On Parity Shift

You're the one adding "I speak as a national NC" as if that somehow makes your opinion more important than that of those who are not NC.

I know what I wrote: "Second - as a NC I spoke with many polish players and the most of them (almost 90%) think that nothings wrong in "theese" cards."

That's interesting, because it's there for everyone to read and yet you, the author of it, doesn't know what it says.

So, where I wrote "I speak for EVERYONE"????

Right here:

Szewski wrote:

Izaak wrote:

So your private opinion is the opinion shared by all players for your country?

Or are you just adding the NC-thing in a vain attempt to give your opinion more weight?

Both.

ok, I step down.
My english is very bad. But I will try to explain

Using the term "NC" was very clumsy. My opinion is worth as much as everyone opinion (even inactive players I assume)

And ofc I overlook the most important part from Your post Izaak

my Post (answer to Yours) should stays like this: "Second - as a NC I spoke with many polish players and the most of them (almost 90%) think that nothings wrong in "theese" cards." I remember at least: Izi, Behemoth, Vermin, Migalart, klocek, Mike, Gali, Alek, Toy, Santh, warGrim, Pączek, Kaszuba...
Those "talking" were made after several rumours about some cards (even before the poll on vekn forum) during last year - during the tournaments, regular plays, EC...

And after the "polling" some of us was quite surprised about the cards put in discussion. (I said something about this when I was talking about Athelios I guess) but this doesnt matter...
Thats all.
Sorry for mess.
Regards
Szewski

As a non-Polish native-English-speaking player, I will just comment that I understood Szewski's comments to mean something to the effect that "As national coordinator, I come in contact with many people and the overwhelming majority of Polish players whom I've talked to agree that no change to Parity Shift is necessary."

Back to the vote at hand, I find it interesting that right now, with 60 people casting votes, that *NO ONE* has voted to ban the card. That says volumes about its perceived power. Very strong, but not game-breaking.

Jeff wrote:

Back to the vote at hand, I find it interesting that right now, with 60 people casting votes, that *NO ONE* has voted to ban the card. That says volumes about its perceived power. Very strong, but not game-breaking.

I don't know that it says anything other than "this card can be made reasonable with minimal changes"; I think Parity Shift is one of the top contenders for making the game less good than it can be. It is one of the 3 cards in the game that I think need to be fixed more than any other. If the only way to fix that would be to ban, it, I'd be happy with it being banned. That being said, I didn't select "ban Parity Shift" from the above selections, as making it once per game would be a sufficient fix, for example.

Banning is what you do to a card when you can't errata it. As this poll is completely hypothetical anyway, there is no need to vote to ban it when voting to change it will fix the issues at hand. Direct Intervention I'd vote to ban, as there is a much more reasonable version already in existence (Dark Influence). Parity Shift being made a once per game card would be a totally reasonable fix.

Just adding {other} here:

[...]where X is the number of {other} Methuselahs in the game.[...]

Would fix the card for me. No need for lengthy errata, and power of ps would be considerably decreased bringing it more in line with other cards in the game.

@Szewski, true, majority of good players may consider those cards ok. I don't (except for villein, it was ok before errata too).

bakija wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Back to the vote at hand, I find it interesting that right now, with 60 people casting votes, that *NO ONE* has voted to ban the card. That says volumes about its perceived power. Very strong, but not game-breaking.

I don't know that it says anything other than "this card can be made reasonable with minimal changes"; (...)

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

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.

I'm still saying that Reckless Agitation allows for a setup easier to build and to defend. No need to get low on pool, you can use Minion Tap + Voter Cap... heck, you can even deflect bleeds.
And you have more minions to choose from, can hurt more than one player...
Oh and there's no "I'm sorry dear ally, but I'm really desperate and need to take the pool from you, otherwise I'll be ousted..."