(Metagame Archive) Design Vs. Mailbag 3: Mailbag Forever

By Danny Mandel

Okay, you guys know the drill. I post some of the emails I’ve received, and then I answer them. Hilarity and/or insight ensue. Well, maybe . . .

This one’s from AC.

Dear Dan,


First off I’d like to congratulate you guys on creating such a great game. One of the best parts of
Vs. is the simplicity. One problem, though, is that with the simplicity comes the fact that there are only so many generic attack/defense pumps you can make. Right now the top attack pump is far and away Savage Beatdown, and the best defensive pump is Acrobatic Dodge. My question is, since no generic card will ever be directly ‘better’ than these two without making either of these cards redundant (I mean, what can you do? +6 ATK this attack? -4 ATK/+4 DEF this attack?), does the possibility of reprinting either of these exist?

This would solve the design issue, as well as making a $30 card like Beatdown more available to less wealthy players as well as new ones. If that ‘other game’ (the one with the wizards and goblins) is any indication, the original will still retain its value. You’ve already printed one utility card (Marvel Team-Up). Can you do it again? 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s always good to start off an email with something flattering about me or Vs. It’s also acceptable to start off with something mean about Humpherys.

Okay, AC, even though you called me “Dan”, I’m willing to answer your questions.

As you say, there are certain parameter-defining cards such as Savage Beatdown and Acrobatic Dodge. However, I’m not so sure they’ll always be strictly better than future generic cards. While certain generics are clearly better than others at doing similar things (often this is because some are targeted primarily at Sealed Pack play), there are definitely gray areas. For example, one could argue that in the appropriate deck, Flying Kick or Mega-Blast is actually better than Savage Beatdown. Our goal with top-end generics is to make them approximately as powerful but in different ways than what’s come before.

Of course, I haven’t answered what you’re really asking, which is how we feel about reprints. Hoom. We’re definitely open to the idea of reprinting where appropriate. For example, we brought back Marvel Team-Up because we wanted to make Lacuna, and it would have been very sad to have her in a set without it. (Also, Marvel Team-Up’s like, my favorite card, though that didn’t really figure in. I also like World’s Finest.)

Another example is that if we created a set that had tons of non-fliers, I could easily see reprinting Flying Kick for Sealed play. Of course, bringing back Beatdown is another issue. I mean, that was not a card intended for Sealed play. It’s simply a powerful rare.

As you mentioned, there is the issue of collectability. Players invest a lot of money into this game, and I’d hate to ruin their investment. So . . . let’s ask the audience—

How do all of you feel about the reprinting issue?

This next one’s from Bizarro 98. It’s in regards to some comments I made in a recent article regarding the possibility of re-featuring “old” teams in new expansions. It’s near the bottom of that article in case you go back and read it. Bizarro’s email is pretty long, so I’m actually going to insert my responses with cute little brackets that look like these {}.

Danny, I want you to take a good look at two sentences from your article

First, there’s this one.

“While I can’t go into details, I will put forth that we have every intention of doing pretty much every comic character we can.”

You’ve said that before, but I always like to hear you say it again, because it means you haven’t forgotten what you here in the first place. Then I read something like this:

“Plus, there are infinite ways to do different versions of characters we’ve already done.”

Nooooooooooo! You were doing so good! Why did you have to go and say that, Danny? Why?


Let’s stop a moment to talk to talk about versions. Do you know what I think of versions, Danny Mandel? I think they’re a good idea. I think there are two perfectly legitimate reasons for making multiple versions of any given character, and one reason that is a necessary evil.

1. Some characters are so influential in the comics that they need multiple versions to reflect this. Almost every character that’s specifically referenced by another card falls under this category.

2. Some characters are so dynamic that they have filled multiple roles in the past. Every character who appears on more than one team fits this category, as well as characters who have versions from some strange periods outside the status quo (like Red, Blue, and Brainwashed Superman).

3. This is the bad one. Sometimes, if a team is too small to effectively function as a team within the game, extra versions must be given to some of it’s characters (even if they aren’t particularly influential or dynamic) to fill out the team. Every X-Statix character who got more than one version is in this category.

However, outside of these, making multiple versions of certain characters can be dangerous business. The question arises, where do you draw the line? How much of the big names is too much, and how much is too little? You have to put some limit on yourself in some way at some point, or this game will forget its roots and become the Wolverine vs. Batman game. I’ve noticed Upper Deck has never made two versions of the same character with the same cost on the same team. I think this a good rule of thumb that you should definitely stick with.

So I guess the point I’m trying make here, Danny, is that I’m okay with old teams getting the spotlight again in future sets, as long as it’s done with as few alternate versions of existing characters as possible. Remember, I trust you guys to look out for the little names. Don’t let me down.

And remember, no matter what, Vs. should always be moving forward. There’s still so much left unmade, Danny. I’m still waiting on those Metal Men.

{I guess it comes down to our desire to cater to both ends up the comic fan spectrum. On the one hand, there’s the superfanboy who wants to see every obscure character in the history of the Marvel and DC and other universes. (Bizarro and I both fall into this category.) On the other hand, there’s the more mainstream fan who’s more interested in the marquee characters like Spidey or Superman. When it’s time to figure out which characters will fill out a roster of a new team, we try to satisfy both types of fans. My question to you guys is, where do you fit in? Which kinds of characters are you more interested in? Here’s a more concrete question: Would you rather crack a pack and see a new version of Wolverine or Jubilee?}

On a side note, you said you were going to write an article on character selection after Superman came out. Whatever happened to that plan?

Bizarrosworth N. Ninetyeight

{It’s true. I really have to get on that one. Thanks for the reminder.}

This next one’s from Juan. The issue is the composition of new sets.

Hey there Danny, nice article. It’s great to see what goes on in your guys’ heads. Anyways, this is written in response to that question of yours. You know, the one about how many cards new teams should get and old teams should get. Now, I’m very happy to see new teams. That keeps the game fresh and new. I’m pretty sure there aren’t an infinite number of teams in Marvel and DC, but I figure after you burn out Marvel and DC, you’ll release a relatively even number of cards for all teams in future sets while making a new Vs. game (maybe move into Indy or something) to continue to give new teams. For the present, however, I’d like to see maybe a smaller number of teams released. I think that it would be better if you would release maybe two or three new teams per new set. That way, the new teams’ releases can last longer, the new teams that are released have a wider range of cards and are more well-built, and the old teams get enough goodies to keep the players happy. I thought that the Spider-Man set, though it has its many critics, was a good way to release new sets. You get two new teams and all the old teams get lots of new toys to upgrade their decks with. This still opens a lot of strategies because you still have the option of teaming up some of the new teams with the old ones. IMO that would be an ideal release formula. Anyways, keep up the good work. Please give SS a search card or something (though you and I both know that would make them ridiculously powerful) or some other toys.

Sincerely (hope that’s right)

Juan

This is that hot issue I was referring to at the end tag of last week’s article. While there’s a lot of stuff we consider when filling out the contents of a set (like how it plays in Sealed and Draft), the central issues on most players’ minds seems to be how many new teams should be introduced in a new set, and how many cards should be devoted to the older teams.

I’ve mentioned before that we like to experiment. In the Web of Spider-Man, expansion we tried making a set with only two new teams, and I believe in general players wanted more new content. On the other hand, now that there are nineteen major teams in the Vs. Universe (with more on the way), some players are suggesting we slow down on adding new teams, possibly as Juan suggested by only adding two or three new teams in a set, or by bringing back old teams to make up half or so of a set. I’m extremely interested on hearing your opinions on this issue.

This next email is from smokingsocrates. (Don’t worry, that’s not his real name.) As above, I’m going to respond with brackets inside the email.

Thank you for posting a direct line to the designers of this game. I am impressed that you are taking suggestions and responding to feedback. I am on the metagame, vsrealms, and vsuniverse websites daily, and I study and stay on top of the game. Aside from being an avid player competing at numerous 10K and PCQ events, I have already dropped thousands of dollars on Vs. products. 

 

The main reason that I am writing is to give some feedback with the hope that it falls on considerate ears. First, I would like to compliment what you have done well. The Origins sets were amazing and offered the foundation cards, interesting teams, and good effects. I think your sets with greater than four new teams have been your best, while those with fewer new teams have been the worst. The more diverse sets catered to more of your target market, are more enjoyable to draft, and offer a variety that is the spice of gaming life. Your new idea for the Golden Age format is great. However, the idea of using only the last two sets of a given comic set was amazing. It seems like it has taken almost two full sets before a given set becomes playable at a competitive level. These changes may force the metagame to develop at an accelerated pace.

 

Some critiques that may affect the stamina of this game and sales. R&D has a ton of quality multiplayer cards but supports no competitive format. I am a member of a competitive team, I game in a community of 40 gamers, and all of them want to play multiplayer at a 10K or PC level. New people to the game also like the safety of playing group formats. I have noticed that when new players enter a store with an established group of gamers they either sink or swim, but are often turned off by strong players, players with “all the good cards,” or the complexity of the rules. Bring multiplayer to the competitive level. Often times this game divides rather than builds cohesiveness among players. Rather than teaming up with a buddy, players hide their decklists, covet their new tech, and won’t talk honestly about their cards. Two, three, or four player matches may bring about a shift. It will also change the value of team based cards and may expand those interested in the game.

 

In my play group there are a number of players that brainstorm new tech, ideas for cards, and talk about changes in the game if we were named king. Our best idea has been the idea of stealth, being walled, or some other defensive term. In short, a character may have an ability like range or flight, but for the defense. That character may not be attacked through a “distance attack” like flight in the back row or range from a back row character. The character may only be able to be attacked “in a physical confrontation.” A character would only be able to attack from the front row and with no other potential defenders in front of the defender (e.g., front row to front row or front row to unprotected back row defender). Also, you guys should make a card called underload in which “a target character is stunned if its defense is more than twice its printed value!”

 

Thanks for your time and consideration.

 

A versus fan

 

{Thanks for the kinds words. I’m going to cut right to the heart of your email, which deals with team and multiplayer formats.

While I’m not sure about what the correct implementation of multi-players formats would be, let me tell you that we are definitely trying out different ways to play. I believe Humpherys had mentioned in a previous article that Team Sealed Pack is popular around the office. This is where three players split ten booster packs into three sealed decks and play against other teams. Another format we’re testing is Team Draft. This is a two on two or three on three format where everyone participates in a draft, and then the two teams play against each other. Both of the above formats involve working together to create your decks, and matches are still one on one, with the team’s overall score determining which team won the match.

However, what smokingsocrates is suggesting is (in my opinion) even cooler than team formats. What if after a two on two team draft, all four player compete in a team game? Or howabout a six-player draft that ends up getting fought grand melee style?

I’m not sure how our organized play department feels about tournaments featuring multi-player matches (there are lots of other issues that need to be settled, such as collusion in grand melee games and what kinds of signaling or advice are allowable in team games), however, I’m very confident that we’ll have team formats (with one on one match play) sometime in the near future.}

This next email is from Michael.

Hey,

You asked for some feedback, so here is a short one. Great article. I was amazed by all the errata when I printed it out a few days ago. Very unusual for UDE who have a reputation for very thorough playtesting.

 

{It’s all Humpherys fault. No really. He stinks.}

My main opinion is the need to introduce at least a couple of good cards for the existing teams in the new sets too keep them fresh and interesting. MOS was an excellent set for this giving the League and Gotham some very good and interesting new cards. The Teen Titans needed little but got something. A pity the new Arkham cards were so worthless. This was generally a great approach. It only takes two or three playable cards (not Maxie Zeus or Emperor Joker) to lift up a team that has been struggling into the top level. Look at what two cards have done for Sentinels and X-Men.

I hope you continue to support the old factions, especially the ones that are currently badly ignored like Sinister, Arkham, Skrulls, Negative Zone, Straight F4, etc.

Yours,

Michael 

As you’ve probably figured out by now, I’ve been posting emails that touch on issues that we’d like more feedback on. Michael is addressing the issue with legacy cards (cards for older teams that are not currently being featured in a set). Some players want tons of legacy cards for their decks (and to possibly help create new viable decks like Curve Sentinels); other players wants legacy content held to a minimum, with everything in a set devoted to that set’s teams. What’s your opinion?

Here are the main issues from this article one more time.

Reprinting cards

Re-featuring teams vs moving ahead with all new teams and characters

How many teams each set should contain (especially how many new teams . . . )

Multi-player and team tournaments

Legacy content in a set.

So yeah, tell me what you think.

Send questions or comments to dmandel@metagame.com.

*Okay, maybe not Maxie Zeus**.

**Now I’m expecting all sorts of angry emails from Maxie Zeus fans . . . could he be the new Unus?

{I think it’s important to stop here and point out that what I meant in the second quotation is that if and when we re-feature a team in a future expansion, not only will we get an opportunity to add more never-been-done-before characters to the mix, but we can still do new versions of the staple characters. For example, if the Arkham Inmates end up as one of the four major teams in a new expansion, not only can we bring cool-but-obscure villains like Calendar Man, Cornelius Stirk, or Magpie to the Vs. System, but we can do new versions of staples like Penguin, Riddler, and, of course, Maxie Zeus*.} 

Okay, you guys know the drill. I post some of the emails I’ve received, and then I answer them. Hilarity and/or insight ensue. Well, maybe . . .

 

This one’s from AC.

 

Dear Dan,


First off I’d like to congratulate you guys on creating such a great game. One of the best parts of
Vs. is the simplicity. One problem, though, is that with the simplicity comes the fact that there are only so many generic attack/defense pumps you can make. Right now the top attack pump is far and away Savage Beatdown, and the best defensive pump is Acrobatic Dodge. My question is, since no generic card will ever be directly ‘better’ than these two without making either of these cards redundant (I mean, what can you do? +6 ATK this attack? -4 ATK/+4 DEF this attack?), does the possibility of reprinting either of these exist?

This would solve the design issue, as well as making a $30 card like Beatdown more available to less wealthy players as well as new ones. If that ‘other game’ (the one with the wizards and goblins) is any indication, the original will still retain its value. You’ve already printed one utility card (Marvel Team-Up). Can you do it again?

 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s always good to start off an email with something flattering about me or Vs. It’s also acceptable to start off with something mean about Humpherys.

 

Okay, AC, even though you called me “Dan”, I’m willing to answer your questions.

 

As you say, there are certain parameter-defining cards such as Savage Beatdown and Acrobatic Dodge. However, I’m not so sure they’ll always be strictly better than future generic cards. While certain generics are clearly better than others at doing similar things (often this is because some are targeted primarily at Sealed Pack play), there are definitely gray areas. For example, one could argue that in the appropriate deck, Flying Kick or Mega-Blast is actually better than Savage Beatdown. Our goal with top-end generics is to make them approximately as powerful but in different ways than what’s come before.

 

Of course, I haven’t answered what you’re really asking, which is how we feel about reprints. Hoom. We’re definitely open to the idea of reprinting where appropriate. For example, we brought back Marvel Team-Up because we wanted to make Lacuna, and it would have been very sad to have her in a set without it. (Also, Marvel Team-Up’s like, my favorite card, though that didn’t really figure in. I also like World’s Finest.)

 

Another example is that if we created a set that had tons of non-fliers, I could easily see reprinting Flying Kick for Sealed play. Of course, bringing back Beatdown is another issue. I mean, that was not a card intended for Sealed play. It’s simply a powerful rare.

 

As you mentioned, there is the issue of collectability. Players invest a lot of money into this game, and I’d hate to ruin their investment. So . . . let’s ask the audience—

 

How do all of you feel about the reprinting issue?

 

 

This next one’s from Bizarro 98. It’s in regards to some comments I made in a recent article regarding the possibility of re-featuring “old” teams in new expansions. It’s near the bottom of that article in case you go back and read it. Bizarro’s email is pretty long, so I’m actually going to insert my responses with cute little brackets that look like these {}.

 

Danny, I want you to take a good look at two sentences from your article

First, there’s this one.

“While I can’t go into details, I will put forth that we have every intention of doing pretty much every comic character we can.”

You’ve said that before, but I always like to hear you say it again, because it means you haven’t forgotten what you here in the first place. Then I read something like this:

“Plus, there are infinite ways to do different versions of characters we’ve already done.”

Nooooooooooo! You were doing so good! Why did you have to go and say that, Danny? Why?

 

 

{I think it’s important to stop here and point out that what I meant in the second quotation is that if and when we re-feature a team in a future expansion, not only will we get an opportunity to add more never-been-done-before characters to the mix, but we can still do new versions of the staple characters. For example, if the Arkham Inmates end up as one of the four major teams in a new expansion, not only can we bring cool-but-obscure villains like Calendar Man, Cornelius Stirk, or Magpie to the Vs. System, but we can do new versions of staples like Penguin, Riddler, and, of course, Maxie Zeus*.}


Let’s stop a moment to talk to talk about versions. Do you know what I think of versions, Danny Mandel? I think they’re a good idea. I think there are two perfectly legitimate reasons for making multiple versions of any given character, and one reason that is a necessary evil.

1. Some characters are so influential in the comics that they need multiple versions to reflect this. Almost every character that’s specifically referenced by another card falls under this category.

2. Some characters are so dynamic that they have filled multiple roles in the past. Every character who appears on more than one team fits this category, as well as characters who have versions from some strange periods outside the status quo (like Red, Blue, and Brainwashed Superman).

3. This is the bad one. Sometimes, if a team is too small to effectively function as a team within the game, extra versions must be given to some of it’s characters (even if they aren’t particularly influential or dynamic) to fill out the team. Every X-Statix character who got more than one version is in this category.

However, outside of these, making multiple versions of certain characters can be dangerous business. The question arises, where do you draw the line? How much of the big names is too much, and how much is too little? You have to put some limit on yourself in some way at some point, or this game will forget its roots and become the Wolverine vs. Batman game. I’ve noticed Upper Deck has never made two versions of the same character with the same cost on the same team. I think this a good rule of thumb that you should definitely stick with.

So I guess the point I’m trying make here, Danny, is that I’m okay with old teams getting the spotlight again in future sets, as long as it’s done with as few alternate versions of existing characters as possible. Remember, I trust you guys to look out for the little names. Don’t let me down.

And remember, no matter what, Vs. should always be moving forward. There’s still so much left unmade, Danny. I’m still waiting on those Metal Men.

{I guess it comes down to our desire to cater to both ends up the comic fan spectrum. On the one hand, there’s the superfanboy who wants to see every obscure character in the history of the Marvel and DC and other universes. (Bizarro and I both fall into this category.) On the other hand, there’s the more mainstream fan who’s more interested in the marquee characters like Spidey or Superman. When it’s time to figure out which characters will fill out a roster of a new team, we try to satisfy both types of fans. My question to you guys is, where do you fit in? Which kinds of characters are you more interested in? Here’s a more concrete question: Would you rather crack a pack and see a new version of Wolverine or Jubilee?}

On a side note, you said you were going to write an article on character selection after Superman came out. Whatever happened to that plan?

Bizarrosworth N. Ninetyeight

{It’s true. I really have to get on that one. Thanks for the reminder.}

This next one’s from Juan. The issue is the composition of new sets.

Hey there Danny, nice article. It’s great to see what goes on in your guys’ heads. Anyways, this is written in response to that question of yours. You know, the one about how many cards new teams should get and old teams should get. Now, I’m very happy to see new teams. That keeps the game fresh and new. I’m pretty sure there aren’t an infinite number of teams in Marvel and DC, but I figure after you burn out Marvel and DC, you’ll release a relatively even number of cards for all teams in future sets while making a new Vs. game (maybe move into Indy or something) to continue to give new teams. For the present, however, I’d like to see maybe a smaller number of teams released. I think that it would be better if you would release maybe two or three new teams per new set. That way, the new teams’ releases can last longer, the new teams that are released have a wider range of cards and are more well-built, and the old teams get enough goodies to keep the players happy. I thought that the Spider-Man set, though it has its many critics, was a good way to release new sets. You get two new teams and all the old teams get lots of new toys to upgrade their decks with. This still opens a lot of strategies because you still have the option of teaming up some of the new teams with the old ones. IMO that would be an ideal release formula. Anyways, keep up the good work. Please give SS a search card or something (though you and I both know that would make them ridiculously powerful) or some other toys.

Sincerely (hope that’s right)

Juan

 

This is that hot issue I was referring to at the end tag of last week’s article. While there’s a lot of stuff we consider when filling out the contents of a set (like how it plays in Sealed and Draft), the central issues on most players’ minds seems to be how many new teams should be introduced in a new set, and how many cards should be devoted to the older teams.

 

I’ve mentioned before that we like to experiment. In the Web of Spider-Man, expansion we tried making a set with only two new teams, and I believe in general players wanted more new content. On the other hand, now that there are nineteen major teams in the Vs. Universe (with more on the way), some players are suggesting we slow down on adding new teams, possibly as Juan suggested by only adding two or three new teams in a set, or by bringing back old teams to make up half or so of a set. I’m extremely interested on hearing your opinions on this issue.

 

 

This next email is from smokingsocrates. (Don’t worry, that’s not his real name.) As above, I’m going to respond with brackets inside the email.

 

 

Thank you for posting a direct line to the designers of this game. I am impressed that you are taking suggestions and responding to feedback. I am on the metagame, vsrealms, and vsuniverse websites daily, and I study and stay on top of the game. Aside from being an avid player competing at numerous 10K and PCQ events, I have already dropped thousands of dollars on Vs. products.

 

The main reason that I am writing is to give some feedback with the hope that it falls on considerate ears. First, I would like to compliment what you have done well. The Origins sets were amazing and offered the foundation cards, interesting teams, and good effects. I think your sets with greater than four new teams have been your best, while those with fewer new teams have been the worst. The more diverse sets catered to more of your target market, are more enjoyable to draft, and offer a variety that is the spice of gaming life. Your new idea for the Golden Age format is great. However, the idea of using only the last two sets of a given comic set was amazing. It seems like it has taken almost two full sets before a given set becomes playable at a competitive level. These changes may force the metagame to develop at an accelerated pace.

 

Some critiques that may affect the stamina of this game and sales. R&D has a ton of quality multiplayer cards but supports no competitive format. I am a member of a competitive team, I game in a community of 40 gamers, and all of them want to play multiplayer at a 10K or PC level. New people to the game also like the safety of playing group formats. I have noticed that when new players enter a store with an established group of gamers they either sink or swim, but are often turned off by strong players, players with “all the good cards,” or the complexity of the rules. Bring multiplayer to the competitive level. Often times this game divides rather than builds cohesiveness among players. Rather than teaming up with a buddy, players hide their decklists, covet their new tech, and won’t talk honestly about their cards. Two, three, or four player matches may bring about a shift. It will also change the value of team based cards and may expand those interested in the game.

 

 

In my play group there are a number of players that brainstorm new tech, ideas for cards, and talk about changes in the game if we were named king. Our best idea has been the idea of stealth, being walled, or some other defensive term. In short, a character may have an ability like range or flight, but for the defense. That character may not be attacked through a “distance attack” like flight in the back row or range from a back row character. The character may only be able to be attacked “in a physical confrontation.” A character would only be able to attack from the front row and with no other potential defenders in front of the defender (e.g., front row to front row or front row to unprotected back row defender). Also, you guys should make a card called underload in which “a target character is stunned if its defense is more than twice its printed value!”

 

Thanks for your time and consideration.

 

A versus fan

 

{Thanks for the kinds words. I’m going to cut right to the heart of your email, which deals with team and multiplayer formats.

 

While I’m not sure about what the correct implementation of multi-players formats would be, let me tell you that we are definitely trying out different ways to play. I believe Humpherys had mentioned in a previous article that Team Sealed Pack is popular around the office. This is where three players split ten booster packs into three sealed decks and play against other teams. Another format we’re testing is Team Draft. This is a two on two or three on three format where everyone participates in a draft, and then the two teams play against each other. Both of the above formats involve working together to create your decks, and matches are still one on one, with the team’s overall score determining which team won the match.

 

However, what smokingsocrates is suggesting is (in my opinion) even cooler than team formats. What if after a two on two team draft, all four player compete in a team game? Or howabout a six-player draft that ends up getting fought grand melee style?

 

I’m not sure how our organized play department feels about tournaments featuring multi-player matches (there are lots of other issues that need to be settled, such as collusion in grand melee games and what kinds of signaling or advice are allowable in team games), however, I’m very confident that we’ll have team formats (with one on one match play) sometime in the near future.}

 

This next email is from Michael.

 

Hey,

You asked for some feedback, so here is a short one. Great article. I was amazed by all the errata when I printed it out a few days ago. Very unusual for UDE who have a reputation for very thorough playtesting.

 

{It’s all Humpherys fault. No really. He stinks.}

My main opinion is the need to introduce at least a couple of good cards for the existing teams in the new sets too keep them fresh and interesting. MOS was an excellent set for this giving the League and Gotham some very good and interesting new cards. The Teen Titans needed little but got something. A pity the new Arkham cards were so worthless. This was generally a great approach. It only takes two or three playable cards (not Maxie Zeus or Emperor Joker) to lift up a team that has been struggling into the top level. Look at what two cards have done for Sentinels and X-Men.

I hope you continue to support the old factions, especially the ones that are currently badly ignored like Sinister, Arkham, Skrulls, Negative Zone, Straight F4, etc.

Yours,

Michael

 

As you’ve probably figured out by now, I’ve been posting emails that touch on issues that we’d like more feedback on. Michael is addressing the issue with legacy cards (cards for older teams that are not currently being featured in a set). Some players want tons of legacy cards for their decks (and to possibly help create new viable decks like Curve Sentinels); other players wants legacy content held to a minimum, with everything in a set devoted to that set’s teams. What’s your opinion?

 

Here are the main issues from this article one more time.

 

Reprinting cards

Re-featuring teams vs moving ahead with all new teams and characters

How many teams each set should contain (especially how many new teams . . . )

Multi-player and team tournaments

Legacy content in a set.

 

So yeah, tell me what you think.

 

Send questions or comments to dmandel@metagame.com.

 

 

*Okay, maybe not Maxie Zeus**.

**Now I’m expecting all sorts of angry emails from Maxie Zeus fans . . . could he be the new Unus?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: