Author Topic: Type SE thoughts? (Read 9973 times)

New Raven BR · « **on:** January 06, 2009, 04:54:36 PM »

for type SE

deck rules:

no dominants

no sites

no covenants or curses

no forts

t1 deck building rules with the good cards and evil cards rule in t2

deck limit: 63

ls score to win:7

what does everyone think?
i didn't wanna copy type NW cept the no doms rule.
the type looks intresting and if there can be a northwest type,
then there can be other "compass types" as what i'm calling these types

New Raven BR · « **Reply #1 on:** January 06, 2009, 07:22:56 PM »

well?

JSB23 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 06, 2009, 07:45:05 PM »

umm......not to be mean but coughlamecough

New Raven BR · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2009, 07:58:11 PM »

if you don't like it and post negative about it like that then don't bother posting!

MehMan · « **Reply #4 on:** January 06, 2009, 08:05:35 PM »

rav when you say "thoughts" people will give their thoughts if you not ready for it then don't post.

New Raven BR · « **Reply #5 on:** January 06, 2009, 08:08:15 PM »

well if they don't like it they could just say it plainly "i don't like te sound of this type" and i would have posted to ask "why"

JSB23 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 06, 2009, 08:09:22 PM »

I think I plainly said so

MehMan · « **Reply #7 on:** January 06, 2009, 09:33:00 PM »

everyone has their own way to say "I don't like that idea"

and not to sound mean but isn't this kinda like the same thing you did to dudesters topic aobut his friends video?

Tsavong Lah · « **Reply #8 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:04:33 PM »

This is just a heavily restricted Type NW as far as I can tell.

New Raven BR · « **Reply #9 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:06:10 PM »

and?
i'm just thinking of new ways to play the game

Tsavong Lah · « **Reply #10 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:23:00 PM »

So I don't see the point of taking Type NW and banning a fourth of the cards in the game. I feel like there's not a lot of reasoning or thought behind the idea; it seems like you just arbitrarily decided to disallow almost every support card in the game without knowing why. Why no sites? Why no fortresses? Why no covenants or curses but artifacts are apparently allowed? How might the game balance be affected by a lack of civilization protect fortresses or useful defensive curses?

New Raven BR · « **Reply #11 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:23:44 PM »

Quote from: Tsavong Lah on January 06, 2009, 10:23:00 PM

So I don't see the point of taking Type NW and banning a fourth of the cards in the game. I feel like there's not a lot of reasoning or thought behind the idea; it seems like you just arbitrarily decided to disallow almost every support card in the game without knowing why. Why no sites? Why no fortresses? Why no covenants or curses but artifacts are apparently allowed? How might the game balance be affected by a lack of civilization protect fortresses or useful defensive curses?

someone suggested no forts to me.

reasons why no:
sites: for the ls limit to win which is 7 and sitelock decks will be a pain in the butt to this type if there were sites in the type which is why i take em out.
doms: just to spice things up and to take out any of the most strategies people use with like don,glory of the lord, fa,burial,cm, and aotl. and to make sure the game runs longer: no sog or nj
covs and curses: cause some offense and defenses involve covenants and curses
forts: is so , some of the other decks won't have a place to run or hide such as:
speed,ect.
and why allow arts is to give the players a some form of advantage in their offense and defenses

ya get it now?

lightningninja · « **Reply #12 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:44:07 PM »

So I play a 56 card deck. I play sog and nj. Then I play burial. If I can play HT on their hopper(if they have one) and they don't have slaves, then they CAN'T win. Seems like a loophole. Maybe still play to 5 ls? Not sure why you have 7...?

JSB23 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:48:32 PM »

Speed would rule the day in this kind of game

lightningninja · « **Reply #14 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:50:13 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on January 06, 2009, 11:48:32 PM

Speed would rule the day in this kind of game

probably not since good cards = bad cards. But you could still probably pull it off. I'd expect a lot of balance pale green and genesis decks and stuff.

JSB23 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:52:20 PM »

Ah didn't see that part in the rules, now my opinions on it have changed from "lame" to "I hate it" that rule ruins so many good strategies

New Raven BR · « **Reply #16 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:53:04 PM »

you haven't even tried it out

JSB23 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:56:41 PM »

I've played T2; this is basically T2 with a smaller deck, no duplicates (the best part of T2), and banned cards

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #18 on:** January 07, 2009, 03:02:49 AM »

Uhm, t2 has ALOT of forts and doms etc :-p

Andy you have nothing NEW here. It is type NW ripped off. I don't wanna sound mean but it is true. Originality is what makes things more enjoyable. I played teams cuz it was an idea done a new way, I enjoyed it. I tried type nw cuz it not only was a new way it was out of the box thinking. I enjoyed it. I played t1 multi...Nothing new, just new players. I don't enjoy it. I play booster draft, new idea (back in the day) and enjoyed it. You need a new idea to get people in. Not just an old idea with less fun. If you can do a new spin on an old idea that's great! If not don't be upset when people tell you they think the idea fails.

Btw: A fbtn offense would dominate this type.

New Raven BR · « **Reply #19 on:** January 07, 2009, 09:28:24 AM »

*ignores rr's reply*

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #20 on:** January 07, 2009, 12:29:36 PM »

And you wonder why people don't want to help you. Instead of a nice reply, I'm just gonna say this is completely horrible, and is the worst thing I've ever seen instead of my previous post with suggestions and helpfulness.

New Raven BR · « **Reply #21 on:** January 07, 2009, 12:47:40 PM »

just because you haven't tried it doesn't make it a bad type

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #22 on:** January 07, 2009, 12:53:59 PM »

No, the fact it lacks any originality, new ideas, or anything that makes anyone want to play it makes it a bad type.

Gabe · « **Reply #23 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.

michael/michaelssword · « **Reply #24 on:** January 07, 2009, 02:17:54 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.

That'd be godspeed...actually or me a month ago

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.

News:

Author Topic: Type SE *thoughts?* (Read 9973 times)

MehMan

MehMan

michael/michaelssword

captain btn

Author Topic: Type SE thoughts? (Read 9973 times)