aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>Tournament rules are excess baggage. Ideally, a game should be designed
>to not require specific restrictions at all, just limits on how big
>(or small) a deck can be. We almost accomplished this with Ice Age,
>and accomplished it with Jyhad.
(With respect to Jyhad...)
Really? That's an interesting statement. Do you really think there are
Jyhad deck designs that aren't better off without at least a few Wake with
Evening's Freshness cards? I notice some have argued it but I don't buy it,
yet. That card, at least, is broken IMHO.
Fred
Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote:
>>Tournament rules are excess baggage. Ideally, a game should be designed
>>to not require specific restrictions at all, just limits on how big
>>(or small) a deck can be. We almost accomplished this with Ice Age,
>>and accomplished it with Jyhad.>Really? That's an interesting statement. Do you really think there are
>Jyhad deck designs that aren't better off without at least a few Wake with
>Evening's Freshness cards? I notice some have argued it but I don't buy it,
>yet. That card, at least, is broken IMHO.
Perhaps, but is there a need to restrict a deck to having X Wakey Wakeys,
as opposed to having Y of them? Not really. So in this sense, we succeeded
with Jyhad. It may have a couple of no-brainers, yes, but those aren't
in need of restriction-to-preserve-game-balance.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote:>>>Tournament rules are excess baggage. Ideally, a game should be
designed
>>>to not require specific restrictions at all, just limits on how big
>>>(or small) a deck can be. We almost accomplished this with Ice Age,
>>>and accomplished it with Jyhad.>>Really? That's an interesting statement. Do you really think there are
>>Jyhad deck designs that aren't better off without at least a few Wake
with
>>Evening's Freshness cards? I notice some have argued it but I don't buy
it,
>>yet. That card, at least, is broken IMHO.>Perhaps, but is there a need to restrict a deck to having X Wakey Wakeys,
>as opposed to having Y of them? Not really. So in this sense, we
succeeded
>with Jyhad. It may have a couple of no-brainers, yes, but those aren't
>in need of restriction-to-preserve-game-balance.
Jyhad does remain a viable game with wild Wakes, but it loses a lot of
strategy (you no longer need to consider how many vampires to leave
untapped - just Wake as necessary) and a very interesting tactic, Tap and
Bleed (presumably intended, as there are cards like Distraction and
Consanguinous Condemnation which primarily make T&B go).
I personally don't want a restriction on Wake. I'd like it recosted so it
is a reasonable card - useful in some decks, not in others - rather than
an obligatory 10% of your deck that knocks out some very fun parts of the
game.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)