Lowdown on Pentex

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. 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)

[ quoted text not captured ] 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

On Nov 24, 6:18 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > 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

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, librarian wrote: > 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.

On Nov 24, 12:18 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > 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

Peter D Bakija schrieb: > 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).

[ quoted text not captured ] 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

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message 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

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 I forgot that another major difference between France and the USA is that in America you choose the cards you draw from your library.

On Nov 25, 1:06 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > 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

[ quoted text not captured ] ?? Do you mean we play with Heart and Capuchin and Dreams more often? best - crhis

[ quoted text not captured ] 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

On Nov 25, 9:08 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > ?? 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 :-)

"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? > > I forgot that another major difference between France and the USA is > 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

On Nov 25, 11:58 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "orianice" <coincoinmas...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bd873011-27d8-46f0...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] 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.

On Nov 25, 10:58 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "orianice" <coincoinmas...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bd873011-27d8-46f0...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] 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

On Nov 25, 5:58 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > 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

GreenO schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Absolutely! Sudden >> Wash

[ quoted text not captured ] 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

[ quoted text not captured ] 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.

[ quoted text not captured ] 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

"GreenO" <mgre...@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:d0ab304f-1597-4244...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Nov 25, 10:58 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > ...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. > > 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. 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

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:083a2d12-a1e6-4876...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] 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

On Nov 26, 7:19 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote in messagenews:083a2d12-a1e6-4876...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] 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.

"henrik" <www.h...@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

For me the question is not if I use Pentex, but how many of them :) 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.

On Nov 26, 9:19 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "henrik" <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] 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 :)

"henrik" <www.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3a6cd2a5-9fdc-462a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] 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

On Nov 27, 12:52 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "henrik" <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:3a6cd2a5-9fdc-462a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You gain one Pool by back-Pentexing someone, I guess, therefore it's good for any deck to have. Tiago, not Henrik

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, 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

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:ed4160fd-8861-4eeb...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > 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

"Brum" <tiago...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:37d018e3-5a2f-4c45...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] > You gain one Pool by back-Pentexing someone, I guess, therefore it's > 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

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: > 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

On Nov 27, 8:06 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Brum" <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:37d018e3-5a2f-4c45...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] 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.

As usual, the debate on Pentex divides the world in 2 lol. 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.

henrik schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] 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).

On Nov 27, 2:01 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "...*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

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:heoift$iel$1...@news01.versatel.de... [ quoted text not captured ] 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

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:d4abc15d-6bab-409d...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... The rest of the stuff is basically covered in my reply to Johannes. [ quoted text not captured ] 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

Frederick Scott schrieb: > 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.

On Nov 27, 11:39 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > 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

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:18:13 -0800, librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> 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

Pentex is one of the most overpowered cards in the game. Easy top 3 of most powerful cards.

"Raziel" <angel...@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! 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.

On 30 Lis, 15:58, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Raziel" <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] 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.

Howdy Fred, 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

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*. 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

"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

On 27 marras, 19:07, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > 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.

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. -- Regards, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu39xdq...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] 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

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?!? >> >> It might be more correct to say that Pentex is *undercosted*. > > 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 2 joulu, 10:23, "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. 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.

suoli wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Examples of overpowered (regardless of cost) cards: >>[snip list] > > 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

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: >> >>> "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

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. >> 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)".

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. 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Dec 2, 11:45 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > 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: > > >>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message > >>>news:R%6Rm.55860$de6....@newsfe21.iad... > >>>> Frederick Scott wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] 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

Kevin M. wrote: > 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.

On 2 Gru, 14:26, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > 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.

[ quoted text not captured ] Quote for context and you'll gather more discussion.

[ quoted text not captured ] 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.

>> Talon...@hotmail.com wrote: >>> 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?

On Dec 2, 3:23 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > 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

On Dec 2, 9:12 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > 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

On 2 joulu, 14:13, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > 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.

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? 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.

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > 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.

[ quoted text not captured ] 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).

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! > 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

On Dec 2, 8:38 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > 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? > 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. > 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...

[ quoted text not captured ] 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.

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Viking wrote: > 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?

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Chris Berger wrote: > 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!

[ quoted text not captured ] 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.)

Peter D Bakija wrote: > 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

On Dec 2, 3:18 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > > 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).

[ quoted text not captured ] 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.

[ quoted text not captured ] 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > 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. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Dec 2, 5:47 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.

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". > 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.

[ quoted text not captured ] 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.

"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

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? >> 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > 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.

LSJ wrote: > 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. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

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. [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>."

On Dec 3, 3:25 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > 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

LSJ wrote: > 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. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > 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. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Dec 3, 9:59 am, "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). 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

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "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. [ quoted text not captured ]

"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... >>> 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! >>> >>> ...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. 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

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:gupRm.36353$tz6....@newsfe02.iad... > 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?!? >>> >>> It might be more correct to say that Pentex is *undercosted*. >> >> Why? "Undercosted", "overpowered"...they're synonymous >> by any standards I can see. > > Examples of undercosted (but not overpowered) cards: ... > > 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

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message 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). > > 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? Burn option.

I <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:D2SRm.78903$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad... [ quoted text not captured ] 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

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:26:51 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] 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

On Nov 26, 2:19 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "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... :(

"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... (Re: If Pentex were overpowered, I said it should be banned or altered. 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.

On Dec 3, 5:23 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > 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. There is no way that Tortured Confessions could ever possibly be part of a broken combo. 'Cause it is the worst card ever. Worst. Card. Ever. -Peter, who doesn't want to let down Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:d8f835ef-07c4-47d7...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] All right. Maybe not Tortured Confession.

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 15:23:35 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> 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. 1. Card gets released. 2. Powerful, overpowered combo gets invented. 3. Powerful, overpowered combo is realised to be overpowered. 4. Scott bans or nerfs what is needed (date partially dependent on next board review). 5. Changes go into effect. Do you see a potential time lag between event #2 and #5? If there is a time lag, do you agree that the card is broken even until it gets nerfed? -- Regards, Daneel

On Dec 2, 1:18 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Chris Berger wrote: > > 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. > The bigger problem is that Bind the Night-Walker requires a specific melee weapon (Kerrie) in addition, and we all know melee weapons aren't very good. I'm not saying the second version is awesome, but it would at least have some use and is 1000x better than Eyes of the Night currently is. Specifically, I might consider throwing it and Rudolfo Giovanni in an Imbued deck, assuming I could find some other stuff for him to do in there. Or use it in a deck sort of like Oliver Thrace Ex Nihilo/ Weather Control where you have a main vampire that's a combat monster but might go to torpor, and some other puds who can play this card to block if necessary. I was considering maybe it should allow you to block any action directed at a minion in torpor with +2 intercept even if tapped... like a combination Eagle's Sight/Second Tradition against a very limited set of actions... that might make it more worth it. Obviously still not a general use card, but it's not like I have a problem with niche cards - just totally useless niche cards that are worse than disciplineless cards that do the same thing... =) > > 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. > Baseball Bat is good! Use with Potence. John Flournoy did annoying things with Baseball Bat + Forger's Hammer + Brute Force. Nothing you couldn't do with a Bastard Sword, but being able to untap at the end of the turn is just enough of a bonus to make the combo worth it. Yeah, you still have problems with S:CE, dodge, and the occasional Grapple (Brute Force still = a non-replaced Undead Strength under a Grapple), but hitting for 6 is pretty strong, and casual intercept helps. Bastard Sword at 0 pool wouldn't help in this trick because Forger's Hammer reduces the cost anyway, but it might actually make its way into a few other decks if it was free. I doubt it would be overpowered. Though, I realize that Poker would probably also be obsoleted by the change, in addition to Brass Knuckles. But maybe Poker should suck, because hell, it's a damned fireplace tool... > > 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! Yeah, I but I feel like I have to repeat it every post so someone doesn't come in and say "why do you want to errata Eyes of the Dead! Just leave it alone! Errata is not for underpowered cards!" Afterall, this *is* a thought experiment. In case you didn't know.

On Dec 2, 4:18 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > I was looking forward to making a Baseball Bat deck when TR came > out, but I still haven't put one in a deck. I just won a game last night with Baseball Bats. I mean, not like a real serious game, but a 3VP win in a 4 player game none the less--! Brujah weenie Celerity/WWS/Con Boon/Unexpected Coalition deck. Got out a bunch of little group 2 !Brujah. Got in fights with WWS and the occasional Baseball Bat. Used CEL to beat peoples heads in. I mean, yeah, ok, the deck has, like, 10xWWS and 4x Bat, but I had some in play and they were handy. Hardly A list material, but totally solid. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I won few games with 6xWWS and 2xBasebal Bat Osebo AUS/CEL deck too, does it really change anything ? No. Does that !Brujah use media location/abbot module ?

On Dec 5, 1:58 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote: > I won few games with 6xWWS and 2xBasebal Bat Osebo AUS/CEL deck too, > does it really change anything ? No. Change what? Who is asking to change something? What are you even talking about? Matt mentioned considering a Baseball Bat deck. I thought it was kinda funny that I used a Baseball Bat deck last night, and did ok. So I mentioned it. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Change the opinion, that baseball bat is mediocre card. On 5 Gru, 14:27, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > > 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. > > Baseball Bat is good! Use with Potence. John Flournoy did annoying > things with Baseball Bat + Forger's Hammer + Brute Force. Nothing you > couldn't do with a Bastard Sword, but being able to untap at the end > of the turn is just enough of a bonus to make the combo worth it. > Yeah, you still have problems with S:CE, dodge, and the occasional > Grapple (Brute Force still = a non-replaced Undead Strength under a > Grapple), but hitting for 6 is pretty strong, and casual intercept > helps. > > Bastard Sword at 0 pool wouldn't help in this trick because Forger's > Hammer reduces the cost anyway, but it might actually make its way > into a few other decks if it was free. I doubt it would be > overpowered. Though, I realize that Poker would probably also be > obsoleted by the change, in addition to Brass Knuckles. But maybe > Poker should suck, because hell, it's a damned fireplace tool... Brass Knuckles would be pretty good, if it would work under grapple. Poker is ... well, not good card to start with, it's just a tool, not balanced for actual combat.

On Dec 5, 3:02 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Change the opinion, that baseball bat is mediocre card. Who is claiming that Baseball Bat is anything other than a mediocre card? Baseball Bat. It is a mediocre card. No one has ever claimed otherwise. -Peter

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu4fd7p...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] Sure, there can be a time lag. But why even bother to make it so complicated? 1. Broken card gets released by mistake. 2. Scott bans or nerfs what is needed (date partially dependent on next board review). There. Same problem. Anyway, I suspect we're talking past each other. We both agree Pentex isn't broken, so I don't care. Were Pentex broken, then proposing that we leave it in the card population on the speculation that it might fix other potentially broken combos in the future has the problem of causing a time lag between when we "knew" Pentex was broken (now) and when we banned or nerfed it (never). So I really REALLY don't get your point. Fred

On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Chris Berger wrote: >> 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. >> > The bigger problem is that Bind the Night-Walker requires a specific > melee weapon (Kerrie) in addition, and we all know melee weapons > aren't very good. I'd say the bigger problem is that intercept only usable on actions directed at minions is not exactly game-changing. Remember all the players who quit the game because Warning Sirens gave conditional disciplineless intercept to any minion? That's because that didn't happen. > I'm not saying the second version is awesome, but it would at least > have some use and is 1000x better than Eyes of the Night currently > is. Specifically, I might consider throwing it and Rudolfo Giovanni > in an Imbued deck, assuming I could find some other stuff for him to > do in there. Or use it in a deck sort of like Oliver Thrace Ex Nihilo/ > Weather Control where you have a main vampire that's a combat monster > but might go to torpor, and some other puds who can play this card to > block if necessary. I was considering maybe it should allow you to > block any action directed at a minion in torpor with +2 intercept even > if tapped... like a combination Eagle's Sight/Second Tradition against > a very limited set of actions... that might make it more worth it. > Obviously still not a general use card, but it's not like I have a > problem with niche cards - just totally useless niche cards that are > worse than disciplineless cards that do the same thing... =) I'd just go back to the drawing board with Eyes of the Dead. In the RPG it lets you see what the recently-deceased saw or something like that, right? So with the idea that bleeding often involves piling up a few bodies, how about something like this: Eyes of the Dead Reaction [nec] Only usable when you are bled successfully. Look at the hand of the controller of the minion who bled you. [NEC] As above, but usable when any methuselah is bled to look at the hand of the controller of the bleeding minion or the hand of the methuselah who was bled. Or in the same vien- Eyes of the Dead Action Modifier/Reaction [nec][action modifier] Only usable when you bleed successfully. Look at the hand of the methuselah you bled. This vampire may burn a blood to discard one card from that methuselah's hand. [NEC][reaction] Only usable when any other methuselah is bled. Look at the hand of that methuselah. This vampire may burn a blood to discard one card from that methuselah's hand. Still not all that great, but much more useful and easier to play. > Baseball Bat is good! Yeah, I like the cut of its jib, but I'm not sure it's tier 1 yet. > Afterall, this *is* a thought experiment. In case you didn't know. Oh I knew. I just wanted to make sure YOU knew!

> Eyes of the Dead > Reaction > [nec] Only usable when you are bled successfully. Look at the hand of the > controller of the minion who bled you. > [NEC] As above, but usable when any methuselah is bled to look at the hand > of the controller of the bleeding minion or the hand of the methuselah who > was bled. > > Eyes of the Dead > Action Modifier/Reaction > [nec][action modifier] Only usable when you bleed successfully. Look at > the hand of the methuselah you bled. This vampire may burn a blood to > discard one card from that methuselah's hand. > [NEC][reaction] Only usable when any other methuselah is bled. Look at > the hand of that methuselah. This vampire may burn a blood to discard one > card from that methuselah's hand. Both of these have a bit more power than I think you give them credit. Especially the second one. Necromancy's schtick is fishing crap out of ash-heaps. Being able to discard allies/retainers and then Possess the suckers back out is nice, plus it can slide into their Khazar's Diary angle. Another option... Visions from the Dead Action [nec] Remove a crypt card from the game from your prey or predator's ash heap and put this card into play. You may spend an MPA to look at the chosen Methuselah's hand. [NEC] As above, but you may target a crypt card, ally or retainer.

[ quoted text not captured ] I was talking about the new broken card released. :) My point was - because Pentex is a card that can counter potential abusable new cards better than most currently existing cards, even if it [Pentex] is slightly broken, keeping it around might still be a good idea, because when a new broken card gets printed, even if Scott immediately jumps on nerfing/banning it (which is not guaranteed), there is still a time period during which the card [the new, broken card] is still legal (but is nevertheless broken). My command of English limits me from explaining it any better (I was under the impression that my previous attempts were successful in communicating this, if not, I hope this reiteration will do). -- Regards, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opu4mzly...@news.chello.hu... > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:30:40 -0700, Frederick Scott >> Anyway, I suspect we're talking past each other. We both agree >> Pentex isn't broken, so I don't care. Were Pentex broken, then >> proposing that we leave it in the card population on the >> speculation that it might fix other potentially broken combos in >> the future has the problem of causing a time lag between when we >> "knew" Pentex was broken (now) and when we banned or nerfed it >> (never). So I really REALLY don't get your point. > > I was talking about the new broken card released. :) > > My point was - because Pentex is a card that can counter potential > abusable new cards better than most currently existing cards, even > if it [Pentex] is slightly broken, keeping it around might still > be a good idea, because when a new broken card gets printed, even > if Scott immediately jumps on nerfing/banning it (which is not > guaranteed), there is still a time period during which the card > [the new, broken card] is still legal (but is nevertheless broken). I think you're expressing some ideas that aren't well-considered: 1) "Some cards can counter potential abusable new cards better than most...". I don't think that's true. And I wouldn't want to try to determine which cards "...can counter potential abusable new cards better than most...". In this game, people argue about very straight-forward things. No one will ever agree on which cards have this sort of weird property. 2) "If [Pentex or some other card that had this mysterious property that it '...can counter potential abusable new cards better tan most...'] is slightly broken, keeping it around might still be a good idea...". It seems clear to me that there's no point in having some middle ground about broken cards. We debate about them too much anyway. Either a card is broken in the game or it's not. If it's broken, you need to fix it for many good reasons that have been posted many times in other threads. If it's not, then leave it alone because it doesn't need fixing anyway. 3) "...there is...a time period during which the card is still legal (but is nevertheless broken)" Sure. We already know that. It's inevitable and there's a very good reason there should be: because that's the time period in which you're making sure the card is actually broken. Thankfully, cards are playtested enough that nothing insanely obviously broken gets through; only things that are marginally broken. So we take the time to see how they interact with the rest of the game until we (or LSJ, really - but all the vocal players have input) decide it actually is broken. The time we take to make that determination is a _good_ thing, not a bad thing. There is no need to leave broken cards, potentially broken cards, or 'semi-broken' cards in the game because we fear spending some time deciding that a different broken card is broken and exactly how it's broken so the appropriate remedy can be determined. By the way, if a card somehow does get through and a really bad property or combo use is found after it's printed, I'm pretty sure errata or the banishment of the card would take place very quickly. I don't think I would worry about how long the card was legal after the problem was turned up. The reason we've never seen such quick action since WW put LSJ in charge of rules is that it's never been needed to deal with anything that quickly. > My command of English limits me from explaining it any better (I > was under the impression that my previous attempts were successful > in communicating this, if not, I hope this reiteration will do). You did fine. I'm pretty sure I understood you. Fred