Pentex Subversion Poll #2 and Discussion

(This list not meant to be all-encompassing.) Please list your reasoning below. I'm curious as to what everyone's thoughts might 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

Im against errata, ban it or leave it be.

I think that the minion with Pentex should be able to act to remove it. I still think it is potentially too powerful, but I think that adding this option would mean that Star Decks would be less neutered by Pentex. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

It`s often in the interests of others cross table to remove it, so I`m fine with it as is.

I like ice cream cones.

I like once per game. It can still be used for a VP lunge if you get to play yours first. Star vampire decks that used to play one defensively (to contest) can now hope to play theirs first or one Sudden solves all problems. Also, once per game might mean someone plays it early to play it first and it is less effective, toning down its power level.

I have become convinced that this card must exist, much as I hate it (and think it's undercosted). I think it should cost 3 pool and be left for the other card text. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

"Im against errata, ban it or leave it be." Agreed, when possible, and do not think this rises to the level of needing a ban at all.

If anyone loses because of this card, it was likely that it was used just before a lunge, so changing how long it lasts is pointless. I just do not see many times that this card changes the outcome of a table. So in my mind, its not as powerful as people seem to think. Leave it alone. For the record, I am MUCH more in favor of errata than banning. There are some card banned that could have simply been neutered, saving them from wallpaper status.

I often saw Pentex Subversion altering the outcome of a table. In my opinion the biggest problem of PS is that it threatens star vampire decks very much. In addition it is very frustrating to get your first minion out pentexed as in the early stages of a game the others don't have ressources to help you. To counter these two points I'm for the change that the pentexed minion can remove the card with a d-action. That way PS is still a good tool against blocking decks, which is good IMHO, but doesn't shut down few big minion-decks completely, as the minion can do the removal at least (and so get into combat for example or push the action through with stealth). The third problem of PS is the repeatable use with cards that allow recursion like Anthelios. Against that the above mentioned change wouldn't work. But then again you could add cards that can handle the resources granting the recursion. Baron of Frankfurt

> Joscha wrote: > I often saw Pentex Subversion altering the outcome of a table. In my opinion the biggest problem of PS is that it threatens star vampire decks very much. In addition it is very frustrating to get your first minion out pentexed as in the early stages of a game the others don't have ressources to help you. To counter these two points I'm for the change that the pentexed minion can remove the card with a d-action. That way PS is still a good tool against blocking decks, which is good IMHO, but doesn't shut down few big minion-decks completely, as the minion can do the removal at least (and so get into combat for example or push the action through with stealth). > > The third problem of PS is the repeatable use with cards that allow recursion like Anthelios. Against that the above mentioned change wouldn't work. But then again you could add cards that can handle the resources granting the recursion. > How about a: If the minion with PS is the only ready minion controlled by the Meth, [option to burn pool to remove or some sort of action removal clause]?

I would be very happy with the targetted minion being able to remove the card. Something like: Put this card on any ready minion. The minion with this card cannot take actions, other than to burn this card, and cannot block actions. This card may be burned by any other minion as a action.

You can't change it as you'd have to ban Una first. The reason you need PS is due to overly powerful star vampire decks and Una is a great example of that.

I'm agreed with Hugh. There's nothing wrong with PS, because it forces so called 'Star' decks to have to deal with it. If PS didn't exist as is, you could hone the (to use the example) Una deck to the point it'd become obscene. The very existence of PS makes that deck have to diversify a little to counter it, and that's a good thing for the game. If your deck is foiled completely by PS, the issue isn't with PS, it's with your deck. Here we go again.... Dave Knowles (Advanced) Sabbat Bishop of Manchester

> Squidalot wrote: > You can't change it as you'd have to ban Una first. > > The reason you need PS is due to overly powerful star vampire decks and Una is a great example of that. > I agree, and some other vampires, while less overpowered, may cross the border if it wasn't for Pentex. Eze is a great example.

What if Pentex were only playable on vampires which were not at full blood equal to their capacity? This way, a freshly influenced vampire could act a few times and expend their blood. But, as soon as they spent it for any reason, they could be stopped. This would at least allow Methuselahs to try and play their game a little bit in the early going. It really sucks spending 3 turns bringing out a 9+ capacity vampire and never allowing them to act or block the entire game, which can often mean you never get to act or block with *any* minion the entire game. Alternately, Pentex could be prohibited from being placed on vampires which just entered play since "your last turn." This would have a similar effect and give 1 turn in which the controlling Methuselah's will over their minion cannot be subverted. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Voted: Minion can act to remove Pentex. I played a star-vampire deck at the NAC, and Pentex killed me in my second and third games. In both of those games, my prey was ousted and I had a tooled up combat-y Cassandra, Magus Prime. My second prey in both cases was playing allies. They played Pentex on Cassandra, and my weenie backup couldn't fight through the allies. I was then allowed to be ousted by my predator. If Cassandra had been allowed an action to remove the Pentex, my preys in both games would have started losing allies, and especially in my second game against Jay Kristoff and Matt Strehlow, I would have an excellent chance of winning the game and making it to the finals (I made 3.5 VPs total in the tournament and if Cassandra hadn't been Pentexed in my second game, I *probably* would have earned a GW and 3 more VPs). Yes, yes, I know - How many Pentexes was I playing? One. In my third game I used it to remove Adam Hulse's Smiling Jack. I find it useful for lunging or removing a blocker for a key action, but I don't think I need a second for the deck itself. Now I have to play with two, and the first one is dead weight in my hand waiting for Cassandra to get Pentexed. I have also abused Pentex in two recent tournaments in which I played it against my opponent's first vampire, and other people didn't want to remove them because of the danger of those players' decks. It's ridiculous that you can just remove a minion from play for two pool.

> Squidalot wrote: > You can't change it as you'd have to ban Una first. > > The reason you need PS is due to overly powerful star vampire decks and Una is a great example of that. > I think Una is penalized bad enough by a Pentex Subversion even if she were allowed to remove it with an action. Granted you probably lose a minion to her while blocking that remove-action. But after the Freak Drive she can't do anything more because of the PS and so is still at a big disadvantage. Am I wrong? Baron of Frankfurt

I'd prefer to leave the card alone in the name of keeping the errata pool small. If, however, an erratum were a foregone conclusion, I would go for the fix in which the Pentex'd minion could destroy it with a D action (i.e. "This minion cannot block and cannot act except to remove this card.") That's the way I voted since I couldn't in good conscience say that the card is perfectly balanced as-is. I like Pentex as an anti-block mechanism, and I don't mind it as a means to slow down a Methuselah provided that he at least has the means to attempt to remove it -- which is too often not the case when Pentex is played on a star vamp during the early game. -Killiam (Bill Troxel) "I look back from where I'm from Look at the woman I've become And the strangest things seem Suddenly routine" -Hedwig Robinson

I like the card as a lunge tool. What I don't like is when it's not used to lunge, it's used to lock-down someone's minion phase by taking away actions. It becomes "creature removal" in a game that's not supposed to be MtG. I disagree about it being a counter to certain star vampires. If those star vampires are really overpowered as claimed, then something about the game itself is terribly flawed, and it's not the responsibility of one magic-bullet card to fix that flaw.

personally, i would go with the countdown-counter option. make PS cost 1-3 pool and also give it 1-3 counters that burn at the start of your prey's turn. that or make it cost 3 pool when played (on 8+caps). i don't mind errata as much as i hate wallpaper btw.

> Joscha wrote: > > > Squidalot wrote: > > You can't change it as you'd have to ban Una first. > > > > The reason you need PS is due to overly powerful star vampire decks and Una is a great example of that. > > > I think Una is penalized bad enough by a Pentex Subversion even if she were allowed to remove it with an action. Granted you probably lose a minion to her while blocking that remove-action. But after the Freak Drive she can't do anything more because of the PS and so is still at a big disadvantage. Am I wrong? > yes you're wrong - losing a minion (potentially having it burn) to block Una removing her pentex is horrible. There's also the case on the uber bleed decks (Nergal, Lucian etc) that the star vampire is very, very hard to block without a lot of minions with static intercept. Villein + 5 zillahs to make these guys more playable + Cog really just adds to the speed

> Haze wrote: > I like the card as a lunge tool. What I don't like is when it's not used to lunge, it's used to lock-down someone's minion phase by taking away actions. It becomes "creature removal" in a game that's not supposed to be MtG. > > I disagree about it being a counter to certain star vampires. If those star vampires are really overpowered as claimed, then something about the game itself is terribly flawed, and it's not the responsibility of one magic-bullet card to fix that flaw. > mattias you clearly have not played enough games against Una , to realise how flawed she is (or specifically the fact that she can act 10+ times in a row on turn 3) that's very hard to counter. She's probably the biggest single reason to need Pentex, Enkil Cog in combination with other stars e.g. Nergal, Lucian etc is another reason. These vampires are extremely powerful and very hard to stop. A simplier fix would be to remove Pentx from the game after it's burnt as it's only really absuable where there is multiple MPA.

How about: Pentex(TM) Subversion Type: Master Cost: 2 pool Unique master. Put this card on any ready minion. The minion with this card cannot take actions and cannot block actions. This card may be burned by any other minion as a action. If played on vampire with capacity 8 or above, burn this card during your next untap phase. Overkill is highly underrated. You know, like in computor games and such.

> Squidalot wrote: > mattias you clearly have not played enough games against Una , to realise how flawed she is (or specifically the fact that she can act 10+ times in a row on turn 3) that's very hard to counter. > This is probably another discussion, but since people aren't complaining about how broken Uta Kovacs and Jann Berger are, perhaps the problem isn't Una. Perhaps the problem is 1. Freak Drive, which might need an escalating cost structure, or 2. the fact that the game affords few ways to interact with non-stealth action modifiers outside of Direct Intervention.

quite possibly but I stick to one area at a time hence you can't substantially changed Pentex Subversion without changing something else. It doesn't just have to be Freak Drive - Cog with friends is quite painful as well.

For Pentex Subversion, I am very againbst anything that lower its power against bigcap but not against regular vampires. Pentex is the only thing that keep the bigcaps more or less in check anyway. Now, gicing to player an option to burn the pentex without possible block may be good. For example, spend a discard phase action, 3 pool, and tap the target minion to burn the Pentex Subversion. So, you lose a lot to a pentex without credible support to your star, but if it's early enough you will not be completely dead. > AaronC wrote: > This is probably another discussion, but since people aren't complaining about how broken Uta Kovacs and Jann Berger are, perhaps the problem isn't Una. Perhaps the problem is 1. Freak Drive, which might need an escalating cost structure, or 2. the fact that the game affords few ways to interact with non-stealth action modifiers outside of Direct Intervention. > Yes and no. The logic behind Freak Drive is that its cost prevent it being used too often, and it work fine in most decks. Interacting with non-stealth action modifier and reaction is kind of a slippery slope. You will end being MtG with counterspell and stuff like that.

The best solution is making new cards that counter it, right now I can think of only one card (Shadow of Taint) that can do this. A master card that that burns a card played by anther Methuselah, have it cost a pool. Maybe make it a trifle and it tap's the vampire. You could also have an ally that you could burn to burn a card played by another Methuselah. Their are better options, just need to be creative.

> Pullen wrote: > The best solution is making new cards that counter it, right now I can think of only one card (Shadow of Taint) that can do this. A master card that that burns a card played by anther Methuselah, have it cost a pool. Maybe make it a trifle and it tap's the vampire. You could also have an ally that you could burn to burn a card played by another Methuselah. Their are better options, just need to be creative. > There's also Sudden, Wash, Bleeding the Vine etc. I appreciate that none of these are perfect especially if you're playing against a multiple master deck with access to Anthelios/Ashur.

Year / TWDs Total / TWDs wPentex / % 1997-2008 / 1076 / 235 / 21.8% (prior to KoT/Ashur Tablets) 2009 / 236 / 111 / 47.0% 2010 / 231 / 130 / 56.2% 2011 / 253 / 144 / 56.9% 2012 / 89 / 62 / 69.7% (reports as of 6/26/2012) Clearly we are experiencing some kind of trend. Large vampires got better specials and more disciplines in the last few published sets. Ergo, the advantages to playing with superstars grew as did the advantage of playing with the best superstar vampire counter card: Pentex(tm) Subversion. The card should probably exist, but it *is* problematic, and the problem is getting worse. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

I think also a big part of why it gets included in decks is to contest and because people make such a big deal of how it's a "broken" card. There have been several decks where I only put it in as an after thought. It's an extremely strong card which needs to exist, if there is any problem it's in recursion + MMP.

> Jeff wrote: > The card should probably exist, but it *is* problematic, and the problem is getting worse. > The rise of bigcap deck mean the counter to big cap is more and more played. The solution, obviously, is not to buff midcap or nerf the dominance of bigcap, but nerfing the solution to big cap. Make perfect sense !

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > Jeff wrote: > > The card should probably exist, but it *is* problematic, and the problem is getting worse. > > > The rise of bigcap deck mean the counter to big cap is more and more played. The solution, obviously, is not to buff midcap or nerf the dominance of bigcap, but nerfing the solution to big cap. Make perfect sense ! > Ironic intent noted. But you can look at this from a couple different angles. Newer large vampires are generally better than their forebears with notable exceptions like G2 ICs, Anneke/Anson/EuroBrujah, and Dom/Obf P/Js. This means there are more people playing with them. The "old" counter to large vampire decks was speed. Before Zillah's Valley and more recently Villein, all you had to do was get your power bleed deck up and running and SR their Minion Taps. It's not so easy any more. As the power curve by capacity has recently skewed toward older vampires, it seems that the relative power of Pentex Subversion has increased at a faster rate. This meta consideration has clearly been noticed by the community at large. In some ways the existence of Pentex Subversion is a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is its greatest problem. People who hate the card, myself included, have to acknowledge that it is necessary for the game--some wall decks can be hard to break. But IMO the problem with Pentex doesn't lie with breaking down a wall which has become entrenched. The problem with Pentex is that early in the game is can randomly shut a player out of the game entirely. V:TES is a social game. When each of us sits down at the table, we commit the next two hours of our lives to some (hopefully) friendly competition. When someone plays a turn 3 Pentex on your large capacity vampire, your game could be over in the next 10 minutes, even if you do get substantial help. A single card should not have that kind of power early in the game. I think the fact that this poll exists acknowledges that a Wall-breaker/game finisher should exist. But the fact that people are trying to find a way to make the card better, or at least more proportionate in power, says volumes. I haven't voted for any of the proposed solutions yet. I think there are still more interesting possibilities. Here are some more: * Increase cost to 3 pool. Simple, easy to remember solution. * Change text to "Put this on an ally or a vampire who is not older than a vampire you control." Age should matter more in the game IMO. * Add: "This card cannot be played unless any Methuselah has earned a victory point." Gives people time to actually play their game. * Add: "During your untap phase (the Methuselah who played the card), burn this card if you have more pool than the controller of the minion with this card." A bit complicated, but giving the person who got Pentex'd an out as they get closer to being ousted. Anyway, the main point is to let people play the game. The interactions between minions should have the largest impact on the outcome, and Pentex Subversion totally undermines that fundamental V:TES principle. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Squidalot wrote: > mattias you clearly have not played enough games against Una , to realise how flawed she is (or specifically the fact that she can act 10+ times in a row on turn 3) that's very hard to counter. > She's probably the biggest single reason to need Pentex, Enkil Cog in combination with other stars e.g. Nergal, Lucian etc is another reason. These vampires are extremely powerful and very hard to stop. > oh you have no idea how often I've seen superstar decks in my playgroup. I know how scary they can be, and yet I've also seen them fail without any involvement from Pentex. might be that my local metagame is too used to them. I believe Freak Drive is the problem, not Una herself. and in this thread where we hypothetically errata Pentex Subversion it makes sense that we could just as easily errata other problematic cards. covering all the holes at the same time, and not just letting Una get even stronger.

> Jeff wrote: > A single card should not have that kind of power early in the game. > But there is no reason to make big cap even more powerful, exactly like there were no reason to buff small cap at the very start of VtES, when bigcap were pretty weak. Everything you said don't change the thing that the real problem is the prevalence of big cap, and nerfing Pentex is only another way to ensure their dominance. Maybe pentex can be changed to be less frustrating, but in any case it should not be lowered in power - in fact, it would be better for the game not to touch it than making superstar even more super. A lot of other options are possible, like making support vampire easier to put in play (like Grooming the Protege can already do in some case), or mayvbe thing more exotic like support ghoul to help big cap for action. It would in the same time make non-multiacting big cap easier to play (because freak drive is less necessary with 2-4 minion than with only one), and avoid the next step in the loop, which is nerfing combat (and other minion removal) to the ground because torporizing / burning a star is doable almost as soon as early pentex and even more punishing.

> Jeff wrote: > Year / TWDs Total / TWDs wPentex / % > 1997-2008 / 1076 / 235 / 21.8% (prior to KoT/Ashur Tablets) > 2009 / 236 / 111 / 47.0% > 2010 / 231 / 130 / 56.2% > 2011 / 253 / 144 / 56.9% > 2012 / 89 / 62 / 69.7% (reports as of 6/26/2012) > > The card should probably exist, but it *is* problematic, and the problem is getting worse. > nice stats Jeff - a little intimidating. I'd be interested to see Europe V US V ROW as well in an anecdotal way Pentex didn't crop up a lot stateside even 2 years ago.

Haze, possibly Freak Drive is the issue for Una *cough* but I don't think an incremental cost fix is particularly pleasant to do particularly without reprint options. it is far easier to ban a card than revise a card when you can't reprint it and it'd be easier to axe Una than freak drive based on % of decks sued in. Una was just and example of overly powered star decks - I don't think she's the only one any kind of IC with dom OBF is pretty much up plus Lucien, Cybele, Nergal etc and although many of them use Freak drive to be very powerful OBF with added dom block denial really adds to the pain especially when you add in to the mix the modern day speed increase (zillahs + villein + zillahs is far quicker than Zillahs + minion tap + zillahs etc) and of course cog for in turn irresponsible bleeding or bleeding twice a turn. Sure star decks die to all sorts of things but if you're playing a toolbox deck or a deck with votes that rely on minion manipulation (banishment) then you're unlikely to be able to kill the deck before it kills you or oust your prey before you die. As a player of lots of toolboxy decks I find Pentex a greater balancer to tone down decks around me that are all about 'balls on the table' and without it i'd have to shelve decks or build a large safety net (AI, Protected resources etc) so that they're actually incapable of doing anything else. And none of that helps if the Star guy is in front of you

I don't remember hearing anyone talking about Pentex at the recent Australian National Championships. I also don't really remember it making a massive appearance at any of the recent Oceania Continental Championships. The only card with a "long shadow" around Australia has been Archon Investigation, from a Qualifier where 7 vampires were burned by Archon Investigation on a day of almost constant Dominate Powerbleed. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Ohlmann wrote: > Everything you said don't change the thing that the real problem is the prevalence of big cap, and nerfing Pentex is only another way to ensure their dominance. > I think that the "real problem" is a bit more nuanced than that. I have no problem with large-cap vampire decks which *act* and do their thing. Arika, Stanislava, Lucian, The unnamed, Lutz, Dmitra. These types of decks are great to see in action. But Pentex is needed to stop star vampires like Cailean, Cesewayo or Eze with No Secrets. > Maybe pentex can be changed to be less frustrating, but in any case it should not be lowered in power - in fact, it would be better for the game not to touch it than making superstar even more super. > > A lot of other options are possible, like making support vampire easier to put in play (like Grooming the Protege can already do in some case), or maybe thing more exotic like support ghoul to help big cap for action. > The fact that superstar decks large-cap can exist is *great* for the game. It provides more diversity of options and room for experimentation. Pentex is designed to shut those decks down. That is its only purpose. Mylan Horseed is a nice enabler for some large-cap decks to be sure. > It would in the same time make non-multiacting big cap easier to play (because freak drive is less necessary with 2-4 minion than with only one), and avoid the next step in the loop, which is nerfing combat (and other minion removal) to the ground because torporizing / burning a star is doable almost as soon as early pentex and even more punishing. > Combat does not need to be nerfed. Nor does it need to be highly upgraded. Interaction between minions is good, though currently it is high-risk for larger vampires. Pentex discourages interaction between minions and that is the root of its problem. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > The fact that superstar decks large-cap can exist is *great* for the game. It provides more diversity of options and room for experimentation. Pentex is designed to shut those decks down. That is its only purpose. Mylan Horseed is a nice enabler for some large-cap decks to be sure. > But people play Pentex subversion not because big cap deck exist. They play it because big cap dominate > > Jeff wrote: > Combat does not need to be nerfed. Nor does it need to be highly upgraded. Interaction between minions is good, though currently it is high-risk for larger vampires. Pentex discourages interaction between minions and that is the root of its problem. > But at the root, if you don't like Pentex because it can remove your bigger minion very early, you won't like any dedicated rush deck for this very reason. Also, I don't believe Pentex discourage minion interaction at all. It's about the same thing as torpor, without diablerie.

> Ohlmann wrote: > But people play Pentex subversion not because big cap deck exist. They play it because big cap dominate. > You may play Pentex Subversion because you think large cap vampires dominate. But the fact is that large-cap vampires do not completely dominate the tournament metagame. What about Vignes? Weenie AUS and DEM are still strong. Shambling Hordes. Nana/ANI weenie rush. Malk94. Giovanni PowerBleed. All these mid-cap decks have won large tournaments in the past 18 months. > Jeff wrote: > But at the root, if you don't like Pentex because it can remove your bigger minion very early, you won't like any dedicated rush deck for this very reason. > > Also, I don't believe Pentex discourage minion interaction at all. It's about the same thing as torpor, without diablerie. > At least in combat, it is the minions interacting. I like combat. It should be better (just a touch). Pentex is a master card and therefore by definition doesn't (initially) involve minion interaction. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > But IMO the problem with Pentex doesn't lie with breaking down a wall which has become entrenched. The problem with Pentex is that early in the game is can randomly shut a player out of the game entirely. V:TES is a social game. When each of us sits down at the table, we commit the next two hours of our lives to some (hopefully) friendly competition. When someone plays a turn 3 Pentex on your large capacity vampire, your game could be over in the next 10 minutes, even if you do get substantial help. > > A single card should not have that kind of power early in the game. > <snip> > > * Increase cost to 3 pool. Simple, easy to remember solution. > How does this help? > Jeff wrote: > Year / TWDs Total / TWDs wPentex / % > 1997-2008 / 1076 / 235 / 21.8% (prior to KoT/Ashur Tablets) > 2009 / 236 / 111 / 47.0% > 2010 / 231 / 130 / 56.2% > 2011 / 253 / 144 / 56.9% > 2012 / 89 / 62 / 69.7% (reports as of 6/26/2012) > > Clearly we are experiencing some kind of trend. Large vampires got better specials and more disciplines in the last few published sets. Ergo, the advantages to playing with superstars grew as did the advantage of playing with the best superstar vampire counter card: Pentex(tm) Subversion. > > The card should probably exist, but it *is* problematic, and the problem is getting worse. > If Pentex is played more often than before, couldn't it mean it is needed more often? The card is not necessarily problematic, but as you say the power of super star deck is maybe. > Jeff wrote: > Pentex is a master card and therefore by definition doesn't (initially) involve minion interaction. > Huh? 95% percent of the master cards involve minions. Blood Doll. Villein. Powerbase: Montreal. Zillah's Valley. Metro Underground. The Rack. The Coven. Dreams of the Sphinx (for influence). Hunting Grounds. Disciplines... (BTW, it's a coincidence I've quoted only Jeff, but apparently we disagree on many points, nothing personal ) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ohlmann wrote: > But people play Pentex subversion not because big cap deck exist. They play it because big cap dominate > No, they play it to handle decks that put all their eggs in the same basket, or abuse the superstar principle to create a monster impossible to handle. Being a high cap usually grants some extra power (bleeding for 3 in 1 action is better than bleeding 3 times for 1). It should also have a drawback. Pentex can be also quite strategical when you have to wait the right moment to play it to oust your prey. It also offers options to decks that would be locked otherwise. If I play a swarm deck, is it normal that 1 No Secrets From the Magaji locks me down? Pentex offers a solution. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > No, they play it to handle decks that put all their eggs in the same basket, or abuse the superstar principle to create a monster impossible to handle. Being a high cap usually grants some extra power (bleeding for 3 in 1 action is better than bleeding 3 times for 1). It should also have a drawback. > Pentex can be also quite strategical when you have to wait the right moment to play it to oust your prey. > I agree it's a way better way to explain it. > > Ankha wrote: > It also offers options to decks that would be locked otherwise. If I play a swarm deck, is it normal that 1 No Secrets From the Magaji locks me down? Pentex offers a solution. > Or, to put in other words, there is three card that are solutions useable against about any deck : Direct Intervention, Sudden Reversal, and Pentex Subversion. Of the three, the Pentex still is the one which is the less disruptive in my opinion.

> Ankha wrote: > > > Jeff wrote: > > Pentex is a master card and therefore by definition doesn't (initially) involve minion interaction. > > > Huh? 95% percent of the master cards involve minions. Blood Doll. Villein. Powerbase: Montreal. Zillah's Valley. Metro Underground. The Rack. The Coven. Dreams of the Sphinx (for influence). Hunting Grounds. Disciplines... > Master cards interact with minions. Minions interact with Master cards... BUT when Jeff Kuta is talking about "Minion Interaction" he doesn't mean: "The master cards have effects on minions..." Generally Jeff (and a few others, myself included) think of "Minion Interaction" as the interplay between 2 or more minions during the play of the game. My dislike for Pentex is the "early game neutering" effect. It can be achieved by other decks doing similar things (on case from my own recent play is being Banished three turns in a row by my predator... very very boring game). It makes you wonder why you bothered to put the cards in sleeves and waste your time on the trip to the game. It gets worse if it is a tournament because then you know your chances of getting into finals have probably been smashed AND that you might as well not have forked out your entry fee (here's your token booster, thanks for coming to subsidise that asshole's winnings). Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Ankha wrote: > No, they play it to handle decks that put all their eggs in the same basket, or abuse the superstar principle to create a monster impossible to handle. Being a high cap usually grants some extra power (bleeding for 3 in 1 action is better than bleeding 3 times for 1). It should also have a drawback. > Those decks already have several drawbacks. They get fewer actions. They have one principal target for rushes and blocks. They usually take longer to influence out their vampire or have to dedicate deck space to acceleration. These are significant penalties. I am not at all sure that spending 11 pool to bleed for three with one action is better than spending 3 to 6 pool to bleed for one with three actions. My experience is that it takes several actions and drawing the right cards to turn a great vampire into an unstoppable monster. Two pool, an MPA, and some chump blockers can nullify that considerable investment. > Ankha wrote: > Pentex can be also quite strategical when you have to wait the right moment to play it to oust your prey. > It also offers options to decks that would be locked otherwise. If I play a swarm deck, is it normal that 1 No Secrets From the Magaji locks me down? Pentex offers a solution. > I think everyone who has posted here agrees with the ability of the Pentex Subversion to remove a blocker from play in order to lunge or to break a "block everything" superstar deck. (I know some players don't like that aspect, of course.) What we're discussing is the ability of Pentex to prevent superstars from acting at all.

I don't really think Pentex needs a change as there are like, a bazillion other things that are way more disruptive to the playing experience than Pentex is and those are not even being discussed, let alone touched. If your deck falls apart when you get a Pentex, your deck stinks. It's simple as that. That said, I see it almost exclusively being used as block-denial tool and only occasionally see it being played early on. Unless I'm playing with fish, some crosstable will remove it. If they don't that means at least two players at the table suck, or your deck is sufficiently threatening to the table that people are fine with you gone. Neither of those are Pentex's fault. As long as Una, Al Muntahir or Gerald Windham freak show shit decks (*) are wasting people's time left, right and center Pentex needs to be left alone. (*) An easy fix, by the way, would be to reword Ankara Citadel to say "the TREMERE with this card can,ONCE PER TURN..." and and Una to "ONCE PER TURN, Una can...". Then while you're at it make No Secret's "block as if untapped" effect cost a blood. Once that is done you might start thinking about Pentex again. > It makes you wonder why you bothered to put the cards in sleeves and waste your time on the trip to the game. It gets worse if it is a tournament because then you know your chances of getting into finals have probably been smashed AND that you might as well not have forked out your entry fee (here's your token booster, thanks for coming to subsidise that asshole's winnings). > Wow someone is angry... This is, FYI, exactly the same thing as your beloved combat deck pounding a 10-cap into the ground before it has acted. Which happens a lot more than people getting Pentexed on turn 3. And for some reason people are asking for a Pentex nerf and a boost to combat... Hurrrrr....

> Izaak wrote: > If your deck falls apart when you get a Pentex, your deck stinks. It's simple as that. > That's funny. I have seen Pentex do horrible damage to decks that have won games and gotten into finals. Pentex makes good decks fall apart, and that is precisely why we are discussing it and why people play it so much.

> Dorrinal wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > I have seen Pentex do horrible damage to decks that have won games and gotten into finals. > > Correction: I have made Pentex do horrible damage to decks that have won games and gotten into finals.

> Ankha wrote: > > > Jeff wrote: > > Pentex is a master card and therefore by definition doesn't (initially) involve minion interaction. > > > Huh? 95% percent of the master cards involve minions. Blood Doll. Villein. Powerbase: Montreal. Zillah's Valley. Metro Underground. The Rack. The Coven. Dreams of the Sphinx (for influence). Hunting Grounds. Disciplines... > Apparently, you did not understand what Jeff said : when it says that pentex does not involve minion, he means that the card is played outside the stealth/intercept game, and can neutralize a minion with no action, and no pre-requisites. there's nothing you can do to prevent pentex played on your minion, except sudden reversal/wash ( yes, with the exception of rewind time, playable by 10 vampires out of the 1360+ in the whole game.) So the turn you play pentex, your prey is defenseless, no matter how good is defense is, if he has no minon capable of removing it (and even then, most often the harm is done). I also want to add that in my opinion pentex is not too strong : the problem comes from recursion, and also stated by Aaron, by early shutdown that can lock a player for 3 or more turns. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> That's funny. I have seen Pentex do horrible damage to decks that have won games and gotten into finals. > That's because "doing horrible damage" is not the same as "making it fall apart". > Pentex makes good decks fall apart, and that is precisely why we are discussing it and why people play it so much. > Pentex is first and foremost a lunge tool. Then as secondary effect, yes it can be used to slow/shut down decks for a while. Good decks can deal with it for a while usually, and thus can eventually play on and make the finals. Also, not all TWD's are actually good decks (in fact I'd argue that at least half of them suck balls, but let's not go there) and not all good decks become TWD.

> Jeff wrote: > A single card should not have that kind of power early in the game. > <snip> > * Increase cost to 3 pool. Simple, easy to remember solution. > > Ankha wrote: > How does this help? > I believe Pentex is problematic mainly because it *can* be played early and wreck someone's game before they even have a chance to play it. While played on a minion, its effect is to almost nullify that minion from the game since it cannot act or block (this is my meaning for "doesn't involve minion interaction"). I see V:TES as a game where Methuselahs are puppet masters who can help/influence their minions interactions by providing resources or abilities, but generally speaking Methuselahs should not directly interfere (this is also a problem I have with Direct Intervention...Sudden Reversal/Wash are fine because they counter other Masters). Since I think Pentex is a problem, part of the way to make it less of a problem is to make it cost more so Methuselahs have to weigh more carefully the choice to play Pentex. Many decks without recursion pack 2-4 Pentex. This is because they need to be able to contest it if played on their minions early, or they want to play it early because they expect to draw another later in the game. They also play multiple copies because the 2 pool cost makes it affordable to use multiple times in a single game. If the cost were increased, then I think people would be forced to more strategically use the card. Paying 2 pool to stop my predator's turn 3 fat multi-acting vampire is almost a no brainer. And that really sucks for the game--not just the victim, but for the "spirit" of V:TES. Would it be worth paying 3 pool to do the same? Hard to say, but it certainly requires more risk analysis. Paying 3 pool to lunge for an oust, or to break a wall is still very much worth it however. So the primary benefit of Pentex is still preserved IMO. > (BTW, it's a coincidence I've quoted only Jeff, but apparently we disagree on many points, nothing personal ) > Debating is good. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > If the cost were increased, then I think people would be forced to more strategically use the card. Paying 2 pool to stop my predator's turn 3 fat multi-acting vampire is almost a no brainer. And that really sucks for the game--not just the victim, but for the "spirit" of V:TES. Would it be worth paying 3 pool to do the same? Hard to say, but it certainly requires more risk analysis. Paying 3 pool to lunge for an oust, or to break a wall is still very much worth it however. So the primary benefit of Pentex is still preserved IMO. > Well, much more efficient than increasing the cost by 1 pool and hoping it will be enough would be to change to "a methuselah can play only one pentex per game". Oh, suddenly, people will stop packing 4 of it and recursing it will have 0 interest !

> Ohlmann wrote: > Well, much more efficient than increasing the cost by 1 pool and hoping it will be enough would be to change to "a methuselah can play only one pentex per game". Oh, suddenly, people will stop packing 4 of it and recursing it will have 0 interest ! > You continue bringing recursion back into the discussion. I understand that is a concern of yours, but that is only an indirect concern with respect to the power of Pentex Subversion. Recursion requires *other* cards. Pentex can certainly benefit from being recursed, but that is a separate issue. It is an efficient solution because it requires no card text change and can therefore be more easily remembered. It is also an incremental solution (no functional change, just small cost change) with a more easy to predict impact on the metagame. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > You continue bringing recursion back into the discussion. I understand that is a concern of yours, but that is only an indirect concern with respect to the power of Pentex Subversion. Recursion requires *other* cards. Pentex can certainly benefit from being recursed, but that is a separate issue. > You misunderstood what this change will do. Avoiding recursion - a concern you said yourself - is a secondary issue. The primary issue is avoiding people having too often a pentex in hand at turn three, meaning disencitiving playing 2 or 3 in a deck. Increasing the cost may or may not work, "once per methuselah" would be much more direct and efficient. Also, spending 3 pool to stop dead a deck at turn three is still increadibly efficient. It's the "regular" use like lunging that would need more reflexion, except maybe if Pentex were costing a ludicrious amount, like 5 or 6. I can't stress this enough : if what you want to avoid is pentex on Eze at turn three, then cost is nearly not a factor. You can avoid two or three turn of action, which may very well mean more than 10 pool. > Jeff wrote: > It is an efficient solution because it requires no card text change and can therefore be more easily remembered. > That's an entirely subjective thing, since both are text change. I would remember much easily a "one per methuselah" change than a cost change, simply because the difference between two and three for a costly card is not that important.

just a thought, but there could be other ways of 'fixing pentex'. __ possible solutions: 01// for example, 'a methuselah can burn PS by taking no actions during his turn and by discarding a(n out-of-turn) mastercard during his discard-phase.' not sure about the 'out-of-turn'-part (at first i wanted to make sudden reversal or wash sort of playable AFTER pentex was alreadty played, but this seemed like a more playable and more elegantly phrasable alternative). 02// if the methuselah playing PS controls no older vampires than the one he is playing PS on, he has to tap at least one non-infernal vampire he controls. if this vampire untaps, burn PS. the methuselah may choose not to untap this vampire during his or her untap phase.'

> Ohlmann wrote: > You can avoid two or three turn of action, which may very well mean more than 10 pool. > Yes, see below. > Jeff wrote: > * Change text to "Put this on an ally or a vampire who is not older than a vampire you control." Age should matter more in the game IMO. > * Add: "This card cannot be played unless any Methuselah has earned a victory point." Gives people time to actually play their game. > * Add: "During your untap phase (the Methuselah who played the card), burn this card if you have more pool than the controller of the minion with this card." A bit complicated, but giving the person who got Pentex'd an out as they get closer to being ousted. > All three of these proposals work in some fashion to steer the uses of Pentex toward lunging and away from early large vampire lockdown. But each of them is more complicated than a simple increase in cost. It's not a case of misunderstanding what the change will do. It's trying to find an easy solution which can solve the problem. Errata which intentionally change functionality are tricky because they need to be propagated through the community. Errata which provide clarifications or rules consistency (like the recent ones for Disarm and Pulled Fangs) are necessary. A simple cost change is the least intrusive type of errata. > That's an entirely subjective thing, since both are text change. I would remember much easily a "one per methuselah" change than a cost change, simply because the difference between two and three for a costly card is not that important. > Right, it is subjective. Maybe 4 pool is the optimal cost. The sting of such a change would also be easier to remember. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Two premises to start: 1) Superstar decks are good for the game, because they bring diversity with different specials and differnet disciplines (weenie decks on the other side are very straight and bring no diversity to the game). 2) Most superstar decks are killed by Pentex, giving weenies the edge against superstar decks. So making Pentex Subversion cost 3 pools doesnt help. Paying 3 pool to stop a Wynn-, Saulot- or (you name it)-deck is cheap. You still cannot stop weenie decks. So the solution should be a restriction how often the card is played or how long it will function.

I agree. I just played in the San Jose tournament on June 23, and I saw Pentex destroy two superstar decks. In one of those games, my prey (Jeff Kuta) was playing an Assamite CEL/AUS/gun wall and he Pentexed his prey's Cesewayo. Since it was a Cesewayo wall deck, there wasn't much the player could do - no one had the means to get through the wall to remove Pentex. It was a case of a wall deck using Pentex to lock down a superstar later in the game. In another game I Pentexed my prey's Mistress Fanchion right after she came out. In either case, 3 pool would certainly have been worth it.

Interesting. This is the first time the majority likes to change Pentex Subversion (at least until today with 55% for a change). Baron of Frankfurt

I do believe that weenie have nothing to do with the problem at hand. > Decebalus wrote: > 1) Superstar decks are good for the game, because they bring diversity with different specials and differnet disciplines (weenie decks on the other side are very straight and bring no diversity to the game). > I just don't understand why anyone would think that. Superstar deck are neither more nor less diverse than weenie or midcap deck. You can make unimaginative weenie, and unimaginative superstar deck. You can also make very strange deck out of smallish vampire. Superstar should not have a special status. They are a kind of deck, not a particulary desireable one in term of pure gameplay. (a lot of people do like having big monster in their deck ; however, it's not a reason to making them all powerful) > > Decebalus wrote: > 2) Most superstar decks are killed by Pentex, giving weenies the edge against superstar decks. > Well, superstar are not exactly doing that poorly against weenie. Just look at the blog of extrala and you'll see that 6-11 cap are not exceptional in winning deck. Maybe because anti weenie card does exist, some being able to hit you as hard as pentex ; in fact being big is in itself a powerful advantage against most card. > > Decebalus wrote: > So making Pentex Subversion cost 3 pools doesnt help. Paying 3 pool to stop a Wynn-, Saulot- or (you name it)-deck is cheap. You still cannot stop weenie decks. > It's not weenie deck the problem. It's not weenie deck that play Pentex, it's absolutely everyone, and one of the better tech against Pentex is playing 3 in your deck. In addition, weenie deck are far from immune from pentex subvertion. Pentex will often be decisive against any deck.

> Ohlmann wrote: > In addition, weenie deck are far from immune from pentex subvertion. Pentex will often be decisive against any deck. > I'm not sure about the other mentioned points. But this statement is false IMHO. I don't care at all, whether one of my 2-cap Pander is pentexed or not. With that many actions a weenie-deck offers I surely will get rid of PS. Or if removing the card really is a problem I just lose a 2-cap, so what? Baron of Frankfurt

if an additional cost isn't enough to keeping pextex in check (and i believe that it isn't; see also the many examples in the thread above), then only the idea with the countdown remains since a one per game restriction can still nerf a deck/superstar completely and wreck the rich vtes game experience. i have no problem with pentex as a short term effect, but i do hate it when a large-cap (even if it isn't mine) is paralyzed for the most part of a game. it's just too damn monotone and depressing to watch. i mean i have had people PS a tupdog twice already (of course i don't really care about that!) my $0.05

Heh I got a VP once by pentexing a Tupdog that was my preys only untapped minion. I personally think pentex is fine as it is, though. It is nice to at least have -some- change of getting a vp when your prey is playing some Una freakshow or Enkidu with 7 raptors + eternal vigilance stupidity.

> porphyrion wrote: > i have no problem with pentex as a short term effect, but i do hate it when a large-cap (even if it isn't mine) is paralyzed for the most part of a game. > One solution for that would be to give control of Pentex to the target's controler. That would turn burning the Pentex into a action against the controler of the minion (similar to the Rescue action) with 2 effects: -cross-table burning would be unblockable without an eagle sight, -if the controler cannot get cross-table help, then he must be a big table threat and in that case it is harder for him to remove the Pentex himself since both his prey and predator can block.

> Non-existant user wrote: > One solution for that would be to give control of Pentex to the target's controler. That would turn burning the Pentex into a action against the controler of the minion (similar to the Rescue action)... > i like your idea a great deal! what about imbued though??

> Non-existant user wrote: > One solution for that would be to give control of Pentex to the target's controler. That would turn burning the Pentex into a action against the controler of the minion (similar to the Rescue action)... > > porphyrion wrote: > i like your idea a great deal! what about imbued though?? > What about imbued? Boris' solution has a lot of merit. In a typical 5-player game, A>B>C>D>E, when A plays Pentex on B's minion, there's little incentive for others to remove it. B wants to, C doesn't want to, D doesn't care, and E may want to. However, there's a good chance A can defend Pentex a little bit, so E may not want to weaken their position. When the table collapses to 4 or fewer, it is even worse--essentially D doesn't exist any more. However, when the table is down to 3-players, then Pentex becomes stronger because there are two blocking Methuselahs against one acting Methuselah. But, I really don't have much of a problem with this since the game is well established by this point and finishers are a good thing. Plus, the likelihood of someone drawing into their own Pentex to contest, or Sudden Reversal or Wash to cancel it, has dramatically gone up due to the sheer number of cards played. I think this is definitely worth considering. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

D should care, because D's predator has far less pressure. D should always try to remove it, if D can spare the actions. 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

> Spore wrote: > "Im against errata, ban it or leave it be." > > Agreed, when possible, and do not think this rises to the level of needing a ban at all. > misdirections [edit] "minion can call vote to remove PS as a +2 stealth D action that anyone can block" UDHR18/19/27

I think that Pentex Subversion should be banned and replaced by two cards: Pentex(TM) hates yo mama Master [2 Pool] Unique master. Put this card on any ready minion. The minion with this card cannot take actions. This card may be burned by any other minion as a action. and Pentex(TM) ain´t notin to f**k wit Master [2 Pool] Unique master. Put this card on any ready minion. The minion with this card cannot block actions. This card may be burned by any other minion as a action. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

And you have an argument for why this would be a remotely good idea ?

> Ohlmann wrote: > And you have an argument for why this would be a remotely good idea ? > Sorry, I thought that was pretty obvious. But ok, I´ll explain: I think Pentex Subversion is a bit too good. It would be nicer if there was two cards instead. More interesting - should I include the block-denying card or the action-denying card? Do you understand? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > Sorry, I thought that was pretty obvious. But ok, I´ll explain: I think Pentex Subversion is a bit too good. It would be nicer if there was two cards instead. More interesting - should I include the block-denying card or the action-denying card? > > Do you understand? > Now, I understand and disagree Outside of the whole idea whether Pentex is too strong or not, there is some pitfalls with this approach : * even if pentex-contest is clunky, it's doable. Here, it is suicidal to try to contest both, and if you have a star vampire, he's likely to both act and block. (not everytime mind you ; but some star deck will be a lot more affected than other) * even if it's extremely costly, it mean you can lock the defence of your prey and the offense of your predator at the same time * now, let's take the position of the deck which will not integrate both. They are likely to integrate the anti-action one, because they are defences immune to Pentex (bounce, bloat, even rush), while every deck will oust more slowly with one less minion. So the anti-action one will be played more, leading to even more timeout, since the anti-block option, while less often directly useful than the anti-action one, was one of the trump card to ensure an oust. So, if Pentex is a problem, you don't convince me at all that this would help. I may be wrong, but that's my opinion.

I think it should stay as it is. Im against altering a game that is fantastic as it is. If people are so afraid of PS, include more sudden reversals then.

> Pullen wrote: > Im against errata, ban it or leave it be. > Resurrecting this just because of the latest facebook thread. Generally speaking, errata to radically change a card is just plain bad design policy. Seriously. Ban the problem card and make a new one. I'm (not?) surprised that the VEKN Design Team is even considering anything else. It's the cleanest solution by far.* Personally, I think the only viable solution to *change* Pentex is to increase the cost. If it cost 3 or even 4 pool, people would reconsider whether they want to play it or even include it in their decks. A simple cost change is is easy to remember and would not require remembering the nuances of whatever possible future text exists. Otherwise, start from scratch. Seriously. I gotta be the one to say this? * The very elegant solution to Villein (adding a single word) is very different from fixing Pentex. Simply removing the words "cannot take actions" or "cannot block actions" would have a tremendous impact on whether people include the card in their decks. If the Pentex'd minion can only act, there's almost no defensive value to the card, so hyper aggro decks get an advantage. If the Pentex'd minion can only block, wall decks can still survive just as easily. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

I'm not normally in favor of errata, but there are times when errata is better than banning. I wouldn't say this is a good test case, but I don't think it's always feasible to ban and publish or always worth "ban be gone". Increasing Pentex's cost seems a horrible solution to the problem. The problem with cards like this one is the swing effect. If the effect is a bad effect, it doesn't matter what the cost is if the card continues to see play at that cost. If the cost is so high the card doesn't see play, it's effectively banned. In other words, it doesn't make Pentex any more interesting a card in the game when the cost is increased, any more than Protect Thine Own would be a more interesting card if it cost 3 pool or Succubus Club a more interesting card if it cost 3 pool. Traveller Card Game

Why is this brought up? We couldve curtailed Tablets ages ago by adding "minion" between 13 and cards on its face. Pentex is a staple, yes, screws thngs, yes, designed to. If vtes as a 2 player game was a thing, pentex would be worse. But theres other problems than that. Jeff, we arent in print, and may not be there like ever. So, id rather see erratta printed on self adhesive labels on existing cards than become "that shitty game where 68% of your deck is printer paper cards". Pentex is good. It axhieves a goal. 1 per game per player seemed logical 2 years ago, but that seems less needed now not saying to make it stop abilities and cost less, but i still like it as is. Edit: the FB conversation in mind, Erratta it. As Litwin suggested, burn it during untap stops some complaints. As Johannes suggested, making it not stop both acting and blocking is viable What it you had to choosexif they couldnt act or couldnt block? What i feel is more importat: Big caps and making them better: I dont think big bleeds all around is the answer, but assigning things based upon discipline spread seems intelligent. All the fatties with big potence? Let them burn a blood for +2 strength. Aus? Let them burn a blood to get intercept against d actions. Dominate? +1 bleed for a blood. Fortitude? Bun a blood to prevent 3 damage. Obf? +2 stealth on a hunt or equip. Celerity? Blood for a dodge protean? Burn a blood to treat strike agg as normal. Obt? Sealth on any obt action. Tham? Steal on a tham action. You get the idea. All once a turn, probably, but it helps them. If they cant multiact, they suck, but adding these is better than not. Or, we at LEAST print superior FOR symbol stickers and erratta g1 justicars.

> Jeff wrote: > Generally speaking, errata to radically change a card is just plain bad design policy. Seriously. Ban the problem card and make a new one. I'm (not?) surprised that the VEKN Design Team is even considering anything else. > Where do you see that the VEKN Design Team is considering a change to 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

> KevinM wrote: > > > Jeff wrote: > > Generally speaking, errata to radically change a card is just plain bad design policy. Seriously. Ban the problem card and make a new one. I'm (not?) surprised that the VEKN Design Team is even considering anything else. > > > Where do you see that the VEKN Design Team is considering a change to Pentex Subversion? > If memory serves, between EK and HttB Scott was kinda bugged to ban it. Wasnt needed, and now we still have bigger problems to address. Dont recall erratta being the plan though......

Still waiting for an answer from Jeff Kuta....... 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

It's already unique and it costs 2 pool. Leave it alone. If you're running a star deck and can't handle losing that vampire, that's not Pentex's fault - you have a bad deck. It sucks to lose in a final lunge to it, but there's an entire game that gets played before that last lunge. That's not Pentex's fault - you played badly. If it gets played early, locks you down and allows a sweep - that's the table's fault for not removing it. If your entire deck depends on ONE guy, that's your fault. In my almost 20 years of playing, I have never seen a Pentex-off or someone who plays multiples to use on every player. Our meta hardly uses it at all because of the cost and table hate it usually creates. No one has a problem with Sensory Deprivation or Seduction or block denial tech, I don't see why people have such a hate-on for Pentex Subversion. It's a single card, you can't really use it as a "deck concept". It's usually played as a final nail in the coffin or a hail Mary.

I have observed that a lot of games I have seen lately revolve around Pentex. Who draws/plays Pentex at what time is a major factor in 80-90% of games I play, especially in the last 18 months or so. This seems too much to me. It has nothing to do with the card being overpowered but simply with the fact that it is dominating (my) meta so much. On the other hand the argument has beend made that the card needs to stay because it is the only really viable option against a massively tooled up single blocker deck outside of block fails disciplines and Seduction. I am partially convinced here, most of the time those decks have their Pentex already on the table by the time you draw yours. If I was to decide I would remove it from the tournament circle for the current qualifier / championship period and see how it goes.

And I have no affiliation with the design team or the rules dude. FYI The process for existing cards is: - rules dude determines something needs to be done about PS - rules dude decides on ban/change - if change is chosen rules dude engages design team about possible changes - if ban is chosen rules dude determines if replacement card should be in place first and engages design team Last time I checked there was a strict policy on no-change beyond Minion Tap, but I might be wrong by now.

> yesferatu wrote: > In my almost 20 years of playing, I have never seen a Pentex-off or someone who plays multiples to use on every player. Our meta hardly uses it at all because of the cost and table hate it usually creates. > Interesting. I see a fair share of Pentex being recycled through Anthelios every turn so it shuts down a vampire permanently even if the table directs actions at it.

If you cannot remove Pentex Subversion with the help of either the rest of the players at the table or by yourself, I understand it to mean that you are a serious threat that must be ousted (or the wall is just that good) . In any case, I thought the idea of the game (at least competitively speaking) was to reduce the number of players at the table as quickly as possible for better micro management of the flow of the game. Pentex Subversion helps tremendously in that sense. VTES is not for the faint of heart...especially when you don't have a enough blood. Prince Of Geneva

> KevinM wrote: > Where do you see that the VEKN Design Team is considering a change to Pentex Subversion? > The Design Team has not been discussing and are not discussing changes to Pentex Subversion or any other card. That is not our job. Errata and bannings are the job of the Rules Team. We are not members of the Rules Team, nor has the Rules Team asked the Design Team to review, comment on, or test any changes or errata. The Design Team also has no cards in development that serve a similar function to Pentex Subversion or that would replace it, nor have we been asked to do so by the Rules Team, the VEKN ICs, or anyone else.

Has anyone else gotten into the situation where, routinely, you hold your pentex so that you can contest a pentex? Its not by any means an every game thing, but wall on wall on wall certainly warrants it occasionally, if not often. Now, we start the "sense dep is broken" argument, i will just insist people need to get better at burning the vampire who played it......

> yesferatu wrote: > No one has a problem with Sensory Deprivation > This is a lie. SenseDep is an awful, awful card because while it DOES HAVE a removal clause, the removal clause depends on doing something that is more difficult than anything else in the game. So it isn't really a removal clause -- which is the entire problem. By way of comparison to the topic at-hand: Pentex HAS a removal clause. 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

> KevinM wrote: > > > yesferatu wrote: > > No one has a problem with Sensory Deprivation > > > This is a lie. SenseDep is an awful, awful card because while it DOES HAVE a removal clause, the removal clause depends on doing something that is more difficult than anything else in the game. So it isn't really a removal clause -- which is the entire problem. > > By way of comparison to the topic at-hand: Pentex HAS a removal clause. > More difficult than ANYTHING? Now, most people try keeping Gabrin above ground, especially after sense depping an minion or six, but its quite doable to torp and eat vamps still. Now, Becomming of Ennoia getting played, thats seriously the hardest thing in vtes. Its easier to win with Harrod than play BoE. Having said that, sense dep is such a bitch to burn WHEN YOU NEED IT BURNED that you routinely wish it were just a Pentex......

The reason why people probably don't have problems with Sensory Deprivation is because they have taken a "social politics" solution to Sensory Deprivation. That is, [insert player here] who actually owns 6-8 of the damned things is only allowed to play that unholy abomination of a deck if we're all playing our most disgustingly cheesy trumpy decks as well. Most decks might only have 2 to 4 copies or Pentex Subversion. Most players have 2 to 4 copies. I don't know if there is a single player with 8 Sense Deps in Sydney... I'm sure my regulars don't have more than 2 with any single player and I doubt there is 8 between us. So, most players never have to experience the frustrating nature of dunking Gabrin when he's Sense Dep'd you... because oh wait, that minion you just got out to try dunk Gabrin just got Sense Dep'd too... and the 10 Apparitions (or Illusions of the Kindred) in that deck mean you NEVER get to dunk Gabrin... Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> johannes wrote: > If I was to decide I would remove it from the tournament circle for the current qualifier / championship period and see how it goes. > I kinda like that idea. temporary ban to observe what happens. then after its parole is finished it can come back, and we can cycle out a new controversial card for the next year. (if there ARE any other controversial cards. if not, then we'll just temp-ban pentex every single year)

> If I was to decide I would remove it from the tournament circle for the current qualifier / championship period and see how it goes. > That's interesting concept. It just needs to be carefully thought as Pentex is very popular in many decks and removing it will change a meta significantly. For some decks it's even key card (f.e. tap& bleed, law firm's, etc.) Banning it could result in making some of those decks not good enough for tournaments.

Don't complain when Fatima or other star combat decks start turning Methuselahs into craters. Even when said combat decks don't win the table. That is SOOOO much more fun than being ousted by a player using ONE last turn Pentex, right? Seriously, you guys do know that if you oust a player with a Pentex, it is removed from game, thus it can't come back via Ashurs / Sudarion, right?

> Brum wrote: > Seriously, you guys do know that if you oust a player with a Pentex, it is removed from game, thus it can't come back via Ashurs / Sudarion, right? > Not if you play following the rules written on the rulebook : > Rulebook wrote: > A master card in play is, by default, controlled by the Methuselah who played it, even if it is played on a card controlled by another Methuselah. >

> Brum wrote: > Don't complain when Fatima or other star combat decks start turning Methuselahs into craters. > Even when said combat decks don't win the table. > > That is SOOOO much more fun than being ousted by a player using ONE last turn Pentex, right? > Oh yeah, let's bring back Una and Enkidu! I'm surprised Mimir isn't more popular given the all-mightiness of Pentex. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Brum wrote: > Don't complain when Fatima or other star combat decks start turning Methuselahs into craters. > Even when said combat decks don't win the table. > > That is SOOOO much more fun than being ousted by a player using ONE last turn Pentex, right? > > Seriously, you guys do know that if you oust a player with a Pentex, it is removed from game, thus it can't come back via Ashurs / Sudarion, right? > If fatima turns your ready region into craters, build a better deck. I use fortitude liberally, and rarely have a non stealthbleed deck with no prevent and or sce. "Scary combat" feared in tourneys is normally tupdogs and enkidu lately. Tupdogs i last played against with akunanse no secrets, and they werent even remotely threatening. Enky only has basic fortitude. So, its rare i have offensive combat he doesnt fear, and othertimes i roll woth punches until someone shuts him down. Combat shouldnt wreck much, unless you have bad combat answers. If so, you are metagamed. The enky deck is metagamed with stealtjbleed behind it, so we are back to rock paper scissors. Now, combat played poorly is always an issue, but tjats another thread. But, since i respect the hell outta Tiago most days, ill answer: The tablw fan help me against rushes, and pentex can be defensive as well as offensive. Ive stopped my grandpreys demise and my prey gaining 6pool by contesting pentex and rescuing a blocker before. And ive struggled against warghouls and torpor-napping all game. Both are just things that happen sometimes. Somedays it feels likexmy shadows casting me........ Its

Sure, Kevin, but you don't see a lot of posts asking to errata Sensory Deprivation. V:TES has a history of lock down mechanics. It's nothing new. Pentex doesn't do any pool damage on its own, you can't oust with it on its own. It's both defensive and offensive. It exists, deal with it.

> johannes wrote: > I have observed that a lot of games I have seen lately revolve around Pentex. Who draws/plays Pentex at what time is a major factor in 80-90% of games I play, especially in the last 18 months or so. This seems too much to me. It has nothing to do with the card being overpowered but simply with the fact that it is dominating (my) meta so much. > > On the other hand the argument has beend made that the card needs to stay because it is the only really viable option against a massively tooled up single blocker deck outside of block fails disciplines and Seduction. I am partially convinced here, most of the time those decks have their Pentex already on the table by the time you draw yours. > I believe I saw a video of a final that you lost because of Pentex. The argument against Pentex is stronger than arguments in its favor. The argument against it is that it is a master card that can prevent a player from having access to a huge percentage of his resources. I don't care so much about the no-blocking thing, it's the no-acting thing that is the problem. Pentex makes big vampires much less playable. I have seen many games and fun ruined by Pentex on a single vampire. I want to be able to play star vampire decks without having to use undue resources to defend against Pentex. My example comes from the second day of NAC 2012. I was playing a bruise and bleed and Deflect deck starring Cassandra Magus Prime with Blood Fury and Celerity. In two of my games, I ousted my first prey, and then a tooled up Cassandra was Pentexed by a player with allies in the 3-player. My small-cap support had no chance to remove the Pentex while Cassandra certainly could have burned or torporized anything that got in her way. The ally player each time then let my predator oust me and went on to win. Both the ally players went to the final. I'm not sure why it's good to be able to potentially neutralize so much of a player's resources with one master. Pentex is not just a block denier, it is an action eater, and that is what is so unpleasant about it. How many actions every game are spent attempting to remove a Pentex?

if pentex shuts your deck down, pack your own pentex to contest it out of play B-) since pentex is in every deck, why don't we just make it a part of the game? have it replace the edge, nobody remembers that useless crap anyway. "i bleed you for 1 and the pentex" "i can't let you have the pentex, i block"

> AaronC wrote: > My example comes from the second day of NAC 2012. I was playing a bruise and bleed and Deflect deck starring Cassandra Magus Prime with Blood Fury and Celerity. In two of my games, I ousted my first prey, and then a tooled up Cassandra was Pentexed by a player with allies in the 3-player. My small-cap support had no chance to remove the Pentex while Cassandra certainly could have burned or torporized anything that got in her way. The ally player each time then let my predator oust me and went on to win. Both the ally players went to the final. > So you were hosed by a hoser? That seems natural. Now, replace "Pentex Subversion" by "Aranthebes the Immortal" and your deck by a weenie. None of your minion can remove the Aranthebes. Should Aranthebes be banned? (Aranthebes is even harder to burn than Pentex if the other Methuselah's don't have cap > 4 vampires) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

If you're worried about your IC getting Pentexed, don't play one. Maybe there's a reason putting 1/3 of your pool into one guy is considered a risk. I could just as easily rush and aggropoke your 11 pool into the ash heap. 2 midcaps with any kind of stealth makes Pentex Subversion a waste of 2 pool. Plus, a Pentexed vamp can still cast votes, still reduce bleeds and still bounce. I'm more worried about your 11 cap bleeding at stealth for 10 every turn.

I wanted to stress the fact that I am not worried at all about the hoser effect of Pentex. I am worried about the fact that it seems to dominate a lot of metas. Any thoughts about that?

Pentex is prevalent because it reduces variability. Playing a Pentex negates a minion from blocking which, if it doesn't have Dominate or Auspex, means that bleed actions will go through if you can bypass the other minions. It seems to be rarely used to lock down a rush combat deck and usually used by: 1) Bleed decks lunging at a wall 2) Wall decks lunging 3) People trying to shut down a Star Deck. I do think that its effect is too strong and maybe it should be either that you can't act or you can't block. People seem to use it more to prevent blocking than acting, so if any editing was made I'd be tempted to make it prevent blocks and actions other than the action to remove the Pentex. That way the minion can potentially do some useful things for you without totally nerfing Pentex. Yes, it won't stop a Vote Deck. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> johannes wrote: > I wanted to stress the fact that I am not worried at all about the hoser effect of Pentex. I am worried about the fact that it seems to dominate a lot of metas. Any thoughts about that? > If it dominates a lot of metas, it means a lot of meta are dominated by high cap vampires and/or star vampires (because Pentex is mostly effective against those minions). Removing Pentex would only strenghten that kind of decks in that case. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > johannes wrote: > > I wanted to stress the fact that I am not worried at all about the hoser effect of Pentex. I am worried about the fact that it seems to dominate a lot of metas. Any thoughts about that? > > > If it dominates a lot of metas, it means a lot of meta are dominated by high cap vampires and/or star vampires (because Pentex is mostly effective against those minions). > Removing Pentex would only strenghten that kind of decks in that case. > It wouldn't strengthen those kinds of decks, it would make them equal with all the other decks that don't have easy hosers. Some decks have easy and readily available hosers, and some do not. I like playing high-cap bruise and bleed from time to time, but Pentex radically cuts down on the number of viable decks. Putting 3 Pentexes in your deck in anticipation is just so tedious. And remember, having 3 in your deck as protection tech does NOT guarantee that you'll draw it at any point in the game! I guess the answer is to only use the decks and cards that can't be easily hosed. Let's see, where did I put those Kiasyds?

> AaronC wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > johannes wrote: > > > I wanted to stress the fact that I am not worried at all about the hoser effect of Pentex. I am worried about the fact that it seems to dominate a lot of metas. Any thoughts about that? > > > > > If it dominates a lot of metas, it means a lot of meta are dominated by high cap vampires and/or star vampires (because Pentex is mostly effective against those minions). > > Removing Pentex would only strenghten that kind of decks in that case. > > > It wouldn't strengthen those kinds of decks, it would make them equal with all the other decks that don't have easy hosers. > Total nonsense. If it "make them equal", it means they are currently below "other decks"... And progressing from "below other decks" to "equal to other deck" is "making them stronger". In either case, since they become stronger, it results in a shift (even slight) of the metagame towards high-cap vampires decks. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> AaronC wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Removing Pentex would only strenghten that kind of decks in that case. > > > It wouldn't strengthen those kinds of decks, it would make them equal with all the other decks that don't have easy hosers. > I can't agree. Big-cap vampire are generally better than small vampires (I mean obviously). Their counterpart is mostly their cost (again, obviously). BUT : now they have villein (Arika/unnamed/whatever are still very threatening with 4 bloods instead of 10+ and you know what, there is some very viable options to refill them). AND they have enkil cog and "suddenly" (I mean in 2008) your big and very strong minion can be a LOT more threatening by bypassing is inability to bleed you for 10 more than once each turn.

It then becomes about expendable resources. A 8+ cap vampire is more powerful. They also represent a larger total of your own resources AND are less expendable. The deck will also have a diversity of tools to exploit the diversity of options for the vampire. A Weenie will no doubt have a deck designed to exploit their limited disciplines. They will usually have one or two options and they will do them moderately well. If they are smashed, they can be ignored and replaced. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > It then becomes about expendable resources. > > A 8+ cap vampire is more powerful. They also represent a larger total of your own resources AND are less expendable. The deck will also have a diversity of tools to exploit the diversity of options for the vampire. > > A Weenie will no doubt have a deck designed to exploit their limited disciplines. They will usually have one or two options and they will do them moderately well. If they are smashed, they can be ignored and replaced. > Yes of course. And the idea here is to limit the actual possibilities to "smash" them. And actually, it is REALLY doable to have your pentex removed. It is a LOT more difficult when it is "decapitate" ^^

are there any new reasons to resurect this topic? do we have any new cards that make Pentex stronger than before or are there any new decks which dominate the metagame where pentex plays a major role? Pentex was discussed many times and it was decided to not change anything. There was as well poll on the forum that showed that majority doesn't wan't to change it. Of course it's free to discuss again and again. But if nothing changed, there are no new arguments than it seems totally pointless.

> Ankha wrote: > > In either case, since they become stronger, it results in a shift (even slight) of the metagame towards high-cap vampires decks. > Okay, based on your logic, I agree. You haven't said whether or not you think that this is good or bad, simply that it would happen. Here is my pronouncement: strengthening star vampire is good. If it is not good, if star vampire decks are too powerful, please give some reason why. Please also remember that "star vampire" is not a genre unto itself - stars don't all do the same thing. @Alek: This topic comes up because a little over half of players have a problem with Pentex. Look at the poll results. "It was decided not to do anything" just means that Pascal Bertrand has not decided to do anything, not that all players think Pentex shouldn't be changed. I don't say he's wrong for doing so. But, personally I don't like playing Pentex, I don't like playing against it, and I don't like having to plan around it. I don't care about the no-blocking thing, I care about the no-acting thing. Fewer actions means less fun for me and everyone.

> AaronC wrote: > Fewer actions means less fun for me and everyone. > See, this is where i disagree. Fewer actions of YOUR minions mean less fun for YOU. However, possibly more fun for everyone else at the table, who can enjoy their game while your "megafreakdrive Una" or "Megatooledup Gerald Windham with ankara" or Enkidu or "Cybelle with soulgem" or "insertannoyingsolitairestardeckhere" sits nice and locked and pentexed, unable to steal other peoples buzz. Thank you, Pentex.

> AaronC wrote: > Fewer actions means less fun for me and everyone. > > Pendargon wrote: > See, this is where i disagree. > Fewer actions of YOUR minions mean less fun for YOU. However, possibly more fun for everyone else at the table, who can enjoy their game while your "megafreakdrive Una" or "Megatooledup Gerald Windham with ankara" or Enkidu or "Cybelle with soulgem" or "insertannoyingsolitairestardeckhere" sits nice and locked and pentexed, unable to steal other peoples buzz. > > Thank you, Pentex. > I can see the point that Aaron makes that more actions is good. I can also see the point that Pendargon makes that too many actions by a single minion can be very bad. Which kind of brings me back around to the reason I resurrected this thread in the first place. Johannes, on Facebook, had posited an idea out about changing the functionality of Pentex Subversion. As you can see by the 4 new pages of posts, this card is still controversial. I think that changing the functionality of the card would be even more controversial. That's why I suggested upping the cost to 3 or 4 (ICLee's observation that may be tantamount to banning, notwithstanding). Doing so would make it a harder decision whether to play or even include the card in your deck, but it doesn't wreak havoc on the game in nearly the same way as a text change would. If your metagame includes a bunch of Turbo trick decks or unbreakable Walls, then it might be worth continuing to include a more expensive Pentex. But I am not so sure that it is worth spending a lot more pool early in the game to lock down Vignes, or Cheesequake, or Nosferatu Royalty. Maybe it would. I think the game needs players to make tough choices over powerful cards. Right now, sadly, Pentex Subversion is a "no-brainer", and that's not really a good thing. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > That's why I suggested upping the cost to 3 or 4 (ICLee's observation that may be tantamount to banning, notwithstanding). Doing so would make it a harder decision whether to play or even include the card in your deck, but it doesn't wreak havoc on the game in nearly the same way as a text change would. > This is why i'm not a huge fan of your card design Jeff - higher costs don't make cards more balanced they just reduce the decks that can abuse said card. Master cards decks wouldn't care if pentex was 3 or 4 pool as on a general basis they're running on shed loads of pool due to villein/liquidation tech - what you would do in that situation is reduce the incidence in decks with low pool gain or decks that would find it difficult to defend e.g. everything else that isn't a wall or flush with parity shifts. 3 pool wouldn't impact how much it's played currently in Europe and 4 probably wouldn't have a lot of impact either but would probably strip it from the less abusive decks.

> Squidalot wrote: > This is why i'm not a huge fan of your card design Jeff - higher costs don't make cards more balanced they just reduce the decks that can abuse said card. > So breaking it down, there are 3 possible options to deal with Pentex (or any "problem" card): 1) Do nothing. The card isn't worth changing. 2) Change the card text. The ability is too strong. 3) Change the card cost. The ability is reasonable/needed, but it is undercosted. All three are debatable. I think the card is too strong, but it is necessary. The ability to break walls is crucial. The ability to stop multi-acting superstars is secondary. However, I also think that the Pentex unfairly screws over too many people because it frequently locks down the first controlled minion. For minions without access to bounce, that is often the kiss of death. I don't advocate #1. I think a change is warranted. I don't advocate #2. Tinkering with the card mechanics of a too powerful existing card is a bad thing. In the past, cards were banned because they were too powerful. They, as yet, haven't been reintroduced in a reasonable format. I guess you could argue that The Eldest Command Undeath is a replacement for Protect Thine Own, even though it is a bad card. As stated before, the law of unintended consequences heavily applies here. So, I advocate #3. It is very clear what happens if the cost is increased: In general, people will use the card less. Fewer decks with Pentex Subversion would be an admirable goal. I fully get the point that VtES *should* be a game about small(er) effects. But Pentex Subversion exists. It is a holdover from the wildly uneven Dark Sovereigns expansion which was made during the crazy drunken party days of WotC. If it is to change, I think that changing the cost and not the text is the best solution. Otherwise, make a substitute and ban the original. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > > > Squidalot wrote: > > This is why i'm not a huge fan of your card design Jeff - higher costs don't make cards more balanced they just reduce the decks that can abuse said card. > > > So breaking it down, there are 3 possible options to deal with Pentex (or any "problem" card): > > 1) Do nothing. The card isn't worth changing. > 2) Change the card text. The ability is too strong. > 3) Change the card cost. The ability is reasonable/needed, but it is undercosted. > > All three are debatable. I think the card is too strong, but it is necessary. The ability to break walls is crucial. The ability to stop multi-acting superstars is secondary. However, I also think that the Pentex unfairly screws over too many people because it frequently locks down the first controlled minion. For minions without access to bounce, that is often the kiss of death. > > ((snipped text by Juggernaut1981)) > > I fully get the point that VtES *should* be a game about small(er) effects. But Pentex Subversion exists. It is a holdover from the wildly uneven Dark Sovereigns expansion which was made during the crazy drunken party days of WotC. If it is to change, I think that changing the cost and not the text is the best solution. Otherwise, make a substitute and ban the original. > It seems that you missed ALL of Hugh's comments that: #1 Increasing the price merely restricts it to decks that aggressively bloat pool. Since the current archetype to aggressively bloat is the MMPA archetype, this does nothing to stop its abuse. Instead it ensures that an archetype which many consider to be weakening the tournament game will continue to do so because it will be the only archetype capable of playing Pentex reliably. #2 Power-balancing is more than a bang-for-buck equation. Heading down that path there should be a card which basically says "Annihilation Master 10 pool Your prey is ousted. The next player begins their turn." And that if the effect is too powerful, then its price should be increased. Separate to Hugh's comments: #3 Your argument on the uses of Pentex are incoherent. Firstly you say that it is crucial to break walls, then suggest that it is bad that it breaks non-flick defenders. You have basically said "It punches a hole in a player's defences" then advocated that it is both good and bad at the same time. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Jeff wrote: > > 1) Do nothing. The card isn't worth changing. > 2) Change the card text. The ability is too strong. > 3) Change the card cost. The ability is reasonable/needed, but it is undercosted. > *snip* key discussions with a large and diverse group of people [anyone who would listen to Brian Moritz] around the EC were actually: 4) ban the card and replace with a a new card(s) that do the important things we need. You're also barking up the tree on the 'pentex to break walls is essential but the single multi acting vampires is also good' it's definitely the other way round. Walls at least interact with the table be that balanced or not - Una/Gerald and friends do very little interaction & whilst that deck exists pentex needs to stay along with Di etc as it's one a limited number of ways out to stop a very unfriendly deck being played.

> Squidalot wrote: > > > Jeff wrote: > > > > 1) Do nothing. The card isn't worth changing. > > 2) Change the card text. The ability is too strong. > > 3) Change the card cost. The ability is reasonable/needed, but it is undercosted. > > > *snip* key discussions with a large and diverse group of people [anyone who would listen to Brian Moritz] around the EC were actually: > 4) ban the card and replace with a a new card(s) that do the important things we need. > > You're also barking up the tree on the 'pentex to break walls is essenti0al but the single multi acting vampires is also good' it's definitely the other way round. > Walls at least interact with the table be that balanced or not - Una/Gerald and friends do very little interaction & whilst that deck exists pentex needs to stay along with Di etc as it's one a limited number of ways out to stop a very unfriendly deck being played. > I think multiacting is possibly my favorite thing in vtes, but i dont run super tooled solitaire decks. I run like11 ish freak drive in a maryanne lawfirm stylish alastor deck, and doubt ive ran more ever. I have parts to Gerard, probably una as well, but what i di to other players and vice versa is part of that nonquantifiable fun thing for me, so Una is unappealing, and Gerard is better for me as a non cheese star. Big minions need multiact for me to see them as playable, but i value pentez for things other than the brittle crutch or "solitaire hoser". Big minions arent all printed eith"yoir deck wims, nobody else has mightier kung fu ever at any table" so support minions are essentials. I love walls, 8+ caps, and pentex. Una? Hopefully DI2 never gets banned ,is in my hand and i can crush una somehow after playing it on freak drive. Weak on the last part, but just chiming in that pentex isnt pto and edge explosion rolled into one agaimst fatty allstars, it doesnt say"burn target deck as target methuselah gets suplexed through a table if they control an 8 cap and you have 3 midcaps" Its lesz heinous, and it still has a niche.

> Squidalot wrote: > Walls at least interact with the table be that balanced or not - Una/Gerald and friends do very little interaction & whilst that deck exists pentex needs to stay along with Di etc as it's one a limited number of ways out to stop a very unfriendly deck being played. > Good insight. Let's put out a card that hoses mulit-acting monster decks (see below) and ban Pentex Subversion. At Every Turn Master Cost: 1 Unique. Put this card on any ready minion. The minion with this card can only attempt to take one action each turn. The minion with this card can only attempt to block once each turn.

Interesting Aaron - it looks like a straight forward design to fix a two key concerns in one. Personally i'm of the view that designing new cards to fix specific problem cards ends up creating more problems [Villein was partly designed to hose minion tap] i'd rather kick Una and Ankara Citadel [or re-word though that's less friendly without reprints]just because it's neater and they don't add a lot to the game

> Squidalot wrote: > Interesting Aaron - it looks like a straight forward design to fix a two key concerns in one. > > Personally i'm of the view that designing new cards to fix specific problem cards ends up creating more problems [Villein was partly designed to hose minion tap] > > i'd rather kick Una and Ankara Citadel [or re-word though that's less friendly without reprints]just because it's neater and they don't add a lot to the game > I have less of a problem with pentexthan a non-uniqu freak drive killer. I may have wanted to govern down and rescue. But some weenie deck out-minions me with march halcyon and friends by packing 4-6 of these. Im all for editing stuff, una is bad, but ankara could easily do the first copy of rach card you play or something. And again, i havet seen una in awhile on. Tourney table

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > I have less of a problem with pentexthan a non-uniqu freak drive killer. > The hastily designed card I proposed is unique.

> Squidalot wrote: > *snip* key discussions with a large and diverse group of people [anyone who would listen to Brian Moritz] around the EC were actually: > 4) ban the card and replace with a a new card(s) that do the important things we need. > OK, fine. Ban it then. But that is most definitely not what Johannes had mentioned on facebook. As I said earlier in this thread, I'm not quite to that point yet because I think that the breaking walls part is more important than the locking down multi-acting decks. Here's why: Every untap requires a card, such as Freak Drive. But some multiple block attempts require a single card, such as No Secrets from the Magaji. The original balancing mechanism for blocking was the Do Not Replace clause on Wake with Evening's Freshness. You might still have untapped minions to block with, but you wouldn't have any cards in hand for them to play. Somewhere along the line that disappeared (hello NSftM and Eyes of Argus), and walls became extremely powerful. > You're also barking up the tree on the 'pentex to break walls is essential but the single multi acting vampires is also good' it's definitely the other way round. > Walls at least interact with the table be that balanced or not - Una/Gerald and friends do very little interaction & whilst that deck exists pentex needs to stay along with Di etc as it's one a limited number of ways out to stop a very unfriendly deck being played. > If Una/Freak Drive and Gerald Windham/Ankara Citadel are bigger problems than perma-walls, then there are simple solutions to address them directly, neither of which involves changing Pentex Subversion. And if you're concerned about a more expensive Pentex being only affordable by a non-interactive deck, then the non-interactive deck is the problem. Ban pool gain Ashur Tablets, Liquidation and/or Villein. That doesn't involve changing Pentex either. But, if we are talking about changing Pentex (and that's the whole point of this thread), then errata is the worst possible option, which is why I called it out. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Yes, but is your problem with the wall the fact that you can't get around it to remove your own Pentex or because you don't take wall decks into account when you build bleed & vote decks? If it's the Pentex... then maybe that's why Pentex needs editing. If it's your default option for getting past a Wall Deck... Think outside the box and adapt your metagame without going for the 'obvious'. The two wall-deck situations I've had in recent years were: 1) Draba Decks 2) Auspex Guns Decks For both of those ideas, I've tried to develop a solution that is not the usual. Against a dearth of Draba using decks I started playing Suppressing Fire + Zip Guns. Negative intercept, while working like more stealth, neuters the ability of Draba... Draba doesn't cancel negative intercept only positive stealth. Against a tendency for Auspex Guns type decks, I started using Change of Target based tricks. One was corruption counters and started 'harvesting' the weenies. The other was Aching Beauty and big lunge bleeds. Both of them have had some success. Interestingly the Corruption deck has 0 red cards, one of the few decks I own where I walk into the breach without a combat plan in the world... Interestingly it tends not to die to combat. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Jeff wrote: > OK, fine. Ban it then. But that is most definitely not what Johannes had mentioned on facebook. > I'm not sure why it matters what Johannes did/did not mention or where that is relevant. > Jeff wrote: > > And if you're concerned about a more expensive Pentex being only affordable by a non-interactive deck, then the non-interactive deck is the problem. Ban pool gain Ashur Tablets, Liquidation and/or Villein. That doesn't involve changing Pentex either. > Yes I have Ashur/Anthelios well up my list of cards to be nuked if Hugh was in charge - but in isolation these cards are why changing pentxes cost wouldn't work which is what you asked not "hat else needs to change to make this work" > Jeff wrote: > But, if we are talking about changing Pentex (and that's the whole point of this thread), then errata is the worst possible option, which is why I called it out. > do you not consider changing cost a significant card errata? I like the replace with two other cards options seems quite smooth.

Something that may be important is WHY people view pentex as a problem. Personally, there are cards i find very interesting that i feel NEED erratad, namely tablets only fetching minion cards, lilliths requiring a skill card, and "you cannot gain additional master phases from any other source after using this ability" to nana, anson, cybele, PARTHENON, year of fortune, isanowin, and huitzilpochti. Those are all HUGE ways to solve some serious problems. Something else to look at is that liquidation has never in the history of its existance been used to burn a bunch of assets you cant get back to gain a little pool. Its always played in a way that not only negates the drawback but makes it an advantage. Making it remove cards from game would fix this. Same with anthelios. If tablets go to demension X with no return ticket once they pop, so no decks are infinite, why then does anthelios let you put a master in your ash heap for safekeeping instead of making it get removed from game? But, back onto pentex, im seeing 3-4 reasons in the last 2 days people want pentex changed. Walls, solitaire, lunge(?), and of course recycling pentex indefinately via girls tech. Whats wrong with pentex? People think of it like 6 different ways, as a transient lunge enabler, as a sense dep you either block removal of or just keep replaying, as an una stopper, as a super obediance master, and as a defensive minion stopper. Im all for screwing una, but killimg multiact in general is a bad deal. Big caps kinda suck as is, thats why they multiaxt, and if you hamper that, why the hell are they playable? Already so-so compared to weenies. And not being able to burn a card makes it a terribly heinous thing in this game. Just errataing una and pssibly ankara is cleaner. Or just una, since i have not yet seen windham take a 45 minute turn, hes normall a wall with a saw, a bowl, a citadel, ponticulous, and of course he bleeds and bloats with govern, he deflects, etc. But he doesnt(when ive seen him) take 45% of a games duration to get a hat and ignore the table. Even with una, a good combat wall stops her dead (well, shes typically alive in torpor unless someone has the good sense to amaranth the bitch and prevent golconda buyback). She could also only reduce cost on not action modifiers, same with citadel if thats a problem. Pentex was good before una was printed, as far as i know, so im not really following the whole reason to keep it being her. Also, walls were played and won before it. Ite a card that does something useful, and has built in burn action. If we feel the ways around this arent good enough, we could add "any methuselah other than the target vampires controller may burn 2 pool to cancel this card as it is played" If everyones being honest with why its fine or why its the devil of vtes cards, getting rid of it is still an issue, and a methuselah instead of thier minioms burning it crosstable before it touches down is a viable nerf that still means it bones una and citadel (why no love for cardano? He or anyone getting citadel with alasotr can do wjat windham does? Is 4 stealth MotS that scary? I can give you extra canine hordes.....) because "that needs to go. And now" is typical table reaction to una, super bleed, girls, and of course, the origional "the table freaking hates me" deck, imbued. So....... Is that a solution? Its the only thing that: Doesnt ban pentex and print 2-4 shittier cards to fill this niche, especially when print means with computer paper, a kinda huge thing that upsets people who have real cards. Keeps its utility that peopld think is "needed" (i already see una as screwable most games. Rememner, no secrets is blockable, and if its strange dayed, a block fails kills it anyway) and allows player negotiation. Doesnt give it a dumb drawback that helps an alleged defender use it and not other things.

> Squidalot wrote: > I'm not sure why it matters what Johannes did/did not mention or where that is relevant. > Because it wasn't on VEKN.NET, so I'm providing context for why I reopened this thread. > Yes I have Ashur/Anthelios well up my list of cards to be nuked if Hugh was in charge - but in isolation these cards are why changing pentxes cost wouldn't work which is what you asked not "hat else needs to change to make this work" > The point is that increasing the cost of Pentex (or any card) will lead to a decrease in its usage. It's simple cost/benefit analysis. The notion that bloat decks may better be able to afford a more expensive Pentex is only a secondary effect. Again, if pool gain is the problem (and in many cases it is), then deal with it directly. > do you not consider changing cost a significant card errata? > I like the replace with two other cards options seems quite smooth. > I tend to think of errata as dealing with card text. Sure, if you want to consider changes to cost as errata, that's fine. But in every case, a change in card cost is easier to remember than a change in card text. More importantly, it is easier to predict how a change in card cost will affect the metagame than a change in card text, which, to go full circle yet again, is why I resurrected this thread in the first place. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Something that may be important is WHY people view pentex as a problem. > and WHY people feel it's necessary. Ultimately, that's the rub and that's why Pentex is still around. Most people feel that at least one of the two primary functions (no act or no block) remains mandatory. Either function you might support has an abusable ancillary use. Breaking the single card into its two component functions (no act and no block versions) doesn't eliminate that ancillary-use problem and simply encourages wall decks to play both variants, to their advantage. Since my personal design and playtest feedback defaults to caution in further empowering wall archetypes, I view this approach with suspicion. Increasing cost isn't the answer to preventing abuse, Hugh correctly points out this only localizes the potential for abuse in archetypes that are already some of the worst offenders. I'm not even sure that throttling the card to "once per player per game" solves the problem. Every deck that plays it is likely to hang onto their single use instance when in play (less action) and few players would contest their precious "OPG Pentex" to free up another player's minion. Lastly, I suspect banning the card might have unfortunate ramifications. I predict tables that play DI-slapjack in an attempt to keep their Secrets from the Magaji, and a lot of those spare DI will slow the tables and prevent a lot of ousts.

> Jeff wrote: > > > Squidalot wrote: > > Yes I have Ashur/Anthelios well up my list of cards to be nuked if Hugh was in charge - but in isolation these cards are why changing pentxes cost wouldn't work which is what you asked not "hat else needs to change to make this work" > > > The point is that increasing the cost of Pentex (or any card) will lead to a decrease in its usage. It's simple cost/benefit analysis. The notion that bloat decks may better be able to afford a more expensive Pentex is only a secondary effect. Again, if pool gain is the problem (and in many cases it is), then deal with it directly. > This smells of terrible economic-analysis. I would suspect you are doing 'bang-for-buck' analysis not cost-benefit analysis. It would seem that Hugh is bringing up a valid VTES-related cost-externality for which you are making an attempt to account it by handwaving it away. If Pentex is a problem because of its effects, then restricting the ways you can negate its effect (by pricing it out of the market for most decks), is foolish. This will only make the problem localised and more intense. > Jeff wrote: > > > Squidalot wrote: > > do you not consider changing cost a significant card errata? > > I like the replace with two other cards options seems quite smooth. > > > I tend to think of errata as dealing with card text. Sure, if you want to consider changes to cost as errata, that's fine. But in every case, a change in card cost is easier to remember than a change in card text. More importantly, it is easier to predict how a change in card cost will affect the metagame than a change in card text, which, to go full circle yet again, is why I resurrected this thread in the first place. > Changing a card cost is still a headache. It's enough of a headache to have the 'three kinds of blood drop' costs out there for new players. Then you've got fun things like Brachah's incorrect disciplines... and so on. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

I dig Branchahs spread And pentex might be one of the very few things costed properly right now, there is no way making mmpa bloat its only users is better than a ban, since they are a listed offender of why people think change iw needed. How does exasperating 30% of the complaints solve the issue? And im still not seeing how it should be in the crosshairs anyway, but the raise the cost approach is so far the worste erratra suggestion ive seen, since it fixes nothing.

I am (still) against banning Pentex Subversion, as long as only this single card is banned. In my opinion, the problem would only be transferred into other problems. You would need to "re-design" V:tES as a whole to some extend to gain a solution worth the effort, at least this is what all these discussions seem to point out. Pentex is a very "interactive" card. Usually, you cannot keep it for long if the table unites against you, even with MMPA and Anthelios. (Yes, this rarely happens, but this a "side effect" of play style, since removing a Pentex rarely helps in ousting a specific prey.) Of course this changes dramatically the fewer player are still in the game. Somebody mentioned that Pentex helps ousting players and that a gamewin happens -- the goal of V:tES. Yes, Pentex games can be boring or "unfair", but a lot of V:tES games can be ... National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de

> Hakuron wrote: > Pentex is a very "interactive" card. Usually, you cannot keep it for long if the table unites against you, even with MMPA and Anthelios. (Yes, this rarely happens, but this a "side effect" of play style, since removing a Pentex rarely helps in ousting a specific prey.) > Really? The very best plays I can remember seeing of Pentex have almost all been for lunges, where it's really not "interactive". You play the card now, and your aim is to oust your prey now, and the card goes away. Or maybe after your hopefully devastating assault, the player holds on for maybe another turn, but by then the damage is done, because you only need to get one more action through, that sort of thing. Are you - or your fellow players - playing it too early, just because it's available? Examples of players describing how you should be using it for the lunge, when it is essentially not interactive at all: Peter Bakija : > > Peter wrote: > 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. > Fred Scott (in the same discussion): > > Fred wrote: > 9 out of 10 times I get a Pentex played on me, I get ousted before > I have my next master phase. > Ben Peal , talking about its intended use (which is sometimes foiled by players having, you know, things in their deck you're not expecting): > > Ben wrote: > There were times > where I could Pentex the key vamp but still not get the oust that > turn, and I'd be left wondering how to get a second lunge through. > Also, there's only one Pentex in the deck (one is certainly free to > add more), and I would've liked more than one such option. > Peter again , talking about stealthless Dominate: > > Peter wrote: > Really though, such a deck is about a victory lunge, rather than > consistent big bleeds--you defend yourself and bleed for 1 a bunch. > Eventually, your prey is in lunge range, and then you tap him out or > Pentex Subversion or something, and bleed for 12 in a single turn with > 4 minions. > Matt Morgan explains his thinking about Pentex and friends, specifically regarding a bruisey-bleedy sort of play style, where you never quite get your prey dead enough to push through those couple of bleeds for three: > > Matt wrote: > Often decks like this use cards like Anarch Troublemaker or Pentex > Subversion when going in for the kill. The reason is that when your prey > is finally low enough on pool to oust, odds are he will leave up blockers > to die valiently to buy him another turn or two. With your oust delayed, > you could end up with troubles of your own. Also, other players can > basically deny you any hope of ever ousting by repeatedly rescuing your > prey's vampires. The ability to remove blockers when you're ready to > lunge can mean the difference between the game win and "I almost had him." > John Best , firefighting a horrible table. (Note the post is by Hugh, but they're John's notes.) > > John wrote: > When it was my turn again, I made my lunge. I put Pentex on Shalmath, > leaving Floppy with a single auspex weenie tapped, and another unable > to untap under an anima gathering. I bled hard, and Floppy was unable > to draw into a bounce. I'd got my VP. >

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I don't know if there is a single player with 8 Sense Deps in Sydney... I'm sure my regulars don't have more than 2 with any single player and I doubt there is 8 between us. So, most players never have to experience the frustrating nature of dunking Gabrin when he's Sense Dep'd you... because oh wait, that minion you just got out to try dunk Gabrin just got Sense Dep'd too... and the 10 Apparitions (or Illusions of the Kindred) in that deck mean you NEVER get to dunk Gabrin... > We've got a player in our meta playing the same "Gabrin and his 16 Sense Dep" for the last 12 months. In EVERY F***ING tournament. It's freaking frustrating. We don't aim for the GW anymore, just for his head... Keep walking...

> Zoroh wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > I don't know if there is a single player with 8 Sense Deps in Sydney... I'm sure my regulars don't have more than 2 with any single player and I doubt there is 8 between us. So, most players never have to experience the frustrating nature of dunking Gabrin when he's Sense Dep'd you... because oh wait, that minion you just got out to try dunk Gabrin just got Sense Dep'd too... and the 10 Apparitions (or Illusions of the Kindred) in that deck mean you NEVER get to dunk Gabrin... > > > We've got a player in our meta playing the same "Gabrin and his 16 Sense Dep" for the last 12 months. In EVERY F***ING tournament. It's freaking frustrating. > We don't aim for the GW anymore, just for his head... > Id aim for my card boxes, dementation, and grab some blessings of chaos. A local player tried to build a "sense dep the table" deck after buying loads of the set they were in(i guess they used to be stupid cheap?) But eventually realized its one thing to do it, another thing to WIN afterwords. Weenie dbr is the same in my mind, though. Eating Gabrin is actually easier than stopping 9 weenies most days... But, pentex is far from as bad as "cheesetastically painful" entire decks. As far as the pentex discussion, if we all got paid to do this (wouldnt that be nice? I say it like that because of the time needed for this:) we could gather 50 ish players with pre-existing decks, making sure some at least run pentex, and record when its played, the gamestate, and of course the playerz intent when its played. Just a guess, we would get 45-55% lunge, 35-45% defensive/disabling, and maybe 5% contesting or "other" The heinous pentex screw and oust will always stick out as more memorable, due to the salt involved. But its other uses are real things, sometimes on par with the lunge use. Again, just a guess, but its used (Ice seen it! ) for other stuff. Theres still the discussion of how much that matters, though......

> Hakuron wrote: > Yes, Pentex games can be boring or "unfair", but a lot of V:tES games can be ... > You don't make a strong argument in favor of Pentex here. I have seen other players' games get hosed because of Pentex and thought "that's really stupid." I recently played a game in which my prey decided to try some of the DM cards. His first vampire was Bronwen who promptly got Pentexed. I got a couple of rounds of non-stealth Legal Manipulation bleeds against him until finally, finally, his grandprey was able to remove Pentex. I just thought the whole thing made the game boring and unfortunate for him. If Bronwen could have acted to try to remove the Pentex herself, at least he would have had something to do. Sensory Deprivation is different from Pentex. Sense Dep (as we're speaking of it) requires a minion with superior Chimerstry, it is a 0 stealth action that can be blocked, it requires 3 blood. The Sense Depped minion can still act and block (although of course not untapping is a huge deal). Pentex requires 2 blood and a master phase.

> AaronC wrote: > > > Hakuron wrote: > > Yes, Pentex games can be boring or "unfair", but a lot of V:tES games can be ... > > > You don't make a strong argument in favor of Pentex here. > I agree with you on that. It was not supposed to be a "strong" argument. But Pentex Subversion is not the only thing "evil" out there (as various players already mentioned), and often enough it depends on a players personality or playing style, which cards are "evil" or not. To some degree, I am used to either pentex someone or get pentexed. It is part of the game to me. Of course, it does not have to be that way, but I do not have a problem with it, at least by now ... National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de

In general, I have a problem with a card being auto-include. At least in my deckes, Pentex Subversion and Giant's Blood are always worth a slot. GB is just a power-staller, either giving you a free refill (might be huge, might be small, might be none) or denying that opportunity for someone else. However, Pentex is a power-disabler, either shutting-off key minions for 1+ turn, or protecting you from the same fate just by sitting in your hand. It is debatable whether Pentex breaks games or not, it does make decks that little bit more similar. I see little difference between Pentex/GB and Lilith's Blessing in their auto-includeness, therefore I cannot see why they should not be banned and errataed later just like Lilith's Blessing (probably) will be. Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> kombainas wrote: > In general, I have a problem with a card being auto-include. At least in my deckes, Pentex Subversion and Giant's Blood are always worth a slot. > I would agree if the game was perfectly balanced without Pentex, meaning that high-cap star vampires would be naturally regulated by the game mecanics. It is not the case. As the game is, Pentex is one of the card that makes the game balanced. Banning it (or even errating it) would lead, in my opinion, to less balanced games. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > kombainas wrote: > > In general, I have a problem with a card being auto-include. At least in my deckes, Pentex Subversion and Giant's Blood are always worth a slot. > > > I would agree if the game was perfectly balanced without Pentex, meaning that high-cap star vampires would be naturally regulated by the game mecanics. It is not the case. > As the game is, Pentex is one of the card that makes the game balanced. Banning it (or even errating it) would lead, in my opinion, to less balanced games. > Hate bringing this up again, but.... I played last tuesday, first time in awhile. I wanted to test my Ariadne rebuild, as i havent ran Gangrel in like a year or more, and new version was built, then retooled with more intercept. I run 5 Ariadne in 12 crypt cards. No Ariadne in opening 4. Got out Bernard the scrouge, played army of rats, freak drive, deepsong bleed. Pulled out 3 cap. Got pentexed. Hand shits on me allgame. Ariadne gets out, predators next turn Helena seeds of corruptions her. Eventually burn pentex, Ariadne is 8 pool and an abombwe skill carx of no special text, per seeds, and i had no blocking ability, even though reaction package went from like 8 cards to 17. She burns pentex, freak drive, take action to burn seeds. Hands are negated by kevlar. Prey burns rats, predator pentexes Ariadne. 3 cap fails at burning pentex. Bernard burns pentex. Ariadne tries seeds action. Helena blocks. I agg poke helena, amaranth, take her skin, and predators prince votes me to burn, naturally. I get ousted like a bitch, my rats, a bleex of 2, and paying for Cybele amd an UHF are all that hit my preys pool. Analysis: Never agree to a 3 player table witb untested fun deck. Dont play Gangrel withouf accepting you WILL PROBABLY LOSE Threaten your deck before the game so it knows it will be in trouble if you dont draw stealth and intercept when needed. Lastly: Pentex happens. Alot, apparently. We dont ALL have several in every deck, but sometimes we draw it, sometimes we dont. Ive ousted by unpinning my pentexed minion by contesting pentex. Ive set up dragonbound ousts with pentex and blocking the burn action religiously, even losing jack to keep pentex. I just got pentexed twice by the only two people at the table other than myself, first and only game in moths, and before the NAC of all things. Not as soul crushing as seeds of corruption. Pentex is needed. Had my deck worked, or even had i not been seeded, my predator wouldve been eaten twice, and my prey either ousted by two bleeds of 3 from one vamp in one turn, followed by the same after i ate my preds other vamp, or tension with blocking wouldve gotten him. Pentex is a needed thing. Even when i hate it.

tl;dr: Pentex is needed so that you can make up excuses for losing

> Non-existant user wrote: > tl;dr: Pentex is needed so that you can make up excuses for losing > I always blame Arika for me losing. Especially if nobody is playing her

Sudden Reversal, Wash, Not to be ( for the Anthelios ), Bleeding the Vine should get a slot on decks to... Pentex is strong but not "changeable strong", in my opinion. Roberto Mautone Jr. Praetor

Modify a card like Pentex today is completely unnecessary. Slow down folks, there is a lot of “enthusiastic” players trying to change what is established on VTES nowadays. Changing or banishing cards will only discourage players to attend tournaments, making the playgroup even smaller. I love to see everyone giving opinions and standing up but this must be taken cautiously. Pentex or even Ashur being banned is something unreal. Desso Alastor Organized Play Coordinator VEKN Prince of São Paulo / Brazil ID#706

I don't care if anything is done to Pentex Subersion or not. But it's such a strong card, that I seem to include one in every deck that I build. Pentex Subversion makes you win games. ---- Banging trashcans, breaking windows We'll wake you up tonight We like the good time, we scream and shout And that's what fun's about

I can list 50 cards that make you win games! Desso Alastor Organized Play Coordinator VEKN Prince of São Paulo / Brazil ID#706

I just listed 5 cards that can stop the game win... Roberto Mautone Jr. Praetor

> Roberto wrote: > I just listed 5 cards that can stop the game win... > Not getting ousted before securing the gw is in fact very important to winning. DI and DI squared are also in that category.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Pentex is needed. > I think we need pentex as well, albeit strong, it keeps star vampire decks in check. In addition you can deal with it by burning it or playing your own copy.

> Yochanan wrote: > > > ReverendRevolver wrote: > > Pentex is needed. > > > I think we need pentex as well, albeit strong, it keeps star vampire decks in check. In addition you can deal with it by burning it or playing your own copy. > Contesting pentex/dreams/jack/ivory bow is the 32nd best oust strategy in the game

Our meta loves and hates Pentex Subversion so much we all play 2-3 copies, play or to contest. As it makes for painful/boring games at times. If I'm playing with big caps I always pack a few Golconda's to play on my pentexed vamp beats just sitting there getting frustrated. Cross table Allies in our group can be selfish or not give a dam about your pentexed fatty. While I'm not a fan of banning cards (I'm still a little sad about many unbalanced cards getting banned and not a errata), I'd like to see some change to the cards text as it's over powered and dam cheap in cost for what it can do. I'm not really a big fan of any card that has the potential to stop you playing cards with a star vamp for possibly most of a game if your playing a star deck. I've stopped playing fat star decks due to the frustration of being pentex'd most of the game or sense dep'd ect. Maybe if Pentex Sub had some wording to the effect of placing 4 counters on it that are burned in this players untap phase, card is then burned when it has 0 counters. This way the card could still be played for a vp lunge and not totally frustrate or bore the hell out of someone playing a Pentex'd star vamp.

Increase the cost by 1 pool or leave it how it is. Archbishop of Vitória

I guess this Horse is SO dead, even Augustus Giovanni could not raise him...

> Timo wrote: > I guess this Horse is SO dead, even Augustus Giovanni could not raise him... > He can´t do shit. And he didn´t get an Advanced version in TU "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Timo wrote: > I guess this Horse is SO dead, even Augustus Giovanni could not raise him... > More like a reanimated corpse, that won't die.