Submission - Control of Financial Flows (trifle Sudden)

Name: Control of Financial Flows Cardtype: Master Out-of-turn. Trifle. Cancel a non-out-of-turn trifle master card as it is played. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Probably too good: you get another master phase, your opponent doesn't. Maybe with a cost of 1 pool.

I agree, way too strong...

Way too strong? I wouldn't play that card since there's the restriction to canceling trifles only. > > Name: Wash > [Third:U, LotN:PS, KoT:U] > Cardtype: Master > Master: out-of-turn. Trifle. Do not replace until your next untap phase. > Cancel a master card played by your predator or prey as it is played (no cost is paid). That Methuselah gains a master phase action (if the canceled card is an out-of-turn master, the master phase action is gained during that Methuselah's next master phase). > Artist: Jeremy McHugh > In general I do not like the card since it's slight variation of Wash. Aimed as silver bullet against abuse of Villein.

Oops, I missed the trifle part of the card. Yeah, in that case, this card is, to put it mildly, not very useful.

What's a "financial flow"? There may be a better translation for what you're thinking.

i like it. Simple and effective, certainly would find a spot in some decks. With so many good masters now being trifles, such as villein, vessel, wider view, the Coven and so on, i think this would see some play. tho not certain it is actually good enough to warrant having this instead of wash

> Ankha wrote: > Name: Control of Financial Flows > Cardtype: Master > Out-of-turn. Trifle. > Cancel a non-out-of-turn trifle master card as it is played. > I'd be tempted to go the Bleeding the Vine route myself. Something a little more permanent, with some sort of self-neutering/increasing-cost/self-hurting mechanism. Also, have you intentionally left out "(no cost is paid)"? The default is to pay. Currently, it affects Vessel and Wider View (1 pool), but there's nothing to technically prevent more expensive Trifles. (Thematically, a trifle that costs a lot might qualify to stop being a trifle instead, but technically not.)

> AaronC wrote: > What's a "financial flow"? There may be a better translation for what you're thinking. > The name isn't great, I agree. The idea is that "trifle" operations are harder to perform due to increasing suspicion and control. > Pendargon wrote: > i like it. > Simple and effective, certainly would find a spot in some decks. > > With so many good masters now being trifles, such as villein, vessel, wider view, the Coven and so on, i think this would see some play. > > tho not certain it is actually good enough to warrant having this instead of wash > It won't save you from a Pentex, but is useful in other situations, such as restricting your prey's access to pool (Villein, Vessel) or blood (Coven, Life in the City). > jamesatzephyr wrote: > Also, have you intentionally left out "(no cost is paid)"? The default is to pay. Currently, it affects Vessel and Wider View (1 pool), but there's nothing to technically prevent more expensive Trifles. (Thematically, a trifle that costs a lot might qualify to stop being a trifle instead, but technically not.) > Yes, that is desired. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I am not sure that giving the ability to shut down bloat engine more easily is desireable, considering that deck sporting 8+ wash or DI for that purpose already exist. Also, it smell awfully like a silver bullet, just directed at most deck of the game at once. Why not ban Vessel and Villein instead ?

> Ohlmann wrote: > I am not sure that giving the ability to shut down bloat engine more easily is desireable, considering that deck sporting 8+ wash or DI for that purpose already exist. > > Also, it smell awfully like a silver bullet, just directed at most deck of the game at once. Why not ban Vessel and Villein instead ? > Its too much a silver bullet. I wouldnt run it in most tournaments, maybe day 2 of a continental championship, if i expect girls decks. But really, its too narrow for me to get behind it. But its a good theory. Maybe make it stop a methuselah from gaining pool from master cards this turn, only playable if they ay a trifle. I dont think banning vessel is strong, since it costs a pool, and ive heard solid players argue against its ztrength. As for villein, strong, but im more concerned with them making ashurs only fetch minion cardz and lilitbs have to mandatorily find a skill card. I think minion taps and parthenons would make girls decks annoy me more if villein got taken.

> Ohlmann wrote: > Also, it smell awfully like a silver bullet, just directed at most deck of the game at once. Why not ban Vessel and Villein instead ? > Nonsense. As if banning Justicar and Inner Circle would have been the same as printing Fear of Mekhet, or banning Blood Doll instead of printing Vessel. It's a conditional card that may be useful in some decks/situations. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Nonsense. As if banning Justicar and Inner Circle would have been the same as printing Fear of Mekhet, or banning Blood Doll instead of printing Vessel. > Well, Fear of Mekhet is a nonsense in itself. I am not sure comparing this card to Fear of Mekhet is a good thing. > Ankha wrote: > It's a conditional card that may be useful in some decks/situations. > Good definition of a silver bullet. Now, I can understand people saying a silver bullet don't have the exact same effect than a ban. That does not make silver bullet good, nor alway preferable to a ban.

> Ankha wrote: > Name: Control of Financial Flows > Cardtype: Master > Out-of-turn. Trifle. > Cancel a non-out-of-turn trifle master card as it is played. > How About : Name: Gekko of wall street Cardtype: Master Out-of-turn. Trifle. Cancel the effects of a non-out-of-turn trifle master card as it is played. If the master card would give pool to someone, you gain the pool instead. Oh, and also gain a master phase and send a vampire to torpor. Then make an evil laugh. You are allowed to put this card back from your ash heap to your hand when nobody's looking Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

I think the evil laugh should be a cost of the card. If you can't be an evil overlord, why would you be allowed to play this ? Balanced otherwise.

Why should I pick this card instead of wash? > Name: Control of Financial Flows > Cardtype: Master > Out-of-turn. Trifle. > Cancel a non-out-of-turn trifle master card as it is played. > > Wash > Master: out-of-turn. Trifle. Do not replace until your next untap phase. Cancel a master card played by your predator or prey as it is played (no cost is paid). That Methuselah gains a master phase action (if the canceled card is an out-of-turn master, it doesn`t count against that Methuselah`s next master phase). > Wash can be used against regular masters as well, yes I am unable to use it cross-table, and I get one less card in my hand, but at least I can cancel that Golconda or Pentex that target my minion. And you can also cancel an Archon, a sudden, etc, etc. Now... if you present a MoT that cancels a Trifle master and allows you to play another MoT... that might be interesting. Even if it costs some pool...

> wesile wrote: > Wash can be used against regular masters as well, yes I am unable to use it cross-table, and I get one less card in my hand, but at least I can cancel that Golconda or Pentex that target my minion. And you can also cancel an Archon, a sudden, etc, etc. > Wash give a MPA to the player washed. This card, no. In other word, your prey begin his master phase, play a villein, is canceled, and cannot play any other master (without additional MPA)

"How does this card address a compelling game need?:" "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Ok, my previous answer was on the funny side, but the truth is... I don't understand the logic behind "Let's make a card that does this and that and prevent this and that" -While there are already generic cards which are perfectly suited for the same purpose. Sudden Reversal is here from day one. Why people would want to put some specific anti master where a wonderful, anti ALL master is at hand ? Most of the cards that don't see play, are the most specific-stituation card. What's the point in playing a combat card that allows any minion to do agg damage against a baali if no one plays baali ? (Am I forced to play my deck only in mallorca ?) So why would i want a specific sudden that only cancels trifles, and if my prey does not play trifle, i'm stuck with it and cannot reversal a Pentex put on my own vampire, despite having two copies of the proposed stuff in hand ? There is a faulty logic in my opinion, and I want to know if i'm mad or something. Or if i'm just being down to earth. PLZ HLP ! Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > So why would i want a specific sudden that only cancels trifles, and if my prey does not play trifle, i'm stuck with it and cannot reversal a Pentex put on my own vampire, despite having two copies of the proposed stuff in hand ? > Do you know that thing they call metagame? Like playing Scourge of the Enochians for instance when expecting weenie. Maybe it lacks an "alternative" effect to make it look it isn't a simple silver bullet. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Do you know that thing they call metagame? > No. Dang, I should have asked your sister last night. > Like playing Scourge of the Enochians for instance when expecting weenie. > Except there is no card that does specifically what Scourge of the Enochian does : burning other methuselah's weenies without the need to attempt actions. > Maybe it lacks an "alternative" effect to make it look it isn't a simple silver bullet. > Some silver bullets are good. I play Fear of mekhet often because IC/J are very difficult to hanlde : hard to rush them (obedience, mental maze), can't banish them, plus they give a grip on the vote lock. Playing a silver bullet if you know "x" type will ruin your deck is perfectly acceptable. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Do you know that thing they call metagame? > > > No. Dang, I should have asked your sister last night. > ? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > It won't save you from a Pentex, but is useful in other situations, such as restricting your prey's access to pool (Villein, Vessel) or blood (Coven, Life in the City). > I am not sure this card will hit his intended target. I suppose the goal is (mainly) to help fight villein abuse, with the additional benefit of being useful at other moment. However, the decks which are really keen on villein abuse often have multiple MPA too, since to do regulary villein for 8+ you often will need multiple MPA to play Zillah and cycle master with Anthelios. For thoses decks, this card is inconvenient, but if they have two MPA and two villein, all they lose is a villein and a MPA - the second villein will trigger the trifle. It's something they can live with, since they can do their villein and adapt their deck to add much more villein, something people already begin to do because of Wash. On the other hand, a deck that sport villein because its main vampire is a 10-cap will be much more affected, since they can't play a second villein if the first one is cancelled by this card. So, they have to fall back on Minion tap, which have severe effect on their deck compositions. In other words, this card make S&B better against non-MPA deck, and make MPA deck better because it weaken the opposition without really weakening them. I believe it's the polar opposite of the intended effect. Another problem is that it can cancel non-pool related master. Wider view and Maleficia/Strige are the two most problematics, since they are very necessary to most deck playing them, and this card shut them down a lot harder than Wash. If your proposition were widely used, deck depending on strange crypt composition (slave gargoyle, for example), and Maleficia/Striga deck would be prevented from being playable entirely. I think it's another unintended side effect.

This card also snipes abombwe skill cards, along with some archtypes. I sont think that fits with the theme of the card, and i really dont see where keeping someone frm playing devil channel back or an archetype from BH is addressing a truly compelling game need. As stated, if such were the case, we have sudden and villein. As a rule, 2 variants of the same master carx effect are plenty. See sudden/wash, minion tap/villein, blood doll/vessel, and mivimg to non-trifle pairs direct intervention/dark influences, or misdirection and anarch troublemaker. So, while id be intrigued to see a second version of staples like info highway, archon investigation, pentex, hungry coyote, or even warsaw station(why not? Brujah got carthage parts 1 and 2...) i dont see a need for a third sudden. Especially since the effect is also aped by bleeding the vine, rewind time, and Santaleous. Now, if you were to design a Hold that canceled or taxed a named card until some condition was met, id be onboard. Ezpecially since it would be the only playable hold, and no longer a narrow silver bullet. Like this: Noble Ecatarinas Hold Cost x pool Master out if turn.unique. Play this carx during another methuselahs untap phase to name a card and give Noble Ecatarinas Hold to that methuselah with x hold counters(x must be greater than 0 but less than 5). That methuselah cannot play the named card. During that methuselahs master phase, they may move a pool to this card. When this card has pool equal to its hold counters, burn the card, and the methuzelah who played it gains half the pool on it, rounded up.

Which happens to also hose the Una freakshow. Is this intentional? Suaku Inceptor Asian Continental Championship 興っ www.youtube.com/SuakuOz

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Noble Ecatarinas Hold > Cost x pool > Master out if turn.unique. > Play this card during another methuselahs untap phase to name a card and give Noble Ecatarinas Hold to that methuselah with x hold counters(x must be greater than 0 but less than 5). That methuselah cannot play the named card. During that methuselahs master phase, they may move a pool to this card. When this card has pool equal to its hold counters, burn the card, and the methuzelah who played it gains half the pool on it, rounded up. > That combines a bit too well with Parity Shift, and you should not get the pool back anyway on an effect that strong. And I don't really like the idea of shutting one card down in a game without card limits. How about something like that? Negative energies Event (Gehenna?) Put this card into play with 2 counters on it. Any Methuselah may burn X Pool and put a counter on this card (as an OOT master?) to cancel a library card as it is played, where X is the number of counters on this card.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Noble Ecatarinas Hold > Cost x pool > Master out if turn.unique. > Play this carx during another methuselahs untap phase to name a card and give Noble Ecatarinas Hold to that methuselah with x hold counters(x must be greater than 0 but less than 5). That methuselah cannot play the named card. During that methuselahs master phase, they may move a pool to this card. When this card has pool equal to its hold counters, burn the card, and the methuzelah who played it gains half the pool on it, rounded up. > Pretty horrifying if used to prevent a player playing one of the three Conviction cards. The cards recycled from the ash heap are still "played". > Rulebook wrote: > During your untap phase, you may play 1 conviction on each of your imbued. You may play these conviction cards from your hand or from your ash heap. > And to mention it some more, were this a real card that people worried about in real play, stealth-bleed (especially Obf/Dom) can come out of it much better than, say, a deck that uses Immortal Grapple it get its thing done. Similarly, the player with a larger collection who can diversify into random rares can cope better than others. (Less of an issue if we get sanctioned POD.) Many of the 4CL / NL arguments roughly apply when forcing/strongly encouraging card diversity onto a given deck.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Negative energies > Event (Gehenna?) > Feels to me better suited to a Government card. Pick a random powerful Government or inter-Governmental agency from around the globe. Could be an Inconnu card, but choosing precisely when to trigger it feels less Inconnu-ish. (And making it do something semi-randomly or after a countdown or something would just be annoying.) Gehenna events usually feel more indiscriminate in their effects (though one or two aren't). I'd also prefer to avoid yet more Gehenna events that could fuel those that require other Gehenna events being in play.

Here's something to consider: is canceling cards fun or interesting? Is Direct Intervention, Wash or Sudden Reversal something you would like to play against? Does playing one of those cards make you feel like you've accomplished something because you were a better player than the other guy? If you didn't already guess, I'm personally against Counterspells in V:TES. It's completely uninteresting and works really bad with V:TES mechanics.

Sorry but i don't buy your argument. If there was no way to counter some cards, then at some point the game would just amount to "watch me pull my combo as fast as i can". Counterspell -or cards to counter some specific effect are needed for balance's sake. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > Sorry but i don't buy your argument. If there was no way to counter some cards, then at some point the game would just amount to "watch me pull my combo as fast as i can". Counterspell -or cards to counter some specific effect are needed for balance's sake. > Perhaps, but do we really need another counterspell? I'd say this game already has enough of those, if not even too many...

> Reyda wrote: > Sorry but i don't buy your argument. If there was no way to counter some cards, then at some point the game would just amount to "watch me pull my combo as fast as i can". Counterspell -or cards to counter some specific effect are needed for balance's sake. > Well, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that canceling cards is boring as hell and a bad mechanic. But, for the sake of discussion, there are a million viable ways to hose combo decks that don't say "cancel a card". Some of them are explicit, some of them are indirect. The best one is to build a consistent deck that is capable of forcing interaction and take a free vp when the combo deck fizzles and falls on it's face. Another thought: what is the easiest way for a combo deck to protect it's combo against disruption if not Wash/Sudden against Pentex and Direct Intervention against anything else?

> Suoli wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > Sorry but i don't buy your argument. If there was no way to counter some cards, then at some point the game would just amount to "watch me pull my combo as fast as i can". Counterspell -or cards to counter some specific effect are needed for balance's sake. > > > Well, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that canceling cards is boring as hell and a bad mechanic. > > But, for the sake of discussion, there are a million viable ways to hose combo decks that don't say "cancel a card". Some of them are explicit, some of them are indirect. The best one is to build a consistent deck that is capable of forcing interaction and take a free vp when the combo deck fizzles and falls on it's face. > > Another thought: what is the easiest way for a combo deck to protect it's combo against disruption if not Wash/Sudden against Pentex and Direct Intervention against anything else? > The need to counterspell cannot be supported to just hise combos. Most combos can be killed by constant revolution, if not other cards.

> Suoli wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > Sorry but i don't buy your argument. If there was no way to counter some cards, then at some point the game would just amount to "watch me pull my combo as fast as i can". Counterspell -or cards to counter some specific effect are needed for balance's sake. > > > Well, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that canceling cards is boring as hell and a bad mechanic. > I'm not sure about this. It definitely adds another layer of stuff though. > But, for the sake of discussion, there are a million viable ways to hose combo decks that don't say "cancel a card". Some of them are explicit, some of them are indirect. The best one is to build a consistent deck that is capable of forcing interaction and take a free vp when the combo deck fizzles and falls on it's face. > By tha way you talk about it "fizzle and falls on it's face", may i deduct that you don't like combo decks ? Well, everybody has a different opinion. Some combo decks are interesting, they also add something to the game. Problem is : strong deck also try to avoid interaction. Whether your deck is a nosferatu royalty where the only stealth card is forgotten labyrinth -which allows to bypass almost all deck playing intercept except for the big Eye (preventing the basinc stealth/intercept interaction ), or a Beast Meld Baltimore purge which again prevents blocking (one of the basic interaction in the game), or no need to search thus far, even the classic unblockable Toreador under grand ball / Zillah/ parity : if you play those cards, it's because you want to keep the interference from the other players as low as possible. Fortunately, there are counters, in form of cards, but also table talk. But if two of the deck above are in a situation where they are working ok, there is no shame on relying on D.I. or Delaying tactics. Because not much can save you, except counter tactics cards. That's why imho they are needed because when everything else fails, they may be your last deflectors. It can even move the table in a specific direction, like in "if i hadn't play this D.I. right now, your predator would have 2VP in his pocket. Don't you think it's time to slow him down a bit ?" > Another thought: what is the easiest way for a combo deck to protect it's combo against disruption if not Wash/Sudden against Pentex and Direct Intervention against anything else? > I don't agree. Against a trifle, occasional threat ? Sudden or direct is great, sure. Against real disruption, and table motion they are clearly not enough. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > > > Suoli wrote: > > Well, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that canceling cards is boring as hell and a bad mechanic. > > > I'm not sure about this. It definitely adds another layer of stuff though. > It adds mechanical complexity (play a card, pause for DI), but not depth. > By tha way you talk about it "fizzle and falls on it's face", may i deduct that you don't like combo decks ? > No, you may not. That would be irrelevant and incorrect. Why even bring it up? > Problem is : strong deck also try to avoid interaction. > Whether your deck is a nosferatu royalty where the only stealth card is forgotten labyrinth -which allows to bypass almost all deck playing intercept except for the big Eye (preventing the basinc stealth/intercept interaction ), or a Beast Meld Baltimore purge which again prevents blocking (one of the basic interaction in the game), or no need to search thus far, even the classic unblockable Toreador under grand ball / Zillah/ parity : if you play those cards, it's because you want to keep the interference from the other players as low as possible. Fortunately, there are counters, in form of cards, but also table talk. > Triple A, Nosferatu Royalty or Purge are not what I would call combo decks. But, again for the sake of discussion, you don't need to cancel cards to beat any of those decks. All of them have some pretty big weaknesses to a strong combat or bleed deck. > But if two of the deck above are in a situation where they are working ok, there is no shame on relying on D.I. or Delaying tactics. Because not much can save you, except counter tactics cards. > That's why imho they are needed because when everything else fails, they may be your last deflectors. > Why do you want to save a player who got himself into a lost position? > It can even move the table in a specific direction, like in "if i hadn't play this D.I. right now, your predator would have 2VP in his pocket. Don't you think it's time to slow him down a bit ?" > This, to me, sounds like an argument against Direct Intervention. A single, 1 pool master that anyone can play should not be able to make such a huge swing in table dynamics. Things like that make the game too random.

Also, block in itself is a counterspell mechanism. That's why forgotten labyrinth or Beast Meld are less problematic than Faerie Ward - and consequently, significantly cheaper, more versatile, and on (relatively) more common discipline.

> Suoli wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > > > > Suoli wrote: > > > Well, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that canceling cards is boring as hell and a bad mechanic. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure about this. It definitely adds another layer of stuff though. > > > It adds mechanical complexity (play a card, pause for DI), but not depth. > ok, there is a problem. Are we really discussing ? When I say "I think... I'm not sure", you come with No no's. Thanks i really feel like i'm being lectured by a superior being. > > By tha way you talk about it "fizzle and falls on it's face", may i deduct that you don't like combo decks ? > > > No, you may not. That would be irrelevant and incorrect. Why even bring it up? > Erm, because it looks like from your sentence ? May I suggest then you use other words ? I can't really picture a deck falling on its face, but if you are using this image, maybe it's typically to say that a combo decks bring ridicule when it does not do exactly what it's supposed to do ? some of them have plan B too, but... Well. > Triple A, Nosferatu Royalty or Purge are not what I would call combo decks. > Um, hello ? When did I say "nosferatu royalty is a combo deck ?" I just said "strong decks are avoiding interactions". But I guess that from the beginning of this post you are trying to prove that everything I say is wrong and jump on all occasions, well done. > But, again for the sake of discussion, you don't need to cancel cards to beat any of those decks. All of them have some pretty big weaknesses to a strong combat or bleed deck. > Oh, thank you. I am happy to know that I can bleed for 6 to beat 2x unblockable Parity shift. And I can rush to beat 2nd trad + obedience or mental maze. I'll write that down in my pokédex for future reference. > Why do you want to save a player who got himself into a lost position? > Because if another player gets 2 vps + 12 pool in a row, the odds of getting a GW seem pretty grim for me ? Now really, I have to tell you I have a brain and some diploma, so if you could cut down the crap, it would be nice. > > It can even move the table in a specific direction, like in "if i hadn't play this D.I. right now, your predator would have 2VP in his pocket. Don't you think it's time to slow him down a bit ?" > > > This, to me, sounds like an argument against Direct Intervention. A single, 1 pool master that anyone can play should not be able to make such a huge swing in table dynamics. Things like that make the game too random. > Really ? It's not the card who makes a swing of table dynamics : it's the way you play it and the opportunity you use to talk with other players. But thanks for showing me how dumb I am with every sentence. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > ok, there is a problem. Are we really discussing ? When I say "I think... I'm not sure", you come with No no's. Thanks i really feel like i'm being lectured by a superior being. > Mm, okay? Well, sorry about that. Just saying that, while DI adds complexity, it might not do so in a positive way. > > Triple A, Nosferatu Royalty or Purge are not what I would call combo decks. > > > Um, hello ? When did I say "nosferatu royalty is a combo deck ?" > I just said "strong decks are avoiding interactions". But I guess that from the beginning of this post you are trying to prove that everything I say is wrong and jump on all occasions, well done. > Our discussion started from interactions between combo decks and cards that cancel other cards. I don't know why you would bring up those decks if not as examples of combo decks. Would you like to elaborate? > > But, again for the sake of discussion, you don't need to cancel cards to beat any of those decks. All of them have some pretty big weaknesses to a strong combat or bleed deck. > > > Oh, thank you. I am happy to know that I can bleed for 6 to beat 2x unblockable Parity shift. And I can rush to beat 2nd trad + obedience or mental maze. I'll write that down in my pokédex for future reference. > Cute. > > Why do you want to save a player who got himself into a lost position? > > > Because if another player gets 2 vps + 12 pool in a row, the odds of getting a GW seem pretty grim for me ? > Now really, I have to tell you I have a brain and some diploma, so if you could cut down the crap, it would be nice. > I'm talking about the justification for a card that single-handedly swings the game state from a game balance point of view. Stated another way, the question woul be is it good for the game that a player who has been outplayed and put into a lost position can win the game by playing a generic, 1 pool master card? > > This, to me, sounds like an argument against Direct Intervention. A single, 1 pool master that anyone can play should not be able to make such a huge swing in table dynamics. Things like that make the game too random. > > > Really ? It's not the card who makes a swing of table dynamics : it's the way you play it and the opportunity you use to talk with other players. > IMO playing Direct Intervention is not the skill test you make it up to be. It only takes a very basic understanding of deck types to use it correctly. > But thanks for showing me how dumb I am with every sentence. > You're reading into things. I'm trying to communicate my thoughts as well and clearly as I can, without getting tangled into sarcastic and obtuse remarks.