On Parity Shift 6. "problematic card".

bakija wrote:

How many Sabbat based vote decks are in the TWDA? How many with Parity Shift?

Given that Bakija has been a proponent of the "TDWA-proof doesn't tell you much, really" theory, I find this a bit ironic.

I think Bakija's core complaint is correct, though, that Parity Shift's swing is just too great.

Look at the staple vote card -- KRC. 3 + 1, max swing of 3, 1 more here and there depending on other card text. It's the 'Govern' of the political cards -- 3 damage. Parity Shift can either have a swing of 10, 8, 6, or 4. So *in every case* it is better than KRC, if you can play it. (yes yes, You have to have fewer pool, I know, I know. If you're a good player, that's a meaningless qualifier.)

Parity Shift *might* be fixable if the pool were forced to be split between two or more Methuselahs. It *might* be fixable if X=2 or X=3. It *might* be fixable if you could play no stealth cards with it. It *might* be fixable if it cost pool. But I just say make it "Once per Methuselah/game" and be done with the damn thing, so we can move on to making Direct Intervention and Pentex Subversion OPM/G.

KevinM wrote:

Given that Bakija has been a proponent of the "TDWA-proof doesn't tell you much, really" theory, I find this a bit ironic.

Oh, don't worry--the Irony isn't lost on me. I'd never claim that things being in the TWDA are proof of anything. But they are certainly indicators. I did a quick perusal of the TWDA and found that, like, ~20% of the decks in 2011 included Parity Shift in them (about 40 out of 200 some odd decks). Which is an awful lot. I have no idea what would be a good way to check for decks that are vote decks and don't have Parity Shift in them.

Parity Shift *might* be fixable if the pool were forced to be split between two or more Methuselahs. It *might* be fixable if X=2 or X=3. It *might* be fixable if you could play no stealth cards with it. It *might* be fixable if it cost pool. But I just say make it "Once per Methuselah/game" and be done with the damn thing, so we can move on to making Direct Intervention and Pentex Subversion OPM/G.

That seems totally reasonable to me.

bakija wrote:

KevinM wrote:

Given that Bakija has been a proponent of the "TDWA-proof doesn't tell you much, really" theory, I find this a bit ironic.

Oh, don't worry--the Irony isn't lost on me. I'd never claim that things being in the TWDA are proof of anything. But they are certainly indicators. I did a quick perusal of the TWDA and found that, like, ~20% of the decks in 2011 included Parity Shift in them (about 40 out of 200 some odd decks). Which is an awful lot. I have no idea what would be a good way to check for decks that are vote decks and don't have Parity Shift in them.

I did a quick check earlier. There are 76 decks this year with political actions listed, 36 of those included Parity Shift (for comparison 46 included KRC, 41 included Banishment, only 4 included Reckless Agitation).
Not all of those were vote decks as such. At least one deck contained a single PS and no other vote cards.

bakija wrote:

Oh, don't worry--the Irony isn't lost on me. I'd never claim that things being in the TWDA are proof of anything. But they are certainly indicators. I did a quick perusal of the TWDA and found that, like, ~20% of the decks in 2011 included Parity Shift in them (about 40 out of 200 some odd decks). Which is an awful lot. I have no idea what would be a good way to check for decks that are vote decks and don't have Parity Shift in them.

Check how many bleed decks has stealth cards in them.

henrik wrote:

bakija wrote:

Check how many bleed decks has stealth cards in them.

Uh, yeah, I'll get right on that. What does this have to do with what?

bakija wrote:

henrik wrote:

bakija wrote:

Check how many bleed decks has stealth cards in them.

Uh, yeah, I'll get right on that. What does this have to do with what?

It just struck me that stealth might be a "problematic effect", if so it should probably have a thread and/or poll.