Cactus Game Design Message Boards

That's why Cov-o-Eden & Chamber Pot is a good idea.

BTW, most people I know who use AoCP have defenses with protection fortresses, which is what I was talking about. I just can't tell you how many times ET with AoCP has decimated my defense. So you guys can have your opinions and I will have mine, even if I am an idiot for doing so.

Then you stink at buliding you deck.

You stink at building you sentences.

Quote from: Gandalf the White on June 07, 2009, 08:44:07 PM

Correct. Destroyer rocks.

Go spam somewhere else.

Destroyer isn't good either. Removing yourself from the game is suckage.

Considering the damage done by destroyer, along with the righ enhancements, you could kill off up to five guys. That's special.

You can kill off an infinite number of guys with him in theory, but that's all it is with him. Theory.

Alex, protection Fortresses are good to have if you're using the Evil Characters that go with them.  The fact that there are so many of them actually adds to your argument that ET + AoC isn't that good. 

This is where there is a debate. In Type 1, I can't see that being true. Type 2, yes, mostly due to the overuse of AoCp in general. However, in Type 1, where the best ECs in most brigades are "off civ" in combination with the fact you want to hold ECs in your hand as long as possible in most cases causes me to believe that the use of a protection fortress to protect my 5 guys, who usually are on the table seperately as much as possible, is simply a redundant way to protect them.

Theory can be proven. Those kinds of theories are called hypothesis. Scientists use them all the time.

This makes your point true how?

In theory, RDT's deck can win the game 1 turn. Does that mean it's the best deck ever?

It's a rhetorical question to bring to light the point that some theoretical solutions or answers aren't factual plausible.

Evolution is a theory too. I guess that means it's true. But your a christian, so it's evil to believe that.

Evolution isn't unprovable. Neither is Destroyer. Both are just proven with very weak evidences.

So you're saying evolution is true. Notice I have a period.

Notice that your sentence is a fragment actually.


No, I am using the evolution debate as an illustration.

I never stated that anywhere.


And for all I currently know, it could. It's basically improvable though.

Your main goal in this arguement is trying to trip me up in my words. I will have to play the dumb man until your reasoning has been adjusted.

No, actually my main goal is to prove that the Destroyer isn't the good in practicality despite his being good in theory.

The Destroyer is really good for TGT decks.

That's an interesting application of his ability. I thought he specified OT though?

I knew it didn't sounds right.  I needed an Aggie though.