Submission - Control of Financial Flows (trifle Sudden)

Suoli wrote:

Reyda wrote:

Suoli wrote:

Well, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that canceling cards is boring as hell and a bad mechanic.

I'm not sure about this. It definitely adds another layer of stuff though.

It adds mechanical complexity (play a card, pause for DI), but not depth.

ok, there is a problem. Are we really discussing ? When I say "I think... I'm not sure", you come with No no's. Thanks i really feel like i'm being lectured by a superior being.

By tha way you talk about it "fizzle and falls on it's face", may i deduct that you don't like combo decks ?

No, you may not. That would be irrelevant and incorrect. Why even bring it up?

Erm, because it looks like from your sentence ? May I suggest then you use other words ? I can't really picture a deck falling on its face, but if you are using this image, maybe it's typically to say that a combo decks bring ridicule when it does not do exactly what it's supposed to do ? some of them have plan B too, but... Well.

Triple A, Nosferatu Royalty or Purge are not what I would call combo decks.

Um, hello ? When did I say "nosferatu royalty is a combo deck ?"
I just said "strong decks are avoiding interactions". But I guess that from the beginning of this post you are trying to prove that everything I say is wrong and jump on all occasions, well done.

But, again for the sake of discussion, you don't need to cancel cards to beat any of those decks. All of them have some pretty big weaknesses to a strong combat or bleed deck.

Oh, thank you. I am happy to know that I can bleed for 6 to beat 2x unblockable Parity shift. And I can rush to beat 2nd trad + obedience or mental maze. I'll write that down in my pokédex for future reference.

Why do you want to save a player who got himself into a lost position?

Because if another player gets 2 vps + 12 pool in a row, the odds of getting a GW seem pretty grim for me ?
Now really, I have to tell you I have a brain and some diploma, so if you could cut down the crap, it would be nice.

It can even move the table in a specific direction, like in "if i hadn't play this D.I. right now, your predator would have 2VP in his pocket. Don't you think it's time to slow him down a bit ?"

This, to me, sounds like an argument against Direct Intervention. A single, 1 pool master that anyone can play should not be able to make such a huge swing in table dynamics. Things like that make the game too random.

Really ? It's not the card who makes a swing of table dynamics : it's the way you play it and the opportunity you use to talk with other players.
But thanks for showing me how dumb I am with every sentence.

Reyda wrote:

ok, there is a problem. Are we really discussing ? When I say "I think... I'm not sure", you come with No no's. Thanks i really feel like i'm being lectured by a superior being.

Mm, okay? Well, sorry about that. Just saying that, while DI adds complexity, it might not do so in a positive way.

Triple A, Nosferatu Royalty or Purge are not what I would call combo decks.

Um, hello ? When did I say "nosferatu royalty is a combo deck ?"
I just said "strong decks are avoiding interactions". But I guess that from the beginning of this post you are trying to prove that everything I say is wrong and jump on all occasions, well done.

Our discussion started from interactions between combo decks and cards that cancel other cards. I don't know why you would bring up those decks if not as examples of combo decks. Would you like to elaborate?

But, again for the sake of discussion, you don't need to cancel cards to beat any of those decks. All of them have some pretty big weaknesses to a strong combat or bleed deck.

Oh, thank you. I am happy to know that I can bleed for 6 to beat 2x unblockable Parity shift. And I can rush to beat 2nd trad + obedience or mental maze. I'll write that down in my pokédex for future reference.

Cute.

Why do you want to save a player who got himself into a lost position?

Because if another player gets 2 vps + 12 pool in a row, the odds of getting a GW seem pretty grim for me ?
Now really, I have to tell you I have a brain and some diploma, so if you could cut down the crap, it would be nice.

I'm talking about the justification for a card that single-handedly swings the game state from a game balance point of view. Stated another way, the question woul be is it good for the game that a player who has been outplayed and put into a lost position can win the game by playing a generic, 1 pool master card?

This, to me, sounds like an argument against Direct Intervention. A single, 1 pool master that anyone can play should not be able to make such a huge swing in table dynamics. Things like that make the game too random.

Really ? It's not the card who makes a swing of table dynamics : it's the way you play it and the opportunity you use to talk with other players.

IMO playing Direct Intervention is not the skill test you make it up to be. It only takes a very basic understanding of deck types to use it correctly.

But thanks for showing me how dumb I am with every sentence.

You're reading into things. I'm trying to communicate my thoughts as well and clearly as I can, without getting tangled into sarcastic and obtuse remarks.