|
|
Post by nextbigthing on Mar 9, 2007 14:45:38 GMT -5
Did anybody notice in the Canadian decks like the top 2 only played a total of 3 Revolution cards & only 2 of the top 7 <excluding Andre because of his deck size> are Revolution?
I think there's an underlying reason why.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Daeva on Mar 10, 2007 1:15:43 GMT -5
How do you define a deck as being "Revolution"? My deck worked because of Revolution. James Cranston's Home Team worked because of Revolution. Ryan Gillard's Vince McMahon deck relies on Revolution cards. Dre's Kennedy was a Heat deck, and there aren't any Heat cards in Revolution to support the deck type, but he still packed the <R> IC Belt and <R> Underestimate the Competition in order to fill his hand and shove some Heat in the Ringside.
Bottom line? Without Revolution's existence, the top 4 would have been a very different place.
|
|
|
|
Post by nextbigthing on Mar 12, 2007 10:07:42 GMT -5
My "definition" would be over half the deck Revolution to be a "revolution deck" I mean there are a couple sick PM cards from revo <Gone-not forgotten <basically a non-SD "Banned from Ringside" being an example> but to include that in an otherwise standard deck doesn't, in my opinion or those of my fellow local players, make it Revo.
Yeah the Kennedy is Heat, therefore non-Revo
the Home Team is "over the ropes" therefore not needed to be Revo.
If you replaced the 3 cards total they played that were Revo, I venture to say, they still win the tourney one-two.
If Revo is so great & so the wave of the future, how come it didn't dominate the top 2 slots?
|
|
|
|
Post by Daeva on Mar 12, 2007 12:11:02 GMT -5
the Home Team is "over the ropes" therefore not needed to be Revo. You're full of crap here. Try building James' deck without the Revo cards in it and see how many bad match-ups you accumulate, especially if I Want to Play the Game hits the table. Hell, try to find an equivalent maneuver to <R> Press Slam that you can Over the Ropes into without a Backlash deck. |
|
