Misdirections

mirddes wrote:

nerf =/= balance

Misdirection is balanced, and useful. That's why it's played by people in winning decks.

Asserting that it is not balanced is just repeated assertion. You are - again - doing literally nothing to advance your own cause, and expecting everyone else to put the effort in. This simply won't work.

mirddes wrote:

i again reiterate my simple questions that can be answered with simple yes/no

I again re-iterate that attempting to create a leading discussion is unhelpful. Your questions are misguided, and your proposal ignores the fact that:

a) errata is not issued for cards that are playable to make them even better
b) errata is not issued for cards that are unplayable to make them usable (see all sorts of trash all over the place).

Misdirection works just fine. You are extremely unlikely to get any change to it, because it's a decent card as it is right now.

Thus, answering your questions is irrelevant. Errata is not about to be issued because you discovered that a decade ago, a card was changed in a way you don't like.

mirddes wrote:

IMO

C>=A
C>B

errata,errata,errata,errata,errata

context=balance

Cards=cards.

Errata=not issued unless problem.

Problem=none.

Misdirection=good.

Context=how every card has been handled in the game ever.

Misdirection=fine.

Errata=none.

Errata=unnecessary <=> Misdirection=fine.

Change=unnecessary <=> Misdirection=fine.

Fine=fine.

Blue=yes. Red=no. Rabbits = eldeberries. Washing machines > killer robots > cocktail sausages.

Context context context context context context context context context context.

Errata=no errata=no errata=no.

Mirddes=no.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

b) errata is not issued for cards that are unplayable to make them usable (see all sorts of trash all over the place).

How much trash is there? this seems illogical that broken cards would not be fixed.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Errata is not about to be issued because you discovered that a decade ago, a card was changed in a way you don't like.

yes, i do not like how it was changed; i consider it nerf, not balance.

id like to know how often more than one shows up in TWD, more than 2, and more than 3 and so on.

does secretlibrary offer such a detailed break down?

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Rabbits = eldeberries.

Rabbits spit.



mirddes=

mirddes wrote:

id like to know how often more than one shows up in TWD, more than 2, and more than 3 and so on.

does secretlibrary offer such a detailed break down?

Here's the link to all of Secret Library's decks featuring Misdirection:

www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?deck=l191

The ones with gold circles are tournament winning decks. I am not aware of a function like the one you describe.

mirddes wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

b) errata is not issued for cards that are unplayable to make them usable (see all sorts of trash all over the place).

How much trash is there? this seems illogical that broken cards would not be fixed.

Lots.

Misdirection is not trash. It is extremely playable.

Many players (though not all) dislike large lists of errata, because they have hundreds of cards that don't do what they say. This can create an extremely arge barrier, not only for recruiting new players but also for re-recruiting lapsed/casual players. "Yeah Bill, wanna play? How many cards have been errata-ed since you last played? About 400 or so. Thanatosis and the Samedi? Yeah, that whole clan is so rubbish, all of the cards have been completely rewritten." Many people don't like this.

This is not illogical - it is handling a problem that many players have complained about.

But, upgrading trash is completely different from upgrading Misdirection. Misdirection is very clearly not trash. It is a good, solid, playable card. There is no need to change it. Changing a card just because you personally don't like the errata that was issued? Not a factor.

mirddes wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Errata is not about to be issued because you discovered that a decade ago, a card was changed in a way you don't like.

yes, i do not like how it was changed; i consider it nerf, not balance.

Clearly, you are wrong. It's turning up regularly in tournament winning decks. Good players don't put bad cards in their deck on a regular basis.

Also clearly, your understanding both of how cards work and what effects are balanced is suspect. For example, you proposed a rewrite that would make it cost 4 pool to tap 1 minion , which would in your opinion be "balancing the card". When, quite clearly, it would have made the card so far beyond useless as to be laughable. Yay, 4 pool to tap 1 minion, when I can just play Pentex Subversion for 2 pool.

Your balance barometer needs calibration.

mirddes wrote:

id like to know how often more than one shows up in TWD, more than 2, and more than 3 and so on.

does secretlibrary offer such a detailed break down?

In what way do you think that would help you?

Many good cards are used in small quantities. Sticking with master cards, it is very common to see Dreams of the Sphinx used in small quantities, and it is an excellent card. Similarly, Week of Nightmares is often only 1, maybe 2 copies - also excellent.

Roughly speaking, many players with 90 card decks will be aiming for something like 15-20 master cards - the high end if they have more trifles, possibly more if they have tricks like Anson or The Parthenon, lower if they churn through cards rapidly like some combat decks do. Quite a few of these will be taken up by pool gain - Villein, Doll, Vessel etc. It is often quite difficult to find space for many copies of other master cards, unless you have a specific trick in mind (e.g. many copies of Anarch Revolt). Since "new" Misdirection is good but doesn't lend itself towards a trick deck, and competes with pool gain, you're unlikely to find people stacking great wodges of it.

Yet, like many other master cards found in low quantities, it can still be played to great effect - Ventrue HQ, an intercept location (there are several to choose from), Direct Intervention, Pentex Subversion etc. are all cards that leap out at me when paging through the TWDA, often played in very small (1-2) quantities.