QUOTE (fishfleas2000 @ November 21, 2007 01:16 pm)
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'm glad you brought this up Fish. I absolutely think counterproductive is the right term for Choke + Wrath + DSD. First off, we know that the goal of *every* deck is to destroy the opponent's main character. That's a given. Now, the goal of Vader's Choke + Wrath + DSD is to destroy the minor character. All of those cards work to accomplish that goal, but because of the overwhelming redundancy of this, it results in counterproductive-ness. Why? Because once you've killed off the minor characters, the game isn't over. Once you've reached that goal, then you still have to continue playing, because the main goal of the deck (killing the major character) hasn't been met yet. That means, cards left over that also want to achieve a goal that's already been met, will be useless, and it means that the previous cards that were used are counterproductive in nature. So, because there is too much redundancy, the cards defeat themselves once the goal is met.

But with Maul, there's no counterproductiveness in the redundancy of red deck + 9 power combats. They all work towards the same goal, and once the goal is met, the game is over. If there was a situation where all the power combats would turn to dead cards after the major was destroyed, then I'd have to say that yes, Maul's deck is a poor design for the same reason that Vader's is. But, because the game is not over when Vader meets his goal of destroying minors, this is a major difference in the redundancy found in these two decks. And it's a difference that disproves Tim's try at contradicting my original "proof" as it were.

QUOTE
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.


What I'm saying is, the design is bad not because the cards are weak. The cards are actually quite strong. It is the combination of cards that weakens them. But it "weakens" them only in that the strong cards become useless, or parts of the card become useless. The literal, "objective" strength of the cards never change. It's just that they change from being valuable and useful to not usable at all (or only partially usable in the case of Wrath).

So, Vader gets "weaker" only in the sense that normally he has 12 talent cards at his disposal at the beginning of the game, but once the minors are dead he has 9, and of those only 6 can still be used to their fullest (and even then, 3 of those are conditional anyway...). So, I don't like the term "weaker". It does apply to Wrath I suppose, but not Choke. Choke is always of the same value...but because there are so many, and because 5 other cards also affect minor characters, those cards go from being great, usuable cards, to aboslutely worthless and unusuable. That is the very definition of counterproductive. "defeating one's purpose". The purpose of Choke is to destroy minors, and if the other cards do it first, then Choke's purpose has been defeated.

Darth Trumpetus...trumpeter of fury.