7 comments on “Mr. Rackham’s Disruptions

  1. The numbers are off by one turn: Jack comes into play with 0 counter on it so it only starts to deal damage on the second turn.

    It is not always clear whether burning Jack really helps you or not. If Jack's owner chooses to defend it, the first player who attempts to burn it will waste a lot of resources to effectively prevent his prey from taking damage (too late for him: he already paid in his untap phase). 1vp is still better than 0, even if that means giving the rest of the table to Jack. Don't be the guy who commits suicide for the other players.

  2. Extrala, you foil my well-laid plans again. Now everyone will remove my Jack! Its hard enough to win with a wall deck as it is ;)

    My opinion when playing Jack: punish your prey and predator hardest for removing it, and hopefully the rest will fear you for it. And a lesson I learned somewhere along the way: don't ever defend something with your life, even if it's Smiling Jack. It sucks to be ousted because you wasted all your wakes on defending Jack. There will be another chance (or Jack)..

    Advice when playing against Jack: pretend you give it all when trying to remove it, but save resources; especially when you're not Jack's prey.

  3. Boris,I think you are totally wrong. This kind of decission is tipified as suboptimal(pareto) equilibrium on a decission system.
    Everyone thinks on his own, no one tries to burn jack until its to late and jack-player wins. That is exactly what happened on the European final that Floppy winned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s