Play Free Realms NowJoin Free Realms Insider

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Thyen is offline Explorer
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default Invincible order deck - not fair!

    No disrespect to the players but I've noticed some of them using Order decks that simply do not loose in tournaments. These decks mainly comprise of Sam Potts, tricks that prevent him from being destroyed and resources that generate extra cards.

    This setup omits any flips and luck to be involved. Shouldn't even beginners have a chance to win as well?

    I am sure you all will come up with strategies against them but full winning streaks against experienced players should be evidence against an invincible deck.

    Back me up guys...

  2. #2
    Benji Windyhair is offline Explorer
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    88

    Default Re: Invincible order deck - not fair!

    There is no such thing as an invincible deck. Paying players should have an advantage over free players. You should be fortunate that FR gives you a deck that can win against paying decks. I've played other online TCGs where it really is impossible to win a single game if you're a free player.

  3. #3
    TheBananaKing's Avatar
    TheBananaKing is offline Master Gamer
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,636

    Default Re: Invincible order deck - not fair!

    You know what they say, if you can't beat 'em, join em. If order decks are really your pet peeve, build a deck that can counter their trecherous acts. So, if they pull out their Sam Potts, show them YOUR Sam Potts! >:]

    Also, Sam Potts is a she, not a he. Lol.

  4. #4
    Thyen is offline Explorer
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default Re: Invincible order deck - not fair!

    That just furthers my point. The only way to win then is with Sam potts. So we should all then dish your other decks and just play Order. No good I say.
    There is just no fun involved when cards just get wiped out without any flips. If you have attended these tournaments you will see that there is such a thing as invincible with Sam potts.

  5. #5
    Archer is offline Amateur Gamer
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    157

    Default Re: Invincible order deck - not fair!

    I agree that the cookie-cutter Sam Potts decks can be annoying, however I have a chaos deck that works great against that sort of deck. It has three cost one Angry Yetis and three cost two Zargolut's Essences which draw a card when they are destroyed, as well as a couple of cost three creatures that pull cost one and cost two creatures from the graveyards as a powerup into your hand. So when my opponent pulls out Sam Potts, and discards two cards, destroys Zargolut's, I draw a card, they discard two more cards, destroy my cost 3 creature, he gets to put another Zargolut's or miscellaneous cost 1 or cost 2 creature into play upon dying. Now my opponent is low on or out of cards and I still have a creature in play and plenty of cards in my hand. If I happened to have Cleaning House zapped when this happens, I get even more free cards.

  6. #6
    Thyen is offline Explorer
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default Re: Invincible order deck - not fair!

    I get your point Archer but filling up spaces with low cost creatures isn't much of a help if you can't destroy Sam potts. Don't forget, there may be 2 more Sam Potts in the deck as well even if she does get destroyed.

    With the help of resources like Swea****er Sasparilla and the like, the order can constantly add cards to the deck as well.

    The best players with the best decks usually lose an average of 3 games per tournament which should be normal and acceptable. The odds of winning are getting even lower with more and more players gaining experience.

    But.. 20 or more games with full wins just doesn't seem right.

  7. #7
    Archer is offline Amateur Gamer
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    157

    Default Re: Invincible order deck - not fair!

    I actually get the same success rate, only losing maybe three games in a tournament without playing the kind of deck you are describing. It has less to do with the deck being "invincible" which it's not than with the deck being daunting.

    For instance, I had an opponent in a recent tournament who put out an indestructible hero. I then proceeded to repeatedly attack that indestructible hero with a souped up Ambrose (I also had Steam Engineer in play and a zapped resource along with Driller). Ambrose crushed every time and readied himself, even when she flipped a four gem card and Ambrose only flipped a two gem card. Doing this I was able to score 6+ cards until I won the game.

    A few rounds later, I was paired up against the same player and she immediately conceded.

    Now while a deck with Sam Potts can be daunting, it is not invincible, and the only reason that it does not lose more often is because many people concede prematurely when they come against that deck.

  8. #8
    RandomPlayer's Avatar
    RandomPlayer is offline Master Gamer
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    23,218

    Default Re: Invincible order deck - not fair!

    Quote Originally Posted by Archer View Post
    Now while a deck with Sam Potts can be daunting, it is not invincible, and the only reason that it does not lose more often is because many people concede prematurely when they come against that deck.
    (Just a little add-on: ) Hm, conceding isn't exactly a good tactic. Though this game holds many potential strategies, it is also based somewhat on luck. If you concede, you throw away that change you had of victory - you never know if you'll win or not unless you see that battle to the end.

    Anyway, Sam Potts is indeed not invincible, and actually is hardly daunting to me, though that ability can become a great hindrance. She can destroy my cards all she wants, I'll draw them again once I reshuffle my discard pile. But that aside, a Kart Driver/Garrison Gold combination is a rather deadly trick against any creature with 7 or less defense, and it has gotten me through many a Potts.
    Status: Quit FR since I never liked FR at all. Will probably not post anymore.

  9. #9
    Thyen is offline Explorer
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default Re: Invincible order deck - not fair!

    The input is appreciated. I always enjoy especially reading Archer's comments. I too have won against Sam Potts but the latest setup is too daunting if I should add (aka.. the assisting cards for Sam Potts and the extra Sam Potts). I've seen this setup on 2 different players with full wins. (There is such a thing as terrible draws which ends up with only 1 or 2 points to score the whole game).

    I will post again if I witness this and appreciate if anyone else does as well.

  10. #10
    Archer is offline Amateur Gamer
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    157

    Default Re: Invincible order deck - not fair!

    I do have one other suggestion for a deck that works well against a Sam Potts deck, namely an animal deck, particularly an animal deck that utilizes the 3/3 frostfang wolf that stuns a zapped ally when it would otherwise be destroyed. If you have two of those in play at a time, then Sam Potts discarding two cards will only have the affect of stunning one of your zapped creatures in play, and your opponent will have to spend an extra two cards to then destroy that creature. Now it is important to have two in play, otherwise, they can just destroy the frostfang wolf first, unless of course, you have something else in play protecting the frostfang, such as the bigger frostfang with a collect 5 bonus, Docaloc, or the tournament hero that makes his nature allies unable to be destroyed.
    Last edited by Archer; 03-09-2010 at 11:24 AM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •