Pentex Subversion poll and discussion

Pentex Subversion is an auto-include in EVERY DECK and players are forced to design their decks, every deck, with this card in mind. It's stupidly, ridiculously powerful, and while I have no objection to the card effect itself, I think it should never have been printed in that form. Either a Once Per Game or Once Per Methuselah restriction would be absolutely fine with me, as I've studied the card and I don't see a blood or pool cost that would be fair to the player. 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! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

PS is expensive, costs an MPA and there are counters readily available (play your own, sudden, break it). I believe that it is an important part of the game as it is now. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

Helped, vtes already have too many masters that are so effective and require nothing but pool. Pentex is one of them. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

Once per game per Meth is what I'd like to see. I feel the game needs the card simply because it makes people die, similar to how the game needs stealth and +bleed to make it not last forever. It's when multiple people start packing multiple copies where it gets silly.

Not while No Secrets From The Magaji exists. Edit: I believe the game would be better without such strong counters to tapping tech. The only other answer to something like NSFTM is block-fails, and I like that interaction, but I don't like the way NSFTM is a hard counter to tap-and-bleed.

It's definitely undercosted for both offense and defense. Though I'm not saying bumping the price up to 3 or 4 pool would make it better. It should've been one effect or the other, but not both at once. and once-per-methuselah doesn't convince me. I've seen too many games where it was played only once but stuck around until the end (usually contesting) If it were 2 pool just to prevent blocking only, then maybe it'd be a balanced card. what does everyone think about this? Nothing wrong with ousting faster and lunging, when it works right. The effect about no acting is what slows down the game, and means everyone needs to pack several copies so they can contest. It becomes too versatile; play it on your prey and even if you don't oust them you still prevent them from going forward at full speed. Or, play it on your predator's first vampire and enjoy a few relaxed turns of no pressure at all. If it's stuck on you, the best way to get rid of it is usually to contest it the whole game. another idea is if the card were easier to remove. maybe you pay some pool, or how about it automatically burns on the player's next untap?

Without Pentex gaining VPs would be harder. It's already hard as it is, removing (or decreasing the power of) pentex would make dominate a better strategy and non-dominate a worse strategy. It's a shame that's it's an auto-include, since it makes deck-building dull. But the card is good for the game. Just stop trying to make a 10-cap block deck work. It would be a useless high risk-low yield strategy even without pentex in the game. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

I agree that there is a place for Pentex-like card in the game, but as written it is just too powerful. The last two times I got it played on me was by a wallish prey. It can easily take three actions just to get the damned thing off when you have so much better to do. If it can't be changed (since errats would apparently end the world as we know it), it should be banned. I can think of two games in which it saved the ass of my super-star because I got to contest it. Did I really want to put Pentex in those decks? No - but I couldn't afford to lose my star minion. Pentex just gets so old, so fast. Above all, the minion who is the target of Pentex should at least be able to attempt to remove it as their sole available action.

> KevinM wrote: > Pentex Subversion is an auto-include in EVERY DECK > What is your source? I checked the 2011-TWD, 146 decks out of 265 (55%) do include a Pentex Subversion. Which is a lot, but far from being every deck. Otherwise, I'm happy to play Pentex when I know I have no other way of handling a No Secret From the Magaji that would otherwise lock me, thus denying me all pleasure in the game. Changing Pentex is likely to make wall deck and star deck too strong. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Pentex Subversion like Anarch Troublemaker or Misdirection makes the game move forward in certain situations, thus allowing players to make VPs. Which is a good thing, of course. Making the card unplayable by increasing the cost too much (for example) (or banning (which was not the topic of the thread)) is not a thing that would help the game imho. But I wouldn't object changing the cardtext to once per game per player clause or some such thing. Hmm, on second thought, I could just "thanked" Izaak's post!

> Ankha wrote: > Changing Pentex is likely to make wall deck and star deck too strong. > It sum it up pretty well. Yes, if you run a star deck you fear Pentex. That's too bad to have a weakness. As a fringe nerf, a card that allow costly removal of pentex may be useful, but not needed per se (to avoid decks playing pentex just for contest).

Only change I'd like to see is make the action to remove it at +1 stealth.

My 2 cents: Pentex is an overpowered card and not only is it strong, it can ruins your gaming experience. I recently started to play with 10-11 cap vampires, for example my Eze deck. It contains: 1. Pentex for contest 2. 3x Sudden Reversal. As soon as I draw a Sudden I keep it to defend against a Pentex. I only play a Sudden if a meanwhile drew a second one, it's my predators turn and he doesn't have +mpa. 3. I play Strange Day to remove the Pentex unblockable. Despite all this 1 in 4 or sometimes 1 in 3 games gets ruined by a Pentex played on Eze. So yeah, there is a problem with that card. NC for Hungary hunfragment.blogspot.com

> Mephistopheles wrote: > So yeah, there is a problem with that card. > Or your deck. The real question is more "should deck that revolve only on a 11-cap be helped ?". They still are playable, they still can won tournament (maybe not easily), so it's not a trivial question.

> Pagan wrote: > Only change I'd like to see is make the action to remove it at +1 stealth. > That would be perfect. Permanent based walls need a foil but 9+ caps that can't Voter Cap or Parity Shift should still be playable.

Pentex has too much impact on large cap or star vampire decks. One card shutting down whole deck categories is just not good for the game. Once Pentex is put on your big cap/superstar, your game is practically over. unless you have very specific defense against Pentex in your deck. If Pentex would stop the targe from acting orblocking, then it would be a perfectly balanced card. Once per game/Methuselah doesn't make it any less absurd for the player being targeted. pckvtes.wordpress.com

> Ohlmann wrote: > Or your deck. > > The real question is more "should deck that revolve only on a 11-cap be helped ?". They still are playable, they still can won tournament (maybe not easily), so it's not a trivial question. > They can win tournaments when they're lucky enough to not eat Pentex. It's a crapshoot.

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > Mephistopheles wrote: > > So yeah, there is a problem with that card. > > > Or your deck. > > The real question is more "should deck that revolve only on a 11-cap be helped ?". They still are playable, they still can won tournament (maybe not easily), so it's not a trivial question. > I agree. I've built a caitiff vote deck with a crypt containing only 1-cap. Any deck playing some intercept and fight will disintegrate it, unless I'm quick enough to go through. When I play the deck, I'm well aware of this weakness. Why aren't you (Mephistopheles) aware that playing a super-star deck is dangerous? You say "there is a problem with the card". I think it's more "I have a problem with the card". Well, of course, you know it, and since you like to play super-star decks, you'd like any threat on this kind of deck to be removed. I don't think it's a good reason. I like super-star decks too, and when I play them, I make sure that nothing will spoil my game experience. And Sudden Reversal is an awesome card anyway, so I'm not sorry to play some because they are useful anyway. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Pentex is fine as it is, played at the correct time/situation it *can* be a devastating card - so can many others. It is a gross exaggeration to say that it's an auto-include or that every deck needs to be designed with this card in mind. Many decks I design ignore it altogether - just as I might choose to ignore combat or vote defense - when you do so, it is at your own peril but not because the card is overly powerful, but because it is good. Ignoring anything has risk involved, there are many decks which can ignore this card or will be unaffected by it unless played at an ideal time.

> Pentex has too much impact on large cap or star vampire decks. One card shutting down whole deck categories is just not good for the game. > There are plenty cards that completely shut down certain decks. As a result those decks need to play very specific defense against those cards. Superstar decks, which are IMO a weak archtype to begin with for more reasons than just Pentex, should be no different.

Like it or not, pentex is needed in vtes. It is needed to get through that Lazverinus with eternal vigilance, bowl and abbot your prey just set up. It is needed to lock that Enkidu behind you for a turn , so you can go forward a little... the whole table needs it when that turbo decks starts to loop its cycle. As harsh, and powerfull, and universally available it is, it is actually , IMHO, essential for table balance, and overall game balance. That is how i see it, of course, your mileage may vary...

Maybe putting a counter each turn and burning the subversion at 3/5 counter ? It would be enough to lunge your prey to death or win you some turns, but it would not shutdown completely a star deck - while still being a silver bullet for it.

Whenever I give just one example I now right away that people willjust argue about that one example and limit discussion down to it. So some more stuff to say about Pentex: 1. In like ~80% of the times I see a Pentex played that just means the guy playing it gets a vp and saves tons of resources. 2. Many, many times a late game Pentex = Game Win. Firts dude to draw Pentex wins. 3. With many decks, not only the 11 cap ones, a Pentex on your first vampire will just cipple your deck and game so much that it is often hard to recover. Giving +1 stealth to remove it won't change anything. Wall deck will still defend it, aggressive decks will still oust you the turn its played. Actually I am not a fan of changing card texts at all. Best would be to leave the Pentex alone and just agree to with your playgroup that you stop playing with it in casuals. But I wouldn't drop a single tear if it got banned though. NC for Hungary hunfragment.blogspot.com

> Ankha wrote: > Why aren't you (Mephistopheles) aware that playing a super-star deck is dangerous? You say "there is a problem with the card". I think it's more "I have a problem with the card". > Well, of course, you know it, and since you like to play super-star decks, you'd like any threat on this kind of deck to be removed. I don't think it's a good reason. > Sad to see this same old ad hominem again :/ It detracts from the actual meat of your argument, to which I respond that super-star decks should have a weakness but Pentex in it's current form is a terrible implementation. The pro-active super-star decks have enough weaknesses as it is.

> Giving +1 stealth to remove it won't change anything. Wall deck will still defend it, aggressive decks will still oust you the turn its played. > So a wall deck protecting one of its resources is a bad thing for the game? If an agressive deck ousts you because one minion is locked up then you took that risk when you made the deck, and likely won other games because your one minion blocked every action in the game even remotely threatening.(I'm looking at you Cesewayo.) And giving the action +1 stealth would make a significant number of removal attempts succeed that don't because of Jake or other random, non +intercepting, minions block. It doesn't change the initial impact but not every play of a Pentex results in an oust or everyone would play 15 of them. Instead of changing Pentex what if a new master was added. I Hate Pentex Type: Master Cost: 2 pool Master: trifle. Burn a card you control or one played on a minion you control. A Methuselah may only play one I Hate Pentex each game. Sudden stops an ousting turn lunge and this would stop a scenario where your game is locked up because your one minion is stuck and you didn't have a Sudden in hand when it was played. It also has other uses and likely needs to be once/game to stop some Bauble/Serpentis shennanigans from happening much easier than they already do. Removing Pentex from the game is nothing but bad for it as we should remove all cards that result in players being ousted then and spend 2 hours discarding Eyes of the Dead every turn as we all get .5VPs.

enough with the retarded ad hominem arguments about deck building skills, go over to this forum if you want that. the point about bigcaps/superstars is a valid one. if your vampires are expensive, then you get harmed by Pentex a lot more than a midcap deck, and a weenie deck really doesn't care about losing 1 minion. this means that bigcap decks are weaker than weenie decks, especially due to how often Pentex appears in tournaments! (hint: it's very very common) you have to back away from the issue, this isn't a matter of "how do I win a tournament" but "how do we balance VTES" I still believe that the "no acting" clause of Pentex is the real problem, while shutting down a blocker is fine. losing a strong blocker sucks, but the same result is possible by Seduction or Block Fails, so it's still fair. On the other hand, losing a good portion of your acting power on your own turn completely ruins the game for bigcap decks, and they have fewer actions to begin with! from what's pretty much an unblockable Sensory Deprivation. and then they get fewer actions to attempt to remove Pentex as well. it's completely stacked against them, yet barely even irritates a weenie deck. the weenie decks still have a huge advantage here. Minion Tap needed to be un-nerfed to allow players to even build bigcap decks. now Pentex needs to be nerfed to give them a competitive chance.

For some reason people seem to not bring up the fact that anyone at a table can burn Pentex as well, not just the player who had their minion Pentex'd. Conservatively I'd say I see Pentex burned by a cross-table ally at least half the time. Only the most staunch wall deck can defend the card from several players.

> Pagan wrote: > > > Giving +1 stealth to remove it won't change anything. Wall deck will still defend it, aggressive decks will still oust you the turn its played. > > > So a wall deck protecting one of its resources is a bad thing for the game? > > Removing Pentex from the game is nothing but bad for it as we should remove all cards that result in players being ousted then and spend 2 hours discarding Eyes of the Dead every turn as we all get .5VPs. > I think the +1 stealth option doesn't give that much to it that it's worth retexting the card. Errata is always bad, even if it has to be done. People don't like if a card does something else than written on it. I'd rather have something like: "can not be played if the target vampires controler has no other vampire in his ready region". Most big cap decks won't give a damn since they have either tons of stealth, block denial, Grandballs or unblockable stuff to get rid of it if they have a second vampire to do it. Please note that I never suggested to ban Pentex. I just wouldn't drop a single tear. NC for Hungary hunfragment.blogspot.com

> Suoli wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Why aren't you (Mephistopheles) aware that playing a super-star deck is dangerous? You say "there is a problem with the card". I think it's more "I have a problem with the card". > > Well, of course, you know it, and since you like to play super-star decks, you'd like any threat on this kind of deck to be removed. I don't think it's a good reason. > > > Sad to see this same old ad hominem again :/ It detracts from the actual meat of your argument, to which I respond that super-star decks should have a weakness but Pentex in it's current form is a terrible implementation. The pro-active super-star decks have enough weaknesses as it is. > It has nothing to do with ad nominem attack, I was quoting two persons (Mephistopheles and Ohlmann) and I just had to distinguish both (check the post). I don't even know Mephistopheles (under that name at least). I find that his argument was weak, and he gave later a sensible response, even if I don't agree at all with it. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Bell wrote: > For some reason people seem to not bring up the fact that anyone at a table can burn Pentex as well, not just the player who had their minion Pentex'd. Conservatively I'd say I see Pentex burned by a cross-table ally at least half the time. Only the most staunch wall deck can defend the card from several players. > Around here Pentex is rarely burned cross-table because people don't have those kinds of actions to spare, or the vampire that's Pentexed is so scary they prefer the situation as is. Believe me when my assault-gun wielding Assamite got Pentexed twice in a game, no one offered to remove Pentex. The minion who's Pentexed should at least have the right to try to remove it himself, so the Methuselah who played it has to deal with that vampire's stealth or combat. If a Big Brother corporation has closed my accounts, shut down my phone, and placed goons outside my haven, I should have a chance to get out myself, either by sneaking or fighting the goons. I imagine removing Pentex to be similar to the plot of the Sandra Bullock movie The Net. From a source material perspective, I can see how the Pentex Corporation could paralyze the minion so much he can neither continue with his normal activities nor help protect his master, but I don't see how it could completely take away his ability to act.

> Haze wrote: > this means that bigcap decks are weaker than weenie decks, especially due to how often Pentex appears in tournaments! (hint: it's very very common) > Neonate Breach is devastating against weenie decks. Ancient Influence is bad for weenies and great for fatties. Aranthebes reduces the weenie bleed to nothing. So I won't say that bigcap decks are weaker than weenie decks. They both have their advantages and flaws. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Suoli wrote: > > > > > Ankha wrote: > > > Why aren't you (Mephistopheles) aware that playing a super-star deck is dangerous? You say "there is a problem with the card". I think it's more "I have a problem with the card". > > > Well, of course, you know it, and since you like to play super-star decks, you'd like any threat on this kind of deck to be removed. I don't think it's a good reason. > > > > > > > > Sad to see this same old ad hominem again :/ It detracts from the actual meat of your argument, to which I respond that super-star decks should have a weakness but Pentex in it's current form is a terrible implementation. The pro-active super-star decks have enough weaknesses as it is. > > > It has nothing to do with ad nominem attack, I was quoting two persons (Mephistopheles and Ohlmann) and I just had to distinguish both (check the post). I don't even know Mephistopheles (under that name at least). > > I find that his argument was weak, and he gave later a sensible response, even if I don't agree at all with it. > To clarify my comment: your perception about the motivation behind Mephistopheles' or anyone elses arguments is not relevant to a discussion about Pentex. I don't find it insulting or anything like that but it is purely speculative and, even if accurate, doesn't address any actual argument. That's all.

I love making superstar vampire decks. There are many of them with cool special abilities that inspire creative deck design. The biggest obstacle to superstar deck design is Pentex Subversion. The mere existence of this card stunts the growth of VTES as a game. It's not quite as bad as Protect Thine Own, but in most cases when it is played, it has a devastating effect on the game outcome. I fully support banning it. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

And then again, the real question is not "is pentex bad for the game ?" but "do people want to see superstar deck more powerful". I'm not too thrilled by thoses deck, and in fact the Eze deck (maybe not the one used by mephistoles since I don't know him, but the archetype that equip 10+ equipment on their Eze to make him unstoppable) is more toxic to the game than good, especially if we remove its main problem. Then again, you can want to build a deck entirely centered on a vampire. I'm just between septic and hostil.

The only superstar deck that is problematic is Una. Tupdogs are almost like superstar decks as well, even moreso since there are multiple actors possible on most turns. There are numerous "block fails" cards that can take down superstar block decks, not to mention Sensory Deprivation and other such cards. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

I think it's a very strong card. I'd suggest you do it like Mephistopheles and defend against it with Suddens/Washes and your own copy of PS. That should suffice. Baron of Frankfurt

> Jeff wrote: > The only superstar deck that is problematic is Una. > That's not what I try to say. Deck based on 1-cap or 2-cap caitiff / pander are weak and very susceptible to some specific cards that happen to be effective on their own. Exactly like superstars decks. Nobody lobby to make them as powerful as any other deck. So, I don't take for granted that VEKN should reinforce star deck, and as an individual I find them not all that intersting and a bit silly, meaning I'm not too much for changing Pentex to please thoses decks. You may want as a personal taste to reinforce tjem. But that's a personnal taste to reinforce thoses decks, exactly like I have a personnal taste for combat ; it's definitely (emphatically ?) not to help game balance

actually another superstar deck would be a Lucian the Perfect bleed deck. If you live past turn 5 your in business just pack weenie with dominate for deflects and its pretty much runs on its own.

but back to the discussion at hand, Pentex should remain as it is. A strong poss game changing but unique card.

> Ohlmann wrote: > And then again, the real question is not "is pentex bad for the game ?" but "do people want to see superstar deck more powerful". > > I'm not too thrilled by those deck, and in fact the Eze deck (maybe not the one used by mephistoles since I don't know him, but the archetype that equip 10+ equipment on their Eze to make him unstoppable) is more toxic to the game than good, especially if we remove its main problem. > Given that I don't even KNOW which 'Eze deck' you are referring to, I think the deck is far less toxic to the game than you believe it to be. 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! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Jeff wrote: > The only superstar deck that is problematic is Una. > > There are numerous "block fails" cards that can take down superstar block decks, not to mention Sensory Deprivation and other such cards. > It's funny that you mention Sense Dep. I believe the Sense Dep mechanic to be FAR more un-fun and destructive to the game than Pentex Subversion. At least you can try to REMOVE Pentex Subversion. 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! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

I'd be a lot more scared of 10 weenies each equipping one camera phone than one 11-cap grabbing 10 different items.

> Haze wrote: > I'd be a lot more scared of 10 weenies each equipping one camera phone than one 11-cap grabbing 10 different items. > Trust me, una with 10 different items can take on easily on 10 weenies with camera phones and nuke them all to oblivion...

> Pendargon wrote: > > > Haze wrote: > > I'd be a lot more scared of 10 weenies each equipping one camera phone than one 11-cap grabbing 10 different items. > > > Trust me, una with 10 different items can take on easily on 10 weenies with camera phones and nuke them all to oblivion... > and spend the majority of resources on one player, while rendering herself unable to rush everyone else on the table. which is basically what the Una deck should do (I mean - the "rush everyone" part), after the table watches it play with itself for 30 minutes of utter boredom...unless you see una (or gerard for the matter) get a rotschreck in the face for forgetting to put sire's index finger into the deck...that's always priceless

> Haze wrote: > I'd be a lot more scared of 10 weenies each equipping one camera phone than one 11-cap grabbing 10 different items. > 10 weenies with camera phones does 10 bleed for two with nothing fancy. An Eze fully equiped, while not a complete game breaker, is usually unblockable by big vampire, unredirectable, prevent X points of damage, can play a wide array of (discipline) card, etc etc ... In short, 10 weenies with camera is a very brutal threat but "easy" to counter because they don't stack 10 effects (I.E. they are still 1-cap that bleed at +0 stealth). A fully equiped star is less of a threat but also less manageable. Also, 10 weenie with camera phone is a lot harder to do. How many transfert / MPA do you need to pull this off ?

> Aaron wrote: > > > Bell wrote: > > > > The minion who's Pentexed should at least have the right to try to remove it himself, so the Methuselah who played it has to deal with that vampire's stealth or combat. If a Big Brother corporation has closed my accounts, shut down my phone, and placed goons outside my haven, I should have a chance to get out myself, either by sneaking or fighting the goons. I imagine removing Pentex to be similar to the plot of the Sandra Bullock movie The Net. > > > > From a source material perspective, I can see how the Pentex Corporation could paralyze the minion so much he can neither continue with his normal activities nor help protect his master, but I don't see how it could completely take away his ability to act. > > > From a thematic role playing perspective this is the only change I like and would approve of, however I still voted for the status quo. > > Pentex Subversion isn't a hard to find card, easy enough to contest or reverse, anyone on the table can remove it and can be a game winner when used at the right moment which is a good thing. It affects some decks more than other sure, but any star deck needs to protect its star and this is an inherent risk in playing a high cap or reliant on a single vampire style deck. > > I can understand that it sucks the proverbial balls when your first vamp gets slapped with one and nobody on the table will assist in the removal, but the player who afflicted you with such a curse still needs to keep one of his own minions up for block attempts, 2 pool is nothing to sneer at and it is my belief that high cap decks have had more then enough love to bring them up to par with others (e.g. Villein). > > I have seen a players 11 cap get the van outside the house without ever taking an action, yet he still went on to win the final. The 'poor me' stance, I am now useless and to be ignored can be an effective tool if you believe your still in it and your game isn't ruined. > Aaron Archbishop Adelaide

I second the above. IF the majority of players would see PS as a problem giving the pentexed minion the chance to remove it himself would be the best change IMHO. Baron of Frankfurt