Should the hero count as a card in your deack when we go to 40 card decks?

[arebelspy]

for another example of where it doesn't count.... warlord ccg

that starts a "warlord" on table (like our heros), and they count as part of your deck and as part of a half character rule they have as well. their minimum is 50, and the hero counts as one of those (thus 49 cards + warlord is the minimum).

there's plenty of games where they count, and plenty of games where they don't.

i have actually started thinking that it shouldn't count and may have changed my mind, but my reasoning has nothing to do with anecdotes about other games, cause plenty of games do it one way, plenty the other.

[Seth]

Yeah, I'm not too familiar with Magic, but WoW's gameplay always has a hero, it's not just a game type.

Commander is basically a player-created format (known as Elder Dragon Highlander) which became an extremely popular casual format, leading the company to make it an official format more recently.

I've played a few games that have a "hero" type card. SE's the only one that counts the "hero" as part of the deck. I don't count EDH, because (at least in its early days, not sure about now) you picked any legendary creature out of your 100-card deck to be the General. Even though you typically built it around one certain guy, you could pull out a different General for the next match if you wanted to. This is different than a Magi-Nation/Shadow Era style "hero" card.

[danae]

This is my first tcg/ccg experience.

Did it bother me that the hero was included in the count? No.
Is it more difficult to come up with statistics because of this? No, because I just rely on other people's calculations.
Do I care if it changes? No, just as long as all the bugs are fixed first and the new cards are released as well
What's the most interesting thing in this thread? The fact that part the thread is talking about part-quoting other people's post.

So to save Kyle time from having to post here (not that he would), I'll also do a part-quote on what he has to say on the existing deck count:

is really an intentional feature...

[Seth]

there's plenty of games where they count, and plenty of games where they don't.

i have actually started thinking that it shouldn't count and may have changed my mind, but my reasoning has nothing to do with anecdotes about other games, cause plenty of games do it one way, plenty the other.

Yeah, this is very true.

This is how my logic works on the subject: If there are cards that start on the table prior to turn 1 and if every player is required to play those cards and in exactly the same number, and if the cards starting on the table cannot be changed between games, then they should not count as part of the deck size.

If there are cards that start on the table prior to turn 1, but any of the following is true: 1.) Players may play different numbers of said cards in their decks 2.) Players may change which or how many of these cards they begin the game with for each game 3.) Not all decks are required to have the starting card(s) in their decks - in any of these cases, I believe the starting cards should count as part of the deck size.

There may or may not be games that break this set of rules, but if there are (such as Shadow Era), then it is my opinion that they are doing it wrong. Again, not that this is exactly the biggest deal in the world, but it disrupts my warm, fuzzy feeling inside when these rules are broken

@Danae: You win the "Ducky's Favorite Post" award for this thread, lol

[arebelspy]

but there's no basis for those "rules," or "logic," as you call it ND, you just made them up.

[Negative Zer0]

but there's no basis for those "rules," or "logic," as you call it ND, you just made them up.

He never tried to imply that these are rigid rules that can not be broken.

It is merely a his opinion represented by a set of rules that make the game "feel" correct to him.
I happen to agree 100% with what he said as it also fits my opinion on what makes the game "feel" correct.

[arebelspy]

when he uses words like logic and rules, that's exactly what he implies. i'm just pointing out that they're arbitrary opinion without any basis. as basically most stuff in this post. his just tried to sound more like fact.

[Seth]

when he uses words like logic and rules, that's exactly what he implies. i'm just pointing out that they're arbitrary opinion without any basis. as basically most stuff in this post. his just tried to sound more like fact.

Logic is arbitrary. You begin from a set of axioms and use them to derive conclusions. Based on my ideas about what the various parts of the games represent and their functions for being played with, the set of rules I posted represents the optimal way of dealing with this facet of deck construction rules.

Someone with a different design philosophy might see it differently. An early post in this thread from MattOG (I think...too lazy to look it up) said he feels that everything he brings to the match is part of his "deck." Thus, he may disagree with the rules I posted and instead feel that the hero should be counted because it's a card he includes.

We both used logic and facts to get to our conclusions, they differ because we started with some different assumptions about game design philosophy. I stated mine, and correctly stated that I was describing the logic behind what I thought was the best way to do things.

[arebelspy]

Logic is arbitrary.

Wow.

Logic is anything but. One may start with erroneous premises (or axioms or assumptions, if you prefer), but equating that with logic being arbitrary... no.

[Seth]

logic being arbitrary... no.

Yes. Logic = a system for deriving conclusions. There are multiple systems of logic, and they all require unprovable axioms in order to function correctly. The idea that logical systems represent some kind of indisputable truth isn't correct (or at least, we don't have any systems of logic that we've managed to "solve" yet). We use them because they work day to day, but they're ultimately based on subjective grounds.

Take my post, for example. I posted my logic for how I determine whether I think a game is counting starting cards correctly/incorrectly. If you evaluate games by that set of rules, you will always arrive at the "right" answer (i.e. my opinion on whether the game is doing it correctly or incorrectly). You may find you disagree with my opinion in some cases. This is because you're using a different set of rules to get your opinion. This is what logic is, and my use of the word was entirely accurate, and it ultimately is arbitrary.