The Civilizations

[Pogiforce-14]

ummm, hello? I'm not talking death smoke. Last I reall playing your actual deckI slayed your lancer. and I still have 4 terror pits. And I only recall one loss in the last week, and that was due to a terrible hand. When your hand is 4 Critical Blade and 1 Grey Balloon, you tend to have poor starting choices.

So don't make an issue of it, because frankly you always do.

 

[Kenny_C.002]

oh please, winning with bad hands are where it's AT man. Don't complain about those minor details, but in all it was still your decisions that made the game swing the other side. btw, you faced any 1-mana rush decks? That *might* work fairly well.

 

[Mullet]

No, but I have heard of something like that, it's got mad speed, it's Mono-Fire, or Fire-Nature.

 

[B-Baller]

Water and Fire. Though, I like Fire better. Its gotten me into more wins than my Water, Nature, Light and Darkness decks combined. Also I chose Water/Fire is cos that's what my Survivors deck is made of, Water amd fire cards.

 

[Pogiforce-14]

Winning with bad hands isn't where it's at. Get real. Being able to fully enact your strategy to such a completeness that you're opponent doesn't stand a chance, that is where it's at. I need to modify and shift my card ratio to regain that.

 

[B-Baller]

Winning with bad hands isn't where it's at. Get real. Being able to fully enact your strategy to such a completeness that you're opponent doesn't stand a chance, that is where it's at. I need to modify and shift my card ratio to regain that.

Are you talking to me?

 

[Kenny_C.002]

Winning with bad hands isn't where it's at. Get real. Being able to fully enact your strategy to such a completeness that you're opponent doesn't stand a chance, that is where it's at. I need to modify and shift my card ratio to regain that.

First, I believe you're mixing up being able to play well and being able to build well.

I'd have to differ on this. Bad hands separate novice players from the truly elite players. Similar to cards that can discriminated between novice players and elite players (i.e. only the truly good people would ever pick the card up AT FIRST SIGHT), most bad hands make things difficult for players to win. However, the truly elite WILL be able to win games with bad hands. Note that the so called "bad hands" in DM are never as severe as games wtih separate cards for "mana" or "energy" (as flooding or "the lack of" would be truly difficult to overcome, and no, I'm referring to ALL games like that, including pokemon, marvel, etc.) Therefore, if you can't mana screw/flood, I doubt that badhands can go that far and thus can be used as a discriminator better than the separate base card TCGs.

I'm referring to this due to the fact that no matter what deck you play, you're bound to get bad hands, but winning with these bad hands will earn you respect much more quickly than the "complete dominance" you speak of, as it would generally be viewed as you having enough dough to make a deck like that and they can't. Surely you would agree that if you can beat your own deck with a crappy deck consistently, then you would be elite?

 

[Pogiforce-14]

It's is very difficult to win Duel masters with a bad hand. In fact, it's pretty near impossible. Especially if the next five or six cards you draw suck as well. which has been the case for me a few times. nothing like drawing three terror pits in a row in the first few turns of the game.

And you are mistaken. I have won often enough with a bad hand, though it is incredibly difficult. But then all they think of you is that you got lucky. you don't earn any respect that way.

and you seem to have confused my definition of powerful cards with your definition of strategy. Strategy to me is applying teh cards you have in such a way that it is really difficult for the opponent to counteract. A handful of powerful cards is just that: power cards got by money. My deck has 3 cards tops in it that are holographic, and about 4 cards that are normal rares. Everything else is uncommon or lower.

so it's not my cards that helps me win, it's my strategy. And when you can't employ that strategy, that is when one loses. so trust me. I know what I'm talking about when I say winning with a bad hand isn't where it's at. Winning with a bad hand is having incredible luck.

 

[Kenny_C.002]

I beg to differ from you. Maybe it's the difference in our backgrounds (I mean, Magic is much more complicated than any of the other TCGs around, and there is no argument about that), so you don't usually find times when strategies with bad hands show the greatness of the player, where the ability to bluff and counter the correct threat that would last you just one turn longer. Obviously countering doesn't exist in DM, and I don't care, but continuation of bad hand + ability to bluff is something that only the pros have done well. We earn our respect from bad hands.

Surely you see my point that if you can beat your own deck with a mediocure deck, then you are on your way to becoming that much better?

 

[Pogiforce-14]

um... no.. Dude, Magic may be older, but that doesn't make it more complicated. DM is much more complicated in teh fact that the mana is right in your other cards. you have to decide which will prove more useful in the long run, and that is where true strategy comes in. You take a risk playing your mana.

Countering does exist in DM. It's called teh "Shield Trigger". Maybe you've heard of it.

and Bluffing is kind of hard to do in DM, because if you keep a card in your hand for a period of several turns, it's apparent it's something good with a high mana cost required.

not to sound rude dude, but maybe you should stick to magic. You apply so much of it to other games you completely warp the standards of that game to match that of Magic's even if it doesn't fit.

 

[Kenny_C.002]

In doing so DM trades instants for mana. Generally speaking it is due to the lack of mana resources in DM that makes it both easier and harder. Consider that magic has restrictions on the actualy build of the deck (more than that of DM). however, DM runs no risk of mana screw in exchange for an easier build of decks. However, the decisions of mana sources is tougher.

Countering is reactive to castings of the spells/monsters, whereas STs are reactive to combat, which are separate. Thus jammers are counters whereas mirror force is not.

I keep them separate in terms of strategies of deck building, which is the aspect that this message board holds. Recall that I do actually play the games that we are discussing, and I generally take the strategies that I use from the individual games that I play and apply them, however similar to magic you think they are.

 

[Pogiforce-14]

Hey, it was you up there comparing simularities and differences to Magic just a few posts ago, so don't look at me. :\

and I keep them seperate as well.

In DM, they have countering too. To counter means you turn back an opponents move, whether it be magics or monsters, and either stop it or hurt them by it. Countering isn't just magics alone. That's too narrow a definition. Countering is more of a blocker thing in DM. The shield trigger can count as a counter, but you still lose a shield as the price. In terms of negating magics and traps, you can't actually counter those, but you can build a deck to make such activations increasingly difficult.

If you look at things in the way of spells only, even though that's not the true definition of counter, then I suppose DM has no countering. But that is what makes playing the game that much more difficult and that much more complicated. You have to make sure you can take a hit, meaning the strategies have to be more well developed. It means that unlike Yugioh, you can't jsut carelessly throw a bunch of good counter cards in with well renowned powerhouse cards and win. it requires some actual thought into the strategy.

From all the games I play, the only two I've ever played that had any counterability in them were Yugioh and DBZ. not exactly a long list. But the games that I have played, that is a fairly long list.

and I don't need a lecture as to what this board is for. I'm well aware of it's purpose.

 

[Kenny_C.002]

Personally I think your definitionof countering is a little too wide. And yes, my view on countering was narrow. However, the only compromise I can think of here is something along the lines of a reactive ability/spell/etc. that is used to neutralize an opponent's actions (but on the "hurt them with it" part, that's redirection for me, a completely different league).

True, from that games that I've played, it seems only DM and GI Joe (it died...a horrible death) never had counters.

Again, being water-oriented, I feel that water doesn't have enough countering at this stage.

 

[Pogiforce-14]

MOSt games I have played never had counters. :\ Pokemon, Digimon, Yuyuhakusho, Dm, they don';t have counters. IT seems only DBZ and Yugioh, from what I have played, do.

and if you jsut said DM has no countering, then none of them have enough countering at this stage. :P

 

[Kenny_C.002]

Nope. None of what you said has countering. But I feel that DM can break away from them, since IMO I'd love to see water making fun of people with more neutralizations. :P

 

[Pogiforce-14]

Though as I said, currently none of them have neutralizations. Teh implication of "More of" Suggests they had seom from the start.

Darkness is prone to being annoying though. It seems for DM, right now they and water are as close as they come to counter, Darkness a bit more than water.