If you purchase a lottery ticket and win a lot of money, you have performed labor (acquiring a ticket) for compensation (your winnings). But when I say someone is working for a living, lotto winners aren't the first people that come to mind.

What in VS is different enough than Magic that the same basic concepts don't translate? Card advantage is good in every card game. This wasn't well known in 1995, but it's well known now, and decks based around Longshot (who looks awful at first glance) are winning money in various places.

If there is a Necro in VS, where is it? Everyone knows what to look for.

That development happened less than a month after the game was released. Our store had Lost City/Avalon decks in May and took them to Philly. For a completely new game, the decks have advanced as far as they're going to. The decks people play were pretty much figured out by the middle of June, and nothing has made a splash since.

Even given all that, I don't think enough people are going to agree on what the 'best deck' is to play it. In Magic the pros spend lots and lots of time figuring out what the best deck is and tuning it to perfection. I don't think the average PCQ player, or even the average PCQ winner, will be able to piece the format together and expect the same results.

A lot of this is theory. The more one is exposed to something the sounder the theory becomes. As the game ages and the players develop the theory will be more relevant.

What do you think the chances are that a new combo deck will dominate everything else in Indy? Say it involves something with a resource replacement trick, or an Opposition-style lock. Why is that not possible (yet?) in this game?

I don't think combo decks are going to be as big in this game as they are in Magic because of the emphasis on guys and attacking in this game. Everything you do in VS starts with guys, and unlike in Magic your opponent can directly attack your guys and kill them if he needs to. Therefore you have a hard time relying on a specific guy staying in play, which is something a combo deck would need to do.

I would like to see more hybrid decks develop into competitive play. Team up decks have been shown to have alot of really nice applications to further the metagame. Why not try that route?

Team-ups are a little too fragile, especially with Have A Blast supposedly being the rage. The combat emphasis will keep the combos down for awhile, but for how long... we shall see.

If you team-up with Gotham Knights then you at least have Fizzle.

I could see FF/GCPD/Adv. Hardware possibly going off if it uses say 15 GCPD.

I am late to this thread, but I will chime as a casual player. I came from the chess world myself. My sons got me involved with Yu-gi-oh, which I still am involved in as a judge and support a local players group. Yu-gi-oh introduced me to CCG's. When UDE came out with the VS System, I was very impressed with two things: The mechanics were the best blend of balance and play I had seen, and the theme was comic book heroes and villains (A boyhood favorite that I have always continued to love)

In my younger years I played chess as a serious player in tournaments. I never got past 2300 ranking. That type of play required all my time. I never won nationals, let alone world (LOL) but I loved the challenge of playing the game. Even when I lost I loved the game, because I always came away with more than I started with. I learned from my opponent. I was a great time. I now play casual chess, and I lose alot. I don't have time to keep up with the ol' skills as I once did. But I still love the game. It is thrilling to watch the player I am playing skillfully play his opening and work the chess board to a victory when I play a better player than myself. I once had a chance to play a National Master once. Got beat, but what a thrill to play a great player.

This is how I feel about the VS System. It has depth that reminds me of the challenges of chess (mixed with a little luck to keep it interesting) and the imagination and flavor of the comic world of heroes we grew up with and still love to indulge ourselve in. I play to win but I first and foremost play for fun. This is a game that is a puzzle to digest and understand. Half the fun is that puzzle of what tactics and strategies work best. Just as chess was a puzzle for me to master so is VS. Now will I try to become a pro player, No . Will I find fault with those that wish to pore there time and effort into becoming pro players, No. I will play and enjoy the game, I will collect and bask in all the many dimensions of this wonderful CCG. Its fun. I will say this, I look forward to playing pro players when it happens, because it would be an honor to play some one of that level (even if I lose).

I love the game, whether or not I win or not is not the point, it is great system and theme. I am always the spectator watching the game I am playing in or that someone else playing in. A true lover of this game will play it and enjoy it what at ever level they can get involved at. So I may be saying that it is not whether you are a casual player or a pro player, it is do you love the game?

Thanks for listening.

Well said. Thanks for adding.

Interesting analogy, since chess is the only game that includes no luck whatsoever. I must admit, when I explain what we are going through with the new set so close to Indy... I say it is like chess if they gave us a whole new row of pieces.

That is how my friend first explained Magic the gathering to me.

"It's like chess, except the pieces are different"

somewhat true. the cards can do no more, and no less than what is printed on them. Like Rooks not going diagonally.

God, I know this is nit-picking, but here goes...

"If you purchase a lottery ticket and win a lot of money, you have performed labor (acquiring a ticket) for compensation(your winnings). But when I say someone is working for a living, lotto winners aren't the first people that come to mind."

Then I guess that isn't a relevant example, is it?

Relevant: "having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand" (Merriam-Webster)

Consequently, a relevant example is *always* a good example. That's why relevant evidence is *always* admissible in a court of law, barring a specific exclusion or hearsay objection. If you disagree with my assertions, that's perfectly fine, but I get confused when you disagree with them while also unintentionally praising them (i.e. don't tell me you think they're relevant when you clearly don't think they're relevant).

"Card advantage is good in every card game."

You're absolutely right, but what I said was that it isn't quite as strong in VS as it is Magic. That doesn't mean it's weak, or that it isn't desirable, or that you shouldn't try to build decks that achieve it... it just means that it isn't quite as strong in VS as it is in Magic, both in effect (since everyone draws two cards, single card-drawing effects are strickly "weaker") and in presence (there aren't too many card drawing tools in a game this new).

"If there is a Necro in VS, where is it? Everyone knows what to look for."

At no point in time did I, or anyone else for that matter, assert that VS contained a card as broken as Necropotence. Instead, I pretty clearly used the card *for example purposes only* to suggest that there were some cards in VS that initially appeared weak, but were later realized to be strong. You know, kinda like Longshot, who "looks awful at first glance" and is now "winning money in various places".

"That development happened less than a month after the game was released."

You mean the sudden prevalence of LC/A in Brotherhood decks? Perhaps in your store, or in my own personal playtesting, but not in the conventional wisdom of the online community (which I can only assume we've both been following since the game was released in March). The complete abusability of the combo (and the surprising revelation that the NB deck didn't even need NB, SB or Savage Land) was conclusively demonstrated in Joe Carey' s 1rst place PCQ win in Clermont in June. The point was driven home when a BB deck and not a NB deck won Origins. In no way, shape, form, or guess was that apparent "less than one month after the game was released" in March, except perhaps to a limited community of players (which apparently included you). But if you and your peers have been championing this combo in this deck since April, then I humbly admit defeat.

If you meant to suggest that the VS community has adapted and playtested the cards and resulting decks with significantly more rapidity than the Magic community did in Ice Age days... well, of course. We have the benefit of 1) years of game analysis experience (most of which, but not all, is applicable to VS), 2) an incredibly limited card pool, and 3) El Internet. What surprised me personally was how long it took for *mainstream* players (who learn tech via Pro posts or tourney wins) to realize that LC/A was the "broken" combo of the first set, especially when you consider the above three factors. By your logic and mine, it shouldn't have even taken a month, let alone 3-4.

"The decks people play were pretty much figured out by the middle of June, and nothing has made a splash since."

Really? What about the surprisingly strong showings of Sentinel decks in later rounds at Origins, especially considering how few people played them? Although it may not be a better deck, the fact that so many variations of an underepresented deck (at least compared to BB/NB, of FF, or Doom) made it as far as they did woke a lot of people up (and thusly the post-Origins price increase of Longshot, which of course takes us back to our second point). That sounds kinda splashy to me, but then again perhaps I'm not quite as jaded as others who knew Longshot was good a month after the game came out.

"Even given all that, I don't think enough people are going to agree on what the 'best deck' is to play it. In Magic the pros spend lots and lots of time figuring out what the best deck is and tuning it to perfection. I don't think the average PCQ player, or even the average PCQ winner, will be able to piece the format together and expect the same results."

That's an intriguing point, but I don't quite understand where you are taking it. Are you saying that VS doesn't have any Pro players capable of dissecting the format? Or that the exhaustive format analysis (and the corresponding thorough understanding of the game's mechanics) can't happen yet because the game is too young? Or something else entirely? I'm not saying either assertion lacks merit, I'm just looking for clarification.

I'm also not suggesting, nor have I suggested previously, that PCQ winners will concretely dictate the course of the game for other pros. But they often do influence the game for people that intend to play in tournaments, many of whom style themselves as "pros", which is why I've focused my analysis on tourney reports that I've read on VSUniverse or Metagame, or discussions I've had with tourney players. And while these opinions are nothing even remotely comparable to a "definitive analysis", I'd like to think that our discussion has some level of objective merit.

At any rate, your feedback is always appreciated.

well thought out.

I can't say I agree totally, but I can't refute your arguments.....

yeah, with a screen name of chris benoit i imagine his post to be along the lines of snarling toothless grolws, instead of some smart and intiutive theories, which is what this thread is shaping up to be, as long as it stays civil and adult.

Then I guess I misspoke about Necro: it isn't a relevant example. The state of Magic in particular and card games in general at that point was utterly different than it is now.

You said at one point that "pro players haven't quite figured out how to use and abuse the mechanics of the VS system." I am disagreeing with that. I think Marvel is extremely well explored, and I don't think that the good players in this game are missing much of anything anywhere close to the scale of Necro.

My team placed two people in the top ten with the X-men/Brotherhood ASS/LC combo at Philadelphia, which was what I was referring to. My comment wasn't really about the SL vs ASS/LC 'debate'. In my opinion, BBH and TNB are two very different decks that happen to share a team.

Actually I think that the internet players are equally as far 'behind the curve' in both Magic and VS. The difference is that lists distribute more quickly and are studied more in Magic. The PCQ level doesn't have nearly the amount of talent that Magic's PTQs have as of yet, so advancements in tech are only noticed or championed by very few players.

I'll admit that the Sentinel decks were a bit of a surprise, but nor have I seen them winning that many PCQs in the weeks since. The PCQs are still being won by BBH, Doom and FF.

I'm saying that the game doesn't have enough Pro players capable of understanding the format (nor am I claiming to be among those that do). I think that there will be a bunch of very good players and very good decks at the PC, but I also think that there will be quite a few who aren't quite up to the task, and they will be out in enough numbers to make playing a deck designed to beat the best deck a bad idea.

All great points, chief... all great points. I still think that the newness of the VS system practically mandates that even Pro players haven't figured out every nuance, especially when they tend (like most people) to base their opinions on previous experience (and while other card games might be similar to VS, they're not always quite similar enough). But the relatively limited card pool only leaves so much room for error, so I'll withhold judgment until I've seen the DC tricks that tourney pros turn.

You're absolutely right that BB and NB are very different decks; my point was more about how most people didn't initally realize that the New Brotherhood team could be successsfully played w/o some of its assumed "staple" cards. When the game first came out, I know that even a lot of good players were convinced that NB was a one trick pony (hit hard, hit fast; I guess that's two tricks, but you get the idea). Again, the time it took for people to realize these things is relative, especially when they're compared to pre-internet Magic days.

As for the Sentinels issue... I suspect that the generally solid Sentinels deck derived some of its strength from its surprise factor, which might also explain how the previously mentioned Skrull deck did so well in Montreal. While luck plays a factor in any match, a finals showing suggests either 1) something more than luck or 2) someone had a leprechaun stuffed in their pants. Which leads us to the suggestion that surprisability should factor into a player's "best deck" analysis. As for the deck's lack of recent showings, I also think that some players netdecked the Sentinels build only to realize that it's much, much harder to play than NB.

"I think that there will be a bunch of very good players and very good decks at the PC, but I also think that there will be quite a few who aren't quite up to the task, and they will be out in enough numbers to make playing a deck designed to beat the best deck a bad idea."

Now that's my favorite of the points that you made, because it raises a related issue that I've been kind of curious about. Do you personally believe that either BB or NB is the best deck in the format? While I cannot claim to speak for other players, my familiarity with the ravings of the online community suggest that most people assume that some variation of the Brotherhood is the superior tournament choice. Hence, a disproportianatly high nunber of players have been choosing to field NB or BB because the knee-jerk response of the unimaginative is "find best deck; play it", even if BB isn't actually the best deck.

As for my personal opinion, I generally feel that the top three decks are probably about equal in terms of their consistent viability/winability, but NB/BB is just a hell of a lot easier to play.

"They'll play the deck that they think can get them the most wins over the course of the day, and they'll practice so that they can play it well. At one tournament anything can win, but the best player with the best deck is most likely to win, and that's all a good player can do."

True. Which is why I'd kind of like to steer this thread towards what we think is the best deck for tournament play. The reason I chimed in to begin with was because I didn't like the idea of people assuming that BB/NB was the best deck, that logic dictated that their best chance of winning was to play it, that their logic derived more from Internet Conventional Wisdom (tm) than actual reason-based logic, and therefore some poor bastards might be running lemming-like towards their nearest tournament with a l33t Brotherhood netdeck.

The key here is your spot-on definition of the "best deck": it's the deck that's most likely to get you the most amount of wins over the course of the day. But this "best deck" might not necessarily be the Best Deck in the format; it might be a deck designed to beat that deck. You believe that VS hasn't evolved enough for a purely meta deck to be a viable tourney approach, and you've made some excellent points to back that up. As you stated previously, I admit that you're probably right that VS lies somewhere between Magic and Warlord in determining the tourney viability of a purely meta deck.

But I think that you'll agree that BB/NB is prevalent enough that any viable tourney decks needs to consider it, and by extension become a little bit more meta than it would otherwise like to be. And I'd like to think that VS is a strong enough game with excellent counter-cards of general applicability (not like Star Wars or Raw Deal "magic bulets") that someone could conceive of an anti-BB/NB deck that still performs well against the rest of the field.

Which I guess leads us further into GDE's previous rock / paper / scissors analogy.

At any rate, thanks for the time and effort you've put into your posts, WarWolf.

Wait... I mean SNARL! TOOTHLESS GROWL! I'LL PUT YA INTO DA CROSSFACE, EH?!