Let me clarify. You've brought up a good point, but I'm not contradicting myself, because Maul's deck isn't counterproductive as you would like to believe. So, let's really look at Maul, since you brought it up. Being redundant and being counterproductive are not the same. Vader's cards are redundant yes, but they are also counterproductive. Wholly 2/3 of his cards accomplish the same thing, which is NOT destroying the main character for the win (ok, so Wrath does *also* hurt the major...but that still leaves you with 5 cards that don't), this is redundant. My main point though is, they are redundant AND counterproductive. Maul's red deck and power attacks are redundant to be sure, but NOT counterproductive. Since they are all attack cards, how do they work against each other? How do they weaken each other? The point with with Vader's cards is that once you play one, the others become weaker to the point of being useless. And since there are SO many of them, (2/3 of the talent cards), this is why it's a bad design.

Your point about Blinding Surge is a good one. A red deck with little defense combined with D0's is a tough one. Counterproductive? Maybe. But it's only 2 defense cards, and you can *always* play one. Is playing one a good decision? That's the part where it's totally situational. Choke? You'll always have a completely useless one in 1 vs 1 games. By contrast, you can always play a Blinding Surge. Sure, there will be situations where you don't want to, but there is nothing limiting you from playing it, like there is with Choke in Vader's deck. And that is a huge difference. But consider, while he has a red deck, Maul also has 18HP and one D10. Like Vader he has a lot of HP, but unlike Vader he has a token power defense, and IMO that's also another big difference. I don't think blinding surge is contradictive so much as it is unsupported. The presence of Blinding Surge doesn't limit you from playing any other cards, but I'll agree that with a red deck it's not as supported as it could be with a Blue deck. Furthermore, I find playing Blinding Surge against minors to be a better move anyway...they generally have less attack power, and it allows you to focus your attacks on the major. Despite all that, you could argue that it IS supported with a TON of offense, meaning if you stay aggressive, you may never have to face attacks from your opponent...and I think this is the point of the design. So, sorry, I don't see how Maul's design is counterproductive. I'll agree that Blinding Surge isn't supported, but it's meant as a support card itself...so in terms of design, so what if it isn't supported? The signature card and PtV are through his non-actions...not in using Blinding Surge to win. So, there's nothing wrong or counterproductive with Maul's design. He has a quite effective PtV.

So, nice try, but Maul isn't a very good example. IMO, I haven't contradicted myself at all.

Darth Trumpetus...trumpeter of fury.