Horn deck nonsense

[sgtdraino]

No, there aren't. At least, not in any way that will help in this circumstance. You are running gandalf, so perhaps some New-Awakened are necessary.

Yeah, I tried that for a while. New-awakened is just so incredibly weak compared to Deep in Thought, it's really not enough to deal with the conditions that mess with me. Also, often-times I'll find New-awakened forcing me to discard one of my own conditions, since it requires you to get rid of exactly two.

Or, since you are running site manipulation, Introspection.

Again, just not powerful enough. Only nails one condition, and the opponent gets to pick what it is. With that as condition removal, I'd be at the mercy of other more-popular metas, like Ninja Gollum, forest Nazgul, Sauron orcs, Orc orcs, and Uruks.

Obviously these aren't as powerful as things like Deep in Though or Grown Suddenly Tall, but they will address TNMBF in circumstances those latter two will not.

Unfortunately they are just way too weak in other ways. I'm trying to think: If there's a card that I can use to exert Gondor guys during Fellowship, I can kill off down to 6 by moving Ranger Cloak around. That would solve the problem.

ETA: It looks like Soldier's Cache is probably my best bet for that, although it will take a couple of turns to do, since you exert guys in Regroup. It does potentially work well with my deck though, so that's good. Still thinking about whether or not to actually put it in...

Alternatively, you could just roll with the move limit reduction and focus on getting the shadow win (which from what I have seen, your deck can do).

Unfortunately that is probably the most viable option. Tricky, since (like I pointed out earlier), TNMBF/Tentacles can be paired with pretty much anything, and it doesn't have to move fast, it just has to stay ahead of my 1-move limit.

Thankfully this deck type is not really that popular yet. I rarely encounter it. If it starts to become more popular, I may have to get more serious about countering it.

[Invincible]

The point of this topic was purely to discuss the fact that some player abuses some strategy that in other circumstances would never part of this game. If Decipher would not have been in so many lawsuits and everything, they would probably not allow for a loop that lets you empty your entire free people. Part of the beauty of LotR TCG is that you have both FP AND Shadow sides and its 100% unnatural to play most of the game with only one side.

I've seen the game evolve since the very beginning and while I was a bit pissed with the escalation we saw after set 7, I could enjoy myself even if I immediately saw how flawed the castamir was (cost lower thant the witchking except on site 3 and is stronger in many was... now way I thought). Then I saw Durin III and ask myself why would I bother with any other dwarves, this one is WAY better, so were Gil-Galad and Elendil although you could not start them.

But as the game went on, not only did we saw an escalation, but D stopped to playtest as much as they did before. That causes loops like Gil-Galad HK, Horn Filter, etc. When the community complained, their answer were not satisfying (like what they did to frenzy of arrows).

I can compare this situation to society. When the government does not try to fix a problem because they don't care, the community can change it, they can boycott among other things. That is pretty much what I intend to do with the horn, especialy on gemp since it takes forever to wait for that shenanigan to be over. I just glad that some players have the decency to not play these decks so we can have some fun (the same can be applied to LR by the way).

[Zurcamos]

"The Number Must Be Few is unfair."
"No, Madril, Defender of Osgiliath is unfair."
"No, Durin III and/or Castamir and/or Lady Redeemed are unfair."

To me, this is another one of those opinions vs. opinions thing.  If one card/strategy annihilates your deck, you probably need to change your deck, or deal with what being stubborn brings.  Calling it unfair doesn't seem very productive or "cool" to me.

I play mostly Movie, and 99% of decks I play against these days (on Gemp; fortunately, playing in paper is still bliss) are the same high power Fellowships with the same high power Shadows, so I get it.  It's no fun to lose at site 2 against Castamir or have Dwarves and/or LR and/or Dauntless Hunter tear apart your Shadow and double over and over and over, but yeah, I expect everyone to be as nauseating as possible with their card and play choices, so I try not to fall into traps.

Sgt, I'm going to be honest with you.  I've never played w/ someone who used 6+ companions (or 5+ in Fellowship) that felt it unfair when they got destroyed for doing so.  It may not be an official rule to play less than X comps, but I think it's fairly understood that if you have more, you risk hefty punishment, and I'm pretty sure that's by design.  Now, I'm not trying to troll with this post (I'm merely a tease w/ a horrible sense of humor), but there is a very simple counter to NMBF: stop playing 7 comps.  I don't think there needs to be any other counter.  There's no cultural enforcement for playing less than 7 comps.  Anyone can do it!     Is Gemp chuck full of people doing so?  Yup.  I don't know why.  My decks are all goofy, for-fun-only decks, but they almost always win the second my opponents plunk that Xth comp down (really, that's about the only time they DO win, hahaha).

So, in other words: "No, playing the same, stupid OP netdecks is unfair."  ...And boring.  ...And maybe I'm going to switch out all my Shotgun Enqueas for NMBF.   

[dethwish07]

To me, this is another one of those opinions vs. opinions thing.  If one card/strategy annihilates your deck, you probably need to change your deck, or deal with what being stubborn brings.  Calling it unfair doesn't seem very productive or "cool" to me.

I agree with this sentiment.

Sgt, I'm going to be honest with you.  I've never played w/ someone who used 6+ companions (or 5+ in Fellowship) that felt it unfair when they got destroyed for doing so.  It may not be an official rule to play less than X comps, but I think it's fairly understood that if you have more, you risk hefty Punishment, and I'm pretty sure that's by design.  

And while I'm happy to try and help Sgtdraino, Zurcamos is quite right in that this is by design. It also doesn't surprise me that a swarm deck would try and make use of a card like TNMBF when facing large fellowships, as actually pulling of a swarm is harder in such circumstances. Perhaps if Sgt suspect the opponent to be on TNMBF Tentacles, then the best thing to do would be to also play things a little closer to the vest until they reveal a little more of their game plan. Or perhaps the Soldier's Cache strategy to kill off one's own companions would be an option.

Lastly, on the note of Sgt's options for TNMBF, I'll say this: New-Awakened is definitely not as strong a card as Deep in Thought overall (and I'm not suggesting you remove Deep in Thought). However, in the case of this particular match up, the seemingly worse New-Awakened is actually more useful as it can actually be used in the difficult circumstances the Sgt. describes. I realize its not an amazing card and it has drawbacks like possibly having to discard one of your own conditions. You will hafta weigh your options. Is TNMBF tentacles prominent enough to include a subpar card to counter it? Are other less direct counters (the Soldier's Cache approach) available that would not lower the overall card quality of the deck? Is TNMBF a game-breaking enough card in that matchup that your deck MUST address it or flat out lose? Those are my thought processes anyways.

[sgtdraino]

But as the game went on, not only did we saw an escalation, but D stopped to playtest as much as they did before. That causes loops like Gil-Galad HK, Horn Filter, etc. When the community complained, their answer were not satisfying (like what they did to frenzy of arrows).

Honestly, while there is obviously some power creep in later sets, I don't see it as a problem. My deck has cards from almost every set in it, and that shows that cards from every set remain useful, in certain situations. There are some powerful combos in Expanded, but I still don't think anything in Expanded is as unbalanced as LR is in Movie.

they can boycott among other things. That is pretty much what I intend to do with the horn, especialy on gemp since it takes forever to wait for that shenanigan to be over.

I used to boycott Horn Decks, but eventually I discovered it felt much more satisfying to savagely beat the person who was playing them. There is at present no deck type in Expanded that I think is unbalanced to the point that I will just quit if I see my opponent is playing it.

"The Number Must Be Few is unfair."
"No, Madril, Defender of Osgiliath is unfair."
"No, Durin III and/or Castamir and/or Lady Redeemed are unfair."

I don't think any of the above things are unfair, with the possible exception of LR. I'm still amazed that she remains legal in Movie, yet Decipher had the presence of mind to X-list her for Expanded.

To me, this is another one of those opinions vs. opinions thing.  If one card/strategy annihilates your deck, you probably need to change your deck, or deal with what being stubborn brings.  Calling it unfair doesn't seem very productive or "cool" to me.

I agree. With the exception of LR, I don't think I've called any of this stuff unfair. I do think TNMBF/Tentacles is cheap, in much the same way that the Horn Deck is cheap, but not necessarily unfair.

Sgt, I'm going to be honest with you.  I've never played w/ someone who used 6+ companions (or 5+ in Fellowship) that felt it unfair when they got destroyed for doing so.

And you still haven't. However, I think you would agree that Decipher's intent with TNMBF was to punish the Fellowship until they ditched some of those guys (like with Enquea), not to leave them stuck with 7+ guys for the whole game and unable to do anything else about it, because no more minions get played.

It may not be an official rule to play less than X comps, but I think it's fairly understood that if you have more, you risk hefty punishment, and I'm pretty sure that's by design.

More companions is risky by design. However, the whole concept of LOTR TCG revolves around the idea of recreating the Fellowship of the Nine. As such, I do think full 9-companion fellowships should be a viable option. If the game was engineered such that nobody ever played with more than 5 guys because you instantly lose if you go over, then that is not in the spirit of The Lord of the Rings.

Now, I'm not trying to troll with this post (I'm merely a tease w/ a horrible sense of humor), but there is a very simple counter to NMBF: stop playing 7 comps.

Obviously. But you do realize that this was not intended to be the counter to TNMBF, yes? Decipher did not create the card with the intention that players would never dare to put that 7th guy down, they created the card to punish players until they kill off back down to 6. They did not anticipate a scenario in which the Shadow player would simply not play any more minions for the rest of the game, because prior to the inception of the new tentacles and the new Watcher, doing that would leave your hand extremely clogged. The TNMBF/Tentacle deck circumvents the spirit and intentions of the card, in much the same way that the Horn Deck circumvents the spirit and intent of Gamling and the Horn. In many ways these two decks mirror each other in terms of what they do.

I don't think there needs to be any other counter.  There's no cultural enforcement for playing less than 7 comps.  Anyone can do it!  

Plonking down a 7th guy should potentially really hurt you. It should not, however, create a situation in which you automatically lose the game. TNMBF/Tentacles is not quite to that level, but it's close.

So, in other words: "No, playing the same, stupid OP netdecks is unfair."  ...And boring.  ...And maybe I'm going to switch out all my Shotgun Enqueas for NMBF.  

Generally when I hear somebody call a deck "boring," what they really mean is that it's too hard for them to beat.

And while I'm happy to try and help Sgtdraino, Zurcamos is quite right in that this is by design.

It was not designed with the intent to be used the way TNMBF/Tentacle decks use it.

It also doesn't surprise me that a swarm deck would try and make use of a card like TNMBF when facing large fellowships, as actually pulling of a swarm is harder in such circumstances.

It is, essentially, the perfect companion to Tentacle Swarm, which is already an incredibly strong swarm tactic. It is not hard to swarm 6 guys using Tentacles, and thanks to TNMBF, if they've got more than that, they automatically lose, unless they somehow manage to kill the strongest Fellowship you can think of.

Perhaps if Sgt suspect the opponent to be on TNMBF Tentacles, then the best thing to do would be to also play things a little closer to the vest until they reveal a little more of their game plan. Or perhaps the Soldier's Cache strategy to kill off one's own companions would be an option.

That is indeed my strategy. These days, if I see tentacles, I assume it's a TNMBF deck. However, most of the time it is too late to limit the companions. After all, I'm already starting with 6, so as soon as I get one more out (which normally happens on the first or second turn), TNMBF has me in its grip. I am currently experimenting with Soldier's Cache to see how effective this works as a counter... however so far I can't say for sure that I've encountered a TNMBF deck for testing purposes. I did go up against a Tentacle deck and lost (got swarmed), but TNMBF never came out, so I can't be sure that this was the strategy. In truth, I think I panicked on that game, and got too focused on trying to get rid of my own guys, instead of making the guys I have as strong as possible.

Even so, Soldier's Cache is still not super-great as a counter, as I've noticed these decks are using Saruman, Black Traitor to ditch any condtion that poses a threat to them. Black Traitor is, of course, one of the few condition discard options to which there is no counter (unless you're hobbits, ha). I could use Seeing Stone of Minas Anor instead, that would be harder to get rid of... but that card doesn't really complement the rest of the deck.

Lastly, on the note of Sgt's options for TNMBF, I'll say this: New-Awakened is definitely not as strong a card as Deep in Thought overall (and I'm not suggesting you remove Deep in Thought). However, in the case of this particular match up, the seemingly worse New-Awakened is actually more useful as it can actually be used in the difficult circumstances the Sgt. describes. I realize its not an amazing card and it has drawbacks like possibly having to discard one of your own conditions. You will hafta weigh your options.

I've already been down that path. The deck can only afford to allot a certain amount of space to condition removal. I've tried completely replacing Deep in Thought with New-awakened, and found that it is just too weak against more prominent opposing deck types. It doesn't discard enough conditions, it targets your conditions as well as the opponent's, and even the fact that it plays during Fellowship instead of Maneuver is, in most other situations, a pretty big disadvantage. I tried just putting in one or two New-awakened, but found that then I simply don't draw it quickly enough to help me out in a TNMBF/Tentacle situation.

Are other less direct counters (the Soldier's Cache approach) available that would not lower the overall card quality of the deck?

Soldier's Cache definitely doesn't lower the quality of the deck. In fact, it may make it even better. I'm experimenting with taking out Follow Smeagol in order to put in Soldier's Cache. So far, I like it. I haven't used FS as much since adding One Good Turn Deserves Another, and Soldier's Cache can work very well as a token machine in Regroup before moving to Mithlond. However, it is vulnerable to getting discarded in the right circumstances. I think I just need to get a procedure worked out.

In theory, I could successfully counter TNMBF trap with a three-card combo: Ranger's Cloak, Shadowfax (primarily to get the threats up, if I don't already have them), and Soldier's Cache. If I can get out all three of those, at the next Fellowship I should be able to immediately kill down to 6. All three of those cards are pullable using either Deagol or Something Slimy. I should go for the possessions first, since they are harder to get rid of. Soldier's cache last, and then even if he cancels it, I can still kill down to 6.

Is TNMBF a game-breaking enough card in that matchup that your deck MUST address it or flat out lose?

Possibly. As I mentioned earlier, TNMBF/Tentacles can be literally paired with any FP strategy. Is my Shadow so strong that I can definitely kill any FP strategy out there? Probably not. Especially if the opponent is out in front, and confident that I'm only going to be able to move once per turn for the rest of the game. Think about it: As long as he's in front, he never has to double again. So, in order to beat this combo, I would need to be able to kill or corrupt his Fellowship with him only single-moving each turn, with a Fellowship as powerfully strong as he can manage. Perhaps Gil-galad looping, or Hobbit Hospital.

HOWEVER, at the same time, I firmly believe that there is a combination of cards and strategy out there with which to counter this, probably something along the lines of the procedure I outlined above. We'll see!

[Legion]

This is one of the best things about this game.  There's no perfect deck.  Certainly there are weak ones, but no deck is going to beat everything.  You can try to have an answer to every card in your deck, but that makes it so huge you'll draw none of them and lose more often than not.  If you're set on using 7 companions you'll have to accept that TNMbF will come out on occasion.  It is perhaps a little unfair that the shadow can still cycle by playing minions that get discarded, but if the shadow does so, it will have no other conditions on the board.  Brooding on Tomorrow will therefore take it out, and can be pulled with Something Slimy.  It's a good card, and would not just be useful for TNMbF.

[Invincible]

TNMBF can still be played with legolas, fm and still won't clog, it's been there a long time and it never was a problem.

[Legion]

You'll always be a turn behind like that.  Ottar and Elrond, Lord of Rivendell would be better.

[sgtdraino]

This is one of the best things about this game.  There's no perfect deck.  Certainly there are weak ones, but no deck is going to beat everything.

Exactly right!

You can try to have an answer to every card in your deck, but that makes it so huge you'll draw none of them and lose more often than not.

I dunno, I think my deck comes pretty close to doing this, and still manages a good draw most of the time.

If you're set on using 7 companions you'll have to accept that TNMbF will come out on occasion.

Yep. I just gotta be ready with a counter-procedure.

It is perhaps a little unfair that the shadow can still cycle by playing minions that get discarded, but if the shadow does so, it will have no other conditions on the board.

Why would they have no other conditions on the board? Even if their only condition is TNMBF, it's not unique, so they could play out 4 of them. These decks also routinely use Evil-smelling Fens, although they don't play it unless they're going to use it that same turn.

Brooding on Tomorrow will therefore take it out, and can be pulled with Something Slimy.  It's a good card, and would not just be useful for TNMbF.

Unfortunately, Brooding on Tomorrow would probably not be good enough. As I mentioned earlier, these decks like to run Saruman, Black Traitor to get rid of problem conditions. They will just discard Brooding on Tomorrow, and continue to play out their 4x TNMBF.

TNMBF can still be played with legolas, fm and still won't clog, it's been there a long time and it never was a problem.

You'll always be a turn behind like that.  Ottar and Elrond, Lord of Rivendell would be better.

Both true. However, the hitch is that both of those options steer you towards certain FP strategies, which in turn have certain vulnerabilities. With TNMBF/Tentacles, any FP strategy can be used with it. Also, back in the heyday of those guys, the kind of super-swarm that Tentacles can do did not exist.

[Zurcamos]

Hmm, I somehow missed your post, sgt.  I was here looking for which of mine received more negative gold, as usual, and much to my infinite joy, I found this!

I don't think any of the above things are unfair, with the possible exception of LR. I'm still amazed that she remains legal in Movie, yet Decipher had the presence of mind to X-list her for Expanded.

I agree. With the exception of LR, I don't think I've called any of this stuff unfair. I do think TNMBF/Tentacles is cheap, in much the same way that the Horn Deck is cheap, but not necessarily unfair.

"The Number Must Be Few is cheap."
"No, Madril, Defender of Osgiliath is cheap."
"No, Durin III and/or Castamir and/or Lady Redeemed are cheap."

Fixed?

However, I think you would agree that Decipher's intent with TNMBF was to punish the Fellowship until they ditched some of those guys (like with Enquea), not to leave them stuck with 7+ guys for the whole game and unable to do anything else about it, because no more minions get played.

More companions is risky by design. However, the whole concept of LOTR TCG revolves around the idea of recreating the Fellowship of the Nine. As such, I do think full 9-companion fellowships should be a viable option. If the game was engineered such that nobody ever played with more than 5 guys because you instantly lose if you go over, then that is not in the spirit of The Lord of the Rings.

Obviously. But you do realize that this was not intended to be the counter to TNMBF, yes? Decipher did not create the card with the intention that players would never dare to put that 7th guy down, they created the card to punish players until they kill off back down to 6. They did not anticipate a scenario in which the Shadow player would simply not play any more minions for the rest of the game, because prior to the inception of the new tentacles and the new Watcher, doing that would leave your hand extremely clogged. The TNMBF/Tentacle deck circumvents the spirit and intentions of the card, in much the same way that the Horn Deck circumvents the spirit and intent of Gamling and the Horn. In many ways these two decks mirror each other in terms of what they do.

Plonking down a 7th guy should potentially really hurt you. It should not, however, create a situation in which you automatically lose the game. TNMBF/Tentacles is not quite to that level, but it's close.

It was not designed with the intent to be used the way TNMBF/Tentacle decks use it.

You talk a lot about designers' intentions and the "point" of the game, most of which sounds like opinions/assumptions, many of which I don't necessarily agree with.  This makes me believe I don't actually need to "realize" anything!

P.S.  Don't be like that.  You sound just like...

*GASP*

You know, at any given moment, you are nearly perfectly emulating another notorious member of the site, but never the same one as before.  Don't make me get my tin foil hat again, draino, 'CAUSE I WILL DO IT!!!

Generally when I hear somebody call a deck "boring," what they really mean is that it's too hard for them to beat.

I saw you discuss this in the other thread too.  Playing 10 games of a format, and 9 of them are against the "same, stupid OP netdeck" (as one one mighty goodlooking person purposefully and ironically referred to such things) is boring.  Move to another format and it happens again, and believe it or not, it's still boring.  When it happens a third time, I realize I've played way too many games in one sitting, and when the sour taste leaves my mouth, I go back to paper only for a while.

P.S.  Did I ever say anyone was beating me with their boring decks?

P.P.S.  You do realize that, generally, when I hear someone make so many comments about other people calling a deck "boring," I might think that that person probably frequently hears that his/her deck is boring (especially if s/he only ever seems to talk about just one "cheap"/"unfair"/whatever Madril deck), and what s/he really means is s/he really likes Justin Bieber AND Mily Cyrus.  A lot.

[sgtdraino]

Hmm, I somehow missed your post, sgt.  I was here looking for which of mine received more negative gold, as usual, and much to my infinite joy, I found this!

You seem to be suggesting that I gave one of your posts negative gold. That is not the case. However, due to the false accusations and tone of your current post, I will indeed be giving it negative gold.

"The Number Must Be Few is cheap."
"No, Madril, Defender of Osgiliath is cheap."
"No, Durin III and/or Castamir and/or Lady Redeemed are cheap."

Fixed?

<shrug> I guess. I don't think Madril is all that cheap, though. He forces you to start with a certain number of companions, requires other cards to be useful, and is fairly easily countered by a single card with no culture enforcement, not to mention various other cards. Like I said before, I can't even remember the last time I lost to a Madril deck.

You talk a lot about designers' intentions and the "point" of the game, most of which sounds like opinions/assumptions, many of which I don't necessarily agree with.  This makes me believe I don't actually need to "realize" anything!

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I think the context in which the cards were released makes that pretty plain. TNMBF / Tentacles only works due to Watcher in the Water, Many-tentacled Creature, one of the last cards ever released for LOTR. It is generally held by the community that Decipher was perhaps not as thorough as they should have been, with anticipating problems these later cards might cause.

In any event, I'm convinced I now have an effective counter to this strategy, so it no longer really concerns me.

You know, at any given moment, you are nearly perfectly emulating another notorious member of the site, but never the same one as before.  Don't make me get my tin foil hat again, draino, 'CAUSE I WILL DO IT!!!

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. If you check the internet for "sgtdraino" and "Sgt. Draino," you'll see I've been a consistent internet presence for a very long time. The name doesn't change.

I saw you discuss this in the other thread too.  Playing 10 games of a format, and 9 of them are against the "same, stupid OP netdeck" (as one one mighty goodlooking person purposefully and ironically referred to such things) is boring.  Move to another format and it happens again, and believe it or not, it's still boring.

That's highly unusual that you have played 10 games, and 9 of them are against the same deck type. I don't think that has ever happened to me. But then, I tend not to play Fellowship, so maybe that's why.

P.S.  Did I ever say anyone was beating me with their boring decks?

Did I say they were? No I did not. I was speaking from my own personal experience, and in my own personal experience, when someone I'm playing calls my deck boring, they are usually getting a pounding from me, and finding their own deck ineffective.

P.P.S.  You do realize that, generally, when I hear someone make so many comments about other people calling a deck "boring," I might think that that person probably frequently hears that his/her deck is boring

Not frequently, just occasionally. Usually by people that are losing badly. I can only think they are venting their frustration, since my deck is not like any of the other Madril decks I've seen people playing.

and what s/he really means is s/he really likes Justin Bieber AND Mily Cyrus.  A lot.

Now you're just being silly.

[Zurcamos]

You seem to be suggesting that I gave one of your posts negative gold. That is not the case. However, due to the false accusations and tone of your current post, I will indeed be giving it negative gold.

I definitely wasn't trying to sound like I thought you were doing it in any of my posts.  I haven't looked closely, but I think that this post was the first negative I received while talking to you.  Now, I imagine that's the first thing that the person who IS doing it will run and change, but no, I was just calling out to the delightful person who is delightfully clever, mature, and delightful.  I wanted him to know he was getting all the love and attention he deserves, so he can grow up to be a successful adult in the world, possibly POTUS.

<shrug> I guess. I don't think Madril is all that cheap, though. He forces you to start with a certain number of companions, requires other cards to be useful, and is fairly easily countered by a single card with no culture enforcement, not to mention various other cards. Like I said before, I can't even remember the last time I lost to a Madril deck.

...And once again, that's consistent with the point of my teasing, and I'm the authority on the point of THAT game.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I think the context in which the cards were released makes that pretty plain. TNMBF / Tentacles only works due to Watcher in the Water, Many-tentacled Creature, one of the last cards ever released for LOTR. It is generally held by the community that Decipher was perhaps not as thorough as they should have been, with anticipating problems these later cards might cause.

Yeah, like pretty much all those icky Expanded cards...

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. If you check the internet for "sgtdraino" and "Sgt. Draino," you'll see I've been a consistent internet presence for a very long time. The name doesn't change.

So, YOU'RE notorious?  Dun, dun, DUN!  The plot thickens!!!

I don't REALLY think you are the people I have/haven't named.  We've joked about it in the past.  You probably didn't think it was funny then either, but I did.   

That's highly unusual that you have played 10 games, and 9 of them are against the same deck type. I don't think that has ever happened to me. But then, I tend not to play Fellowship, so maybe that's why.

I'm probably exaggerating a bit, but not TOO much.  It was Movie, then TT, and THEN Fellowship.  I know the TT deck was Dauntless Hunter, but that's no surprise.

Did I say they were? No I did not. I was speaking from my own personal experience, and in my own personal experience, when someone I'm playing calls my deck boring, they are usually getting a pounding from me, and finding their own deck ineffective.

Nor did I say that you did.  Seriously, sgt, why so serious?

Now you're just being silly.

That same sillyness is present in every word I place on this site, just about.  I rib a lot, maybe rougher than I should at times,  but my tone isn't intended to be taken the way you seem to take it, and I'm not saying it's your fault.  Heck, I don't know if *I* like my tone.  Maybe *I* am the one creating other accounts, so I can give myself negative gold.

No, I don't think so...

P.S.  Be honest, draino, are you me?  Did I create your persona just so Zurcamos would look good and get more positives?  If so, it isn't working.  Well, not the gold part.  Lawlz.

[sgtdraino]

I definitely wasn't trying to sound like I thought you were doing it in any of my posts.  I haven't looked closely, but I think that this post was the first negative I received while talking to you.  Now, I imagine that's the first thing that the person who IS doing it will run and change, but no, I was just calling out to the delightful person who is delightfully clever, mature, and delightful.  I wanted him to know he was getting all the love and attention he deserves, so he can grow up to be a successful adult in the world, possibly POTUS.

lol. Just for that, I'm giving your post positive gold!

The previous one keeps its negative gold though.  

Yeah, like pretty much all those icky Expanded cards...

lol. I still think Expanded is a more balanced format than Movie, which has LR, The Shire Countryside, non-restricted Bill Ferny, and various other atrocities. I also think it's got more variety than the other formats too.

So, YOU'RE notorious?  Dun, dun, DUN!  The plot thickens!!!

Notorious is probably too strong of a word, but I like to think I've made a bit of a name for myself.

I don't REALLY think you are the people I have/haven't named.  We've joked about it in the past.  You probably didn't think it was funny then either, but I did.  

It's hard for me to be in on the joke, when I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm probably exaggerating a bit, but not TOO much.  It was Movie, then TT, and THEN Fellowship.  I know the TT deck was Dauntless Hunter, but that's no surprise.

Interesting... I note that Expanded was not mentioned.

Nor did I say that you did.  Seriously, sgt, why so serious?

My mistake. You were responding to my post, so it sounded like the comment was directed towards me.

That same sillyness is present in every word I place on this site, just about.  I rib a lot, maybe rougher than I should at times,  but my tone isn't intended to be taken the way you seem to take it, and I'm not saying it's your fault.  Heck, I don't know if *I* like my tone.  Maybe *I* am the one creating other accounts, so I can give myself negative gold.

If "ribbing a lot, maybe rougher than I should" is something you make a habit of when posting on this site, then I can't say I'm too surprised that you're catching some negative gold over that.

P.S.  Be honest, draino, are you me?  Did I create your persona just so Zurcamos would look good and get more positives?

lol. No. But then, if I am you, of course I would say that!