Author Topic: Artifact Idear (Read 9626 times)

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #25 on:** July 30, 2010, 05:21:01 PM »

Let's show Abiathar some love, Professor.

jtay · « **Reply #26 on:** July 30, 2010, 05:55:33 PM »

I've gotta voice my opinion here. I absolutely LOVE fluff. I personally enjoy making decks that use certain fluff cards in cornerstone positions. What's great is that no one expects it, and you can surprise your opponent if you successfully use a "useless" fluff card. Fluff has a kind of "diamond in the rough" thing going on for it. Everyone is too focused on the obvious good cards in each set, that they don't ever get to think outside the box. Plus, fluff is easy to come by. I don't have to pay or trade an arm and a leg to get any of the fluff cards that I think are great. I look forward to the next full-size expansion set we get with regular packs that have all of that fluffy goodness in them.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #27 on:** July 30, 2010, 07:40:07 PM »

Quote from: jtay on July 30, 2010, 05:55:33 PM

I've gotta voice my opinion here. I absolutely LOVE fluff. I personally enjoy making decks that use certain fluff cards in cornerstone positions. What's great is that no one expects it, and you can surprise your opponent if you successfully use a "useless" fluff card. Fluff has a kind of "diamond in the rough" thing going on for it. Everyone is too focused on the obvious good cards in each set, that they don't ever get to think outside the box. Plus, fluff is easy to come by. I don't have to pay or trade an arm and a leg to get any of the fluff cards that I think are great. I look forward to the next full-size expansion set we get with regular packs that have all of that fluffy goodness in them.

Interesting point. However, wouldn't you say it's better to have all cards in a set be equally powerful and equally popular than for some to purposely be made "fluff"? This makes for more variety in decks, and also lowers the costs and requirements for a competitive deck, making the game just all-around more fun. I mean, yeah, some "fluff" cards are actually kind of useful, just because no one uses them, and so no one is prepared for them, but they are still tough to use well.

And either way, you shouldn't worry about running out of fluff cards to use in decks for a while. The ones we already have are not going anywhere.

jtay · « **Reply #28 on:** July 30, 2010, 08:01:07 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on July 30, 2010, 07:40:07 PM

Interesting point. However, wouldn't you say it's better to have all cards in a set be equally powerful and equally popular than for some to purposely be made "fluff"? This makes for more variety in decks...

In my opinion, equally powerful/popular => 95% theme cards => no variety outside of cactus defined themes.

Quote from: BubbleBoy on July 30, 2010, 07:40:07 PM

...making the game just all-around more fun.

"Fun" is a relative term. If winning tournaments is your definition of "fun," then sure, root for the equally powerful card sets. As for me, if I win only 1 out of 10 games, but in that one game I manage to leave my opponent utterly confused as to what happened, that is more fun to me than winning any tournament. Therefore I root for fluff.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #29 on:** July 30, 2010, 08:33:23 PM »

Quote from: jtay on July 30, 2010, 08:01:07 PM

As for me, if I win only 1 out of 10 games, but in that one game I manage to leave my opponent utterly confused as to what happened, that is more fun to me than winning any tournament.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are outvoted here.

Smokey · « **Reply #30 on:** July 30, 2010, 09:14:00 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on July 30, 2010, 08:33:23 PM

Quote from: jtay on July 30, 2010, 08:01:07 PM
As for me, if I win only 1 out of 10 games, but in that one game I manage to leave my opponent utterly confused as to what happened, that is more fun to me than winning any tournament.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are outvoted here.

Quote

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are outvoted here.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #31 on:** July 30, 2010, 09:55:26 PM »

Quote from: jtay on July 30, 2010, 08:01:07 PM

Quote from: BubbleBoy on July 30, 2010, 07:40:07 PM
Interesting point. However, wouldn't you say it's better to have all cards in a set be equally powerful and equally popular than for some to purposely be made "fluff"? This makes for more variety in decks...
In my opinion, equally powerful/popular => 95% theme cards => no variety outside of cactus defined themes.

Quote from: BubbleBoy on July 30, 2010, 07:40:07 PM
...making the game just all-around more fun.
"Fun" is a relative term. If winning tournaments is your definition of "fun," then sure, root for the equally powerful card sets. As for me, if I win only 1 out of 10 games, but in that one game I manage to leave my opponent utterly confused as to what happened, that is more fun to me than winning any tournament. Therefore I root for fluff.

Actually, I'm a fluff user as well and would LOVE to see all cards in a set become equally powerful so you could have some that just become straight out popular and some don't and become "Fluffy". That'd be really nice to see, rather than seeing some cards never be used again (Buckler (pr) anyone?)

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #32 on:** July 30, 2010, 09:58:27 PM »

Fluff > Non-fluff. Redemption is broken enough as is, if you don't introduce good cards it can't become more broken. I'd never suggest cards that aren't fluff.

jtay · « **Reply #33 on:** July 30, 2010, 10:54:33 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on July 30, 2010, 08:33:23 PM

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are outvoted here.

I'm well aware. I just like to put my opinion out there for other people to read. Thanks for reading.

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on July 30, 2010, 09:58:27 PM

Fluff > Non-fluff. Redemption is broken enough as is...

Sadly that's probably true. It doesn't change my motives, though. Maybe someday I'll find some awesome fluff-only combo that knocks the socks off everybody (and subsequently gets some rule changed to nullify it). I suppose that is my ultimate aspiration, as far as this game is concerned.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #34 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:05:25 PM »

Ah good ol' Doubt.

JSB23 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:42:57 PM »

Quote from: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on July 30, 2010, 11:05:25 PM

Ah good ol' Doubt.

but that used Plague of Frogs which is anything but fluff

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #36 on:** July 31, 2010, 05:01:20 AM »

I think you're confusing fluff with underused. Fluff is useless. There's almost literally no reason to ever use it. Either another card does everything it does, only better, or there's a good reason no other card does what it does. Inspection is pointless no matter what way you slice it.

You can use a "fluff" deck if you really want, but it's just stupid. I suspect what you are using is, in fact, a UU deck if you manage to even win 1:10.

jtay · « **Reply #37 on:** July 31, 2010, 05:42:08 AM »

Mreh, that depends on how you're going to define "fluff." I really doubt that Cactus made any cards knowing full well that no one (pro or amateur) would want to use them. It's just that over time certain cards became defunct. The way I define it, all useless common cards are fluff, but not all fluff is useless common cards.

I've actually got an idea for using the genuinely useless cards too, but I haven't gotten around to working on it yet.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #38 on:** July 31, 2010, 06:33:15 AM »

In the past, a lot of cards had been useless right when they were made. Apostles came out after Warriors, yet the power level of the characters was decidedly below that of those in Warriors, with little upside. Angel Wars was pretty much a set of fluff by default, with a few exceptions, rather than the other way around. Priests was the last set to be quite the fluffball, but since it was so large and had so much good stuff too, it avoided being panned for its fluff. Since then, there has tended to be little fluff.

So yes, Cactus did used to print fluff. In fact, I would argue that fewer cards have gone defunct than were fluff when printed but made usable later. I'm not sure that any once-good card is no longer good after Warriors. It may just be because it's late and I'm not trying to hard, but I can't think of any non-used card that came out after Warriors that was ever used, even when it was in the latest block.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #39 on:** July 31, 2010, 02:38:56 PM »

Quote from: jtay on July 31, 2010, 05:42:08 AM

I've actually got an idea for using the genuinely useless cards too, but I haven't gotten around to working on it yet.

Well, then they're not useless anymore!

joeycauldron · « **Reply #40 on:** August 04, 2010, 10:03:23 AM »

You know the best fluff card, Buckler! I mean if you put that in your deck you will surely be able to win...

The M · « **Reply #41 on:** August 04, 2010, 10:10:12 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on July 27, 2010, 10:41:33 PM

but we need more fluff in expansions, or else we dont know the good stuff. hats off to your animal-hate sir. just expect a call from peta soon.

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals.

The M · « **Reply #42 on:** August 04, 2010, 10:12:09 AM »

Fluff card of the day!
Warriors Helmet of Salvation:
Hero is immune to Confusion.
Good for him!

SomeKittens · « **Reply #43 on:** August 04, 2010, 02:41:27 PM »

People Expecting The Animal:

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #44 on:** August 04, 2010, 04:09:53 PM »

Well, I suppose a Beastly Beast Defense would be totally unexpected at Nationals then... Get me some amazing 10/10 Super Beasts going without worrying about anti-beast cards coming into play... Hm, reprint ideas.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #45 on:** August 05, 2010, 04:45:01 AM »

Three Nails is anti-Beast and widely used.

JSB23 · « **Reply #46 on:** August 05, 2010, 05:17:35 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 05, 2010, 04:45:01 AM

Three Nails is anti-Beast and widely used.

Not really.....

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #47 on:** August 05, 2010, 12:43:20 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 05, 2010, 04:45:01 AM

Three Nails is anti-Beast and widely used.

Maybe where you play, but artifact destruction is quite simple, so one artifact won't ruin a Beast Def...

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #48 on:** August 05, 2010, 02:41:14 PM »

Why not just use Demons? They're much better than Beasts.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #49 on:** August 05, 2010, 04:41:18 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 05, 2010, 02:41:14 PM

Why not just use Demons? They're much better than Beasts.

Because they're unexpectedly different. Besides, I think the Beasts of the Earth, Sea, etc... all need reprints. Don't know if it's in the works, but it sure would be nice seeing as there are plenty of cards that deal with them. I'm only having some fun, so don't take my beast idea too literally because I won't be at Nationals and I probably wouldn't build a beast deck.

News:

Author Topic: Artifact Idear (Read 9626 times)

Rawrlolsauce!