How much does balance matter in interactive multiplayer card games?

[Greg 1]

How much does balance really matter in interactive multiplayer card games?  Could it be that balance can often take a back seat to doing something interesting?

The question arises because I've noticed that when playing multiplayer Shadowfist (a very well-balanced game per se) weak decks and strong decks have competed on a more or less even field.  Strong decks look strong and other players gang up on them.  Weak decks look weak and other players go for more worrying opponents instead until the weak deck has had enough time to develop that it poses a comparable threat.  This let me built decks that did interesting things and pulled off cool tricks, still being highly competative even when the cool stuff gets in the way of raw efficiency.

Now obviously, it is better to be balanced that not, but as I'm toying with the idea of designing a CCG, I find myself tempted to concentrate on allowing interesting decks rather than on strict card balance.

Thoughts?

[Magister]

Interesting is entertaining. A single deck build that can win 3 out of 4 games isn't, for at least one player. IMHO there's a fine balance between interesting and card balance that needs to be maintained in any good ccg because gamers as a whole are equal parts (1) entertained by and (2) desire to win at ccgs. If a card/faction/build produces a very entertaining and interesting game experience it will be valued, but if an entertaining build has no chance at winning the game it will soon grow old. In that sense balance is highly important but should not be valued any more greatly than entertaining play.