10 hours ago, Venompuppy said:

I don't think you telling someone what they should say or not say is helpful to anyone. Probably better to just say that you disagree with him.

Silly me for thinking that people could use the internet without being rude to each other.

2 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

Silly me for thinking that people could use the internet without being rude to each other.

Tu quoque

I've agreed with all of your points in this thread. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of your statement, and this last one.

1 hour ago, Venompuppy said:

Tu quoque

I've agreed with all of your points in this thread. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of your statement, and this last one.

What hypocrisy would that be? I'm just trying to encourage people to avoid using loaded words, because that's how discussions break down into personal attacks.

(And I must admit, I'm a little curious what your original comment said before the edit. Especially given your stated reason for said edit.)

On 8/27/2020 at 10:54 PM, Vlad3theImpaler said:

What hypocrisy would that be? I'm just trying to encourage people to avoid using loaded words, because that's how discussions break down into personal attacks.

(And I must admit, I'm a little curious what your original comment said before the edit. Especially given your stated reason for said edit.)

I don't think what deathseed said was wrong in any way. He just doesn't see the big deal about reprints. But then you come and try to tell him how he should say his opinions. I do see why saying I disagree is a little more respectful, but at the same time telling someone what to say isn't too respectful either. Then your second post was only slightly hypocritical in the fact that you used ad hominem (Trying to discredit my person instead of discussing what was said), by calling my comment rude, and being slightly sarcastic.

Admittedly, my comments have been a little antagonistic. My first comment I wanted to use parallelism to throw you under the same boat you threw deathseed under. My second one was less antagonistic, but still probably not okay.

My last paragraph I edited out, because it was just too sarcastic, and I didn't really agree with it. I said something about you being illogical, but all you want is to gain your authority back. Which I understand seeing as how I roasted you like that.

In conclusion, I stand by all my statements. It doesn't make sense why you should tell someone what to say and not expect the same back. They were illogical and after I attacked you, slightly emotionally driven. Which is what is to be expected. But I do apologise. I shouldn't have been sarcastic or so point driven. I'm sorry for attacking you, and instead I should of told you that I disagreed (And yes, I do see the irony in that statement 😉 ).

I did not tell anyone what to say, I offered a suggestion that I thought would be a more productive way of phrasing things, and tried to deliberately choose my words to be as mild as possible in doing so. I've made a deliberate effort personally to try to be be less confrontational in how I approach online discussions, and I try to encourage other people to do the same. I don't want to come off as preachy, but I also don't think people should be belittled for having different opinions, and that is what I was trying to express.

And I did not make any ad hominem attacks. The comment about people being rude on the internet was not directed at you in particular. That was just me expressing my general frustration at how difficult it is to have discussions online where people disagree without using loaded words or mocking other people. I probably could have been clearer with that, but I was frustrated and in a hurry, so I fired off a post without any deliberation. That's something I'm working on trying to avoid, but it's admittedly really easy for me to fall into.

On 8/26/2020 at 11:46 PM, Vlad3theImpaler said:

They don't add "new options," but every copy of a card up to the maximum number of that card allowed does still give one an option of whether to include it or not. And usually, if one wants a card, one wants multiples of that card for consistency. Personally, my decks usually have a bunch of cards at 3x, some unique or just "max 1 per player" cards at 1x, and maybe a couple cards at 2x if I'm still on the fence about them.

What definition of "deckbuilding card" would you use that would exclude Sorcerer Supreme? My definition is "a deckbuilding card is a card that players can choose to include or not include while building a deck." The other type of player card would be a hero card, which I would define as "a card that must be included with a given hero and cannot be included in a different deck."

I don't think calling it a "whine" is helpful to anyone. Probably better to just say that you disagree with it.

I don't care what you think. I don't answer to you.

Going off card numbers and the gameplay stream,

Ant-Man, and Quicksilver only have 5 reprints, Wasp has 6.

Ant-Man and Quicksilver have reprints of First Aid and Armored Vest respectively instead of power ofs, Wasp has Quincarrier +Power ofs

So it does appear that the number of reprints is going down.

22 hours ago, Deadwolf said:

Going off card numbers and the gameplay stream,

Ant-Man, and Quicksilver only have 5 reprints, Wasp has 6.

Ant-Man and Quicksilver have reprints of First Aid and Armored Vest respectively instead of power ofs, Wasp has Quincarrier +Power ofs

So it does appear that the number of reprints is going down.

for people like me who build (too) many decks simultaneously...this is a bit sad. Beat Cop, for example, I hope they reprint and put 3 copies in the next 2-3 Justice decks. Quincarrier will be great to have a second of.

I think if one did a Venn diagram of people keeping every hero built at all times and people who like the reprints, the convergence in the center would be pretty big for them but very, very small overall, most people seem to build decks just a couple at a time suggesting I am in the minority on that desire.

2 hours ago, darthweasel2 said:

for people like me who build (too) many decks simultaneously...this is a bit sad. Beat Cop, for example, I hope they reprint and put 3 copies in the next 2-3 Justice decks. Quincarrier will be great to have a second of.

I think if one did a Venn diagram of people keeping every hero built at all times and people who like the reprints, the convergence in the center would be pretty big for them but very, very small overall, most people seem to build decks just a couple at a time suggesting I am in the minority on that desire.

I would love reprints if they reprinted cards we actually wanted multiples of like Quincarrier and Beat Cop. Instead we get yet more Interrogation Rooms, Surveillance Teams, Get Behind Me, etc.