That sounds great WT, was just thinking it'd be nice to square up
against some of your ideas. you know one deck idea i always wanted to
try but never could either because i do not have the cards or they
simply aren't in existence is a "possession" deck. Something with an
"It's a trap!" mentality. just a deck chalk full of ways to take
control of your opponents stuff and then beat them silly with it. I
think it'd be fun mainly because you could have the best of both
worlds, do damage on your opponent's base without worrying about your
'mechs dying. (you'd be using his!)

--- In BattleTech-CCG@yahoogroups.com, "Warbuilder Technician"
<warbuilder@...> wrote:
>
> Hey Alex,
>
> I've decided to bo a different route with Wolf and construct an ECM
> deck for which I've found many Wolf-specific candidates. I'm still in
> the process of drafting the deck lists (17 of them), though for this
> one I'm looking at an ECM+C3 deck as a deck of no-fills group power
> and surviveability. What I'm curious about is whether ECM and/or C3
> stack. It would seem insanely overpowered if that were the case, as
> these are both group bonuses.
>
> So far I have in mind:
> - ComStar legacy (old tech)
> - Wolf strength (C3+ECM)
> - Jade Falcom turkey shoot (missile)
> - Kurita aggression (overheat)
> - IS retrograde
> - St. Ives insurrection (missions+buildup)
> - Liao influences (politics missions)
>
> Most of the rest of the decks haven't even been started.
>
> You were right about Steiner and Davion being very similar. I liked
> your approaches with the one having Alphastrike and the other having
> Overheat, but where I'm already applying overhead to Kurita (they have
> way more going for overheat), I've not got jump, missile and long
> range as possible replacements. Any suggestions? There's also the
> option of drafting a FedCom deck and saving myself the trouble of
> drafting one more deck, and I could then spread the mechanics out even
> further.
>
> As far as not having resources in decks where there are a number of
> cards in them that have a buyout for that resource, I'd say that of
> the buyout is only 1 for most of them, that it isn't worth worrying
> about. This is the approach I'm taking with at least 2 of the decks I
> can think of where 1 our of 2 or 1 our of 3 resources boyouts are not
> covered by the standard support cards I'll have in the deck.
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Alex Draven <adraven@...> wrote:
> > I got the itch to look over a few of my decks after initially listing
> > them here, and I'm really glad I did. It seems I must have 'fell
> > asleep at the wheel' so to speak when constructing my wolf deck.
> > Twelve of the 'mechs I was using required the munitions asset which
> > was not present in the resource allocation at all. Not to mention I
> > overlooked what is probably the best card to compliment the 'denial'
> > idea in existence, Khan Vlad Ward. I'm still not happy with my 'mech
> > choices, but I seem to be stuck in a rut on these 'mechs. If anyone
> > has any alternate ideas that fit the A/P/T style, but are still fast
> > and tough I'd love to hear your picks. While I feel this deck only
> > marginally improved, I do enjoy tapping my opponent's 'mechs and then
> > forcing them to attack when they so obviously can't. But I'm not sure
> > I'm playing the card correctly which is why I bring it up. By the
> > wording of the card: "Tap: Choose any opposing Unit. If that Unit does
> > not attack during your opponent's next turn, scrap it. Use this
> > ability only during your Deploy phase." It sounds right but i know
> > sometimes cards get changed to say things differently. Any input on
> > this would also be appreciated.
> >
> >
>