I think it is boring and useless to copy a hole entire deck but if I see a nice little combo I hadn't thought of I might use it in future decks. Example: I found Chennaniah to King David against MKC and I have used it in many decks.Ya, I agree that it is boring. I also agree, that if you do find a combo, you should be able to use that. It is good though to play agqainst winning decks to gain experience.
Net-decking isn't bad for a game. It produces better players.I also agree with that statement. But, what if someone is playing with a winning nats deck, and is already a really good player? I am asuming that you are saying that it is good for newer players to be playing with these decks?
I've got my own decks, but I've been toying with the idea of building the past decade's worth of Nats winning decks for newer players to learn against.Any deck that won pre-Priests is awful.
I've got my own decks, but I've been toying with the idea of building the past decade's worth of Nats winning decks for newer players to learn against.Any deck that won pre-Priests is awful...
I know FbtNB is still viable, but think about how viable it would be with only Kings-era cards in today's meta.
I'm missing your point. I think it would be cool for players to see and learn about what used to be the meta.I've got my own decks, but I've been toying with the idea of building the past decade's worth of Nats winning decks for newer players to learn against.Any deck that won pre-Priests is awful.
Pre-Priests ever since Warriors, the meta was "use all of the FbtN characters and multicolor Enhancements."
Pre-Priests ever since Warriors, the meta was "use all of the FbtN characters and multicolor Enhancements."I know this, I've read some interesting dissertations on the history of Redemption meta. I think it'd be cool to have old decks around to see how Redemption has evolved.
Pre-Priests ever since Warriors, the meta was "use all of the FbtN characters and multicolor Enhancements."I know this, I've read some interesting dissertations on the history of Redemption meta. I think it'd be cool to have old decks around to see how Redemption has evolved.
I couldn't agree more. I have tried to play someone else's deck and failed miserably because I simply did not have the experience playing with it. Also, what is the fun in using a proven deck even if you win? There is no creativity in that and I simply do not like it. Having said that, most people who know me realize that I don't care about winning nearly as much as I care about putting together interesting decks (thematically). I don't have a problem if someone else does thought because in reality there are not that many different decks that can be competitive.I think you can have more creativity this year than you can in passed years, but I do agree with what you are saying...
I don't mind net decking at all. Copying Gabe's 2006(?) nats winning deck is what really convinced me to become competitive at the higher level tournaments (aka: pick up speed until disciples).I guess that is one PRO of copying decks, gaining experience. I do agree with that. But I still think , after copying your deck and gaining expeirence branch out to other decks!
I couldn't agree more. I have tried to play someone else's deck and failed miserably because I simply did not have the experience playing with it.
- So we do know one thing:QuoteI couldn't agree more. I have tried to play someone else's deck and failed miserably because I simply did not have the experience playing with it.
I remember one NATS someone handed me a deck to play with and I had no idea how to win. Josh Kopp and Heroless. :)
Since MJB first did it as a joke back when ANB first came out.And then when MJB took second at Nationals with it.
Why would national winners post their decks in the first place, thay probley don't need advice.:rollin: o_O
Why would national winners post their decks in the first place, thay probley don't need advice.
- Because I feel like Redemption suffers from a lack of tournament coverage. Lots of tournaments come and go and we know nothing about what worked and what didn't. Some other games require exact deck lists from all players and publish them after a large event. That's a lot of extra work for players, hosts and Cactus so I'm not saying Redemption needs to implement that system. I do like the idea of decks that place being made public after a season ends.
It might be realistic for States, Regionals and Nationals. I think it would be asking too much for Local and Districts. But most National winners are willing to share their deck already.
I agree and disagree with this. I agree if it is after Nats to share a deck list, but it is highly probable that the deck people use to win Regionals will be the one they play at Nats. So I'm not a fan of sharing deck lists after Regionals because like Gabe said, "the element of surprise has a lot of value." Plus, there are players who will "tech" against you if you are having a lot of success with a particular deck.- Because I feel like Redemption suffers from a lack of tournament coverage. Lots of tournaments come and go and we know nothing about what worked and what didn't. Some other games require exact deck lists from all players and publish them after a large event. That's a lot of extra work for players, hosts and Cactus so I'm not saying Redemption needs to implement that system. I do like the idea of decks that place being made public after a season ends.
I actually thinkg that'd be really cool.