character is indeed needed but always looks for a backup plan. i won games just by committing a character card. yes, Just that. *in b4 hatman lulz*
How important is a character and their abilities to a deck?
if your gonna build a deck you must always be careful in your character choice. Sure some symbols have easy choices: air= chun li/ olexa, evil= jon herr/ olexa, order= donovan or rock howard. Now most ppl would say the obvious choice for an all character would be promo Alex but i honestly think its time to put that guy out to pasture. Prom Alex is just too slow in the format and i dont see him making a comeback.
Protoaddict said:
> Jon herrs character deck is going to win based on playing the attacks in his deck. If he dosent have his character ability he can still win, its just harder.
> Some Felicia decks require her form to generate momentum for multiples, without the form the near impossible to win.
See the difference?
Not really, because that Felicia form can also be used to clear the card pool, both things which you can pack redundancy on and in different ability types as well (Enhances and Forms, might be a response as well). Same with momentum, really. One Natural Leader makes it so that you do not need to stack momentum for Feline Spike. I'll grant you it's a steep cost but that's just an example that doesn't even go into Lord of the Makai territory. Not only that, but Felicia's stats more than make up for the ability.
Herr's abilities, however, are not redundant.
Again, choose better examples. Both you have used have failed so far.
Homme Chapeau said:
Protoaddict said:
> Jon herrs character deck is going to win based on playing the attacks in his deck. If he dosent have his character ability he can still win, its just harder.
> Some Felicia decks require her form to generate momentum for multiples, without the form the near impossible to win.
See the difference?
Not really, because that Felicia form can also be used to clear the card pool, both things which you can pack redundancy on and in different ability types as well (Enhances and Forms, might be a response as well). Same with momentum, really. One Natural Leader makes it so that you do not need to stack momentum for Feline Spike. I'll grant you it's a steep cost but that's just an example that doesn't even go into Lord of the Makai territory. Not only that, but Felicia's stats more than make up for the ability.
Herr's abilities, however, are not redundant.
Again, choose better examples. Both you have used have failed so far.
I agree with what Scott said, the fact that you tutor your starting character into play immediately means your starting character should really be an important part of what you're doing with the deck. And because of Tag Along, among other things, you should nonetheless have a deck which is capable of winning without using the character's abilities. Maybe you'll be a touch slower, but there's never a good strategy which relies on an effect that's printed on only 1 card in the deck, even if you start the game with it.
Wafflecopter said:
...what? He's giving you two examples of decks , not optimally built deck concepts. While a Felicia deck could pack redundancy, in the example it does not, because really her Form is **** good momentum and the only thing that hinders it is the fact that it can be Tagged. Why run Natural Leader when it can easily get tapped or negated, and you're fronting Felicia anyway? etc
Why run Felicia when she can be easily Tag Alonged? We're back at square one if you're saying that XYZ foundation can be easily committed or negated. It's slightly bit harder (but not really) to commit or negate her.
Also, why doesn't it? No place? There's BETTER momentum gen out there? (The aformentioned Lord of the Makai) No, really? If I can't take his example at face value then it's not really a good example, now is it? First, he says that redundancy is good. Then you go and say it is bad. Your points, I do believe they contradict.
Also, two examples of "decks" is kind of vague, don't you think? Not everyone agrees on how Felicia should be run (although the general idea is there) much like I'm pretty sure not everyone agrees on the general idea behind the way Herr should be run.
^Because you're a bad player who has tremendous faith in his ability to find KFTs and Inhuman Perceptions :]. And because they can't have Tag Along all the time, unless they're Tenacious-looping Divinations or something absurd like that.
Felicia makes a good example, really, of how relying on your character's abilities to an extreme is bad for the deck.
Wafflecopter said:
^Because you're a bad player who has tremendous faith in his ability to find KFTs and Inhuman Perceptions :]. And because they can't have Tag Along all the time, unless they're Tenacious-looping Divinations or something absurd like that.
No, but seriously, does anyone need to Tag Along Felicia more than once? Now if you DO need to Tag Along Felicia more than once, the bad player may not be the one you think...
A character should be like cheese on a hamburger. You don't absolutely need it, but ****, it's good when you have it!
Decks that win, in the past, have MOSTLY been decks that don't rely completely on what their character does (Ukyo could be a good exception, though he was a 7 handsize evil character to begin with).
A deck works best when the character is complimenting the deck. Like Gill having a big handsize and great symbol spread to fuel Order's control base and Spikes. Or Ibuki allowing players to attack early and often with a less-than-normal amount of foundations out. Basically, if the character can further your win condition, but at the same time, not be required to get said win, the deck is working properly. Hell, look at the past champion decks for worlds. Tira made attacks go through a lot more easily, but you're smoking if you think a deck like that couldn't kill you without her doing her dirty work. Vega had Chain throw and absurd to do nasty little things, plus his mask (i think olexa played it...) to back up his momentum-manipulation. Ibuki is accounted for already. She enabled a lot of early-game cheatery, but an Ibuki deck could do it's work without her pumping checks thanks to how great Suzzy-Q is.
Wafflecopter said:
^Because you're a bad player who has tremendous faith in his ability to find KFTs and Inhuman Perceptions :]. And because they can't have Tag Along all the time, unless they're Tenacious-looping Divinations or something absurd like that.
Felicia makes a good example, really, of how relying on your character's abilities to an extreme is bad for the deck.
It really depends on the deck. Like Omars voldo would not have been nearly as good as any other character. Personally I tend to build decks with a character in mind and usually end up changing the character till I find the best fit.
i think the character is by far the most important part of the deck. lets say you have the perfect deck. it is completely undefeatable. do you think you can change it to any other character and not have to change the deck to keep it undefeatable?
trane said:
i think the character is by far the most important part of the deck. lets say you have the perfect deck. it is completely undefeatable. do you think you can change it to any other character and not have to change the deck to keep it undefeatable?
Wafflecopter said:
trane said:
i think the character is by far the most important part of the deck. lets say you have the perfect deck. it is completely undefeatable. do you think you can change it to any other character and not have to change the deck to keep it undefeatable?
I don't think that, because there is no undefeatable deck. :]
The only undefeatable deck is the deck that is never played.
trane said:
i think the character is by far the most important part of the deck. lets say you have the perfect deck. it is completely undefeatable. do you think you can change it to any other character and not have to change the deck to keep it undefeatable?
Provided you found some sort of perfect conjunction of cards to make this "Perfect deck", one would imagine that you could say the same thing about any single card in the deck.
Wafflecopter said:
^Because you're a bad player who has tremendous faith in his ability to find KFTs and Inhuman Perceptions :]. And because they can't have Tag Along all the time, unless they're Tenacious-looping Divinations or something absurd like that.
Felicia makes a good example, really, of how relying on your character's abilities to an extreme is bad for the deck.
and yet Hanzokick apparently got 2nd at SCC =/
You need your character and you rely on them. Period. You take chances, but it's the risk you're willing to take. While your Herr might get Tagged, that isn't saying that he will, and if you're a good deck builder, you'll learn to get around it.
Okay. So.
Personally, I think one of the best ways to build is to figure out what you wanna do, and then build the deck. Then, as you're working on interactions, figuring out what to cut and keep in, etc., THAT is when you should be picking your character, since their abilities should simply further the deck's goals. Yes, it's possible to build a deck around what a character can do, but you also have to keep in mind the possibility of it being negated.
Examples of such would beeeee...
-Promo Talim: when was her ability EVER used? She was played because she was an 8-hander with Chaos/Fire that could play the E on Rolling Storm.
-Kyoshiro: you play his ability ONCE, negated or not; this guy is obviously played for handsize and symbols (and also his height)
-Jon Herr: his ability to rig checks just helps the deck play more smoothly; 7HS Evil character is kind of a no-brainer for why his abilities aren't what wins the games
-Promo Rock Howard: you're not building the deck around his ability to draw or to clog the card pool
-Sakura: you're not building around HER; her ability allows for a pseudo +1 to the handsize; it's tutoring, not something you build around
That's not to say you CAN'T build around the character, or that you shouldn't. However, a deck that doesn't rely on its character to win will statistically do better than a deck that does rely on its character to win.
But people win the lottery, so do whatever you like best.
MegaGeese said:
-Promo Talim: when was her ability EVER used? She was played because she was an 8-hander with Chaos/Fire that could play the E on Rolling Storm.
@Hanzokick: Yeah, that kinda defeats what I said, lol. But the thing that Hanzokick does is use his ability to almost certainly win if he has a single card to do it with, whereas Felicia just plays around with her cards a wee bit and nothing is guaranteed from it.
MegaGeese said:
-Promo Rock Howard: you're not building the deck around his ability to draw or to clog the card pool
*in the style of darksydephil* OH WHUUUUT?!
Isn't the whole point of Promo Rock Howard to draw? o_O
I've always been of the belief that both schools of thought are correct, but for different situations. The one thing that cannot be denied is that the character card is your only card in your entire deck that is 100% guaranteed to enter play, and because of this would appear to be the most dependable constant. I feel as a whole however, there is more control over characters now than in the early days of the game, and as such it is a slight gamble to put all your faith in your character card.
As you've mentioned, some characters are run purely for stats. If a characters abilities are fairly lackluster they are more likely to be used when their stats complement your idea for a specific stategy. I ran T. Hawk* at the Foundations of Power. At the time, only Sagat and Honda would not end up on the business end of my "Size Matters". So I splashed Void and good, and only lost once all day (to a well-placed Tiamat, lol).
On the other hand you have characters with obviously nicer or more-interesting abilities. When Maxi*** came out I thought it was worse than T. Hawk***. So I let Maxi sit, but once Blades of Fury rolled around, there were tons of abusive cards that made that card an aggro beast, long before the days of Feline Spike. In this case, the abilities on the character is what the deck was built around.