Pentex Subversion Poll #2 and Discussion

Ashur wrote:

Sorry, I thought that was pretty obvious. But ok, I´ll explain: I think Pentex Subversion is a bit too good. It would be nicer if there was two cards instead. More interesting - should I include the block-denying card or the action-denying card?

Do you understand?

Now, I understand and disagree

Outside of the whole idea whether Pentex is too strong or not, there is some pitfalls with this approach :
* even if pentex-contest is clunky, it's doable. Here, it is suicidal to try to contest both, and if you have a star vampire, he's likely to both act and block. (not everytime mind you ; but some star deck will be a lot more affected than other)
* even if it's extremely costly, it mean you can lock the defence of your prey and the offense of your predator at the same time
* now, let's take the position of the deck which will not integrate both. They are likely to integrate the anti-action one, because they are defences immune to Pentex (bounce, bloat, even rush), while every deck will oust more slowly with one less minion. So the anti-action one will be played more, leading to even more timeout, since the anti-block option, while less often directly useful than the anti-action one, was one of the trump card to ensure an oust.

So, if Pentex is a problem, you don't convince me at all that this would help. I may be wrong, but that's my opinion.

I think it should stay as it is. Im against altering a game that is fantastic as it is. If people are so afraid of PS, include more sudden reversals then.

Pullen wrote:

Im against errata, ban it or leave it be.

Resurrecting this just because of the latest facebook thread.

Generally speaking, errata to radically change a card is just plain bad design policy. Seriously. Ban the problem card and make a new one. I'm (not?) surprised that the VEKN Design Team is even considering anything else. It's the cleanest solution by far.*

Personally, I think the only viable solution to *change* Pentex is to increase the cost. If it cost 3 or even 4 pool, people would reconsider whether they want to play it or even include it in their decks. A simple cost change is is easy to remember and would not require remembering the nuances of whatever possible future text exists.

Otherwise, start from scratch. Seriously. I gotta be the one to say this?

* The very elegant solution to Villein (adding a single word) is very different from fixing Pentex. Simply removing the words "cannot take actions" or "cannot block actions" would have a tremendous impact on whether people include the card in their decks. If the Pentex'd minion can only act, there's almost no defensive value to the card, so hyper aggro decks get an advantage. If the Pentex'd minion can only block, wall decks can still survive just as easily.

I'm not normally in favor of errata, but there are times when errata is better than banning. I wouldn't say this is a good test case, but I don't think it's always feasible to ban and publish or always worth "ban be gone".

Increasing Pentex's cost seems a horrible solution to the problem. The problem with cards like this one is the swing effect. If the effect is a bad effect, it doesn't matter what the cost is if the card continues to see play at that cost. If the cost is so high the card doesn't see play, it's effectively banned.

In other words, it doesn't make Pentex any more interesting a card in the game when the cost is increased, any more than Protect Thine Own would be a more interesting card if it cost 3 pool or Succubus Club a more interesting card if it cost 3 pool.