You are currently viewing HCRealms.com, The Premier HeroClix Community, as a Guest. If you would like to participate in the community, please Register to join the discussion!
If you are having problems registering to an account, feel free to Contact Us.
Ah, for the good old days of late 2004 and Common Enemy, when the only rares in your deck were
4x Boris
1x Robot Destroyer
1x Ghost Rider, New Fantastic Four
1x Thing, Heavy Hitter
1x Sub-Mariner, Ally of Doom
1x Dr. Doom, Lord of Latveria
2-3x Apocalypse
4x Signal Flare
4x Reign of Terror
4x It's Clobberin' Time
2-4x Savage Beatdown
1x Flame Trap
unless you were running Teen Titans, which only had
4x Garth
4x Terra
1-2x Beast Boy
2-3x Optitron
3x USS Argus
2x Foiled
2x Ka-Boom!
3x Press the Attack
3x Savage Beatdown
As funny as this is, it brings up a point. Back in the day, decks were rare-heavy. And then MAV came, and people said, "Hey, wait, we don't need a hundred rares to make good decks." Then Avengers and Squad showed up, and bad things happened. Are we headed back towards that "Gold is good" mentality, or will we still see ridonkulous decks filled with commons winning again and again?
As funny as this is, it brings up a point. Back in the day, decks were rare-heavy. And then MAV came, and people said, "Hey, wait, we don't need a hundred rares to make good decks." Then Avengers and Squad showed up, and bad things happened. Are we headed back towards that "Gold is good" mentality, or will we still see ridonkulous decks filled with commons winning again and again?
Personally, I like winning with rares.
what bad showed up with Avengers?
to me the avengers/jla metagame of golden at the time was the best the game had ever had.
I just meant the game got taken over by decks that required few, if any rares. Not that that's necessarily a horrible thing, but at least for me, I came from the MTG background where good rares = good decks. Not necessarily "bad", per se.
I just meant the game got taken over by decks that required few, if any rares. Not that that's necessarily a horrible thing, but at least for me, I came from the MTG background where good rares = good decks. Not necessarily "bad", per se.
yeah and in magic there were kids who could BUY wins at touraments because they could aford to buy the cards. That is one thing i like about VS is that just because you have the cards doesnt make you the winner, you actually have to know how to play with the cards you buy.
and one of my favorite times in magic was U/G maddness.
Checkmate didn't require much, if any rares. I had like maybe 6 or 7 rares total in my deck. Then again, VSed overrates Creation of Herald so like reduce the price by 30$ >_>
I like to see rares that are pivotal to making a good deck, without the deck requiring that half of its cards be rare.
VS is pretty good about that, too. But, occasionally a deck requires a lot of rares. It happens.
-S
This is true, and I don't mind when it happens occasionally. But the amount of money I spent on rares (from DCR and especially MXM, when I think about it) is steadily climbing higher and higher. I'm all for nice powerful rares, but this is getting ridiculous.
Quote : Originally Posted by andrewbircher
yeah and in magic there were kids who could BUY wins at touraments because they could aford to buy the cards. That is one thing i like about VS is that just because you have the cards doesnt make you the winner, you actually have to know how to play with the cards you buy.
and one of my favorite times in magic was U/G maddness.
As much as I hate to admit it, U/G madness was fun. Which brings me to another point--do rares add to the concept of pushing for a late game (turns 7+) while a deck of commons and uncommons more generally push towards a turn 5 W? This could explain a lot about my play strategery.