On Giant's Blood 4. "problematic card"

I think the fact that literally EVERY deck plays one nowadays is a sign of a card that has no place in the game as it currently is. People play the thing on random 1-caps just to make sure it's played and prevent someone crosstable to gain 10 pool.

One could argue that Villein is what the problem is, but Villein just MADE it a problem. Villein did a LOT of good things for the game, but in the process it messed up a once perfectly fine card.

Izaak wrote: I think the fact that literally EVERY deck plays one nowadays is a sign of a card that has no place in the game as it currently is.

For 15+ years, EVERY deck played Blood Doll....

KevinM wrote:

Izaak wrote: I think the fact that literally EVERY deck plays one nowadays is a sign of a card that has no place in the game as it currently is.

For 15+ years, EVERY deck played Blood Doll....

YES! Lets make a Trifle Giant's Blood-like card that trumps Giant's Blood and is similar or stronger.
Kevin, you're a genius!

Izaak wrote: I think the fact that literally EVERY deck plays one nowadays is a sign of a card that has no place in the game as it currently is.

Get your facts straight before you try to use hyperbole.

The EC First Chance Qualifier from two weeks ago with 120 players did not have a Giant's Blood.

www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2011ecfcq

Jeff wrote:

Izaak wrote: I think the fact that literally EVERY deck plays one nowadays is a sign of a card that has no place in the game as it currently is.

Get your facts straight before you try to use hyperbole.

The EC First Chance Qualifier from two weeks ago with 120 players did not have a Giant's Blood.

www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2011ecfcq

Sorry, but I have to agree with Izaak somewhat. Giant's Blood goes in almost every high-cap deck. Good players never play without one. Why? At the very least to deny someone else 10 or 11 blood/pool.

Each time I play without GB, Martin Weinmayer aska me why I forgot to include it, and I say that want *actively* not to take part in the GB-lottery.

In every game I play (only if there are 5 weenie decks on the table) GB get's played quite early, say in turn 4 or 5 at the very least. It's a major pain in the ass. It's so "stupidly" good, that if you don't include it, you are shooting yourself in the foot, whether you need it or not. Which defines for me a card that has a powerlevel that is over the top.

MMPAs and recursion tech just made the card stronger, IMO, because you can get rid of it easily if you don't need it. No need to normally discard it any more.

Gain 5 or 6 blood would be entirely acceptable for such a card.

Amenophobis wrote: Sorry, but I have to agree with Izaak somewhat. Giant's Blood goes in almost every high-cap deck. Good players never play without one. Why? At the very least to deny someone else 1O or 11 blood/pool.

*NINE* of the 20 decks I profiled played WITHOUT Giant's Blood.

I consider the card a "must include" in every deck I make, but clearly other people are winning, and winning big, without it.

Giant's Blood is not the problem.