Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Search Articles

* * * * -

2 Champs and a Chump- Episode 60



4 Comments

Thank you SO MUCH for the discussion about Kat's deck and what changes you'd make. As a new player, it was invaluable to hear a breakdown of each card and the role it plays in a deck, and whether it should stay or go in the context of what the deck is trying to accomplish. When I see decks posted here and elsewhere, I'm still at the stage where I have no idea what I'm looking at, so the why-a-deck-works-the-way-it-does analysis in its entirety did more for me than just about anything else so far I've read or heard so far. The podcast will bear a repeat listen so I can go through each card to get an idea of what I should be trying to do.

If this has been done with past podcasts (card-by-card deck analysis), then I definitely need to catch up on those. If not, I think it makes for a great format and hopefully something we'll see more of in the future.

Again, much appreciated.
Glad you liked it! If you're looking for similarly detailed looks at decks, I'd suggest both Groupthink episodes where we build decks up from scratch. Then we even played a match between the two decks, so all told, it's a pretty nifty trio, I think. In fact, Brett was just saying last night that we need to make that a semi-regular thing every few months, so look forward to more in that vein.
    • sfunk37, doulos2k and Deroche like this
That would be awesome - will definitely go back and give a listen to the Groupthink eps. There are too many times when I look at a winning deck and wonder why certain cards are even there. There are combinations and rules "advantages" that I've found I tend to misunderstand.
I want to ring in on the "Wilding" issue raised. I think I understand Greg's issue. He probably felt it was a simple typo and it should just be ignored because the character is clearly a "Wildling". I understand that it would be frustrating for him for such a clear typo to not be ignored. That is probably why he decided to not play the deck. Not because the card was a lynch pin bit probably out of some weird moral issue Greg had with your ruling.
After considering his side and yours I would also agree with your decision. However, if I am playing with meta or just a casual game I would say it is up to us to let it slide. In a tourney setting though you have to go with printed rules.
Just my opinion.