Pentex Subversion Poll #2 and Discussion

Interesting. This is the first time the majority likes to change Pentex Subversion (at least until today with 55% for a change).

I do believe that weenie have nothing to do with the problem at hand.

Decebalus wrote:

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).

I just don't understand why anyone would think that. Superstar deck are neither more nor less diverse than weenie or midcap deck. You can make unimaginative weenie, and unimaginative superstar deck. You can also make very strange deck out of smallish vampire.

Superstar should not have a special status. They are a kind of deck, not a particulary desireable one in term of pure gameplay. (a lot of people do like having big monster in their deck ; however, it's not a reason to making them all powerful)

Decebalus wrote:

2) Most superstar decks are killed by Pentex, giving weenies the edge against superstar decks.

Well, superstar are not exactly doing that poorly against weenie. Just look at the blog of extrala and you'll see that 6-11 cap are not exceptional in winning deck. Maybe because anti weenie card does exist, some being able to hit you as hard as pentex ; in fact being big is in itself a powerful advantage against most card.

Decebalus wrote:

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.

It's not weenie deck the problem. It's not weenie deck that play Pentex, it's absolutely everyone, and one of the better tech against Pentex is playing 3 in your deck.

In addition, weenie deck are far from immune from pentex subvertion. Pentex will often be decisive against any deck.

Ohlmann wrote:

In addition, weenie deck are far from immune from pentex subvertion. Pentex will often be decisive against any deck.

I'm not sure about the other mentioned points. But this statement is false IMHO. I don't care at all, whether one of my 2-cap Pander is pentexed or not. With that many actions a weenie-deck offers I surely will get rid of PS. Or if removing the card really is a problem I just lose a 2-cap, so what?

if an additional cost isn't enough to keeping pextex in check (and i believe that it isn't; see also the many examples in the thread above), then only the idea with the countdown remains since a one per game restriction can still nerf a deck/superstar completely and wreck the rich vtes game experience.

i have no problem with pentex as a short term effect, but i do hate it when a large-cap (even if it isn't mine) is paralyzed for the most part of a game. it's just too damn monotone and depressing to watch. i mean i have had people PS a tupdog twice already (of course i don't really care about that!)

my $0.05

Heh I got a VP once by pentexing a Tupdog that was my preys only untapped minion. I personally think pentex is fine as it is, though. It is nice to at least have -some- change of getting a vp when your prey is playing some Una freakshow or Enkidu with 7 raptors + eternal vigilance stupidity.

porphyrion wrote:

i have no problem with pentex as a short term effect, but i do hate it when a large-cap (even if it isn't mine) is paralyzed for the most part of a game.

One solution for that would be to give control of Pentex to the target's controler. That would turn burning the Pentex into a action against the controler of the minion (similar to the Rescue action) with 2 effects:
-cross-table burning would be unblockable without an eagle sight,
-if the controler cannot get cross-table help, then he must be a big table threat and in that case it is harder for him to remove the Pentex himself since both his prey and predator can block.