Quote Originally Posted by BT InzektrHornet View Post
I voted "other". I feel the number of cards in a deck to be arbitrary to an extent. The only decks that truly benefit from a larger card count are stall/mill decks. All others CAN do it, and benefit very marginally from an "alternate win condition" (If you don't lose before your opponent, you end up winning when they deck out) but those decks will generally get beat out by more streamlined decks (as evidenced by Shadowman in last WC*). I don't even feel larger decks are NPE. I played against Shadowman many times, and never felt that his deck sizes removed any enjoyment from our games. Just made them different. That being said, I don't see any difference between an 80 card deck and a 120 card deck. I believe the better option would be limiting at 60. This would allow stall/mill to still exist, but make the games considerably shorter.

*I consider the 60 card Vic deck that won to be a non-entity, since you nerfed Victor to hell
Lol I remember playing against shadowman fairly often... I can't remember if he actually ever ran me out of cards, if he did it didn't happen often. Generally if he won it was just by playing good cards on curve and ramping up resources with IGG. The deck size was definitely not the main problem. The main problem (besides the fact that he's a skilled player) was whether he found IGG and I wasnt packing removal. I think I played him using praxix and was a little bummed that one of my win conditions was removed.