i'm just pointing out that this argument is dumb, this whole thread is dumb. if anyone gets mad, screw them. u know what, i'm with frog. #### this debate. i'm outta here

So your saying people that have a lot of money, are by default good?
I don't mind search cards. I think they are fine in a team deck, with a team search. I dislike search cards that work only if you do not want to play a team up.
As for the money thing. I know a lot of good players that do with what they can get, and a lot of bad players, that buy every high priced card out there to A) brag they have it and show ti off and B) because they think it will win them games. Out of those people, a lot of them lose alot by running a good deck into the ground..and a few could afford to copy a netdeck card for card, and run it fine. And I say the player never wins then, they let someone's deck do it for them.

If your not willing to pay...wait..hold on..I am letting this sink in...okay..had to light a cig and let this roll around a little. When did not paying $20-$30 for a card equal not being good enough to play? Besides getting 3+ books a set I pay $100 a month on singles so I can fill decks with cards, and not have to break down any of my other dekcs (For those that are wondering, yes I have stacks of Rook cases filled with deck tins in my spare room)
That has nothing to do with someone that might have two kids, a wife, and house payments. When did paying mean your good at a game? If that was the case, I must be great at this game.
I love the fact the cards I have gain in worth later. Does it make sence to parents, or some people that card board costs so much? Really.

Still floored by someone thinking that money equals being good at something.

Coming from a guy that can't spell the word "you" that means a lot.

Come on man. Even Stu doesn't triple post.


Does he? :eek:

lol..its obvious i chose to spell "you" as "u". but you're the genius that cant spell "sense" SINCE you feel like analyzing my spelling. dickhead. anyway, i'm not going to defend what i said. think what you want but complaining like a ##### gets you nowhere. anyone who thinks enemy ruins the game they're gonna be alternates just like they did with savage. til then deal with it or quit.

And that is your answer to how spending money makes one a better card player? Name calling. <golf clap>

Just to add fuel to the fire, the 261 decks at the Pro Circuit contained 718 copies of Enemy of My Enemy, or about 2.8 copies per deck. Most of the outliers were decks only running one copy because it was fairly obvious that was all the deckbuilder had (IE, "look, Secret Origins instead of EomE" syndrome").

The top 45 decks that went 7-3 or better on day 1 contained 168 copies of Enemy of My Enemy, for an average of 3.7 copies per deck. The top 20 decks on day 1 contained 76 copies of Enemy, for an average of 3.8 copies of Enemy per deck - in case you need that translated, it means that the more Enemys you have, the more likely you were to do well. Only one deck in the top 45 had no copies of Enemy of My Enemy in it (a Good Guys build that ran Hero's Welcome instead, once again a "guess somebody didn't have any Enemys" signifier).

Personally I'm kind of bummed out about this. You can't get Enemys here in TO for anything. Believe me when I say that competitive constructed play here is suffering because a lot of players simply weren't able to get four copies of Enemy of My Enemy, and they feel - rightly - that not having a playset of the card limits their competitive deckbuilding options. I bought at least three boxes of X-Men and own one. (Sure got a buttload of Gargantuas, though.)

The Hamilton 10K is less than a week away, and I've built about ten different decks for it. All have one thing in common - proxied Enemies. I'm shifting between decks trying to come up with a build, any competitive build, that's playable with only one or zero Enemies. There aren't many. And I can't even find a single spare Enemy to borrow so I can run it as a secondary tutor! And I'm having trouble convincing people who would otherwise WANT to go to a local 10K because they don't want to fork out their cash "just to lose to people who have Enemy."

The card should have been uncommon. Period.

PS. Dear Michael Barnes: Please try inventing a deck for your Metagame articles that doesn't use Enemy of My Enemy, for the three-quarters of players or so who do not have a playset. Kthxbye.

At least DC Modern won't have any worries with Enemy. Whether we'll see nearly every deck sporting Secret Origins or Straight to the Grave remains to be seen.

Alright, lets try to explain it so that people stop spitting fire and this argument becomes:

"OMG I HAVE NO CASH!"

"LOL UR STUPID, YOU DONT NEED MONIES, USE SKRULLS LIKE ME!"

Here, I'll make it even easier and number the issues:

1. EOME is a GOOD card. Its instant consistancy to any deck that runs more than one team, which is almost everything. Don't try to say its not a good card, if you do, please stop and continue working on breaking Secret Six Victorious. Your contributions are invaluable.

2. The price of this card is STUPID. But expected. However, i dont suppose that UDE expected the res of the set not to have as many valuable cards. Sadly Phoenix Rising isnt a $20 card. If the rest of the cards were as pricy, then we could just buy a box and be happy with the few valuable cards we would get even if we didnt hit an Enemy (ex. Marvel Origins).

Sadly, this is not the case.

3. There is a reason they didn't make this uncommon. Drafting and sealed would be stupid. People could search for everything and it could all come down to how mmany Enemies that you pulled.


Possible Solution? Hobby league or PCQ top8 promo. In this way, people could get the enemies much more easily, but it wouldnt be so wide spread that the value would crash into the ground. Card vendors depend on high prcing cards in order to make cash and it wouldnt be fair to them to suddenly lose $20 from each enemy sale.



As for BoyOfSteel, I was reacting to Torg's post, on how it should be the PC EA card. You would HAVE to be good to obtain that card because you would have to be on the PC to get that card.

Thing is, if you're going to play in the PC, you probaly are running EOME already.

Dont think thats true? Find me a deck in the top 8, no, Top 10, no, top 20, heck, even top 50 that didnt run it.

I can't afford to buy a horse, or else I'd have won the kentucky Derby. Let's ban horses.

I just wanted to point out the four uncommon character tutors they printed in the same set. EoME at uncommon means that on average, one or two of them will show up in any given draft. The same thing was already happening with the team-specific tutors (except Time Breach). Tutors at uncommon is not that big of a deal.

i also want to point out that in a given booster box you are only likely to get 1-3 of each uncommon. Usually 2, so having enemy as an uncommon wouldnt hurt drasft much at all.

It appears not having the ability to team attack and reinforce caused the FTN deck to ultimately lose based on the finals matches. It took a complex deck to take advantage of that weakness, but it is still one that relies on making a team work together.

Both types of decks are viable. I'm satisfied for now.

The FTN deck lost in the finals because it couldn't handle a hidden Merlyn, really. The inability to reinforce wouldn't have mattered as much if the deck was still dealing the damage it expects to, but with characters getting nuked for free by the Archer, the rush deck's damage output gets kicked in the nuts.