Category talk:Tournament decks: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
>@legacy41915243 (RE) |
>QmunkE59@legacy41915279 mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I believe that we need to split decks bewteen current competive decks and past decks. As is we have older decks missed in and it makes it a bad source of information unless we specify.[[User:SorryGuy]] | I believe that we need to split decks bewteen current competive decks and past decks. As is we have older decks missed in and it makes it a bad source of information unless we specify.[[User:SorryGuy]] | ||
:Agreed, what we have now will be current, and we will add on an "Old Decks" sections. I didn't even think of this issue, glad you noticed.'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue"> of </font><font color="black">All]]'''</font><sup>[[user_talk:Voice_of_All(MTG)|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]]</sup> 16:50, 15 December 2005 (CST) | :Agreed, what we have now will be current, and we will add on an "Old Decks" sections. I didn't even think of this issue, glad you noticed.'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue"> of </font><font color="black">All]]'''</font><sup>[[user_talk:Voice_of_All(MTG)|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]]</sup> 16:50, 15 December 2005 (CST) | ||
Is Madness viable currently? Has it not been completely metagamed out? [[User:QmunkE|QmunkE]] 02:59, 6 April 2006 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 07:59, 6 April 2006
Split
I believe that we need to split decks bewteen current competive decks and past decks. As is we have older decks missed in and it makes it a bad source of information unless we specify.User:SorryGuy
- Agreed, what we have now will be current, and we will add on an "Old Decks" sections. I didn't even think of this issue, glad you noticed.Voice of AllTalk 16:50, 15 December 2005 (CST)
Is Madness viable currently? Has it not been completely metagamed out? QmunkE 02:59, 6 April 2006 (CDT)