What are some /tg/ approved deckbuilders?
>>47229335
All of them.
They are by definition /tg/.
>>47229770
Surely there are good and bad ones.
>>47229913
That's not what you asked.
>>47230020
Your implication is that you approve of poor games simply because they so happen to fall under a certain genre?
>>47230060
I believe Anon is suggesting that /tg/ is not a single entity with a consistent opinion about any product or service.
Any physical deckbuilding game is a Traditional Game product, and thus a valid subject. If anyone personally "approves" of the game or not, you have to ask the individual.
So is Apex any good? I'm intrigued by the concept and I enjoy Evolution.
Dominion is amazing
>>47232454
I was going to say, isn't Dominion just about #1 in this category? In fact didn't it popularize the genre?
>>47230020
Yes it is. /tg/ approved means games that /tg/ generally thinks are good. Yes, we aren't a hivemind, but there are games that a majority like and games that a majority dislike.
Also, don't be a pedant. You are smart enough to figure out what people mean based on context. So are the people that constantly post "depends on the setting" when the OP clearly means how you like X, or what X do in your setting, or ideas for X. It doesn't need to be perfectly articulated, we have casual conversations here.
I'm a big fan of Thunderstone Advanced. Sirlin's Puzzle Strike is also a ton of fun, and so is Quarriors and its various expansions.
Does Millennium Blades count?
Nightfall and Thunderstone Advance are both pretty neat, but they're both OOP. You should be able to find all Nightfall sets except Eastern Skies pretty easily though. I've also played Ascension and Legendary Marvel and wasn't impressed by either of them. I want to pick up Puzzle Strike in the future, the rest are garbage.
>>47229335
I like Arctic Scavengers.
The key thing here for me at least is interactivity. A lot of deckbuilders are like a sewing circle. Playing pseudocompetitive eurofuck with fancy cards gives me brain damage.
