question-circle Pentex Subversion Poll #2 and Discussion

×

Poll: Possible fixes for Pentex Subversion (was ended 0000-00-00 00:00:00)

Total number of voters: 0
Only registered users can participate to this poll
16 Mar 2014 08:55 #59983 by Squidalot

OK, fine. Ban it then. But that is most definitely not what Johannes had mentioned on facebook.

I'm not sure why it matters what Johannes did/did not mention or where that is relevant.



And if you're concerned about a more expensive Pentex being only affordable by a non-interactive deck, then the non-interactive deck is the problem. Ban pool gain Ashur Tablets, Liquidation and/or Villein. That doesn't involve changing Pentex either.


Yes I have Ashur/Anthelios well up my list of cards to be nuked if Hugh was in charge - but in isolation these cards are why changing pentxes cost wouldn't work which is what you asked not "hat else needs to change to make this work"

But, if we are talking about changing Pentex (and that's the whole point of this thread), then errata is the worst possible option, which is why I called it out.

do you not consider changing cost a significant card errata?
I like the replace with two other cards options seems quite smooth.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 Mar 2014 13:38 #59987 by ReverendRevolver
Something that may be important is WHY people view pentex as a problem.

Personally, there are cards i find very interesting that i feel NEED erratad, namely tablets only fetching minion cards, lilliths requiring a skill card, and "you cannot gain additional master phases from any other source after using this ability" to nana, anson, cybele, PARTHENON, year of fortune, isanowin, and huitzilpochti. Those are all HUGE ways to solve some serious problems. Something else to look at is that liquidation has never in the history of its existance been used to burn a bunch of assets you cant get back to gain a little pool. Its always played in a way that not only negates the drawback but makes it an advantage. Making it remove cards from game would fix this. Same with anthelios. If tablets go to demension X with no return ticket once they pop, so no decks are infinite, why then does anthelios let you put a master in your ash heap for safekeeping instead of making it get removed from game?

But, back onto pentex, im seeing 3-4 reasons in the last 2 days people want pentex changed. Walls, solitaire, lunge(?), and of course recycling pentex indefinately via girls tech.

Whats wrong with pentex? People think of it like 6 different ways, as a transient lunge enabler, as a sense dep you either block removal of or just keep replaying, as an una stopper, as a super obediance master, and as a defensive minion stopper.

Im all for screwing una, but killimg multiact in general is a bad deal. Big caps kinda suck as is, thats why they multiaxt, and if you hamper that, why the hell are they playable? Already so-so compared to weenies. And not being able to burn a card makes it a terribly heinous thing in this game. Just errataing una and pssibly ankara is cleaner. Or just una, since i have not yet seen windham take a 45 minute turn, hes normall a wall with a saw, a bowl, a citadel, ponticulous, and of course he bleeds and bloats with govern, he deflects, etc. But he doesnt(when ive seen him) take 45% of a games duration to get a hat and ignore the table. Even with una, a good combat wall stops her dead (well, shes typically alive in torpor unless someone has the good sense to amaranth the bitch and prevent golconda buyback). She could also only reduce cost on not action modifiers, same with citadel if thats a problem.

Pentex was good before una was printed, as far as i know, so im not really following the whole reason to keep it being her. Also, walls were played and won before it.

Ite a card that does something useful, and has built in burn action. If we feel the ways around this arent good enough, we could add "any methuselah other than the target vampires controller may burn 2 pool to cancel this card as it is played"

If everyones being honest with why its fine or why its the devil of vtes cards, getting rid of it is still an issue, and a methuselah instead of thier minioms burning it crosstable before it touches down is a viable nerf that still means it bones una and citadel (why no love for cardano? He or anyone getting citadel with alasotr can do wjat windham does? Is 4 stealth MotS that scary? I can give you extra canine hordes.....) because "that needs to go. And now" is typical table reaction to una, super bleed, girls, and of course, the origional "the table freaking hates me" deck, imbued.

So.......

Is that a solution? Its the only thing that:

Doesnt ban pentex and print 2-4 shittier cards to fill this niche, especially when print means with computer paper, a kinda huge thing that upsets people who have real cards.

Keeps its utility that peopld think is "needed" (i already see una as screwable most games. Rememner, no secrets is blockable, and if its strange dayed, a block fails kills it anyway) and allows player negotiation.

Doesnt give it a dumb drawback that helps an alleged defender use it and not other things.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 Mar 2014 14:18 #59989 by Jeff Kuta

I'm not sure why it matters what Johannes did/did not mention or where that is relevant.


Because it wasn't on VEKN.NET, so I'm providing context for why I reopened this thread.

Yes I have Ashur/Anthelios well up my list of cards to be nuked if Hugh was in charge - but in isolation these cards are why changing pentxes cost wouldn't work which is what you asked not "hat else needs to change to make this work"


The point is that increasing the cost of Pentex (or any card) will lead to a decrease in its usage. It's simple cost/benefit analysis. The notion that bloat decks may better be able to afford a more expensive Pentex is only a secondary effect. Again, if pool gain is the problem (and in many cases it is), then deal with it directly.

do you not consider changing cost a significant card errata?
I like the replace with two other cards options seems quite smooth.


I tend to think of errata as dealing with card text. Sure, if you want to consider changes to cost as errata, that's fine. But in every case, a change in card cost is easier to remember than a change in card text. More importantly, it is easier to predict how a change in card cost will affect the metagame than a change in card text, which, to go full circle yet again, is why I resurrected this thread in the first place.

When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
:CEL::DOM::OBF::POT::QUI:
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 Mar 2014 18:42 - 16 Mar 2014 18:45 #59995 by TryDeflectingThisGrapple

Something that may be important is WHY people view pentex as a problem.


and WHY people feel it's necessary.

Ultimately, that's the rub and that's why Pentex is still around. Most people feel that at least one of the two primary functions (no act or no block) remains mandatory. Either function you might support has an abusable ancillary use.

Breaking the single card into its two component functions (no act and no block versions) doesn't eliminate that ancillary-use problem and simply encourages wall decks to play both variants, to their advantage. Since my personal design and playtest feedback defaults to caution in further empowering wall archetypes, I view this approach with suspicion.

Increasing cost isn't the answer to preventing abuse, Hugh correctly points out this only localizes the potential for abuse in archetypes that are already some of the worst offenders.

I'm not even sure that throttling the card to "once per player per game" solves the problem. Every deck that plays it is likely to hang onto their single use instance when in play (less action) and few players would contest their precious "OPG Pentex" to free up another player's minion.

Lastly, I suspect banning the card might have unfortunate ramifications. I predict tables that play DI-slapjack in an attempt to keep their Secrets from the Magaji, and a lot of those spare DI will slow the tables and prevent a lot of ousts.
Last edit: 16 Mar 2014 18:45 by TryDeflectingThisGrapple.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ReverendRevolver

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 Mar 2014 20:20 - 16 Mar 2014 20:30 #60000 by Juggernaut1981

Yes I have Ashur/Anthelios well up my list of cards to be nuked if Hugh was in charge - but in isolation these cards are why changing pentxes cost wouldn't work which is what you asked not "hat else needs to change to make this work"


The point is that increasing the cost of Pentex (or any card) will lead to a decrease in its usage. It's simple cost/benefit analysis. The notion that bloat decks may better be able to afford a more expensive Pentex is only a secondary effect. Again, if pool gain is the problem (and in many cases it is), then deal with it directly.

This smells of terrible economic-analysis. I would suspect you are doing 'bang-for-buck' analysis not cost-benefit analysis. It would seem that Hugh is bringing up a valid VTES-related cost-externality for which you are making an attempt to account it by handwaving it away.

If Pentex is a problem because of its effects, then restricting the ways you can negate its effect (by pricing it out of the market for most decks), is foolish. This will only make the problem localised and more intense.

do you not consider changing cost a significant card errata?
I like the replace with two other cards options seems quite smooth.


I tend to think of errata as dealing with card text. Sure, if you want to consider changes to cost as errata, that's fine. But in every case, a change in card cost is easier to remember than a change in card text. More importantly, it is easier to predict how a change in card cost will affect the metagame than a change in card text, which, to go full circle yet again, is why I resurrected this thread in the first place.

Changing a card cost is still a headache. It's enough of a headache to have the 'three kinds of blood drop' costs out there for new players. Then you've got fun things like Brachah's incorrect disciplines... and so on.

:bruj::CEL::POT::PRE::tha: Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Last edit: 16 Mar 2014 20:30 by Juggernaut1981.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Squidalot

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 Mar 2014 20:29 #60001 by ReverendRevolver
I dig Branchahs spread :)

And pentex might be one of the very few things costed properly right now, there is no way making mmpa bloat its only users is better than a ban, since they are a listed offender of why people think change iw needed. How does exasperating 30% of the complaints solve the issue?
And im still not seeing how it should be in the crosshairs anyway, but the raise the cost approach is so far the worste erratra suggestion ive seen, since it fixes nothing.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.130 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum