Counterproductive - thwarting the achievement of an intended goal; tending to defeat one's purpose: Living on credit while trying to save money is counterproductive.

Taken from www.dictionary.com 11/21/2007


I thought it might be helpful to define exactly what we are talking about here. I feel that Tim and I are going on this definition, and Scott you may be going on another definition... which isn't counterproductive. Even if 1-2 cards become useless, then you still aren't really being all that counterproductive. The cards aren't Doing anything to thwart the achievement of the intended goal. You can make an argument that the creation of dead weight hinders the effectiveness of the deck, but it is no more than some of the other decks that Hasbro has created.

So why then is the deck still weak, if it's structure of design while creative still falls within some of the loose frameworks that Hasbro designed within?

It's the power of the cards. Yes you referred to this earlier, but then you made this statement to me Scott...

QUOTE
I would not use the phrase, "brought up some comments about the cards being so weak that they worked against each other."


Then scott you went on to reply to Tim....

QUOTE
The point with with Vader's cards is that once you play one, the others become weaker to the point of being useless.


Are you not staying consistant in your argument or are you trying to say something that I am not following. My point was that you referred to the power level being an underlying cause.

Yes I would agree that Vader's specials have a tremendous power drop off when you kill the characters. However, the power that he loses is more defensive than offensive. He loses the ability to hurt minors, and that is after he kills off the minors. The ability to attack the main character stays the same. The reason I deam this more defensive is that minors are a great annoyance to him, therefore to survive longer he must I repeat MUST eliminate the minors. You stated yourself...


QUOTE
I love an opening move of two Wraths: it kills all weak shooter minors and deals 4 damage to the major.


Part of the reason this is so good, is that it eliminates the minors that threaten Vader. So yes Vader gets weaker when he loses the ability to deal out that extra damage, but it's only really to help him survive. His damage he deals to the opponent's major stays the same. So, if we are to solve this issue with Vader not being able to deal enough damage to the major, and not preserve himself well enough, then the easiest solution for a "TWEAK" would be to up DSD to atk 5 or 6.

Scott you I think we do agree on this for the most part. You conceded only one difference of opinion when I broke down your original post.


To everyone else,
You may want to take note that while Tim and I are both arguing for the design of Vader's deck. He is approaching it from a slightly different angle than I am. I am conceding the deck is weak and probably needs a tweak, but I think the general design was fine. Tim .... forgive me if I'm wrong... seems to be arguing that the design is weak, and was weak on purpose. I do have a slight issue with Hasbro making Vader's deck weak on purpose... He is one of the main characters of terror. I personally feel that they probably just overestimated the power of some of the cards in the deck.

We can also not forget that Hasbro designed this to the full intention of it being playable in multiplayer. Vader's deck jumps considerably up the power chart in Multi. So it is possible that was an intentional design to have it perform weaker in single than in multi. We'll never know exactly Hasbro's thought process on that though...