Author Topic: Type SE thoughts? (Read 9974 times)

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #25 on:** January 07, 2009, 02:29:50 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on January 07, 2009, 01:04:35 PM

Type Q (for Quad) = Decks must be between 50-56 cards. Players may not use any evil cards in their deck.

Type R (for RR) = Decks must be at least 70 cards. Players may not use any Hero cards in their deck.

Type R is wyn.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #26 on:** January 07, 2009, 02:33:47 PM »

Type PU (for Prof Underwood) = Decks can be any size. Players may not use any card that has the word "draw" or "ignore" on it.

Fitting the type name, this variant would probably stink

Red · « **Reply #27 on:** January 07, 2009, 03:09:00 PM »

cool idea raven just use a little more flexabitle aND ONE ART

New Raven BR · « **Reply #28 on:** January 07, 2009, 04:33:46 PM »

Quote from: RED on January 07, 2009, 03:09:00 PM

cool idea raven just use a little more flexabitle aND ONE ART

lol or maybe i can ban a few arts.
like burial shroud, HHI,HoH,unholy writ,U&T

captain btn · « **Reply #29 on:** January 07, 2009, 05:07:15 PM »

Why would anyone wan't to play this version of the game exactly?

New Raven BR · « **Reply #30 on:** January 07, 2009, 05:14:18 PM »

Quote from: captain on January 07, 2009, 05:07:15 PM

Why would anyone wan't to play this version of the game exactly?

cause variety is what makes this game, fun

The Guardian · « **Reply #31 on:** January 07, 2009, 05:25:18 PM »

Seriously folks, there are more constructive ways to criticize than alot of what I've been reading. Raven is right in that there's no point in posting "lame" or "NW rip-off." If you don't think it's a good idea but can't bother to take a few minutes to reasonably explain why, then don't bother posting at all, just move to the next thread. I'm not saying everyone who posted was mean, but there was definitely some unnecessarily harsh responses.

lightningninja · « **Reply #32 on:** January 07, 2009, 05:31:16 PM »

Raven, Did you read my post? Did you see how you could get into a glitch with not enough ls to get up to seven?

Add something that you've never seen before. Maybe like no defense, that was kind of cool. Or no more than four cards of one brigade, to see how well people can splash.

The Guardian · « **Reply #33 on:** January 07, 2009, 05:36:17 PM »

fireninja, I believe one of the criteria was no dominants so there's no way to "eliminate" LS for your opponent to rescue. Eventually you will draw them all and your opponent will have the chance to rescue all 7.

lightningninja · « **Reply #34 on:** January 07, 2009, 05:37:41 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on January 07, 2009, 05:36:17 PM

fireninja, I believe one of the criteria was no dominants so there's no way to "eliminate" LS for your opponent to rescue. Eventually you will draw them all and your opponent will have the chance to rescue all 7.

you're right, I forgot about that. Thanks. Although I think no more than 4 cards of any one brigade could be kind of a cool idea...

Tsavong Lah · « **Reply #35 on:** January 07, 2009, 07:33:12 PM »

Quote

fireninja, I believe one of the criteria was no dominants so there's no way to "eliminate" LS for your opponent to rescue. Eventually you will draw them all and your opponent will have the chance to rescue all 7.

True, but with Haman + Zeresh and Jepthah, or with Haman + Zeresh plus side battles and Egyptian Horsemen, etc. you could easily start discarding your own lost souls. It would only take one to lock out your opponent. Then everyone would be forced to play Luke heroes or Red warriors: in T1, every deck has to have site access to insure that the occasional site-lock deck doesn't slaughter you, whereas in this type, every deck would have to have The Thankful Leper or Zalmon to make sure you could still win the game.

The Guardian · « **Reply #36 on:** January 12, 2009, 03:12:00 PM »

Good point T-Lah, hadn't thought of that.

New Raven BR · « **Reply #37 on:** January 18, 2009, 04:16:15 PM »

there could be a limit to using brigades and certain decks not allowed to be used

JSB23 · « **Reply #38 on:** January 18, 2009, 04:20:01 PM »

No, just no

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 18, 2009, 04:31:32 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on January 18, 2009, 04:20:01 PM

No, just no

Amplifying on JSB's thought...

The fact that you would need to proscribe certain brigades and deck archetypes is fairly persuasive evidence that the proposed variant is broken.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #40 on:** January 18, 2009, 06:02:38 PM »

Agreed. Andy as I said before, People don't like games with super rigid deck building rules.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News: