I made my own cheeper version, with a win con! http://deckbox.org/sets/400765
1 2013-06-06 14:20:05
Re: [Standard] Intentionally bad but fun deck (14 replies, posted in Decks and Deckbuilding)
2 2013-06-06 14:13:17
Re: [Standard] Intentionally bad but fun deck (14 replies, posted in Decks and Deckbuilding)
MrsNosihctuh, i dont think farseek or ranger's path does anything for you
3 2013-06-04 22:39:43
Topic: [Standard] Intentionally bad but fun deck (14 replies, posted in Decks and Deckbuilding)
What do you guys think? http://deckbox.org/sets/399473
4 2011-08-03 21:56:52
Re: Feature Request: Have Decks "Use Up" Cards (2 replies, posted in Site Discussion)
I would like to comment that this could be something as simple as a "built" checkbox or toggle, when you check that a deck is built, you allocate those cards for the deck.
5 2011-07-29 03:04:36
Topic: [request] read only API (0 replies, posted in Site Discussion)
For obvious reasons.
Specificlly access to an inventory, wishlists, tradelist and decks.
For great justice! 
6 2011-07-15 16:21:14
Topic: New hand generator (0 replies, posted in Site Discussion)
I was having some issue getting a good hand with the new hand simulator so I decided to make my own in Python, through a bit of experimentation I figured out that I seemed to get better looking hands if I ran the random.shuffle function on the list 5+ times. Yes, I know truly random doesn't really need that, but we are not dealing with true random here but psudo-random, it is also very implementation dependent.