[Day 2] Worlds

October 4th - October 7th
PasTimes; 8351 1/2 Golf Road; Niles, Illinois 60714
pastimes.net
mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

Hunter wrote:I have never said it was a terrible deck. If I were to say "Fear is a terrible deck" I would not be being honest. But I can say, in perfect honesty, the things I HAVE said. In perfect honesty, the deck is not broken. The deck is not overpowered. And the deck is not even the best DS deck available.
let's examine what you DID say, in your arguments against a fear errata pre-worlds:
Hunter wrote:Fear is NOT VERY GOOD
Hunter wrote:[Fear] IS easily beaten. The last two people to argue the point have not even DENIED that Fear is unpopular, nor have they denied that it can lose to LS decks that use the appropriate counters. They just maintain that the card is overpowered ANYWAY, even though the deck that uses the card is not good enough for anyone to actually PLAY IT.
Hunter wrote:If Fear is so good, "how come nobody plays it?"
ok now back to your quote:
Hunter wrote:So why did I play it again? Because I knew which 2 dark decks I was considering for Day 3. The decks that are BETTER than Fear. And they both have a good amount of weakness to the Revo deck. One of them has weakness to any LS mains deck that goes first (like TRM, for example) regardless of whether it plays Revo. So in order to discourage people from using reactive Mains decks against me, I chose to play Fear on Day 2. Now, I think most people realized that I wouldn't play Fear on Day 3 no matter what I used on Day 2. BUT, IF I play it on Day 2, then even if they really don't think I'll use it on Day 3, don't they HAVE to at LEAST play something that doesn't get crushed by it? So I played Fear on Day 2 to try and maneuver my opposition away from LS decks that are good against my best DS decks.
ok so you had 2 dark decks that are better than fear. great. that's a lie, though. you played the deck that you thought would do the best on day 2 and line you up for day 3 (whether or not that includes lining up your opponent's with your crazy mind games). and that deck was fear.

sooooo

you needed to play the deck that was the best fit for day 2

and that deck was fear

so fear was the best deck for day 2

is that not correct?

so fear is the best deck for day 2, for brian hunter.

yet
Hunter wrote:Fear is NOT VERY GOOD
Hunter wrote:[Fear] IS easily beaten.
why oh why would you play a deck that is NOT VERY GOOD and is easily beaten? BECAUSE THAT ISN'T TRUE. fear IS very good and is NOT easily beaten. and that has been PROVEN by it's 11-5 record (should have been 12-4 since lewis shouldn't have lost that one game) at worlds day 2, the most difficult worlds day 2 we've seen since 2003, with the best competition.

i would like to see other decktypes records

ds senate?
rops?
ds combat?
hunt down?
cct?

i bet aobs and ds senate are the only decks to post a better record than fear. and i bet chu is the only aobs player, and it only did so well cause chu is the best swccg player in history and cause reactive mains were unplayable BECAUSE FEAR MADE THEM UNPLAYABLE. ds senate did well cause no one expected it and packed the counters (and cause the 2 people playing it were the best ds senate players in the world, and also cause ls senate was really popular and ds senate always beats ls senate).

so we have hunter saying, before worlds:
Hunter wrote:Fear is NOT VERY GOOD
Hunter wrote:[Fear] IS easily beaten.
and we have hunter PLAYING fear day 2 of worlds, and doing VERY well with it (only losing to a deck that was MADE TO BEAT FEAR). how are we supposed to read this? AS HUNTER LOBBYING FOR FEAR TO NOT GET ERRATA, BECAUSE IT IS HIS FAVORITE DECK.

and don't say we can't pigeonhole you into a favorite deck, because you just proved that wrong by playing fear 3 straight tourneys. and by favoring drop and drain throughout your career.


The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14816
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

mryellow wrote: This is possibly the longest, rambliest reply I've seen you make to date Hunter, and that in itself seems to point to someone dodging the truth.
You must not read many of my posts then, because that one shouldn't strike anyone as being particularly long, by my standards. As for dodging, I asked you 6 questions in my post. None of which you seem able to answer.
mryellow wrote: I respect you as a player and didn't want to lose to you, and it seemed obvious from the start to me (and to others) you were going to play Fear at Worlds. I thought Day 2 for sure, maybe Day 3. Hence, I meta'd for you. If you think you are so impossible to pin down.. maybe you're wrong.
I really have no interest in being difficult to meta for in Day 2. I'd only be concerned with being difficult to predict on Day 3. I wouldn't expect anyone to meta for me on Day 2, and if they do, I think they are making an obvious mistake. If I had just finished my decklists for Day 2, and then was suddenly presented with your decklists for Day 2, I would not make ANY adjustments to my own decks.
mryellow wrote: If you honestly think the things you say, well, I think you're just wrong and that's the end of the story.
Of course I honestly think the things I say. If I did not, I would not say them. If you think it makes sense to Errata the Fear deck, but NOT Errata the decks that are BETTER than the Fear deck, well, I think you're just wrong. And since I can't imagine how you even arrived at your conclusion, then I guess that's the end of the story.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

Hunter wrote:If you think it makes sense to Errata the Fear deck, but NOT Errata the decks that are BETTER than the Fear deck, well, I think you're just wrong.
what decks are better than the fear deck? aobs? the SURPRISE deck? give ANY day 2 player two weeks and they'll have 2 decks that beat it and still are competitive vs the rest of the ds field. rops? rops sucked, you couldn't even beat bfred with rops. rops is a good solid well rounded deck but wasn't in my top 3 for day 2 (my top 3 was tatooine cr v tanks, ds combat racing (which my team played) and hd). if you say that rops is better than fear, no one will believe you. no one. cct iggy? people have played against it for a year and it's not nearly the monster that it was when reid debuted it. and it loses to the revo deck and reactive mains in general.

fear, on the other hand, posted a good record at worlds EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE WERE GUNNING FOR IT. even YOU played han's toolkit v (which was obviously a deckbuilding mistake, but it showed that YOU feared fear enough to tech against it NOT ONLY with the toolkit v, but also with ihsa!). there was a 10x atrocity v hidden base deck at worlds from what i heard. pistone was playing 2x red squad 7 v. chu made a deck SPECIFICALLY to beat fear. ktod had the toolkit in both decks they played, along with other cards with that matchup in mind. our wys had toolkit v in, with a HUGE space fleet, inconsequential for sfs, AND alderaan: blown away v to flip you and kill sidious with multiple smugglers and multiple destinies for too much battle damage to handle. wys in general was a huge decktype (and is historically one of the better decks vs fear). EVERYONE TECHED FOR FEAR. and yet, FEAR DID WELL.

sounds scarily like ds senate pre-scrambled tranny v. people played the counters, ds senate modified and still performed extremely well.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

Hunter wrote:Of course I honestly think the things I say. If I did not, I would not say them.
i think i've already proved that this is not always the case.

you did NOT honestly think this was true when you said it:
Hunter wrote:Fear is NOT VERY GOOD
Hunter wrote:[Fear] IS easily beaten.
why? because you went on to play fear day 2. which OBVIOUSLY (i understand its not obvious to you, but it IS obvious to everyone else) means that YOU FELT that it was the BEST DECK TO PLAY THAT DAY. when you make a career out of promoting yourself as a deckbuilder (done RIGHT), you can't then say that the deck that you've used at WORLDS DAY 3 2006, WEST NATIONALS DAYS 1&2 2007, and WORLDS DAY 2 2007 was NOT a good deck.

honestly. you constantly in your DONE RIGHT strat sections talk about how you only post decks with undefeated tournament records, and how your DONE RIGHT decks influence the meta SOOO much, and even went on to post THIS FEAR DECK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT as a DONE RIGHT deck. then you say that it's not very good? BULL. BULL. BULL.

you can't fool everyone.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

Psychobabble
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2453
Joined: September 10th, 2005, 6:25 am

Post by Psychobabble »

ah-ha, I think i've figured out why hunter likes fear and think's it's needed - it kills revo and hunter HATES revo (hence his pathalogical opposition to TRM and sonn v decks). You know what? I AGREE WITH HIM. Revolution is a stupid, stupid card. That decks with 7x copies in them can still pop up every now and again baffles me because I don't know of any player ever who has said that revo decks are either (a) a good thing meta wise or (b) fun to play against. Sure, there's counters to revo, but not every deck can start decree v and evader only saves you for one turn.

I think we should work out a grand bargain where revo is errated to be unique and only playable while you have a rebel on the table (ie no first turn, and that's kind of flavoursome) and fear gets toned down? Because I do admit, that's the one good thing fear does - make revo decks very, very risky.

User avatar
deadbody
Lead Moderator
Posts: 5799
Joined: November 22nd, 2003, 10:45 pm
Location: Banning anyone that looks at me cross-eyed :)

Post by deadbody »

I want to say 2 things here, and then I'll go back to lurking and deleting posts that are nothing more than personal attacks.

Fear needs an erratta, was it the best DS deck I thought I had at worlds? No, I thought the deck I played in consolation was actually better, but it is absurd the amount of damage that it can do early.

The record Fear posted is due in part to 2 things, the 4 people who were playing it are all very good players (Myself, Hunter Lewis and Raveling) and Raveling and I both lost to the same LS, an HB deck using 10x Atrocity V, and I only lost to him because he also managed to Grimtassh me for 3x ICSD. The combo of cheap powerful destroyers and big drains plus big dmage is absurd. But only 4 of 43 players were playing Fear, and 2 of us were playing it from the bottom tables because our repective LS's had totally crapped out on us in the match-up olympics, so the record the deck posts is gonna look really good.
Terron wrote:Does some RPG book list the Rockwell hardness of AT-AT ankles? Can't we settle this like real virgins?
Image Image

Like good beer? http://www.surlybrewing.com

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14816
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

Archmage wrote: By comment I mean:
com·ment /ˈkɒmɛnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kom-ent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a remark, observation, or criticism: a comment about the weather.
2. gossip; talk: His frequent absences gave rise to comment.
Okay, sounds like you were using definition 2 and I was using definition 1. Since they both are acceptable, I'm glad we've gotten this cleared up. I don't really use the 2nd definition. If I tell you I'm going to make a "comment" about the weather, it means that I will have first-hand knowledge of the weather.
Archmage wrote: Some Hunter Quotes Concerning SYCAF:
It is absolutely on the brink of extinction.
The deck would continue to be marginally playable, just like it is now.
Nobody even uses it.
Fear doesn't make a habit of winning big events.

Thanks for rescuing FEAR from the brink of extinction.
Don't thank me for that. It's not rescued. It is still on the brink of extinction. It is still only marginally playable. It still doesn't make a habit of winning big events. And while "nobody even uses it" may no longer apply, we can at least agree that it isn't popular, right?
Archmage wrote: Well congrats on making day 3 and for going 3-1 with a marginally playable deck.
Thank you.
Archmage wrote: I am not sure I am brave enough to take a marginally playable deck to worlds. Not when I had 2-4 other choices.
I can certainly understand that. And if the Fear deck had lost enough games to keep me out of Day 3, then obviously I would have been second-guessing myself. It's tough to play a deck on Day 2, if you KNOW you have something better waiting in the wings. That strategy is not for everyone. But I hoped that I would be able to claw my way into Day 3, and that using Fear on Day 2 would help me avoid some of the LS decks that my best DS decks wouldn't want to run into. Seemed to work, as none of the other 7 LS decks were the ones I wanted to avoid. Angelo's QMC might have been a little tricky though, I haven't seen the list.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

one thing i'd like to add is that i made up a fear deck in playtesting that went 12-1, only losing to the wys my team played (although it beat it at least 2 times too). i'm not just staking my "fear is good" argument on worlds numbers, i KNOW that it's good from personal experience.

and btw i love that you and raveling played a team ohio deck for day 2.

eier's bad fear

j/k =)
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

another funny thing, is that had i gone to worlds, i may have played that fear deck. i told ryan to consider it, but he hadn't played it at all, just played against it, and it's not his style anyway (i was always the drop and drainer, i loved dark deal). i might actually post it on decktech, i think it's a great version of it.

my personal feelings:

unless you're playing the gimmick version like larson/raveling, your fear deck sucks unless it has:

more than 4 systems and more than 12 star destroyers (saying "lose 20" (10 to fear and 10 to drains with chiraneau) feels good, and is in NO WAY overkill)

turn it off turn it off x2 (hunter got away with the control combo's to supplant these, he might've played it anyway though)

control non-combo (hunter will disagree and be right but i just hate losing a sac war on fear to inconsequential barriers, if i cancel alter i want them to have NO POSSIBLE PLAY to survive)

breached defenses v x2 (hc&f : fear v; sith infiltrator: hidden base)

cease fire x2 (why lose to quads when you can beat them? why lose to mace when you can beat him?)

hunter has a hard-on for cap bewil v, which is most likely a very smart way to go, but i forgo him for the above stuff, which can be insane against a deck packing all the counters.

honestly i just play a different deck than hunter's. his obv is a great version, in worlds over two years its like 7-1 or something ridic.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

_maul
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 5682
Joined: June 16th, 2004, 9:10 pm
Contact:

Post by _maul »

A deck does not have to win 100% of its games to be at the point which it needs errata. Or even the majority of them.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14816
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote: ok so you had 2 dark decks that are better than fear. great. that's a lie, though.
It's NOT a lie. I had 2 dark decks that are better than Fear. Period. How on Earth do you expect to prove that I'm lying? On Thursday and Friday, I was passing around my list of cards that I wanted to trade for. Coincidentally, on the back of that same page was the grid that showed all my playtest games leading up to Worlds. At one point, I left the sheet unattended for quite some time. When I noticed that, I said it was a good thing that nobody had looked at the other side of the sheet, because it shows exactly what I'm thinking are the 2 best decks for each allegiance. There were 2 LS decks that had a distinctly better win/loss record than the other light decks, and there were 2 DS decks that had a distinctly better win/loss record than the other dark decks. Guess what? Fear was NOT one of those two decks.
mikefrench wrote: you needed to play the deck that was the best fit for day 2

and that deck was fear

so fear was the best deck for day 2

is that not correct?


Nope, that is not correct. In my opinion, the "best deck for day 2" would be whichever deck I would be most confident in winning the most games with. That would NOT be Fear. I knew damn well that Fear did not give me my best possible chance of advancing to Day 3, but I used it anyway, to try and set up my meta for Day 3. Similarly, Chu knew damn well that his EBO didn't give him his best possible chance of advancing to Day 3, but he used it anyway, to make sure he wouldn't lose to ME. We both got away with using lesser decks on Day 2.
mikefrench wrote: and we have hunter PLAYING fear day 2 of worlds, and doing VERY well with it (only losing to a deck that was MADE TO BEAT FEAR). how are we supposed to read this? AS HUNTER LOBBYING FOR FEAR TO NOT GET ERRATA, BECAUSE IT IS HIS FAVORITE DECK.
I don't care how you "read it." The simple truth is that Fear is not my favorite deck, and I couldn't care less about whether or not the deck is any good, so long as its absence doesn't have a negative impact on the meta. Since I think that having this deck in the meta is of critical importance, I think that removing Fear from the meta would have disastrous effects. Moreover, I don't think Fear needs an errata because it is NOT broken, and NOT that hard to beat!!
mikefrench wrote: and don't say we can't pigeonhole you into a favorite deck, because you just proved that wrong by playing fear 3 straight tourneys. and by favoring drop and drain throughout your career.
You can't pigeonhole me into a favorite deck. How can you? I play almost EVERYTHING. I thought that by playing Fear again in Day 2 of Nationals, even though I had played it in Day 1, I was being incredibly tricky. That was the first (and STILL the ONLY) time I have EVER played the same dark side deck on 2 consecutive days. Over the course of my SWCCG career, the only thing that has been "predictable" about me is that I always switch decks. I have NOT favored drop and drain throughout my career, not in the SLIGHTEST, and anyone who would say that really just doesn't know anything about my career. Need I remind you again that I've won more tournaments playing TRM than you've won tournaments at all? I've probably played more games with HD than any other DS objective. Is that a classic drop and drain deck now? I hadn't heard.

Archmage
Enhanced Product
Enhanced Product
Posts: 597
Joined: September 2nd, 2003, 10:13 pm
Location: Saratoga Springs, NY

Post by Archmage »

Hunter wrote:
Archmage wrote: By comment I mean:
com·ment /ˈkɒmɛnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kom-ent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a remark, observation, or criticism: a comment about the weather.
2. gossip; talk: His frequent absences gave rise to comment.
Okay, sounds like you were using definition 2 and I was using definition 1. Since they both are acceptable, I'm glad we've gotten this cleared up. I don't really use the 2nd definition. If I tell you I'm going to make a "comment" about the weather, it means that I will have first-hand knowledge of the weather.
Nice try, but you just are not as smart as you make your self out to be.
So you said they had no right to comment on your game, then you claim you were using defintion 1 for comment.

If you were effective in your reading ability and commentary, you would have stated you were stating the the had no right to comment as in defintion 2.

So when Hunter wrote:
Nobody really has a right to comment on that game but myself, and Steven. .

By your own statement above you were using defintion number 1, while you felt my defense was of defintion number 2?

Well I am glad you think the have no right to to comment (using defintion 1) on you game. (And you imply that you used the defintion of comment that requires first hand knowlege (not that I see that implied in the defintion you reference.))

Well done.....

I am quite put in my place :D
Largest Sanctioned SWCCG Tournament - 1st Place
US National Champion 2006
Rank in local store - 4th - 6th

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14816
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote: what decks are better than the fear deck? aobs?
Maybe. If Chu said it is one of the best decks he's ever used, then maybe it is pretty good? And if it is pretty good, it is probably better than Fear. It beat 3 people by 35 or more differential on the SAME DAY. My Fear deck has NEVER won a game by 35
mikefrench wrote: rops? rops sucked, you couldn't even beat bfred with rops.
I'm sure Brian Fred will be happy to learn that any deck that can't beat him must just suck. For the record, I am very sure that my Rops deck will beat his WYS deck the majority of the time. It just didn't beat it THAT time. I would happily play that matchup all day for $100 a pop. But while I would win most of those games, I would not win them ALL, maybe 80%, and Fred got that other 20% to show up right when he needed it to. I can't be mad at him for that, and I can't be mad at myself for that. It's just something that happens in this game.
mikefrench wrote: rops is a good solid well rounded deck but wasn't in my top 3 for day 2 (my top 3 was tatooine cr v tanks, ds combat racing (which my team played) and hd).
Notice what is missing from your top 3? FEAR.
mikefrench wrote: if you say that rops is better than fear, no one will believe you. no one.
Yeah they will. I bet Reid will believe me, because I bet he thinks the same thing. I bet Angelo will believe me, because he played Rops in Day 3 also. I bet Pistone would believe me, because after I posted my Fear deck from Worlds last year, his review said it was good, but "not the best." Why? Because he thought the best dark deck was ROPS. And what's changed since then? 3 more cards that irritate Fear, and NONE that irritate Rops.
mikefrench wrote: cct iggy?
Why not? I bet CCT was more popular than Fear in the team tourney. More popular than Fear on Day 1, more popular than Fear on Day 2, as popular as Fear on Day 3, and more popular than Fear in the Consolation tournament. Reid was still 3-1 with CCT in the Team tourney, and still went 3-0 with it to win the consolation tourney. How awful can it be?

Psychobabble
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 2453
Joined: September 10th, 2005, 6:25 am

Post by Psychobabble »

all of rops, aobs and ig88 can only do well because reactive mains are either not played or, if played, are not able to play enough cards like evasion cancelers, sense, scum v and clash to beat them consistently. trm-esque decks (and i'm not talking about revo and choke here) should keep those in line - and I could very easily build a deck that would have a good shot against all three - but they simply can't b/c of fear. you cannot look at the meta in isolation.
Last edited by Psychobabble on October 9th, 2007, 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14816
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

Archmage wrote:some garbled stuff I can't really make heads or tails of
Wow. Some spellchecking and proofreading would have really helped you there. Nobody but Steven and myself have the right to comment on the game. By comment I mean definition #1. They can't make observations about the game, if they did not observe the game. If they have no firsthand knowledge of what took place, they shouldn't try to tell ME about what happened, when I was THERE. I would not say I was "commenting" on the weather, if I had no firsthand knowledge of the weather. You defended their right to comment on the game. You apparently meant definition #2, which involves gossip. Fair enough. I guess everyone is free to gossip about what they think the weather *might* be, even when they have no idea. Clear enough now?

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

Hunter wrote:Nope, that is not correct. In my opinion, the "best deck for day 2" would be whichever deck I would be most confident in winning the most games with. That would NOT be Fear. I knew damn well that Fear did not give me my best possible chance of advancing to Day 3, but I used it anyway, to try and set up my meta for Day 3. Similarly, Chu knew damn well that his EBO didn't give him his best possible chance of advancing to Day 3, but he used it anyway, to make sure he wouldn't lose to ME. We both got away with using lesser decks on Day 2.
this is the biggest load of bull you've ever tried to get someone to swallow.

show of hands, is ANYONE swallowing this? i'm not. it's bull.

and my top 3 for day 2 was the decks my team was considering, they didn't want to play my fear. had i gone to worlds, my day 2 deck was either tat tanks or ds combat racing or fear. i think fear was the best of the three (tat tanks was amazing, it might've been the best but the meta wasn't right for it) but i figured hb might be big and ds combat racing was an auto-win against most hb builds.

the aobs did so well cause the meta was unprepared. much like reid dominating with cct iggy, people weren't playing the right stuff to have a chance. reactive mains gives the aobs BIG time trouble, as long as the reactive mains is a viable decktype (which it isnt right now cause of fear).

cct iggy isnt close to the deck ds deck right now. rops isnt close.

people don't go out of their way to play 5+ cards COMPLETELY devoted to beating rops. people don't go out of their way to play 5+ cards COMPLETELY devoted to beating cct. what deck do they (and even YOU) do that for? FEAR.

now that you're done explaining how bad fear is, please explain why you were playing so many fear counters in your lsc. if fear is easy to beat, why did you need extra help to beat it?
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14816
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote:
my personal feelings:

unless you're playing the gimmick version like larson/raveling, your fear deck sucks unless it has:
And he then lists 5 things that he feels will make a Fear deck suck. According to him, my Fear deck sucks in all 5 categories. According to me, if you play the deck like his, in all 5 categories, it won't be all that great. But if you play the deck like mine, in all 5 categories, it...still won't be all that great. Either way, Fear just....isn't all that great.

I told you my opinion wouldn't change when I spoke to people privately, instead of publicly. It didn't. I told you my opinion wouldn't change after the PC said there would be no Errata before Worlds. It didn't. And I told my opinion wouldn't even change after Worlds is over. It hasn't. Fear is not broken. It's not overpowered. And it's not even the best DS deck available. If you don't agree with me, then fine, don't agree with me. But if you still don't think that what I'm saying is my actual, true opinion, then there is something wrong with you. (Though it is still probably less than what is wrong with Jerriko.)

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

Hunter wrote:
mikefrench wrote:
my personal feelings:

unless you're playing the gimmick version like larson/raveling, your fear deck sucks unless it has:
And he then lists 5 things that he feels will make a Fear deck suck. According to him, my Fear deck sucks in all 5 categories. According to me, if you play the deck like his, in all 5 categories, it won't be all that great. But if you play the deck like mine, in all 5 categories, it...still won't be all that great. Either way, Fear just....isn't all that great.
wow, i guess we have a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. or just TWO DIFFERENT FEAR DECKS. in my opinion, if you play my deck, it's amazing. and in your opinion, if you play your deck, it's amazing (and goes 3-1 at worlds). jesus you're really reaching here. and what did i post at the end? "honestly i just play a different deck than hunter's. his obv is a great version, in worlds over two years its like 7-1 or something ridic."
Hunter wrote:I told you my opinion wouldn't change when I spoke to people privately, instead of publicly. It didn't. I told you my opinion wouldn't change after the PC said there would be no Errata before Worlds. It didn't. And I told my opinion wouldn't even change after Worlds is over. It hasn't. Fear is not broken. It's not overpowered. And it's not even the best DS deck available. If you don't agree with me, then fine, don't agree with me. But if you still don't think that what I'm saying is my actual, true opinion, then there is something wrong with you. (Though it is still probably less than what is wrong with Jerriko.)
and i'm saying BULL. you wouldn't have played fear day 2 unless you knew you could advance to day 3 with it. and you did. why? because it is a GOOD DECK that needs errata.

honestly, i don't think your opinion has changed. i just think you've lied about what your opinion is. that, and you have a warped view of what a healthy meta is.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

mikefrench
Top Cards
Top Cards
Posts: 18121
Joined: August 1st, 2005, 8:00 pm
Location: first street haven
Contact:

Post by mikefrench »

i really just want to say this again, to see if you have any response at all:
mikefrench wrote:when you make a career out of promoting yourself as a deckbuilder (done RIGHT), you can't then say that the deck that you've used at WORLDS DAY 3 2006, WEST NATIONALS DAYS 1&2 2007, and WORLDS DAY 2 2007 was NOT a good deck.

honestly. you constantly in your DONE RIGHT strat sections talk about how you only post decks with undefeated tournament records, and how your DONE RIGHT decks influence the meta SOOO much, and even went on to post THIS FEAR DECK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT as a DONE RIGHT deck. then you say that it's not very good? BULL. BULL. BULL.
The Honky Tonk Man wrote:If you want to post trash takes, at least go the Mike French route and come off as being somewhat reasonable.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14816
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Post by Hunter »

mikefrench wrote: this is the biggest load of bull you've ever tried to get someone to swallow.
show of hands, is ANYONE swallowing this? i'm not. it's bull.
It is NOT bull, you are just an IDIOT. Plain and simple: My playtest results showed me what the best DS decks were. Fear was NOT one of them. The best Day 2 deck would be the deck that gave me the best possible chance of advancing to Day 3. Fear was NOT that deck. Keep saying that I played Fear because I thought it gave me my best chance to advance to Day 3. You're WRONG. For that matter, try saying that I played Fear at Nationals because I thought it gave me my best chance of winning Nationals. You'll be WRONG. No way was I going to show my best stuff at Nationals. And I didn't show my best stuff in Day 2 either. I saved it for Day 3. Fear is not my best dark deck. Nor is it my 2nd best. You're WRONG.
mikefrench wrote: people don't go out of their way to play 5+ cards COMPLETELY devoted to beating rops. people don't go out of their way to play 5+ cards COMPLETELY devoted to beating cct. what deck do they (and even YOU) do that for? FEAR.
You're WRONG. I didn't play 5+ cards COMPLETELY devoted to beating Fear. I played ZERO. The Toolkit was not just a Fear counter, it is also VERY good in the match against DS Senate. But I would not play the Toolkit in the deck in the future. It should not have been in there. So what else is there? I Hope She's All Right? I used that as a counter to TIE decks, not Fear decks. The combat deck couldn't handle TIEs in playtesting, so I added that Effect to help out. The combat deck ALREADY beat Fear without the Toolkit OR IHSA. Imperial Atrocity(v)? There is NO ls deck that should not be running this card. I played only one copy, and if you think for one second that I would remove it if FWKTIL were BANNED, you are out of your mind. If you think I would take out my Alters if FWKTIL were BANNED, you are out of your mind. I would not change a single card in the deck if FWKTIL were banned. The only card I would remove is the Toolkit, which I would still remove if FWKTIL were not banned. You are just WRONG.
mikefrench wrote: now that you're done explaining how bad fear is, please explain why you were playing so many fear counters in your lsc. if fear is easy to beat, why did you need extra help to beat it?
I didn't. The Combat deck already beat Fear without the Toolkit, and without IHSA. IHSA was added for TIEs, not Fear, and the Toolkit actually does more harm than good against Fear. The Alters and the Atrocity would not come out of the deck under any circumstances, even if Fear ceased to exist. Satisfied? I'm sure you will not be. But I'll never know why.

Post Reply

Return to “[FY07] Worlds Weekend 2007”