On Parity Shift

Szewski wrote:

Yes, Many People dont see any problems in any cards...

We spoken lately with some polish players and everyone said that:
1. None of changes (exept the change with Villein and Minion tap) should be made.
2. None of the cards are overbalanced or something. Every single card has own good/bad possibilities and none of them are giving more vp, gw, or something
3. The day when someone ban or change cards like parity s, athelios, lilith blessing etc etc will the the worst day in our lifes (and maybe the last for some players because this process wont stop, there always will be some voices against some cards and if we give the precedent...)
4. We should focus on players/tournaments more than ban/change some cards. We dont need to do such a things. Bonus from that actions will be more/less like zero (0). Therer will be no new players from that, and maybe we will lost some of the goldie-oldie .

If these points are true for your community it would be most important to let the others know. Exactly for those people who made up their minds are these polls. They are not necessarily for people who want a change of cards. I just want a clear statement of the VEKN-members (as many as possible). Please tell your guys to just hit the "let the card unchanged"-button so the rest of the world knows of your opinion.
Of course they should also let the world know if they want a change and which one.

I don't think it breaks the game, but I do think it breaks voting.

Brum wrote:

Hm? How come 63.5% voting that the card is ok turns into "this card can be made reasonable with minimal changes".

Where did anyone say that?

Jeff was pointing out that no one voted for the specific choice of "ban Parity Shift" in the above poll, and indicated that he felt that this specific fact meant something. i was indicating that it probably didn't mean what he thinks it means.

If I felt the only way to fix Parity Shift was to ban it, I would have voted to ban it. I don't think that is the only way to fix Parity Shift, so I didn't vote to ban it. That doesn't mean that I don't think it is an incredibly broken card. As I do. I just don't think that banning it is the only way to deal with it.

I was in no way attempting to say anything about the people who voted "don't do anything to Parity Shift".

We don't know each other, but from what I see and hear about you, I'm confused.
I understand your opinion of the card, although I don't agree with it.
My reasoning is that to play with a Parity Shift deck one must really know what one's doing.
And the table can always adjust to defend against it.

Tables can adjust to defend against *anything*. That doesn't make broken cards less broken. A card that is incredibly broken, yet requires deep understanding to truly abuse is still incredibly broken.

Brum wrote:

My reasoning is that to play with a Parity Shift deck one must really know what one's doing.
And the table can always adjust to defend against it.

(As I've previously stated, I'm of the opinion that Parity Shift is pretty much the very top end of my tolerance for card power, and I don't particularly want to change it. However...)

Obviously, a table can potentially do a lot of things. However, if a deck is so powerful or so disruptive that the table has to gang up to do something about it, it's generally either:

• the Nergal storyline event
• a problem

When creating Jyhad, Richard Garfield has explicitly written (it's in the White Wolf book) that it was intended to be a game in which every player had a set of different and competing incentives. That, for example, is why it's not a last man standing game and why you don't get a VP or pool for ousting someone cross-table. I want to oust my prey because it gives me that VP or pool - why do you want to oust him? Perhaps it gives you vote lock, perhaps it stops you contesting key cards - but it also benefits me, and you'll want to oust me later too.

If a table devolves into a situation where everyone's overriding incentive is "Oust that deck, or everything goes to hell", that fundamental staple aspect of the game is quite heavily undermined. It's why, for example, Anarch Revolt raised itself to the level of needing errata - on many tables, everyone had to do their best to oust the player stacking 3 Anarch Revolt a turn (and Delaying Tactics, Elder Kindred Network etc.) so that the rest of the game could continue 'normally'. Problematic.

Which is to say, if you think the best recourse for handling a particular card is that tables must co-operatively oust the deck (or neuter it very hard), then there's a good chance the card is a significant problem that is undermining the table dynamics that are supposed to be there. (Except in fun events like the Nergal storyline.)


Me? I personally don't think Parity Shift generally requires that behaviour. But you seem to be suggesting it does.

I don't want Parity Shift to change. Majority people seem to feel the same, still the very few active participants make it like there is so much fuss and sudden need to change the damn card.

However, if you want to change it let it be playable by corresponding sabbat titles as well, not making it once per game or once per Meth.

Off course, I got many of them, paid a lot of cash for them and don't want to lose both money and playability with them being wallpapered.

err