Pentex Subversion Poll #2 and Discussion

If you cannot remove Pentex Subversion with the help of either the rest of the players at the table or by yourself, I understand it to mean that you are a serious threat that must be ousted (or the wall is just that good) .

In any case, I thought the idea of the game (at least competitively speaking) was to reduce the number of players at the table as quickly as possible for better micro management of the flow of the game. Pentex Subversion helps tremendously in that sense.

KevinM wrote: Where do you see that the VEKN Design Team is considering a change to Pentex Subversion?

The Design Team has not been discussing and are not discussing changes to Pentex Subversion or any other card. That is not our job. Errata and bannings are the job of the Rules Team. We are not members of the Rules Team, nor has the Rules Team asked the Design Team to review, comment on, or test any changes or errata. The Design Team also has no cards in development that serve a similar function to Pentex Subversion or that would replace it, nor have we been asked to do so by the Rules Team, the VEKN ICs, or anyone else.

Has anyone else gotten into the situation where, routinely, you hold your pentex so that you can contest a pentex? Its not by any means an every game thing, but wall on wall on wall certainly warrants it occasionally, if not often.

Now, we start the "sense dep is broken" argument, i will just insist people need to get better at burning the vampire who played it......

yesferatu wrote: No one has a problem with Sensory Deprivation

This is a lie. SenseDep is an awful, awful card because while it DOES HAVE a removal clause, the removal clause depends on doing something that is more difficult than anything else in the game. So it isn't really a removal clause -- which is the entire problem.

By way of comparison to the topic at-hand: Pentex HAS a removal clause.