Lowdown on Pentex
librarian
(Thank you Matt Morgan and the continent of Europe). But I
need some coaching on it's placement in decks, and when/how
to use it.
For instance, should PS go in every deck? Blood Brothers
Combat? Enkidu combat? Guruhi ani/pre toolbox?
Pot/For/Dom? I mean really, every deck?
And in terms of usage, one thing that seems to always happen
is Pentex ends up in my hand (opening hand, gee thanks!).
And then I hold it and hold and hold it, waiting for the
"correct moment". That clogs my hand, but you never want to
discard it unless you might contest with someone else
(defensive contesting of Pentex could be a whole other
paragraph/thread). Or, I never see the darn thing all game.
I guess card cyclers like Ashurs and Hearts and Dreams
could help with that, hmmm.
The other thing, it seems whenever I'm holding Pentex, my
prey and pred are playing weenies, where PS is well-nigh
useless.
Anyway, I would love to hear folks expound on the all-mighty
Pentex Subversion. I know it's a game winner, I just need
to wrap my mind around it.
best -
chris
(considering just dropping a copy into every deck I have
running right now to see how it will work for me)
quickbeam
Maybe every deck. I was just looking through the TWDA checking on the
usage of Pentex (*), and in the last 20 decks, there are 24 copies of
Pentex Subversion. 8 decks didn't have it, many others had multiple
copies. It seems like you might have the best luck running multiple
copies, so you don't have to worry about discarding it if it seems
like the wrong time. Often the decks running it also have one or more
copies of Anarch Troublemaker AND one or more copies of Misdirection
You can always use it to destroy someone who (foolishly) plays a
rockstar deck, or to powerbleed.
-Dave Clooney
* - Looking, because I hate Pentex, and wanted to see if it really had
become a "Must Play" card, as TTC claims -
http://ttcmaster.blogspot.com/2009/04/mercy-for-weak.html [I thought
must play cards were bad for the game..]
- Pentex subversion: the must-play card, present in a lot of modern
Jyhad decks. This card presents the advantage of not being restricted.
This is a master so cannot be blocked. This is possible to break it
but combat decks do not have so many friends. Also, playing pentex
subversion is strong because it can handle many different type of
decks at the same time. What does Pentex manage best:
star vampire combat (Una, count germaine, Enkidu, Beast...)
What does Pentex does not help against? weenie combat
extrala
> So, I'm pretty convinced that Pentex Subversion is good
> (considering just dropping a copy into every deck I have
> running right now to see how it will work for me)
For which decks is "Pentex Subversion" useful?
* Wall decks which can defend it (or make other players spent too many
actions trying to removing it). Effectively they take off one
opponent's vampires from the table.
* Decks that cannot circumvent a particular vampire or have other
problems getting by other vampires in general.
* Decks that want to fully go forward to maximize offensive
capabilities when going for the oust.
Against which decks is "Pentex Subversion" useful?
* Against star vampire decks (or decks that concentrate resources on a
vampire), where the assistant vampires are not able to remove the
Pentex easily.
In any case you need to afford the card, either you pool is plentiful
or you can defend your pool well. If you usually cannot afford the
"Pentex" (i.e. you will get ousted next turn) you can only play the
"Pentex" in the same turn where you (plan to) oust your prey. Hence
the often heard saying (at least in Europe), that "Pentex equals one
VP".
I wouldn't pack blindly one "Pentex" into every deck I play, the card
is costly and can be removed often easily by a large number of minions
or by stealth. There are decks in which multiple copies of the card
comes in handy (usually (Power-)Bleed decks like Edward Vignes or
Giovanni Powerbleed), and in this decks I would pack something like
2-4 "Pentex". Other decks don't need "Pentex Subversion" or it is even
not even remotefully helpful (e.g. Cel Gun).
Best Regards, Ralf
====================
http://extrala.blogspot.com
Matthew T. Morgan
> So, I'm pretty convinced that Pentex Subversion is good (Thank you Matt
> Morgan and the continent of Europe). But I need some coaching on it's
> placement in decks, and when/how to use it.
A dubious honor, to be sure. I kind of hate the card because of the way
it hurts fatty decks and favors weenies. But we've been over that before.
> For instance, should PS go in every deck? Blood Brothers Combat? Enkidu
> combat? Guruhi ani/pre toolbox? Pot/For/Dom? I mean really, every deck?
I think the card might go in a combat deck. If your prey has 3 pool,
Dani with Fame and untapped Cailean with an Ivory Bow, Eternal Vigilance,
The Rack, three Raven Spies and 10 blood, how else are you going to oust
him with close-range combat other than Pentex Subversion? You probably
wouldn't. If all that isn't enough, give Cailean a Leather Jacket and
some Majesty.
Enkidu? Yes, but only to contest. Pentex on Enkidu kills you. Yes, you
can have weenies to try to remove it, but either the Pentex just gets
recycled by Anthelios/Parthenon or the weenies get blocked. You must have
it to contest. Be careful about the minion you put it on to contest. It
needs to be somebody who's going to stick around for a while. Best bet:
put it on your own 1 cap.
Guruhi ani/pre? Depends. Assuming you're trying to get a range of
midcaps out and assuming you're using some aggressive combat (at least a
few Carrion Crows) you might not need it every game. If you're more about
Majesty and larger guys, then you probably want it because one good
blocker will end your game fast.
> And in terms of usage, one thing that seems to always happen is Pentex ends
> up in my hand (opening hand, gee thanks!). And then I hold it and hold and
> hold it, waiting for the "correct moment". That clogs my hand, but you never
> want to discard it unless you might contest with someone else (defensive
> contesting of Pentex could be a whole other paragraph/thread). Or, I never
> see the darn thing all game. I guess card cyclers like Ashurs and Hearts and
> Dreams could help with that, hmmm.
It's fine to discard Pentex Subversion if it doesn't look like you'll need
it. If you are going to need it later, just hang onto it. It's much
better to play for an hour with a six card hand than it is to be looking
at having your game end as soon as you are next to Omaya or whomever.
> The other thing, it seems whenever I'm holding Pentex, my prey and pred are
> playing weenies, where PS is well-nigh useless.
So discard it. You get a discard phase every turn!
> Anyway, I would love to hear folks expound on the all-mighty Pentex
> Subversion. I know it's a game winner, I just need to wrap my mind around
> it.
If there is a single minion who is going to stop you from being able to
play your deck, there's your Pentex target. If you have that single
minion, be prepared to get him Pentexed.
Sometimes you can Pentex defensively, like your predator gets Arika and
has no other vampires. You can Pentex Arika and hopefully nobody will try
to remove it since Arika sucks and should just die.
Or maybe you just want to make the math more favorable to you, like you
have some boring weenie dominate deck and your prey has two guys untapped.
If they both block the right actions and he has a wake, you won't get him,
but one block and one wake to block won't be enough to save him. Hurrah!
Pentex saves the day.
> (considering just dropping a copy into every deck I have running right now to
> see how it will work for me)
It might be a better experiment to not play it and pay careful attention
when you're having trouble in a game. Would Pentex get you out of it?
Just putting Pentex in a deck won't necessarily help as there are plenty
of times when it isn't that great a plan. I've seen this play:
Meth A has a rusher and two weenies who mostly just bleed for 1.
Meth B is getting killed a lot. Meth B plays Pentex Subversion on A's
rusher, then taps out bleeding.
Meth A removes the Pentex with one of the weenies, bleeds with the other
and rushes for the kill.
Obviously a bad play on B's part. Maybe defending the Pentex might've
been better, but the weenies could fight as well. Secure Haven might've
been a better card or DI (on a grapple) + Majesty.
Peter D Bakija
> So, I'm pretty convinced that Pentex Subversion is good
> (Thank you Matt Morgan and the continent of Europe). But I
> need some coaching on it's placement in decks, and when/how
> to use it.
Yeah, Pentex is one of those cards that every time your opponent plays
it, you say "For frack's sake. I hate that stupid card." And every
other game, you are like "Man. If only I had a Pentex in my hand right
now, I'd be winning..."
It is probably one of the most "need to use in every deck" cards in
the game. And one of the biggest flaws with any strategy that relies
on a single minion for whatever reason--yeah, superstar decks are
totally hosed, but I just lost a JOL game (which I think you were
in :-) 'cause I had a single minion with +3 permacept and a hand full
of untap, so I could probably survive my S+B predator's turn. And then
he played Pentex. Game over.
> For instance, should PS go in every deck? Blood Brothers
> Combat? Enkidu combat? Guruhi ani/pre toolbox?
> Pot/For/Dom? I mean really, every deck?
It certainly *can* go in every deck. Having one in any deck that is
vulnerable to it is always a good plan. Having one in any deck that is
concerned about being blocked is a good idea. I tend to put one in
every potentially competitive deck. I put 2 or 3 in decks that can
really benefit from it, like tap and bleed or weenie horde bleed decks
or whatever, where being able to put a hole in my prey's defenses is
often a game winner.
> And in terms of usage, one thing that seems to always happen
> is Pentex ends up in my hand (opening hand, gee thanks!).
> And then I hold it and hold and hold it, waiting for the
> "correct moment". That clogs my hand, but you never want to
> discard it unless you might contest with someone else
> (defensive contesting of Pentex could be a whole other
> paragraph/thread). Or, I never see the darn thing all game.
> I guess card cyclers like Ashurs and Hearts and Dreams
> could help with that, hmmm.
Well, ya know, that is the problem with all cards that you have one of
in your deck that you want mid-late game. They are always in your
opening hand. How often do you have Giant's Blood in your opening
hand, and then end up playing to gain, like, 2 blood just to use it
before someone else does? Early Pentex can be handy in slowing down
your prey and getting some free hits in if you don't want to hold on
to it forever. But really, what makes Pentex good is when you play it
and it makes you win right then.
> (considering just dropping a copy into every deck I have
> running right now to see how it will work for me)
Totally worthwhile plan. I mean, no one ever likes seeing it, like DI,
but if you wanna see what it does, put one in all your decks.
-Peter
Johannes Walch
> It is probably one of the most "need to use in every deck" cards in
> the game. And one of the biggest flaws with any strategy that relies
> on a single minion for whatever reason--yeah, superstar decks are
> totally hosed, but I just lost a JOL game (which I think you were
> in :-) 'cause I had a single minion with +3 permacept and a hand full
> of untap, so I could probably survive my S+B predator's turn. And then
> he played Pentex. Game over.
For that exact reason I like Pentex: it is a wall breaker (sometimes).
Dr.Mafrune
Dear Chris,
there´s a city in Spain named Cordoba, where Pentex Subversion has
become a religious belief. Each cordobes player has at least 2 pentex
in every deck they have.
It´s really a shady thing how they play!!!
bests,
Dr.Mafrune
Frederick Scott
news:53788e86-40f3-4c8c...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> It is probably one of the most "need to use in every deck" cards in
> the game. And one of the biggest flaws with any strategy that relies
> on a single minion for whatever reason--yeah, superstar decks are
> totally hosed, but I just lost a JOL game (which I think you were
> in :-) 'cause I had a single minion with +3 permacept and a hand full
> of untap, so I could probably survive my S+B predator's turn. And then
> he played Pentex. Game over.
Hmmm. Maybe a hand with a fair amount of untap and one Sudden Reversal
would have been better?
Fred
orianice
> > of untap, so I could probably survive my S+B predator's turn. And then
> > he played Pentex. Game over.
>
> Hmmm. Maybe a hand with a fair amount of untap and one Sudden Reversal
> would have been better?
>
> Fred
I forgot that another major difference between France and the USA is
that in America you choose the cards you draw from your library.
Peter D Bakija
> Hmmm. Maybe a hand with a fair amount of untap and one Sudden Reversal
> would have been better?
Indeed, it would have been. Or an opponent with a hand full of not
Pentex Subversion. Or having dominate and bounce in hand. Or any
number of other things. But that wasn't the example...
-Peter
librarian
?? Do you mean we play with Heart and Capuchin and Dreams
more often?
best -
crhis
librarian
Sounds like a place where you would want to play with
weenies, a lot. Because weenies sucked before Pentex has
become so popular :-)
best -
chris
Peter D Bakija
> ?? Do you mean we play with Heart and Capuchin and Dreams
> more often?
(I'm pretty sure he was commenting on Fred's statement how when you
get killed by Pentex, you are much better off if you have an SR in
your hand :-)
Frederick Scott
"orianice" <coincoi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bd873011-27d8-46f0...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I had a single minion with +3 permacept and a hand full
> > of untap, so I could probably survive my S+B predator's turn. And then
> > he played Pentex. Game over.
>
> Hmmm. Maybe a hand with a fair amount of untap and one Sudden Reversal
> would have been better?
>
> that in America you choose the cards you draw from your library.
I could make some catty, sideways remark about how in America, we get the
obvious point someone's trying to make but it's easier to say it straight
out: if you're afraid of the odd Pentax for your superstar, packing a
couple Sudden Reversals might not hurt. At least, if you can pick when
you get your Pentax, I can pick when I get my Sudden.
Fred
henrik
> "orianice" <coincoinmas...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bd873011-27d8-46f0...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Packing your own Pentex Subversion is probably better though. That way
it won't matter as much if you draw it a turn too late.
GreenO
> "orianice" <coincoinmas...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bd873011-27d8-46f0...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Then you get to sit on a 5 or 6 card hand waiting for a Pentex that
may not come. Which is not say that Suddening a Pentex isn't a bad
plan, Sudden is probably slightly underplayed these days with the rise
in Trifles, but being proactive is obviously more advantageous in
terms of ousting your prey than being defensive.
Matt
Peter D Bakija
> I could make some catty, sideways remark about how in America, we get the
> obvious point someone's trying to make but it's easier to say it straight
> out: if you're afraid of the odd Pentax for your superstar, packing a
> couple Sudden Reversals might not hurt. At least, if you can pick when
> you get your Pentax, I can pick when I get my Sudden.
Sure, but in the instance I was giving, it wasn't a superstar deck.
Just a deck that at that particular moment, was relying on a single
minion for survival.
-Peter
Johannes Walch
Absolutely! Sudden >> Wash
wedge
This thread has made me wonder, if it could ever be worth it to pentex
your own minion(1 cap or vagabond mystic).
This would prevent the "surprise" oust for all. It would crack me up
to see my pred/prey take an action to remove pentex from my minion.
Matt
henrik
Can be used on minions with Fame so they won't have to hunt if they're
empty as well. Very useful card.
And things like that might not be reason enough to include Pentex in a
deck, but extra stuff is always nice.
wedge
Yes that is good. The point of my post was... It could be used to deny
other Meths the surprise oust.
If someone wants to remove it, that would be because they want to play
it.
Matt
Frederick Scott
"GreenO" <mgre...@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:d0ab304f-1597-4244...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...> > ...if you're afraid of the odd Pentax for your superstar, packing a
> > couple Sudden Reversals might not hurt. At least, if you can pick when
> > you get your Pentax, I can pick when I get my Sudden.
>
> may not come. Which is not say that Suddening a Pentex isn't a bad
> plan, Sudden is probably slightly underplayed these days with the rise
> in Trifles, but being proactive is obviously more advantageous in
> terms of ousting your prey than being defensive.
Heh! Much though I agree with your last point, I think it's kind of
amusing to make it in this thread - considering that we started with the
problems posed by an opponent Pentaxing your superstar wall blocker.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
Fred
Frederick Scott
Well, fair enough. I guess I lost sight of that over the progression of
the thread. But I'm still having trouble appreciating the power of
jumping on the Pentex Subversion bandwagon. I agree that there are
times when it's a real God card, perfect for shutting down something that's
killing you - at least for the critical turn you need to get an oust. But
it can be so useless at other times that it seems to me more like a classic
toolbox card than anything else. I'd compare it to Information Highway
which (absent any reason that an ongoing volume of transfers is important
to how your deck functions) is mostly a just a huge boon when drawn at the
right time and near useless at other times.
Fred
henrik
> "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote in messagenews:083a2d12-a1e6-4876...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
I don't think there are that many times when Pentex Subversion is
useless. It's not always the best card and sometimes you'll draw it
when you don't really want to, but the only times I think it's useless
is when you can't afford to play it or when you have too much master
cards in your hand and wish they were minion cards.
Frederick Scott
news:44e9d896-ea17-4e13...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...> > ...But I'm still having trouble appreciating the power of
> > jumping on the Pentex Subversion bandwagon. I agree that there are
> > times when it's a real God card, perfect for shutting down something that's
> > killing you - at least for the critical turn you need to get an oust. But
> > it can be so useless at other times that it seems to me more like a classic
> > toolbox card than anything else. I'd compare it to Information Highway
> > which (absent any reason that an ongoing volume of transfers is important
> > to how your deck functions) is mostly a just a huge boon when drawn at the
> > right time and near useless at other times.
>
> I don't think there are that many times when Pentex Subversion is
> useless. It's not always the best card and sometimes you'll draw it
> when you don't really want to, but the only times I think it's useless
> is when you can't afford to play it or when you have too much master
> cards in your hand and wish they were minion cards.
The can't-afford-to-play-it thing is exactly the point. Sure, if you can
afford to drop the pool the Pentex would almost always do something good.
But two pool is nothing to sneeze at and I find that often, although I could
find a use for it, I often can't find a use for it that's worth the two pool.
It's really not worth two pool, for instance, just to cause someone to waste
an action. Often it's not worth the two pool to cause them to waste several
actions, assuming I could block for a while. With the right deck, it might
be worthwhile - but that's if your deck is built around doing good things
defending the Pentex. In the general sense ("Should I throw Pentex in every
deck?"), I don't think it's a card that makes sense all that often.
Fred
Martin Tibor Major
Same goes for 99,99% of the players in my playgroup. Sometimes it
actually gets anoying.
To be honest Pentex is a card I love and hate at the same time.
henrik
> "henrik" <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Actions that do 3+ damage are common in my world at least, so 2 pool
is often worth not getting an action taken against you. GtU, KRC,
Intimidation, Fame+rush... one of those things should be in every
deck, kinda.
All depends on metagame and stuff though, I suppose. And around here
Pentex will be played more or less every game, so having it in your
deck gives you a chance to play it instead of eating it basically.
And if you're so low on pool that you can't play a master for 2 pool
you're most likely ousted before your next turn anyway :)
Frederick Scott
OK, now your reasoning is really confusing me. Sure, actions that do 3+
damage are common in my world too. How does this relate to spending two
pool on a Pentex? Please explain how this connection works because I'm
really missing it.
Fred
Brum
> "henrik" <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:3a6cd2a5-9fdc-462a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
You gain one Pool by back-Pentexing someone, I guess, therefore it's
good for any deck to have.
Tiago, not Henrik
Peter D Bakija
> I agree that there are
> times when it's a real God card, perfect for shutting down something that's
> killing you - at least for the critical turn you need to get an oust. But
> it can be so useless at other times that it seems to me more like a classic
> toolbox card than anything else.
I dunno--I mean, yeah, toolboxy in that it can go in any deck, and is
kind of utilitarian, and while it certainly *can* be useless once and
a while (your predator is a weenie Obf deck with 6 minions--you Pentex
one of them for 2 pool, which is all that one minion was going to do
anyway, and it comes off immediately anyway. Or whatever), it really
is good, one way or the other, most of the time. Ignoring the obvious
"shut down a superstar" aspect, just in general, Pentex can:
-Slow down your predator, often saving you some pool even if you spend
2 to do it.
-Slow down your prey.
-Bust a hole in your prey for an oust.
-Neutralize a dominating minion.
-Foil a wall.
-Contest a Pentex that is making you miserable.
More often than not, what I see Pentex do is totally end someone who
is teetering on the edge and has a carefully calculated defense set
up, and then *wham*, Pentex puts a big hole in whatever plan was
there, and they get whacked.
I don't know that I'd really put Pentex in *every* deck. But if I have
a blocky deck (that can defend it) or a bleedy deck (that can drop it
on it's prey for an oust) or a rushy deck (that can kill all but one
guy and then Pentex the guy left over. Or can Pentex like, Cailean),
or a toolboxy deck that has some master space, Pentex is often in
there. Especially if I consider the deck potentially competitive (as
opposed to goofy or experimental).
-Peter
Frederick Scott
> On Nov 26, 1:19 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > I agree that there are
> > times when it's a real God card, perfect for shutting down something that's
> > killing you - at least for the critical turn you need to get an oust. But
> > it can be so useless at other times that it seems to me more like a classic
> > toolbox card than anything else.
>
> I dunno--I mean, yeah, toolboxy in that it can go in any deck,
That's not what I mean by "toolboxy". I don't think toolboxy cards go
in any deck. They go in decks that can find the deckspace for toolboxy
cards. Decks that need most or all of their deckspace to support a
theme of some sort can't afford such cards.
> and is
> kind of utilitarian, and while it certainly *can* be useless once and
> a while (your predator is a weenie Obf deck with 6 minions--you Pentex
> one of them for 2 pool, which is all that one minion was going to do
> anyway, and it comes off immediately anyway. Or whatever), it really
> is good, one way or the other, most of the time. Ignoring the obvious
> "shut down a superstar" aspect, just in general, Pentex can:
"...*can* be useles once (I assume you mean 'in') a while..". Don't you
mean, "...is useless the vast majority of the time"? That's what I find.
Pentexing a guy just to Pentax him often means whoever receives it just
spends an action getting rid of it. An action that _might_ have been
used damaging you for 2+ pool. But the vast majority of the time, no.
> -Slow down your predator, often saving you some pool even if you spend
> 2 to do it.
"Often"? Not really. Sometimes it's true - depends on how your
predator's game is going. Is he even in a position to be putting
pressure on you? Even if he is, has he drawn the right cards to do
it now? If he hasn't, it's like, "Oh, good - something productive
I can do with the other minion. I WAS going to hunt..." (Or, more
likely, leave it untapped on defense.) At any given moment, usually
the answer to one of those two questions is 'no' and the whole thing
would be a waste.
> -Slow down your prey.
I don't even necessarily want to slow down my prey at any given
moment. And even if I do, it's seldom ever worth 2 pool to slow
him down with a Pentex. I've never seen Pentex used effectively
for this purpose.
> -Bust a hole in your prey for an oust.
This is the one thing for which I sometimes find Pentex useful.
If you can do it, it's radical. But all the right elements need
to be lined up. I'm not paying 2 pool to lunge and almost oust
my prey - and then get ousted by my predator.
> -Neutralize a dominating minion.
It could work - if you can stop all of his buddies from removing
the Pentex. I can't recall seeing that many opportunities to
use Pentex effectively in this way.
-Foil a wall.
Again, if it's a single minion wall or if I can stop all of
his buddies from removing it. Remember, often the wall has
allies who will remove it for him. Usually, it's not worth
two pool to foil a wall for a single turn. You just wind up
having to leave your own guys untapped and/or spend wakes
trying to defend the Pentex. And soon fail.
> -Contest a Pentex that is making you miserable.
9 out of 10 times I get a Pentex played on me, I get ousted before
I have my next master phase. Were that little point not true, I'd
say this could be a clever reason to use it.
> More often than not, what I see Pentex do is totally end someone who
> is teetering on the edge and has a carefully calculated defense set
> up, and then *wham*, Pentex puts a big hole in whatever plan was
> there, and they get whacked.
Sure. But whenever I've seen this done, it's a one-turn oust
situation. *shrug* They certainly happen and I think the chance
of it happening is a good argument for the card. It just often doesn't
put the card over the top for me. Like
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Brum" <tiago...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:37d018e3-5a2f-4c45...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> good for any deck to have.
You only gain one pool if back-Pentexing someone prevents them from doing
an 3+ damage action permanently. If you're asserting that back-Pentexing
your predator will certainly avoid a 3+ damage action, there are so many flaws
in the argument I wouldn't know where to start.
Fred
Jakob Sievers
> More often than not, what I see Pentex do is totally end someone who
> is teetering on the edge and has a carefully calculated defense set
> up, and then *wham*, Pentex puts a big hole in whatever plan was
> there, and they get whacked.
I don't know that I would call a defense which does not account for the
possibility of someone playing Pentex `carefully calcultated'.
cheers,
-jakob
henrik
> "Brum" <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:37d018e3-5a2f-4c45...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Not certainly but, as I said, in the meta I play the chances are good
that a Pentex means one less action and that means 3+ less pool damage
to you (if even for just 1 turn). I know it's not a flawless argument
though, GtU can be played by another minion instead and so on, but
it's still worth considering imo.
orianice
Pentex is a great card because it is one of the few cards who has both
a strategic and a opportunity value at any time of the game.
Let me explain you what I mean with my poor English.
When I put a card in my deck, it might serve one of those two
purposes, or both at the same time.
1/ It has a strategic value for me. I play it because it goes
according to how I am going to play the game. For example, if I play
animalism intercept, it is logical for me to play raven spies in the
deck because it is my best way to set my game up.
2/ It has an opportunity value for me: it either kills a deck I don't
like, or it affects a type of deck. For example, if I play Chair of
Hades in my Khazar's diary deck, it is not because it helps me setting
up my 7 counters but because it is going to harm some decks I don't
like such as weenie animalism, weenie DBR...
Now some cards have both value, which is great. For example, when I
play terror frenzy I have the idea that it is going to screw up
celerity gun which I am bad against, but if there is nobody to play
terror frenzy on, I will still make my ventrue opponent pay 2 blood
for his next Majesty. Those cards are gold when you play them.
Pentex subversion is one of them. It will sometimes serve my strategy.
if I play weenie presence bleed, pentexing the first minion of my prey
is mandatory, for example. But it will also add an opportunity value.
I am playing the same weenie presence bleed deck and my predator's
first turn is Zillah's valley -> selma the repugnant out. I will back-
pentex Selma to earn some time quiet.
Finally, it is one of the best cards because it is one of the few I
can use efficiently from turn 1 to the last turn on the game, on the
opposite of deflection, of maybe terror frenzy (your final opponent is
playing no combat cards for example), of most of the master cards
(Hunting ground arriving in the 2-players left... wOOt)
The rest is poetry. Is somebody going to break the pentex? Can I
defend it or not? No big deal. I will still play Pentex for its
versatility.
Johannes Walch
Pentex will take away at least one action from the target Player. That
could have been a bleed for one so the cost is really more 1 pool than
two. And Henrik is absolutely right, most decks have plenty of cards
that will do more than 1 damage to you, so the card is in many
situations at least helpful in a way where you save pool. And that is on
top of being useful in many other ways (wallbuster, superstar-hoser,
VP-getter).
Peter D Bakija
> "...*can* be useles once (I assume you mean 'in') a while..". Don't you
> mean, "...is useless the vast majority of the time"? That's what I find.
Oh, certainly not. Again, I'm not, like, a huge proponent of Pentex or
anything (i.e. I don't actually use it all that often, but that is not
'cause I don't think it is good). But most of the time I have one in
my hand, or most of the time one of my opponents plays one, it does
something good (i.e. worth more than the 2 pool and MPA). Once and a
while, yeah, it gums up your hand and you either discard it or just
play it get it out of your hand, and come out on the losing end of
that deal. But most of the time, not so much.
> Pentexing a guy just to Pentax him often means whoever receives it just
> spends an action getting rid of it. An action that _might_ have been
> used damaging you for 2+ pool. But the vast majority of the time, no.
Sure, worst case scenario, it just costs them an action to undo it.
But if it cost them more than 2 pool 'cause they couldn't block you,
you come out ahead. Or if it saved you more than 2 pool 'cause of the
spent action, you come ahead. And a lot of the time, it does a lot
more than that. And occasionally, you just say "Huh. This isn't going
to help." and discard it.
> "Often"? Not really.
All that has to happen to "often save some pool" is for the Pentexing
of your predator to result in you not losing 3 pool at some point. If
it saves you from a KRC or a Govern bleed? You have come out ahead.
And again, a great deal of the time that you play Pentex, it does a
lot more than that.
> I don't even necessarily want to slow down my prey at any given
> moment.
Sure. But if you do? It works for that, too.
> This is the one thing for which I sometimes find Pentex useful.
> If you can do it, it's radical. But all the right elements need
> to be lined up. I'm not paying 2 pool to lunge and almost oust
> my prey - and then get ousted by my predator.
The busting through your prey with Pentex is one of the best uses for
the card. If you are a big bleedy deck, knocking out one of your
prey's blockers can be huge, in terms of ousting them.
> It could work - if you can stop all of his buddies from removing
> the Pentex. I can't recall seeing that many opportunities to
> use Pentex effectively in this way.
Ex: Your predator is Enkidu and a bunch of nerds. You Pentex Enkidu
and keep the nerds from busting him out. Your life is saved for a
while.
> Again, if it's a single minion wall or if I can stop all of
> his buddies from removing it. Remember, often the wall has
> allies who will remove it for him. Usually, it's not worth
> two pool to foil a wall for a single turn.
Except when it is, and when it is, it often saves the crap out of you.
> 9 out of 10 times I get a Pentex played on me, I get ousted before
> I have my next master phase. Were that little point not true, I'd
> say this could be a clever reason to use it.
Ok, so you don't see that Pentex is that useful, yet indicate that 9
times out of 10 you get a Pentex played on you, you get ousted
immediately. Perhaps a conclusion could be drawn...
-Peter
Frederick Scott
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:heoift$iel$1...@news01.versatel.de...
Only if your predator would certainly have bled me for one. Even that is
from from certain. He might have had it in mind to do something to his
predator (which you might have even thought was a good thing) or do nothing
and left his minion untapped. You may just be giving him something to do
where he didn't have any effective use for his minion. Usually, trying to
predict what your predator will need to do on his next turn when it's your
master phase is very hard.
> And Henrik is absolutely right, most decks have plenty of cards that will do more than 1 damage to you, so the card is in many
> situations at least helpful in a way where you save pool.
Having the cards and being able to use them are two different things.
Besides that, just slapping down a Pentex often won't prevent him from
doing his damage. It may just delay him slightly.
There are times on Usenet when I can see I'm arguing with a person or
people over strategy where I can more or less see what they're saying
and I don't completely disagree, I just think they're way overselling
their position. This is not such a time. I don't see this argument
at all. I occasionally use Pentex. When a Pentex comes up in my hand,
I am almost never tempted to use it by just slapping it down on one of
my predator's minions on the rational that it will save me as much or
more pool than I'm spending. I say "almost" because I can imagine it.
(My predator as a Bleedzooka deck, my predator relentlessly bleeding
me with Arika or Lucian the Perfect, etc. I suppose it could it
happen.) But I just don't recall it ever happening. I don't think
it would happen very often even if I put one of these in every deck.
> And that is on top of being useful in many other ways (wallbuster, superstar-hoser, VP-getter).
Well, usually, it just winds up being: I clap it on one of my prey's
minions and I have a certain oust or a very high chance for an oust.
That's always worth two pool and that's when the card certainly shines.
The other times for me are highly speculative. It's so easy to remove
that I don't find those uses worthwhile.
Fred
Frederick Scott
The rest of the stuff is basically covered in my reply to Johannes.
Absolutely. But first, you have to be a little more careful understanding
what I just said. To emphasize to part you may not have properly
evaluated:
"9 out of 10 times (WHEN) I get a Pentex played on me..."
Notice the unspoken "WHEN". That says nothing about how often that
happens. Could happen once in 250 years for all you know. The point you
needed to get is that of all the times I'm subject to a Pentex, the vast
majority of the time, it's used to oust me in a single turn, however common
or rare that is. That's why I don't find the argument about holding one to
contest one played on me to make much sense. I suppose I could play it
somewhere to preemptively contest any Pentexes my predator will play but
that strikes me as kind of dumb, too. I don't know my predator - or anyone
else at the table - even has one in their decks. If they do, I don't know
any such Pentexes will be drawn. And if they are, I don't know that they
can't just remove mine first and then play it anyway. One way or the
other, I think the whole contestation argument is a non-starter.
All that said, I'll admit to getting Pentexed more often than once in 250
years. I can't recall it happening this year at all but my memory is kind
of bad and I don't play nearly as much as I'd like to. And also, I don't
live in a place where everyone loves the card as much as SOME places,
apparently. I'm sure that makes a difference. But I find it hard to
value the card for more than that one thing: if you draw it at a time when
you've got your sites on ousting your prey and you're just looking for that
one extra factor to nail it down, Pentex is often just that thing.
Fred
Johannes Walch
> Only if your predator would certainly have bled me for one. Even that is
> from from certain. He might have had it in mind to do something to his
> predator (which you might have even thought was a good thing) or do nothing
> and left his minion untapped. You may just be giving him something to do
> where he didn't have any effective use for his minion. Usually, trying to
> predict what your predator will need to do on his next turn when it's your
> master phase is very hard.
I find that it is often very easy to predict in my master phase what my
predator is going to do next turn. Many decks are not very surprising
especially if you play a lot of different people like I do.
> Having the cards and being able to use them are two different things.
> Besides that, just slapping down a Pentex often won't prevent him from
> doing his damage. It may just delay him slightly.
If you assume a more or less fixed length of the game the delay will
deduct from the final total damage you receive. Also it gives you time
to do things to re-gain pool in your minion phase (e.g ousting).
> There are times on Usenet when I can see I'm arguing with a person or
> people over strategy where I can more or less see what they're saying
> and I don't completely disagree, I just think they're way overselling
> their position. This is not such a time. I don't see this argument
> at all. I occasionally use Pentex. When a Pentex comes up in my hand,
> I am almost never tempted to use it by just slapping it down on one of
> my predator's minions on the rational that it will save me as much or
> more pool than I'm spending. I say "almost" because I can imagine it.
> (My predator as a Bleedzooka deck, my predator relentlessly bleeding
> me with Arika or Lucian the Perfect, etc. I suppose it could it
> happen.) But I just don't recall it ever happening. I don't think
> it would happen very often even if I put one of these in every deck.
I think me (and others) and you are playing in a very different
environment. We play a lot of bigger tournaments and most of the casual
games have effective decks as well to test for the big tournaments. Of
course Pentex is often not useful when your pred/prey are doing mildly
amusing stuff with not-so-often used cards. In our environment Pentex is
a must, even if only to have a chance to stop the dreaded Una deck.
>> And that is on top of being useful in many other ways (wallbuster, superstar-hoser, VP-getter).
>
> Well, usually, it just winds up being: I clap it on one of my prey's
> minions and I have a certain oust or a very high chance for an oust.
> That's always worth two pool and that's when the card certainly shines.
> The other times for me are highly speculative. It's so easy to remove
> that I don't find those uses worthwhile.
Any speculative use on top of a very solid base use is a huge plus.
Versatility is gold in V:TES, in this card is one of the most versatile
in its uses.
Also the card is not necessarily easy to remove. Sometimes the guy you
play it on just does not have stealth. So it is permanently one less
minion you have to worry about, since he can either attack you or try to
remove it, you just need one less blocker.
Peter D Bakija
> Absolutely. But first, you have to be a little more careful understanding
> what I just said. To emphasize to part you may not have properly
> evaluated:
>
> "9 out of 10 times (WHEN) I get a Pentex played on me..."
Well, yeah, there is that.
-Peter
Daneel
wrote:
> Anyway, I would love to hear folks expound on the all-mighty Pentex
> Subversion. I know it's a game winner, I just need to wrap my mind
> around it.
>
> best -
>
> chris
> (considering just dropping a copy into every deck I have running right
> now to see how it will work for me)
There was a joke in our local playgroup that went something like this:
Q: What's the difference between a fun play deck and a tournament deck?
A: 2 Direct Interventions, and a Pentex.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Raziel
most powerful cards.
Frederick Scott
news:84e04bf0-eef7-4bb8...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> Pentex is one of the most overpowered cards in the game. Easy top 3 of
> most powerful cards.
If that's true, how come no "BAN PENTEX" threads?!? Not even one!
Bah! A card can't be overpowered unless some sore loser wants to take
out his frustration on it in a thread come Monday morning.
Raziel
> "Raziel" <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
American players underestimate pentex, european players just play the
game - with all possible combination of cards, and most powerful cards
- after all, all meths can play pentex - so every player have equal
chances.
wumpus
On Nov 30, 6:58 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Raziel" <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:84e04bf0-eef7-4bb8...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Pentex is one of the most overpowered cards in the game. Easy top 3 of
> > most powerful cards.
>
> If that's true, how come no "BAN PENTEX" threads?!? Not even one!
Well, it's not a thread, but try 'ban pentex author:wumpus' in the
'Search Groups' box on Google...
> Bah! A card can't be overpowered unless some sore loser wants to take
> out his frustration on it in a thread come Monday morning.
I'm on the cutting edge of frustration, as usual.
Alex
Kevin M.
> "Raziel" <angel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pentex is one of the most overpowered cards in the game.
>> Easy top 3 of most powerful cards.
>
> If that's true, how come no "BAN PENTEX" threads?!? Not even one!
It might be more correct to say that Pentex is *undercosted*.
Which, by my definition, doesn't often rise to the level of eratta/ban.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Frederick Scott
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:R%6Rm.55860$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Raziel" <angel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Pentex is one of the most overpowered cards in the game.
>>> Easy top 3 of most powerful cards.
>>
>> If that's true, how come no "BAN PENTEX" threads?!? Not even one!
>
> It might be more correct to say that Pentex is *undercosted*.
Why? "Undercosted", "overpowered"...they're synonymous by any standards I can
see. You can solve both problems...THE problem, in fact, by raising the
cost of the card or by reducing its effect.
> Which, by my definition, doesn't often rise to the level of eratta/ban.
Sounds completely arbitrary to me.
Fred
Oko
> Also the card is not necessarily easy to remove. Sometimes the guy you
> play it on just does not have stealth. So it is permanently one less
> minion you have to worry about, since he can either attack you or try to
> remove it, you just need one less blocker.
And then I woke up and realized it can be removed by any minion. God I
hate it when that happens.
Like yesterday.
Daneel
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message
> news:R%6Rm.55860$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>> "Raziel" <angel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Pentex is one of the most overpowered cards in the game.
>>>> Easy top 3 of most powerful cards.
>>>
>>> If that's true, how come no "BAN PENTEX" threads?!? Not even one!
>>
>> It might be more correct to say that Pentex is *undercosted*.
>
> Why? "Undercosted", "overpowered"...they're synonymous by any standards
> I can
> see. You can solve both problems...THE problem, in fact, by raising the
> cost of the card or by reducing its effect.
Pentex is powerful and it does get used a lot in Europe.
That said, Pentex is the kind of card that can counter a lot of lockdown
decks, and for that end I woldn't like to see it banned/nerfed.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Frederick Scott
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu39xdq...@news.chello.hu...
Poor argument. If you need something overpowered to deal with something
else overpowered, both things should be banned or nerfed.
(That said, I don't think either of these things are overpowered or
undercosted, whatever you want to call it. So it's not my problem
to sort it out...)
Fred
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>> "Raziel" <angel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Pentex is one of the most overpowered cards in the game.
>>>> Easy top 3 of most powerful cards.
>>>
>>> If that's true, how come no "BAN PENTEX" threads?!?
>>
>
> Why? "Undercosted", "overpowered"...they're synonymous
> by any standards I can see.
Examples of undercosted (but not overpowered) cards:
- Pentex Subversion
- Freak Drive
- Heart of Nizchetus
- Ivory Bow
- Bowl of Convergence
- Carlton van Wyk
- Govern the Unaligned
- Conditioning
- Deflection
- Villein
- Dreams of the Sphinx
- Champion
- Dragon's Breath Rounds
- Carrion Crows
- Tupdog
Examples of overpowered (regardless of cost) cards:
- Sensory Deprivation
- Direct Intervention
- Archon Investigation
- Voter Captivation
- Protect Thine Own
- Edge Explosion
- Dramatic Upheaval
- Kindred Restructure
- Return to Innocence
- Succubus Club
- original printing Majesty
- original printing Second Tradition
- original printing Fifth Tradition
- original printing Wake With Evening's Freshness
- original printing Misdirection
- original printing Delaying Tactics
- original printing Embrace
Hope that helps.
suoli
> Examples of overpowered (regardless of cost) cards:
I'd use a hypothetical card with an effect similar to an over powered
card and a high cost tacked on to refute that but you'd probably call
it absurd... so here's a non-hypothetical one.
Eldest Command Undeath, The
Type: Political Action
Requires: laibon
Cost: X blood
Requires a Laibon.
Choose a vampire controlled by your prey with capacity less than X.
Successful referendum means that vampire is burned. This acting
vampire cannot gain blood this action. Any blood he or she gains goes
to the blood bank instead.
Saying that a card is overpowered no matter what it costs is
nonsensical. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that in some cases
changing cost is a more elegant/intuitive/whatever fix for an
overpowered card than changing effect and vice versa.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> Examples of overpowered (regardless of cost) cards:
>
> I'd use a hypothetical card with an effect similar to an over powered
> card and a high cost tacked on to refute that but you'd probably call
> it absurd... so here's a non-hypothetical one.
It isn't useful to declare what I'd say about something hypothetical. :)
> Eldest Command Undeath, The
> Type: Political Action
> Requires: laibon
> Cost: X blood
> Requires a Laibon.
> Choose a vampire controlled by your prey with capacity less than X.
> Successful referendum means that vampire is burned. This acting
> vampire cannot gain blood this action. Any blood he or she gains goes
> to the blood bank instead.
I'd say that TECU is one of the more balanced cards, if that helps.
Veles' Hunt is pretty balanced, too, even though the effect is huge.
> Saying that a card is overpowered no matter what it costs is
> nonsensical.
Again, note that I didn't say this.
> Maybe it would be more accurate to say that in some cases
> changing cost is a more elegant/intuitive/whatever fix for an
> overpowered card than changing effect and vice versa.
More accurate than what? I'm confused, but I agree with the rest of it.
Daneel
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> news:opu39xdq...@news.chello.hu...
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:52:19 -0700, Frederick Scott
>> <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message
>>> news:R%6Rm.55860$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
>>>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>>>> "Raziel" <angel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Pentex is one of the most overpowered cards in the game.
>>>>>> Easy top 3 of most powerful cards.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that's true, how come no "BAN PENTEX" threads?!? Not even one!
>>>>
>>>> It might be more correct to say that Pentex is *undercosted*.
>>>
>>> Why? "Undercosted", "overpowered"...they're synonymous by any
>>> standards I can
>>> see. You can solve both problems...THE problem, in fact, by raising
>>> the
>>> cost of the card or by reducing its effect.
>>
>> Pentex is powerful and it does get used a lot in Europe.
>>
>> That said, Pentex is the kind of card that can counter a lot of lockdown
>> decks, and for that end I woldn't like to see it banned/nerfed.
>
> Poor argument. If you need something overpowered to deal with something
> else overpowered, both things should be banned or nerfed.
I agree with your second sentence. But I don't agree with the first.
Because new cards keep on coming out, the game is constantly evolving,
you cannot ban existing silver bullets completely because no amount
of playtesting will reveal all possible broken combos.
> (That said, I don't think either of these things are overpowered or
> undercosted, whatever you want to call it. So it's not my problem
> to sort it out...)
I don't think that there is any huge card-specific issue in V:tES now
that PTO was banned. There is room for improvement in certain areas,
e.g. walls, and some stuff does get used a *lot*, e.g. Pentex, but I
think it's not a problem.
--
Regards,
Daneel
LSJ
> suoli wrote:
>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> Examples of overpowered (regardless of cost) cards:
>> Saying that a card is overpowered no matter what it costs is
>> nonsensical.
>
> Again, note that I didn't say this.
You gave a list of cards that you label as overpowered regardless of cost.
>> Maybe it would be more accurate to say that in some cases
>> changing cost is a more elegant/intuitive/whatever fix for an
>> overpowered card than changing effect and vice versa.
>
> More accurate than what? I'm confused, but I agree with the rest of it.
More accurate than saying the cards are "overpowered (regardless of cost)".
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> suoli wrote:
>>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>> Examples of overpowered (regardless of cost) cards:
>
>>> Saying that a card is overpowered no matter what it costs is
>>> nonsensical.
>>
>> Again, note that I didn't say this.
>
> You gave a list of cards that you label as overpowered regardless
> of cost.
Yes, I did. I gave a list, a very specific list, and not included in that
list was the concept "a card is overpowered no matter what it costs",
since this is not something I believe. I'm not even sure what that means.
What was meant by "regardless of cost" was to contrast the concept
'overpowered' with the concept of 'undercosted', i.e. "cards that are
overpowered but not necessarily due to their cost".
Hopefully that makes things clearer. Sorry for the confusion.
Brum
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:12:09 -0700, Frederick Scott
>
>
>
> <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> >news:opu39xdq...@news.chello.hu...
> >> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:52:19 -0700, Frederick Scott
> >> <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> >>>news:R%6Rm.55860$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
> >>>> Frederick Scott wrote:
Exactly. The game evolved in a way that banning PTO was paramount due
to the fact that the percentage of possible targets was allot higher,
thus giving clear advantage to PTO users.
I don't think there is a problem with Pentex. I think the problem is
deck construction.
Pentex stops / kills star decks (so does focused rush combat) and non
star decks that hold no Reactions due to deck construction.
In my opinion, all decks should have some copies of Sudden / Wash, DI
and wakes (and a Pentex), the numbers changing due to specifics of the
deck.
Still, not many people want to use slots in this, leaving them open to
cards like Pentex.
It's like people complaining about PTO, but not using Delaying Tactics
in their decks.
Again, still being an Arika bitch, I think PTO was well banned.
Cheers,
Tiago
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> suoli wrote:
>>>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>>> Examples of overpowered (regardless of cost) cards:
>>>> Saying that a card is overpowered no matter what it costs is
>>>> nonsensical.
>>> Again, note that I didn't say this.
>> You gave a list of cards that you label as overpowered regardless
>> of cost.
>
> Yes, I did. I gave a list, a very specific list, and not included in that
> list was the concept "a card is overpowered no matter what it costs",
> since this is not something I believe. I'm not even sure what that means.
Overpowered no matter what it costs means overpowered regardless of cost.
> What was meant by "regardless of cost" was to contrast the concept
> 'overpowered' with the concept of 'undercosted', i.e. "cards that are
> overpowered but not necessarily due to their cost".
>
> Hopefully that makes things clearer. Sorry for the confusion.
The two phrases "overpowered no matter what it costs" and "overpowered
regardless of cost" are identical in meaning. Hence the confusion.
You say, for example, that Voter Captivation is an example of a card that is
"overpowered (regardless of cost)". Yet if it cost X blood (or X pool), would it
be overpowered? If not, then the card is not one that is "overpowered regardless
of cost".
A card is overpowered if the effect it produces is too great relative to its
cost (blood cost, pool cost, Discipline cost, opportunity cost, etc.)
A card that is undercosted is overpowered. If Renegade Garou cost only 1 pool,
the card would be too powerful.
That is, the effect may be powerful, but if it comes with an appropriate cost,
then the card is not overpowered. The power of a card depends both on the power
of the effect it produces and the cost of the card. The power of a card is not
independent of its cost.
And even that is just splitting hairs: the line between some of those costs and
the effect proper of the card is pretty blurry.
And see
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/62c37f8f3ab33b31
and the surrounding thread.
Raziel
>
> And seehttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/62c3...
> and the surrounding thread.
What, BASTARD SWORD in discussion about correct pricing ? Not that
entire thread is pointless, it's actually good, but examples are crap.
LSJ
Quote for context and you'll gather more discussion.
Raziel
On 9 Paź 2001, 20:41, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Talon...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:48:02 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > >>It does to power levels of cards, and thats what I was saying.
>
> > >No, it doesn't - at all. Where it does, it's a mistake.
>
> > It does. One only need to look at corruption/Form of corruption,
> > bastard sword/sword of judgement, outcast mage/that rare mage ally
> > guy....etc etc.
>
> Sword of Judgment costs an extra pool, is unique, and requires !Bru.
> The "effect" of the card in play is better (more powerful) than Bastard
> Sword, but the card itself is not more "powerful" (since it costs more).
> It is a more limited use card (being unique and requiring a clan), so
> it is rarer than the more general use card.
>
> Likewise the non-unique Outcast Mage and the Mage Ally Guy (who costs
> an additional pool and is unique).
>
> etc. etc.
>
> Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level.
>
> > The most powerful cards tend to be rare cards. They also cost more as
> > well, but rarity is obviouslly a function of power as well as power is
> > a function of the cost.
>
> Power is a function of cost - reduce the cost of a card and its overall
> powerlevel increases.
>
> Power is not a function of rarity - reduce the rarity of a card and its
> powerlevel is unchanged.
>
> If effect X has cost Y and some other effect Z is twice as strong and costs
> twice as much, then the power of Z is equal to the power of X.
>
> Separating power from cost is not possible - the cost (including clan/discipline/
> title/capacity requirements) is inherently tied to the power.
>
> --
> LSJ (vtes...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
> Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
What, BASTARD SWORD in discussion about correct pricing ? Not that
entire thread is pointless, it's actually good (your response is true
in general sense), but examples are crap.
LSJ
>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>> It does to power levels of cards, and thats what I was saying.
>>>> No, it doesn't - at all. Where it does, it's a mistake.
>>> It does. One only need to look at corruption/Form of corruption,
>>> bastard sword/sword of judgement, outcast mage/that rare mage ally
>>> guy....etc etc.
>> Sword of Judgment costs an extra pool, is unique, and requires !Bru.
>> The "effect" of the card in play is better (more powerful) than Bastard
>> Sword, but the card itself is not more "powerful" (since it costs more).
>> It is a more limited use card (being unique and requiring a clan), so
>> it is rarer than the more general use card.
[snipped quote to leave just the appropriate context]
Raziel wrote:
> What, BASTARD SWORD in discussion about correct pricing ? Not that
> entire thread is pointless, it's actually good (your response is true
> in general sense), but examples are crap.
Note that Bastard Sword is not being held up as an example of a strong card.
It's being held up as an example of a common card that is weaker in play a rare
card.
As far as that goes, it's a pretty good example. Of course, it was put forward
as evidence that rarity is being used to justify power in VTES, again being used
because it is weak. As James notes above, the example doesn't provide such
evidence, but that doesn't mean Bastard Sword is not a suitable example of a
weak card.
Addressing the costing of Bastard Sword directly, since half a pool is not
possible, should it cost 0? Or what cost should it have?
Peter D Bakija
> Examples of undercosted (but not overpowered) cards:
If I understand you correctly, you stand in the following place:
-"Undercosted" cards are cards that are too powerful for their current
cost, but would be fine if they had an increased cost--say, if Carrion
Crows cost a blood or Ivory Bow cost 2 pool or Freak Drive was only
playable once per turn, they'd be just dandy. As they are undercosted,
they are also overpowered, but not to the point that they are making
the game not work. They are just kinda too good.
-"Overpowered" cards are cards that have effects that are simply too
good for any reasonable price range--as they are, they are just too
powerful and have too much of an impact on the game, and you could
certainly increase the cost of the card to the point that they cease
to be too powerful and have too much of an effect on the game, but
then they'd be essentially unplayable. If you made DI cost 3 pool or
Voter Cap cost X blood where X is the amount of blood you'll gain,
they would no longer be too powerful, but they'd also be virtually
worthless.
I'm with you on both of these fronts (as well as most of the cards you
list in either category), but I suspect you should probably coin a
different word for the second category, as it is too easy to refer to
an undercosted card as overpowered (as it is overpowered by virtue of
being undercosted), and the hair splitting is likely to cause
consternation :-)
> Examples of overpowered (regardless of cost) cards:
> - original printing Majesty
> - original printing Second Tradition
> - original printing Fifth Tradition
> - original printing Wake With Evening's Freshness
> - original printing Misdirection
> - original printing Delaying Tactics
> - original printing Embrace
With these examples, I think your distinction falls apart--all of
these cards weren't "overpowered" in the sense (that you seem to mean)
of, like, PTO and Sensory Deprivation--they were just undercosted.
Majesty gained an increased cost, and became totally reasonable, as
did all of these cards--Wake is fine (if slightly underuseful now);
Misdirection where X=1 is fine. Second Tradition costing a blood is
completely reasonable.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> Addressing the costing of Bastard Sword directly, since half a pool is not
> possible, should it cost 0? Or what cost should it have?
Probably closer to Baseball Bat, which is, essentailly, a more
reasonably costed Bastard Sword. It has the exact same effect (melee
weapon that costs 1 pool and does strength +1 damage), but has a
slightly increased cost (DNR till end of action--often completely
irrelevant) with a considerably decreased cost (untap at end of turn--
more or less meaning it doesn't cost an action if you can take
advantage of the being untapped between your turns).
Is there a way to recost Bastard Sword so that it isn't just better or
just worse than (or exactly the same as) the completely reasonable
Baseball Bat? Maybe--give it another minor ability (+2 strength damage
against allies?) or decrease its cost a bit more (costs a pool, acting
minion gains a blood? Something like that).
-Peter
suoli
> What was meant by "regardless of cost" was to contrast the concept
> 'overpowered' with the concept of 'undercosted', i.e. "cards that are
> overpowered but not necessarily due to their cost".
Ok, I get what you're saying.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Is there a way to recost Bastard Sword so that it isn't just better or
> just worse than (or exactly the same as) the completely reasonable
> Baseball Bat? Maybe--give it another minor ability (+2 strength damage
> against allies?) or decrease its cost a bit more (costs a pool, acting
> minion gains a blood? Something like that).
I'm not sure why this is necessary. Is it possible to make every vtes
card useful? What's your fix for Eyes of the Dead?
Bastard Sword is a weaker example of a fairly weak card type (melee
weapons), but it's not completely unplayable. It also hasn't been printed
since vtes, so I'd say leave it alone.
By the way, I saw the Pixies last night! They played all of Doolittle and
a few good ones off Surfer Rosa and some other miscellany.
LSJ
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Peter D Bakija wrote:
>
>> Is there a way to recost Bastard Sword so that it isn't just better or
>> just worse than (or exactly the same as) the completely reasonable
>> Baseball Bat? Maybe--give it another minor ability (+2 strength damage
>> against allies?) or decrease its cost a bit more (costs a pool, acting
>> minion gains a blood? Something like that).
>
> I'm not sure why this is necessary. Is it possible to make every vtes
> card useful?
Of course it's not necessary. Peter was just responding to my query. A thought
exercise.
Raziel
Fine, but the rares he mentioned were also pretty weak, so his
argument does not hold (i think his argument is not true in vtes too).
Addressing the costing of Bastard Sword directly. It should cost 0
pool and have DNR until the end of the action. It's already very weak
type of equipment, with great range of hosers (and WWS is in the game).
Peter D Bakija
> I'm not sure why this is necessary. Is it possible to make every vtes
> card useful? What's your fix for Eyes of the Dead?
Oh, it isn't remotely necessary. Leave Bastard Sword alone. I was just
helping flesh out the discussion about appropriate costing.
> Bastard Sword is a weaker example of a fairly weak card type (melee
> weapons), but it's not completely unplayable. It also hasn't been printed
> since vtes, so I'd say leave it alone.
Thankfully, me too!
> By the way, I saw the Pixies last night! They played all of Doolittle and
> a few good ones off Surfer Rosa and some other miscellany.
Bah! Jealous! Yeah, they played NYC for, like, 3 nights around
Thanksgiving, but there was not a single viable way for me to get
there (or tickets for that matter, as they sold out in 10 minutes...)
-Peter
Chris Berger
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > Is there a way to recost Bastard Sword so that it isn't just better or
> > just worse than (or exactly the same as) the completely reasonable
> > Baseball Bat? Maybe--give it another minor ability (+2 strength damage
> > against allies?) or decrease its cost a bit more (costs a pool, acting
> > minion gains a blood? Something like that).
>
> I'm not sure why this is necessary. Is it possible to make every vtes
> card useful? What's your fix for Eyes of the Dead?
>
Eyes of the Dead - nec: +2 intercept vs. a Diablerie action / NEC: +1
intercept
OR... nec: +1 intercept vs. an action directed at one of your non-
ready minions. Usable by a tapped vampire who untaps and attempts to
block, even if intercept is not yet needed. NEC: As above, with +2
intercept.
> Bastard Sword is a weaker example of a fairly weak card type (melee
> weapons), but it's not completely unplayable. It also hasn't been printed
> since vtes, so I'd say leave it alone.
>
It's totally unplayable, because it's obsoleted by Baseball Bat,
Poker, and Meat Hook. Not to mention Weighted Walking Stick. Note
that it's not 100% inferior to those cards in every way, but in
practice you would never use a Bastard Sword when you have the other
options available to you.
Hypothetically, I'd just have it cost 0. Yes, that makes... what's
that card called... Brass Knuckles(? - don't know because I would
never play with it) obsolete. So that would have to give you a pool
when successful... =) Actually, Brass Knuckles should probably untap
you at the end of the turn, and would be pretty balanced.
Not that I expect those changes or particularly want them, just a
thought...
Viking
Something which would be somewhat less hypothetical would be if WW
thought about releasing "new versions" of the old wallpaper cards. For
instance, make a "Longsword", identical to Bastard Sword but with
added features (extra damage against allies, etc.). Or, if I may be
bold, make it +2 damage, seeing that both Bastard Sword and Bang Nakh
are wallpaper something which is better than both might actually see
some use. Making new, better versions with new names will open up new
possibilities and not make the old cards any more wallpaper than they
already are.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Something which would be somewhat less hypothetical would be if WW
> thought about releasing "new versions" of the old wallpaper cards.
You mean like Baseball Bat?
Matthew T. Morgan
> Hypothetically...
> Eyes of the Dead - nec: +2 intercept vs. a Diablerie action / NEC: +1
> intercept
> OR... nec: +1 intercept vs. an action directed at one of your non-
> ready minions. Usable by a tapped vampire who untaps and attempts to
> block, even if intercept is not yet needed. NEC: As above, with +2
> intercept.
NEC +1 intercept might see some play. Necromancy intercept only on (D)
actions at a non-ready minion? Hoo-boy. How many times has Bind the
Night-Walker saved your hide? This is more corner-case and less good.
> It's totally unplayable, because it's obsoleted by Baseball Bat,
> Poker, and Meat Hook. Not to mention Weighted Walking Stick. Note
> that it's not 100% inferior to those cards in every way, but in
> practice you would never use a Bastard Sword when you have the other
> options available to you.
Obsoleted != unplayable. One could possibly come up with some reason that
Bastard Sword's replace clause makes it marginally better in some rare
case than Baseball Bat. Well, okay, one would be full of crap. The point
is that while Bastard Sword is an inferior card and is never a good
choice if one has the freedom to choose any card, you could still put it
in some deck and not be completely beside yourself with misery upon
drawing it (like you would if you put, say, Eyes of the Dead in a deck).
> Hypothetically, I'd just have it cost 0. Yes, that makes... what's
> that card called... Brass Knuckles(? - don't know because I would
> never play with it) obsolete. So that would have to give you a pool
> when successful... =) Actually, Brass Knuckles should probably untap
> you at the end of the turn, and would be pretty balanced.
A free card that lets you hit at +1 forever...seems like it should be
good, but I don't think I've ever seen Brass Knuckles in play outside of a
Sabbat War draft. I'm not sure if there's really any help for melee
weapons. I was looking forward to making a Baseball Bat deck when TR came
out, but I still haven't put one in a deck.
> Not that I expect those changes or particularly want them, just a
> thought...
Dude, this is a thought experiement! I can't believe you didn't know
that!
Viking
Sort of, but I think a greater improvement would be necessary to make
something like that into something people want to use. Also, for
purely aesthetic reasons, I'd personally like more of a thematically
similar replacement (e.g. another sword instead of Bastard Sword, etc.)
librarian
> On Dec 2, 9:38 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure why this is necessary. Is it possible to make every vtes
>> card useful? What's your fix for Eyes of the Dead?
>
> Oh, it isn't remotely necessary. Leave Bastard Sword alone. I was just
> helping flesh out the discussion about appropriate costing.
>
>> Bastard Sword is a weaker example of a fairly weak card type (melee
>> weapons), but it's not completely unplayable. It also hasn't been printed
>> since vtes, so I'd say leave it alone.
>
> Thankfully, me too!
This is about when Ben Peal shows up to ask us to stop
talking about it or design team will include it in next
reprint set...
best -
chris
echia...@yahoo.com
> > It's totally unplayable, because it's obsoleted by Baseball Bat,
> > Poker, and Meat Hook. Not to mention Weighted Walking Stick. Note
> > that it's not 100% inferior to those cards in every way, but in
> > practice you would never use a Bastard Sword when you have the other
> > options available to you.
>
> Obsoleted != unplayable. One could possibly come up with some reason that
> Bastard Sword's replace clause makes it marginally better in some rare
> case than Baseball Bat. Well, okay, one would be full of crap. The point
> is that while Bastard Sword is an inferior card and is never a good
> choice if one has the freedom to choose any card, you could still put it
> in some deck and not be completely beside yourself with misery upon
> drawing it (like you would if you put, say, Eyes of the Dead in a deck).
For example, Bastard Sword might be the better choice (than Brass
Knuckles or Poker) in a Black Cat or a Baldesar Rossellini deck where
you don't pay the pool cost anyway. The delayed replacement with
Baseball Bat can be an issue if you expect to be blocked (metagame
includes lots of intercept or weirdos who play Aggressive Tactics). Or
maybe people like Raptor decks, or you're using a Gehenna deck where
you already have a significantly reduced hand size.
I'd say the bigger problem is Weighted Walking Stick, which just sets
too high of a bar for Bastard Sword (or Baseball Bat) to compete with.
Between WWS and Target Vitals, who needs disciplines for a decent
combat package? (But in this case I'd say it's WWS being a bit too
strong rather than Baseball Bat being too weak).
Raziel
Thats why we see soooo much WWS decks. Wait, not really - those cards
play only in !ventrue decks and renegade garou decks. In other they
are not worth the slot. If anything, melee weapons as combat archetype
is very weak - cannot deal with grapple (most potence decks have
those), lose against guns (.44 or SNS +DBR) and thrown junk/aids from
bats. That is, they are inferior against any combat except one with
few combat ends (as one with lots of them make melee irrelevant
anyway). So even WWS is not really too strong, and other melee weapons
are very weak.
Kevin M.
I don't believe that it is necessarily true that 'a card that is
undercosted is overpowered'. Your RG example I'd agree is true, but
the cards that I have on my 'undercosted' list have effects which
I think are fine for the game, i.e. they aren't 'overpowered', but
are wrongly-costed as their only defect. If you want to somehow
mathematically reduce that reasoning to overpowered=undercosted, ok,
but it isn't my intent to define the words in that base fashion.
I think the situation is more complicated than that simplicity.
My list of 'overpowered, regardless of cost' cards means to say that
the cards have an inappropriate power level pretty much no matter
what you would (did) cost them at and that they are (were) just
inappropriate.
Now, it may be that I am not correctly judging VTES (or CCGs in
general) and that it is ok if VTES has a few overpowered cards. But
that's how I feel, so there it is. You, Scott, have done a fine job
of finding balance within the game and you may have a wider view of
the game (or CCGs in general) than I do, so I could be wrong, sure.
So, for Sensory Deprivation, Direct Intervention, Protect Thine Own,
Edge Explosion, Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred Restructure, Return to
Innocence, Succubus Club, old Misdirection, and old Delaying Tactics
I do still feel are (were) wrong and bad effects for the game and
should be done away with. Note that this also means that I see the
current Misdirection and current Delaying Tactics as STILL bad for
the game and should be done away with.
With Archon Investigation, Voter Captivation, the old Second and
Fifth Traditions, old Majesty, old WWEF, and old Embrace, I keep
going back and forth on 'are (were) they undercosted or are (were)
they just inappropriate (overpowered)?' and my current feeling is
that they are (were) overpowered and should (have) just be(en) done
away with.
Now, while this is what I believe, it is entirely possible that I'm
wrong, as you demonstrated when you found a fix for the old 2nd and
5th which I see as reasonable (although 5th now seems overcosted) and
given that I should probably move them to my 'undercosted' list. I'm
sure I put them on the 'overpowered' list given that, until you found
a really nice cost-based fix for them, I really felt that they just
needed to be gotten rid of.
It's also possible that if you agreed with me and recosted AI and VC
somehow, I'd think to myself 'I guess those were just undercosted and
not overpowered like I thought they were. Good ol' Scott helping me
correct my previous assumptions.'
It's also possible that I'm wrong about current Misdirection and
Delaying Tactics and that they really are OK now and you've found
a cost-based fix that has proved that I misjudged them, but I don't
feel that currently.
Kevin M.
> I'd say the bigger problem is Weighted Walking Stick, which just sets
> too high of a bar for Bastard Sword (or Baseball Bat) to compete with.
> Between WWS and Target Vitals, who needs disciplines for a decent
> combat package? (But in this case I'd say it's WWS being a bit too
> strong rather than Baseball Bat being too weak).
I almost put WWS on my undercosted list except I realized that WWS
is just what a weapon SHOULD BE and most of the rest just suck. :)
echia...@yahoo.com
> Thats why we see soooo much WWS decks. Wait, not really - those cards
> play only in !ventrue decks and renegade garou decks. In other they
> are not worth the slot. If anything, melee weapons as combat archetype
> is very weak - cannot deal with grapple (most potence decks have
> those), lose against guns (.44 or SNS +DBR) and thrown junk/aids from
> bats. That is, they are inferior against any combat except one with
> few combat ends (as one with lots of them make melee irrelevant
> anyway). So even WWS is not really too strong, and other melee weapons
> are very weak.
There's one player in our playgroup and he puts in WWS in just about
every deck he plays (and lots of Wakes too and generally uses lots of
weenies). They work out really well for him.
The TWDA shows 15 decks in 2009 with WWS (4 of which also use Target
Vitals). Which isn't bad.
In addition to !Ventrue decks, they also appear in other AUS/FOR decks
(including Salubri Antitribu), along with Imbued decks, Assamites,
Ishtarri, Malkavians, weenie Auspex. That's a more diverse range than
the one-dimensional strawman you're using.
Back when it was first printed, WWS was one of the most sought after
new cards. It was in extremely high demand and people kept clamoring
for it to be reprinted (which they eventually did in large numbers).
Back in its day, it was kind of like how Target Vitals is now. But
maybe your selective memory can't recall that tidbit.
LSJ
> I don't believe that it is necessarily true that 'a card that is
> undercosted is overpowered'. Your RG example I'd agree is true, but
> the cards that I have on my 'undercosted' list have effects which
> I think are fine for the game, i.e. they aren't 'overpowered', but
> are wrongly-costed as their only defect.
You've switched from "cards" to "effects".
> My list of 'overpowered, regardless of cost' cards means to say that
> the cards have an inappropriate power level pretty much no matter
> what you would (did) cost them at and that they are (were) just
> inappropriate.
Except that they could have their costs adjusted appropriately, in most cases.
That is, match the cost to the effect so that the card (the whole package) is
balanced.
> Now, it may be that I am not correctly judging VTES (or CCGs in
> general) and that it is ok if VTES has a few overpowered cards. But
> that's how I feel, so there it is. You, Scott, have done a fine job
> of finding balance within the game and you may have a wider view of
> the game (or CCGs in general) than I do, so I could be wrong, sure.
The realm of "suitably-made cards" is not a razor's-edge on the balance scale, sure.
> So, for Sensory Deprivation, Direct Intervention, Protect Thine Own,
> Edge Explosion, Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred Restructure, Return to
> Innocence, Succubus Club, old Misdirection, and old Delaying Tactics
> I do still feel are (were) wrong and bad effects for the game and
> should be done away with. Note that this also means that I see the
> current Misdirection and current Delaying Tactics as STILL bad for
> the game and should be done away with.
Ah.
But a DT that costs 6 blood, say, surely would not be offensive.
> With Archon Investigation, Voter Captivation, the old Second and
> Fifth Traditions, old Majesty, old WWEF, and old Embrace, I keep
> going back and forth on 'are (were) they undercosted or are (were)
> they just inappropriate (overpowered)?' and my current feeling is
> that they are (were) overpowered and should (have) just be(en) done
> away with.
Sure. There are some things that I would have done differently back in 7/7/98,
in hindsight. VC is my pet example of that.
Raziel
Those assamites are also AUS/FOR deck. Those malkavians are weenie
Auspex. Still: AUS/FOR, weenie AUS, weenie FOR, Imbued (weenie),
Weenie PRO. Not really diverse, if you ask me. And original statement
still is true: It's not really strong card.
Frederick Scott
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu39xdq...@news.chello.hu...
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:52:19 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:R%6Rm.55860$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
>>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>>> "Raziel" <angel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Pentex is one of the most overpowered cards in the game.
>>>>> Easy top 3 of most powerful cards.
>>>>
>>>> If that's true, how come no "BAN PENTEX" threads?!? Not even one!
>>>
>>> It might be more correct to say that Pentex is *undercosted*.
>>
>> Why? "Undercosted", "overpowered"...they're synonymous by any standards I can
>> see. You can solve both problems...THE problem, in fact, by raising the
>> cost of the card or by reducing its effect.
>
> Pentex is powerful and it does get used a lot in Europe.
>
> That said, Pentex is the kind of card that can counter a lot of lockdown
> decks, and for that end I woldn't like to see it banned/nerfed.
Poor argument. If you need something overpowered to deal with something
else overpowered, both things should be banned or nerfed.
(That said, I don't think either of these things are overpowered or
undercosted, whatever you want to call it. So it's not my problem
to sort it out...)
Fred
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> I don't believe that it is necessarily true that 'a card that is
>> undercosted is overpowered'. Your RG example I'd agree is true,
>> but the cards that I have on my 'undercosted' list have effects
>> which I think are fine for the game, i.e. they aren't 'overpowered'
>
> You've switched from "cards" to "effects".
ummm What? The effect IS "the card". How am I switching?
>> My list of 'overpowered, regardless of cost' cards means to say
>> that the cards have an inappropriate power level pretty much no
>> matter what you would (did) cost them at and that they are (were)
>> just inappropriate.
>
> Except that they could have their costs adjusted appropriately, in
> most cases. That is, match the cost to the effect so that the card
> (the whole package) is balanced.
For the cards which I suggested that I still believe are overpowered,
I don't see how having their costs adjusted "appropriately" would
make them OK.
Sensory Deprivation - Far worse than Pentex Subversion, as it's
nearly impossible to remove once placed; hence the removal clause
really isn't there; hence the card is massively overpowered, unfair,
and wrong. (I'm not even mentioning the ease of a CHI vampire to get
a pile of stealth.) Making it 'once per game' might be a fix for it,
in the same way that a OPG might have been a fix for Protect Thine
Own, but I doubt it would work for either card.
Direct Intervention - The game's silver bullet. An awful card, an
awful concept. If you're OK with there being a counter to EVERY
non-Master card in the game then you're OK with this. I'm not.
current Delaying Tactics, current Misdirection - more Silver bullets,
although these may have a fix available to them that my dislike
cannot yet see, and they'd therefore be 'undercosted'.
For the cards on the banned list, you've already agreed with me,
so no need to go further there.
>> So, for Sensory Deprivation, Direct Intervention, Protect Thine
>> Own, Edge Explosion, Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred Restructure,
>> Return to Innocence, Succubus Club, old Misdirection, and old
>> Delaying Tactics I do still feel are (were) wrong and bad effects
>> for the game and should be done away with. Note that this also
>> means that I see the current Misdirection and current Delaying
>> Tactics as STILL bad for the game and should be done away with.
>
> Ah.
> But a DT that costs 6 blood, say, surely would not be offensive.
Well, sure, that'd make it less usable (used?), but the core issue
that I have with DT is that it is a silver bullet, and silver bullets
are bad in concept, which a blood cost wouldn't be able to remove.
>> With Archon Investigation, Voter Captivation, the old Second and
>> Fifth Traditions, old Majesty, old WWEF, and old Embrace, I keep
>> going back and forth on 'are (were) they undercosted or are (were)
>> they just inappropriate (overpowered)?' and my current feeling is
>> that they are (were) overpowered and should (have) just be(en) done
>> away with.
>
> Sure. There are some things that I would have done differently back
> in 7/7/98, in hindsight. VC is my pet example of that.
Oh, you've done a superb job, I'm just using the 1% of the game which
I have issues with as an example. I could even be wrong about those.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> I don't believe that it is necessarily true that 'a card that is
>>> undercosted is overpowered'. Your RG example I'd agree is true,
>>> but the cards that I have on my 'undercosted' list have effects
>>> which I think are fine for the game, i.e. they aren't 'overpowered'
>>> but are wrongly-costed as their only defect.
>> You've switched from "cards" to "effects".
>
> ummm What? The effect IS "the card". How am I switching?
Frequently "effect" is used to discuss the effect of the card after the cost is
paid. In this discussion, "the card" is used as the whole package: cost + effect.
>>> My list of 'overpowered, regardless of cost' cards means to say
>>> that the cards have an inappropriate power level pretty much no
>>> matter what you would (did) cost them at and that they are (were)
>>> just inappropriate.
>> Except that they could have their costs adjusted appropriately, in
>> most cases. That is, match the cost to the effect so that the card
>> (the whole package) is balanced.
>
> For the cards which I suggested that I still believe are overpowered,
> I don't see how having their costs adjusted "appropriately" would
> make them OK.
By definition, adjusting them appropriately makes them appropriate.
> Sensory Deprivation - Far worse than Pentex Subversion, as it's
> nearly impossible to remove once placed; hence the removal clause
> really isn't there; hence the card is massively overpowered, unfair,
> and wrong. (I'm not even mentioning the ease of a CHI vampire to get
> a pile of stealth.) Making it 'once per game' might be a fix for it,
> in the same way that a OPG might have been a fix for Protect Thine
> Own, but I doubt it would work for either card.
Or make it cost 10 blood.
> Direct Intervention - The game's silver bullet. An awful card, an
> awful concept. If you're OK with there being a counter to EVERY
> non-Master card in the game then you're OK with this. I'm not.
At 3 pool, it becomes a bigger decision. At 4 pool even more so. Surely there's
a cost that would make it appropriate in the eyes of <person X>.
> current Delaying Tactics, current Misdirection - more Silver bullets,
> although these may have a fix available to them that my dislike
> cannot yet see, and they'd therefore be 'undercosted'.
"Cannot see" that a higher cost makes it less powerful?
> For the cards on the banned list, you've already agreed with me,
> so no need to go further there.
>
>>> So, for Sensory Deprivation, Direct Intervention, Protect Thine
>>> Own, Edge Explosion, Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred Restructure,
>>> Return to Innocence, Succubus Club, old Misdirection, and old
>>> Delaying Tactics I do still feel are (were) wrong and bad effects
>>> for the game and should be done away with. Note that this also
>>> means that I see the current Misdirection and current Delaying
>>> Tactics as STILL bad for the game and should be done away with.
>> Ah.
>> But a DT that costs 6 blood, say, surely would not be offensive.
>
> Well, sure, that'd make it less usable (used?), but the core issue
> that I have with DT is that it is a silver bullet, and silver bullets
> are bad in concept, which a blood cost wouldn't be able to remove.
DT is not a silver bullet, any more than Surprise Influence or Enhanced Senses is.
DI, sure. DT? Not so much.
Even so, DT at 10 blood is clearly not in the Silver Bullet Stadium any more.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>>> My list of 'overpowered, regardless of cost' cards means to say
>>>> that the cards have an inappropriate power level pretty much no
>>>> matter what you would (did) cost them at and that they are (were)
>>>> just inappropriate.
>>>
>>> Except that they could have their costs adjusted appropriately,
>>> in most cases. That is, match the cost to the effect so that the
>>> card (the whole package) is balanced.
>>
>> For the cards which I suggested that I still believe are
>> overpowered, I don't see how having their costs adjusted
>> "appropriately" would make them OK.
>
> By definition, adjusting them appropriately makes them appropriate.
Unless the effect is inappropriate for the game, in which case no
amount of "costing" is going to make the card appropriate.
>> Sensory Deprivation - Far worse than Pentex Subversion, as it's
>> nearly impossible to remove once placed; hence the removal clause
>> really isn't there; hence the card is massively overpowered,
>> unfair, and wrong. (I'm not even mentioning the ease of a CHI
>> vampire to get a pile of stealth.) Making it 'once per game'
>> might be a fix for it, in the same way that a OPG might have been
>> a fix for Protect Thine Own, but I doubt it would work for either
>> card.
>
> Or make it cost 10 blood.
No, it would still be an awful mechanic to have in the game. You
could change the removal clause but then it isn't Sensory Deprivation
anymore.
>> Direct Intervention - The game's silver bullet. An awful card, an
>> awful concept. If you're OK with there being a counter to EVERY
>> non-Master card in the game then you're OK with this. I'm not.
>
> At 3 pool, it becomes a bigger decision. At 4 pool even more so.
> Surely there's a cost that would make it appropriate in the eyes
> of <person X>.
As I said, I believe that the card itself is inappropriate for the
game, so no amount of costing is going to make it appropriate.
It is interesting to note that for both SD and DI you've later made
very similar cards -- Nightmare Curse and Dark Influences -- which
I believe to be much more reasonable "versions" of SD and DI,
although they are still cards I would never have made.
>> current Delaying Tactics, current Misdirection - more Silver
>> bullets, although these may have a fix available to them that my
>> dislike cannot yet see, and they'd therefore be 'undercosted'.
>
> "Cannot see" that a higher cost makes it less powerful?
I don't see that costs make a card "less powerful", only "less
accessible". That may be a fundamental difference between my
argument's fundamentals and yours, I dunno.
>>>> So, for Sensory Deprivation, Direct Intervention, Protect Thine
>>>> Own, Edge Explosion, Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred Restructure,
>>>> Return to Innocence, Succubus Club, old Misdirection, and old
>>>> Delaying Tactics I do still feel are (were) wrong and bad effects
>>>> for the game and should be done away with. Note that this also
>>>> means that I see the current Misdirection and current Delaying
>>>> Tactics as STILL bad for the game and should be done away with.
>>>
>>> Ah.
>>> But a DT that costs 6 blood, say, surely would not be offensive.
>>
>> Well, sure, that'd make it less usable (used?), but the core issue
>> that I have with DT is that it is a silver bullet, and silver
>> bullets are bad in concept, which a blood cost wouldn't be able
>> to remove.
>
> DT is not a silver bullet, any more than Surprise Influence or
> Enhanced Senses is. DI, sure. DT? Not so much.
"Give me some intercept" or "Give me some votes" is clearly not equal
to "Cancel a library card" and "Cancel a vote".
> Even so, DT at 10 blood is clearly not in the Silver Bullet Stadium
> any more.
Well, it is -- but it may be in the "cheap seats" then, sure. :)
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> By definition, adjusting them appropriately makes them appropriate.
>
> Unless the effect is inappropriate for the game, in which case no
> amount of "costing" is going to make the card appropriate.
That just means that there is not appropriate cost.
In most cases, there exists an appropriate cost.
[snip completed areas]
>> DT is not a silver bullet, any more than Surprise Influence or
>> Enhanced Senses is. DI, sure. DT? Not so much.
>
> "Give me some intercept" or "Give me some votes" is clearly not equal
> to "Cancel a library card" and "Cancel a vote".
But DT is not "cancel a referendum <full stop>."
Peter D Bakija
> Sensory Deprivation - Far worse than Pentex Subversion, as it's
> nearly impossible to remove once placed; hence the removal clause
> really isn't there; hence the card is massively overpowered, unfair,
> and wrong.
(just 'cause I enjoy the discussion, and not 'cause I really need to
see any of these cards become different...)
Yeah, I'm with you on Sense Dep. It is *massively* debilitating and
virtually impossible to get rid of. Especially if your main guy who
can kill folks is, ya know, Sense Depped. I don't know that there
would be a cost that would both make the card reasonable *and* not
make it completely wallpaper. You could make it cost 10 blood, at
which point it is virtually unplayable. You could make it 5 blood,
which makes it either unplayable or still too good (i.e. if you can
play it, it is too good). Pentex is really good, but you can get rid
of it, and making it hard to get rid of is a serious undertaking. And
even then, you still can get rid of it with enough stealth or
whatever. So I'm totally with Kevin on "this card is just
inappropriate in general".
> Direct Intervention - The game's silver bullet. An awful card, an
> awful concept. If you're OK with there being a counter to EVERY
> non-Master card in the game then you're OK with this. I'm not.
Yeah, I'm long on record as being opposed to the very idea of this
card. It is simply too utilitarian and powerful. And again, any cost
it has is either going to make it A) Unplayable or B) Playable and
still too good. Dark Influences seems much lesh harsh than DI, but
only 'cause DI is cheaper. But a card that just cancels any minion
card is just inherrently wrong for the game, for my money.
> current Delaying Tactics, current Misdirection - more Silver bullets,
> although these may have a fix available to them that my dislike
> cannot yet see, and they'd therefore be 'undercosted'.
Yeah, I dunno--Misdirection seems just completely mundane to me at
X=1. It rarely does something that, like, a Majesty doesn't. When it
was "Tap everyone", yeah, ridiculous. But "Pay a pool to tap a guy"
seems really mundane a reasonable. It isn't like Misdirection shows up
all that much anyway, and usually only in decks that have tons of "I
tap your guys" tech already anyway (Majesty, Anarch Troublemaker, Mind
Numb, whatever). DT was certainly too good when it was free, and still
perfectly solid, but as it gives you back your card, and untaps your
guy, yeah, it can be a real kick in the junk, but it doesn't strike me
as the same level of wrong as DI--having DT in your deck such that it
is reliable means a lot of slots on a card that won't even be playable
most of the time.
-Peter
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> By definition, adjusting them appropriately makes them appropriate.
>>
>> Unless the effect is inappropriate for the game, in which case no
>> amount of "costing" is going to make the card appropriate.
>
> That just means that there is not appropriate cost.
>
> In most cases, there exists an appropriate cost.
I agree, and those are good words you've used. I'll use them, too.
There is not an appropriate cost = "overpowered"
There exists an appropriate cost = "undercosted"
>>> DT is not a silver bullet, any more than Surprise Influence
>>> or Enhanced Senses is. DI, sure. DT? Not so much.
>>
>> "Give me some intercept" or "Give me some votes" is clearly
>> not equal to "Cancel a library card" and "Cancel a vote".
>
> But DT is not "cancel a referendum <full stop>."
Sure, it just delays the inevitable, I hear you.
Well, I did say I could be wrong about some of them. :)
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
[snip agreement on SD and DI]
>> current Delaying Tactics, current Misdirection - more Silver bullets,
>> although these may have a fix available to them that my dislike
>> cannot yet see, and they'd therefore be 'undercosted'.
>
> Yeah, I dunno--Misdirection seems just completely mundane to me
> at X=1. It rarely does something that, like, a Majesty doesn't.
Far more cards can stop Majesty than can stop Misdirection, but
I hear what you're saying in regards to Misdirection not seeming
to have a powerful effect.
[snip Bakija DT-isnt-overpowered argument ]
As I said, I could be wrong. I'll think about it some more.
Peter D Bakija
> > Yeah, I dunno--Misdirection seems just completely mundane to me
> > at X=1. It rarely does something that, like, a Majesty doesn't.
>
> Far more cards can stop Majesty than can stop Misdirection, but
> I hear what you're saying in regards to Misdirection not seeming
> to have a powerful effect.
Oh, sure, I mean, I don't think Misdirection is *bad*--it is certainly
a strong effect. And very difficult to deal with--as noted, Majesty is
easy to counteract the tapping of your dude with any number of cards
(the least of which is another Majesty...). And blocking a guy and
then having them untap with a Majesty still means to you got to block
something in the first place. But still, 1 pool to tap a guy seems not
out of the realm of reason (when it is only 1 pool to tap only one
guy). And really, I don't see the card come up all that often, in
reality. Like, Pentex? I see in use and in decks all the time.
Misdirection? It shows up in tap-n-bleed decks and the occasional S+B
deck. Not that that necessarily means anything, but I figure if it was
super powerful, it would show up an awful lot more than it does.
-Peter
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> Yeah, I dunno--Misdirection seems just completely mundane to me
>>> at X=1. It rarely does something that, like, a Majesty doesn't.
>>
>> Far more cards can stop Majesty than can stop Misdirection, but
>> I hear what you're saying in regards to Misdirection not seeming
>> to have a powerful effect.
>
> Oh, sure, I mean, I don't think Misdirection is *bad*--it is certainly
> a strong effect. And very difficult to deal with--as noted, Majesty is
> easy to counteract the tapping of your dude with any number of cards
> (the least of which is another Majesty...). And blocking a guy and
> then having them untap with a Majesty still means to you got to block
> something in the first place. But still, 1 pool to tap a guy seems not
> out of the realm of reason (when it is only 1 pool to tap only one
> guy).
It's 1 pool for a MASTER card to tap a guy that I see as overpowered.
> And really, I don't see the card come up all that often, in reality.
That's because there are so many good masters and Misdirection's
effect is so narrow that players rarely use it, even when they should.
Frederick Scott
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:12:09 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu39xdq...@news.chello.hu...
>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:52:19 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> "Raziel" <angel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Pentex is one of the most overpowered cards in the game.
>>>>>>>> Easy top 3 of most powerful cards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that's true, how come no "BAN PENTEX" threads?!? Not even one!
>>>
>>> decks, and for that end I woldn't like to see it banned/nerfed.
>>
>> Poor argument. If you need something overpowered to deal with something
>> else overpowered, both things should be banned or nerfed.
>
> Because new cards keep on coming out, the game is constantly evolving,
> you cannot ban existing silver bullets completely because no amount
> of playtesting will reveal all possible broken combos.
I disagree: if you accept an argument like that, there's never a reason
to ban anything. Any overpowered card _could_ be the thing that will
stop some broken combo somewhere down the road.
Much more sane policy: when you see a card that's overpowered or
undercosted to the point of being broken, fix it. Now. If you encounter
a broken combo somewhere down the road, fix it when you discover it.
You don't leave broken cards sitting around because of what they might
do later.
>> (That said, I don't think either of these things are overpowered or
>> undercosted, whatever you want to call it. So it's not my problem
>> to sort it out...)
>
> I don't think that there is any huge card-specific issue in V:tES now
> that PTO was banned. There is room for improvement in certain areas,
> e.g. walls, and some stuff does get used a *lot*, e.g. Pentex, but I
> think it's not a problem.
Well, I don't disagree. That's why I responded to Raziel as I did.
That person referred to Pentex Subversion as "overpowered".
Fred
Frederick Scott
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>>> "Raziel" <angel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Pentex is one of the most overpowered cards in the game.
>>>>> Easy top 3 of most powerful cards.
>>>>
>>>> If that's true, how come no "BAN PENTEX" threads?!?
>>>
>>
>> Why? "Undercosted", "overpowered"...they're synonymous
>> by any standards I can see.
>
...
>
> Examples of overpowered (regardless of cost) cards:
>
> Hope that helps.
Well, it demonstrates that we're using different definitions of
both terms. I'm not sure your distinction is useful, though.
If Pentex is undercosted and you see that as a problem in the
game from purely a play-balance sense and you wanted to solve
that problem - putting aside issues about how the card is already
owned as printed by many players, the undesirability of issuing
errata, and so forth - then you can solve it in two ways:
1) Increase the cost of Pentex Subversion - to, say, 3 pool.
If 3 pool is too expensive, there are other kinds of costs
you attach to it: e.g. tap one of your untapped minions as you
play it or something.
2) Decrease the power of Pentex Subversion. This could be done
in all sorts of ways, big and small, that I won't even bother
going into.
I see either solution as equally reasonable and effective. Same
thing for any of those cards you listed as "overpowered" or
"undercosted". I don't see any distinction between the two.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:alpine.BSF.2.00.0...@fnord.io.com...
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Peter D Bakija wrote:
>
>> Is there a way to recost Bastard Sword so that it isn't just better or
>> just worse than (or exactly the same as) the completely reasonable
>> Baseball Bat? Maybe--give it another minor ability (+2 strength damage
>> against allies?) or decrease its cost a bit more (costs a pool, acting
>> minion gains a blood? Something like that).
>
> card useful? What's your fix for Eyes of the Dead?
Burn option.
Frederick Scott
news:D2SRm.78903$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
Hmmm. Strictly speaking, that's a silly suggestion. More specifically,
I left out that having a vampire in torpor would be considered a requirement
to trigger the burn option.
Still, on reflection, it's probably not enough of an effect to bother using
in a deck. One of the suggestions other folks posted would probably be
better.
Fred
Daneel
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
Ok, two things.
First, I don't think Pentex is broken. It's a strong card, sees a lot of
play, nerfing/banning it would create room for more cards, but it isn't
broken, just annoying.
Second, we know how the "fix now" way to do things doesn't work. Sometimes
you get cards banned years after they were issued (and after an immense
amount of player complaints, in some cases). It might work as the ideal
fix in theory, but in practice it is unfeasible. I don't think this needs
more explanation.
So the statement on the policy is: keep an annoying card around, which may
subtract a bit from the overall variety of the game, but which is part of
a package that allows players to instantly react to new, possibly broken
combos even as they surface.
--
Regards,
Daneel
christi...@gmail.com
> "henrik" <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:44e9d896-ea17-4e13...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 7:19 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > > ...But I'm still having trouble appreciating the power of
> > > jumping on the Pentex Subversion bandwagon. I agree that there are
> > > times when it's a real God card, perfect for shutting down something that's
> > > killing you - at least for the critical turn you need to get an oust. But
> > > it can be so useless at other times that it seems to me more like a classic
> > > toolbox card than anything else. I'd compare it to Information Highway
> > > which (absent any reason that an ongoing volume of transfers is important
> > > to how your deck functions) is mostly a just a huge boon when drawn at the
> > > right time and near useless at other times.
>
> > I don't think there are that many times when Pentex Subversion is
> > useless. It's not always the best card and sometimes you'll draw it
> > when you don't really want to, but the only times I think it's useless
> > is when you can't afford to play it or when you have too much master
> > cards in your hand and wish they were minion cards.
>
> The can't-afford-to-play-it thing is exactly the point. Sure, if you can
> afford to drop the pool the Pentex would almost always do something good.
> But two pool is nothing to sneeze at and I find that often, although I could
> find a use for it, I often can't find a use for it that's worth the two pool.
> It's really not worth two pool, for instance, just to cause someone to waste
> an action. Often it's not worth the two pool to cause them to waste several
> actions, assuming I could block for a while. With the right deck, it might
> be worthwhile - but that's if your deck is built around doing good things
> defending the Pentex. In the general sense ("Should I throw Pentex in every
> deck?"), I don't think it's a card that makes sense all that often.
>
> Fred
Oh, I got so many enemies by röshrecking the vampire who tried to
remove PS, when he has just two vampires.
I like this card a lot too, and in my experience If you have few
copies of it (for years I have inly one) it goes in your wall-aggro-
ros deck, if any. in the best wall deck you have, otherwise, or your
predator can just remove it instead of bleed for 2. And never forget:
PS minions can bounce... :(
Frederick Scott
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu4dgwr...@news.chello.hu...
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:26:51 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
>> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
>> news:opu4a6xw...@news.chello.hu...
>>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:12:09 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>>>> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu39xdq...@news.chello.hu...
If Pentex were overpowered and the only thing usable to stop some _other_
overpowered effect in the game, ban/alter _both_ Pentex and the other
overpowered thing.)
>>> I agree with your second sentence. But I don't agree with the first.
>>> Because new cards keep on coming out, the game is constantly evolving,
>>> you cannot ban existing silver bullets completely because no amount
>>> of playtesting will reveal all possible broken combos.
>>
>> I disagree: if you accept an argument like that, there's never a reason
>> to ban anything. Any overpowered card _could_ be the thing that will
>> stop some broken combo somewhere down the road.
>>
>> Much more sane policy: when you see a card that's overpowered or
>> undercosted to the point of being broken, fix it. Now. If you encounter
>> a broken combo somewhere down the road, fix it when you discover it.
>> You don't leave broken cards sitting around because of what they might
>> do later.
>
> Ok, two things.
>
> First, I don't think Pentex is broken.
I don't think so either. We went off on this tangent when someone else
suggested it was and I asked in reply, "Then why are there no 'Ban Pentex'
threads in this newsgroup?"
> It's a strong card, sees a lot of
> play, nerfing/banning it would create room for more cards, but it isn't
> broken, just annoying.
Agreed.
> Second, we know how the "fix now" way to do things doesn't work.
I don't know that. To the contrary, "fix now" is the only sane thing that
does work.
> Sometimes
> you get cards banned years after they were issued (and after an immense
> amount of player complaints, in some cases).
So? Then fix at the time you realize you have a credible problem. Ban-when-
you-know-there's-a-problem sure works a lot better than leaving an
overpowered unbanned on the speculation that it might someday fix some other
problem. You haven't even explained how one is supposed to make the decision
that an overpowered card might fix some other problem that will arise in the
future.
> It might work as the ideal
> fix in theory, but in practice it is unfeasible. I don't think this needs
> more explanation.
Surely it does. I assert ban-when-you-know-there's-a-problem works fine.
I'm not sure why you posted the "after-many-years" thing as contravailing
evidence. It's not.
> So the statement on the policy is: keep an annoying card around,
Just to make sure we're on the same page and not talking past each other,
I'd only ban Pentex if it can be shown to be _broken_ - this is, if Pentex
makes it too easy for you to win the game. "Annoying" is an insufficient
reason to ban any card. In fact, some people think a card being "annoying"
is an excellent reason to keep the card just for that reason alone.
> which may subtract a bit from the overall variety of the game,
Hmmm. Sounds like you're suggesting "subtracting...from the overall variety
of the game" makes a card overpowered or broken. Sometimes - but not
necessarily. Pentex does the former, I agree. But that doesn't make it
broken so I don't care.
> but which is part of
> a package that allows players to instantly react to new, possibly broken
> combos even as they surface.
All cards in the game by themselves (not as "part of a package") can
potentially allow "players to instance react to new, possible broken
combos..." Eyes of the Dead could possibly do this under the right
circumstances. Or (at the risk of getting Peter posting 'worst card ever'
with periods and all) Tortured Confession. Of course, cards that are
suspected of being broken are much more likely to fall into this category
than EotD or TC. This is why I said if you used standard, no card in the
world could ever get banned.
Fred
this standard, no card could ever be banned.