Pentex Subversion (tm) vs Direct Intervention (& DI2)

Riffing off of KevinM's poll...

Which card is worse for the game:
Pentex Subversion (tm) or Direct Intervention?

As of this posting, those two Master cards received the highest number of votes (with a couple other bloat cards close behind).

Several folks who voted for Direct Intervention pointed out that it defies the game mechanics since as a Master card is cancels a Minion card. I agree with this.

But then, doesn't Pentex Subversion also violate that same standard? As a Master card, it prevents a minion from trying to play *any* action card. There are a very limited number of reaction cards which can be played. Common examples of those are Delaying Tactics, Deflection, Redirection, Telepathic Misdirection, My Enemy's Enemy and Telepathic Counter. And even fewer Action Modifiers like Cloak the Gathering and Veil the Legions.

For that reason, I'd posit that Pentex Subversion is WORSE than Direct Intervention. At least against DI, you have the opportunity to play a large number of cards yet again. It is a silver bullet, but you only get a single shot and it is by design a reactive (out of turn) one.


But Pentex Subversion is the ultimate lunge card. It is for this reason that some people consider it to be a necessary evil as a game-shaker or wall-breaker. I consider its inclusion in decks to be a necessary evil only for one reason only: because Pentex Subversion exists.

If Pentex didn't exist, we would likely see more walls and less stealth in the short term. But the natural outgrowth of that is more non-stealth combat because walls can't play their intercept. I think the metagame would balance it out.

So, back to the main philosophical point. Cards which "break the rules" or more importantly "break the game intent" are often really bad for the game. Your thoughts?

I don't see the debat, the two cards are largely different.

Pentex is a necessary evil, and nothing should be done against it before something better (for the game) can take its place (after what the pentex shopuld certainly be banned, so as not to repeat the error of supposed "remplacing" card like Villein or DI2). Also, it's unlawfully slandered in that it's not worse than, say, Scourge of the Enochean as ultimate solution against a particular deck ; it's just that it happen to smite a popular deck concept.

DI is a concept that have proven itself as problematic for the game (because it make the turn go a lot longer and favorise misplay). At the core, it mainly need for a clean rule that would make it as smooth as a counterspell in magic. Because it's not an easy task, there is the temptation to ban it. Which may be a good solution, since it just work, and no deck as far as I know is overly relient on DI to survive.

DI

Because it is not about breaking the game, but because it wastes time. You have to ask, at final tables always, before drawing a replacement for any of your important actions "anybody want to DI this??". Also, i have seen long long long talks every time someone threatens to DI something occur. It wastes time, and is an ultimate silver bullet.

Pentex, on the other hand, however much maligned, is necessary i feel for the game. It balances itself out. Because, without pentex, there is almost nothing you can do when that Una starts freaking on the table, and that Turbo decks starts doing his mojo, or when your prey has that evil Lazverinus with Bowl and Eternal Vigilance, or your predators Nergal is bleeding you for 8+ every round. Without pentex, most of the time, against such stuff, you are screwed...

I think that Direct Intervention is the only anti-fun card left in the game -- not to mention its timing effects and how it makes timing criminals out of innocent players through no fault of their own -- and it should absolutely be banned. But it'll never get banned because it's a one-shot and takes a MPA, and it can't be shown to be disruptive enough to the game to be a problem.

It's difficult to change Pentex(TM) Subversion without nerfing it, but I think if it were changed to be "Once Per Methuselah" ("OPM") then it would be far more tolerable than it is, and there would be strategy involved in playing it, whereas it tends to get played wily-nilly nowadays.

Personally, I think Pentex(TM) Subversion and Parity Shift are the only cards left that need to be changed due to them being overpowered -- I've advocated for them to be banned before -- and they should both be changed to be OPM.

I think Pentex Subversion, though annoying if it hits you, is okay.

Repeatable use of it through Anthelios plus MMPhases is a big problem. But that is Anthelios, not Pentex.

So "OPM" could be a solution here.

DI maybe is a tad too strong. It really fits into every deck. Still I don't think it is broken or bad for the game. I'd rather take a DI on one of my cards than a early Pentex.
But as already mentioned before the real problem of DI is the duty to constantly ask wether somebody wants to use it before going on.

I hate DI. And make no mistake, its a golden bullet, not a silver one.

PS I can live with, except when it is played (repeatedly) by a weenie deck. Thats just seroius insult to injury.