Yes, that indeed would be nonsense. But read the post again. "Played or not" is obviously referring to "silver bullets," not "most cards." Did you really misread the post, or are you being disingenuous and just wishing to argue with the poster? The next part of your reply makes me think the latter.
I read it the way I did - I am not a disingenuous liar. To read it the way you assert is apparently obvious is frankly completely ludicrous. I didn't think he meant that there was a design principle to create cards thaso just won't be played. That would require someone to be a drooling moron - we have limited resources, art etc., and a need to convince new White Wolf of commercial viability, so let's create a design principle that doesn't care whether cards will be played. That's just such utter nonsense. So I wouldn't assume he meant something that is obviously wrong.
You are making up your own definition of silver bullet. A silver bullet is a simple remedy to a problem. It does not mean "something that has a narrow effect."
The whole point of silver bullets is that they specifically demolish werewolves but not, say, zombies or genies or fairies or dragons or beholders or cyborgs, and are probably pretty much crap against them. (Otherwise everyone would just use all silver bullets all the time.) That is literally what the silver bullet metaphor is about - demolishing werewolves with highly specialised tech that is pretty terrible in most other scenarios. This is not me making anything up - this is me understanding what silver bullets are, a simple fix for a specific problem, not a wide-ranging, widely-applicable tool to dozens upon dozens of different problems.
Want to know who else thinks this? Ben Peal.
The Other Metagame
>The trick is getting the "silver bullet" to hit the target just right.
>Make the new cards too weak (Dark Influences?) and the new card
>doesn't change anything. Make it too strong (Villein?) and you've just
>replaced one strong card with a stronger card (actually, I think
>Villein is quite well designed. I just wish it was easier to get.).
>
>So, no, I haven't played with a local banned list. Nor do I recommend
>one. But the changes I advocated for are occurring. Slowly. And by
>targeted design.
The problem I see right now with V:TES is that this "evolution" you
talk about is actually creating a class of cards that exist merely for
the sake of countering each other. It's created a game layer on top
of V:TES that ends being its own minigame.
...
This doesn't feel like V:TES to me. It just feels like a mini-game
of magic bullets and magic bullet counters. I understand that there's
always going be an "A" and "Counter-A" aspect to the game (ex. stealth
vs. intercept), but it's the degree of it that's the difference here.
Stealth vs. Intercept and Damage vs. Prevention and such are mechanics
with a broad range of cards, as opposed to the extremely narrow scope
of Scourge vs. Uncoiling or Pentex vs. Wash. I don't like the silver
bullet mini-game we have, and I don't like the continued silver bullet
direction in which we're headed. I'd rather play V:TES.
The "class of cards that merely exist for countering each other" to a much greater degree than V:TES's generic mechanics (e.g. stealth vs intercept) are the silver-bullet mini-game.
So no, it's not me making anything up.
Submission: Savoir Faire
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
