Author Topic: An assortment of questions  (Read 8616 times)

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2008, 06:52:53 PM »
0
I didn't ignore your question; I did not feel that the question was directed at me.  I am not the one telling you this is the way it has to be.  I have not, in fact, said one definitive word about whether or not this should be changed.  So if you're calling me out now for an argument, I would have to suggest that you are having it with the wrong person.

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2008, 06:55:45 PM »
0
Ok well, it was mostly related to the inconsistancy argument I had going. Sorry if I sounded rude calling you out like that.

So now I direct this question to everyone so we can get this discussion back on track:

Does it make sense that I can have four AoCP's in a 200 card deck, but a max of 3 centurions?

Offline TheKarazyvicePresidentRR

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15781
  • Currently undead
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2008, 06:59:35 PM »
0
Would you be kind enough to show us the logic then? Cuz all I see is if this was yugioh you could put in a bunch of huge people and zerg rush them.

Please tell us about the logic. When you have made sense to us you will be baked and there will be cake.

Since you seem to know of the logic at the least schaef, would you be kind enough to dispense it with the portal gun?
Not quite a ghost...but not quite not.

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2008, 07:06:42 PM »
0
I never made a claim to knowing the full extent of the governing logic.  The change was made for the third edition, before I was asked to help, and it predates any board posts on this board or the EZBoard, so my research (which I have been conducting this entire time so as to try and provide a legitimate, verifiable answer) has not turned up anything useful yet.

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2008, 07:11:58 PM »
0
Alright, I am glad I got this back on track though. Sorry if I sounded angry before, I was just getting really into this debate.  :P No intentions to offend anyone with my tone.

Anyways,

What I want is to see people doing what Schaef is doing; Finding justifiable explanations to either support or go against the ruling. Lets end all these opinion wars, and try to keep the question to straight up gameplay reasons. Yes, you may add some opinion in like "I think it'd be overpowered to have blah blah blah," but do not make that your main argument.

To Schaef, thank you for clarifing when the rule was made, that helps some. Now if we can actually find the reason the rule exists. However, if absolutely no evidence can be found, I propose we discuss the possibility of updating it, and how.

Offline TheKarazyvicePresidentRR

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15781
  • Currently undead
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2008, 07:15:07 PM »
0
Ah, I see, I shall wait and be patient then. It just sounded like ya knew.

+1 Lambo
Not quite a ghost...but not quite not.

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2008, 07:29:30 PM »
0
I don't know where you got that from, but I'll just go with it.

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2008, 07:32:02 PM »
0
I think he misunderstood this:

Quote
Your other "reason" is that you don't understand the logic behind the ruling, but that has nothing to do with consistency.

It sounded like you knew the logic behind it and we didn't. But we know you don't so we can drop it.  ;)

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2008, 08:28:56 PM »
0
That is half true.  I specifically said you did not know the logic.  I said nothing about my own knowledge because it was not relevant when illustrating the difference between reasoning and consistency.

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2008, 08:33:45 PM »
0
I know, I'm just saying Josh misunderstood what you meant.

*EDIT*

Also, I know you had no say in the making of the rule but, What is your opinion on how it is now? Do you agree with me that the example I gave makes no sense as to why it works that way? (4 AoCP, but 3 Centurions max.)

While we are waiting for someone to dig up the origin of the rule, we can at least discuss what we think about the rule itself, not the practicality of big decks.  :P

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2008, 10:12:06 PM »
0
I have no opinion of it one way or the other.  If we make the rule 1 per 50 to match other cards, then it's not going to matter until you have 200+ cards anyway, which as Tim said is a non-starter.  I think 3 per 50 is a bridge too far because cards like Windows and similar support cards can make older cards viable to the point where having 12 in the deck would constitute some form of spammy abuse.  But I really don't feel strongly enough about the issue to really have a discussion about it one way or the other.  Whatever you guys discuss without my input is entirely up to you.

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2008, 11:48:24 PM »
0
I think 3 per 50 is a bridge too far because cards like Windows and similar support cards can make older cards viable to the point where having 12 in the deck would constitute some form of spammy abuse.

In order to have 12 though, you need a whopping 200 cards though. So I see it as a balance of Risk vs Reward.

Offline lightningninja

  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5397
  • I'm Watchful Servant, and I'm broken.
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #37 on: September 30, 2008, 11:54:45 PM »
0
I have come to greatly respect Lambo and Karazy President for their non-caring about placing so that they can just plain have some dagone fun. And it has inspired me to make combos and crazy things like this too. I would not discredit 100-200+ decks. And who says that doms are the IMPORTANT cards? In my current deck, I do not need sog or nj at all, in fact, they are only to help my defense, such as rescuing the shuffler. So I understand the ARGUMENTS that have been made, but don't understand the arguments that are like, "they haven't placed so it has no priority," because maybe if that was given priority it would place....
As a national champion, I support ReyZen deck pouches.

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2008, 12:21:50 AM »
0
Hey,

First of all, I do not believe this rule is inconsistent.  The rule as it currently exists is functional.  It is a bit of a strange quirk in the rules, but that doesn't make it inconsistent.

Regarding the logic behind the rule, I don't think there is any.  I explained on the first page of the thread how I believe the rule came into it's current form.  Since it came into it's current form I believe the logic has been "the rule isn't a problem so lets leave it alone."

I was not trying to suggest that I didn't want this rule to be addressed because I have some sort of bias against big decks.  And the comment about the deck placing in the top 10 at nationals was not meant to suggest that I'm only concerned about how things affect the top decks.

At any given time I have a list of usually five to ten topics that I am hoping to help address.  Generally the most important ones are the ones I try to get addressed first.  I see this as a pretty low importance issue so the chance of it ending up on the top of the list isn't very good.

The comment about a big deck placing top 10 at nationals was meant to say that if a big deck ever did well in a big tournament it would make me think of this as a more important issue than I do currently, which would make it much more likely that it would become important enough to get to the top of my list and get addressed.

If I was going to push to get this topic addressed I would suggest extending the limit of three copies of a cards per deck to include cards with special abilities (in addition to them being limited to 1 per 50).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

Offline TheKarazyvicePresidentRR

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15781
  • Currently undead
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #39 on: October 01, 2008, 01:22:25 AM »
0
I wouldn't like that push, that'd be modifying a newer, well placed rule, for an older one that has no big issue with it at the moment. I know you prefer big decks to stay in t2 but t1 has just as much right to big decks. Be them 70, 100, 200, or 1000. Also that rule would make it like t2, taking away from t2.
Not quite a ghost...but not quite not.

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: An assortment of questions
« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2008, 04:30:32 PM »
0
Yeah, putting a 3 card max cap really WOULD make T1 a lot like T2 in the fact that you are cramped to X amount of cards, regardless of deck size.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal