. If you were to use Roman's special card analyzer, Choke and Wrath would be pretty valuable cards. Dark Side Drain would not.

It's the COMBINATION of all three that makes for a poor or "weak" design. You've got one weak card in DSD, and two powerful cards in Choke and Wrath that all accomplish the same thing (assuming you agree that DSD works best against minors). So, don't misinterpret what I've been saying in this thread. Cards by themselves can be really powerful or really weak, but then suddenly take on other characteristics depending on what other cards surround them or even what cards they are going up against (ie, the opponent's deck).

I still think those you who advocate that the design is a good one that features weak cards are missing the point, because his cards aren't weak. With the exception of Dark Side Drain (and possibly ATE), Vader has really powerful cards. And it is precisely this part of it that contributes to a bad or "weak" design. I did tone back my criticisms of it being "terrible and in need of a complete rewrite", but I would never call the design "good". The best I can do is call it "ok" or "less than average".

QUOTE (volleyballgy)
counterproductivity weakens the deck but has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with design strength unless the deck was intended to be designed strong.


Tim, if this is in fact the crux of your argument, then I can see where you're missing the boat. I would refer you back to my Jango/Han examples or Roman's first Obi/Ani post. I absolutely think that counterproductivity contributes to a bad design regardless of whether you intend the deck to be weak or strong. Jango and Han do not have counterproductive decks, yet both are considered among the weaker decks. Both of their designs are solid, but they have weak cards, and therefore have weak decks. So, in those examples, counterproductivity is not used to accomplish a weak deck. So it would seem inconsistent at best for Hasbro to then make a Vader deck that is counterproductive, because they intended for it to be weak, because they made at least two other weak decks that didn't use counterproductivity. To further my point, I have seen countless custom decks that are counterproductive and have poor designs, but the result is an overpowered nightmare. The cards can work against each other, but if they are uber-powerful, then you'll more often than not have an uber-powerful character (depending on the level of counter-productiveness obviously). So, in that example, counterproductivity was not used as a way to weaken the deck...nor did it contribute to the deck being weak.

So, if counterproductivity was not used in two other Hasbro decks to make a weak deck, and it has been found in many custom decks that DON'T make the deck weak, then I find your argument falling apart. Counterproductivity doesn't always make a deck weak, but it always results in a poor design. If your intent is a weak deck, then use weak cards....not powerful ones that weaken when used in the same deck.

Darth Trumpetus...trumpeter of fury.