Editing Forum talk:Decks for Free!
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
This page is not enabled for semantic in-text annotations due to namespace restrictions. Details about how to enable the namespace can be found on the configuration help page.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
* Please try not to be offensive to BEWK, Martyn. I agree with Akiza, it'd be better for the deckmaker most adept at that deck to take the request. Perhaps we can make a subsection on each duelists stating their specific areas of experience, though this may make people consider the deckmaker inexperienced if they take a deck out of their area of speciality. The mastermind idea is ok for TCGplayer, but this is a small forum and we dont want too much trouble. Remember we have the Deck Galleries if someone requests a mainstream deck; we're mainly dealing with rogue/new decks.. and there are too many deck areas to assign to individual duelists. --[[User:Tantara|Tantara]] ([[user talk:tantara|talk]]) 17:38, July 16, 2010 (UTC) | * Please try not to be offensive to BEWK, Martyn. I agree with Akiza, it'd be better for the deckmaker most adept at that deck to take the request. Perhaps we can make a subsection on each duelists stating their specific areas of experience, though this may make people consider the deckmaker inexperienced if they take a deck out of their area of speciality. The mastermind idea is ok for TCGplayer, but this is a small forum and we dont want too much trouble. Remember we have the Deck Galleries if someone requests a mainstream deck; we're mainly dealing with rogue/new decks.. and there are too many deck areas to assign to individual duelists. --[[User:Tantara|Tantara]] ([[user talk:tantara|talk]]) 17:38, July 16, 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | * You mean you agree with me? I said that. Akiza said we should let deckbuilders venture into archetypes they are unfamiliar with. I don't remember seeing any decent meta decks built on the thread for this format and formats are always changing so archives aren't always up to date. I also wasn't trying to offend BEWK, merely trying to point out some card choices I thought were poor due to my experience with the archetype. BTW, are you on AIM? Sign in so we can talk =) [[User:NYKid8295|NYKid8295]] ([[User talk:NYKid8295|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NYKid8295|contribs]]) 17:54, July 16, 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Deck Galleries == | == Deck Galleries == |