Pentex Subversion Poll #2 and Discussion

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.

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.

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.