|
Post by Tuism on Apr 2, 2012 18:06:12 GMT -5
I'm tending towards including 4 PPs in my decks instead of 5 cos I don't wanna draw them mid game too often. Testing it out
|
|
|
Post by tortimer on Apr 2, 2012 18:40:16 GMT -5
I'm tending towards including 4 PPs in my decks instead of 5 cos I don't wanna draw them mid game too often. Testing it out I did the same tests. I took one PP out (4 instead of 5) and from my tests it just wasn't as good. I got 2 and even 3 PP a lot more times in my opening hand. If you get 2 PP and have any other of your good cards it is a 99.9% chance of a automatic win.
|
|
|
Post by Raphael Majere on Apr 2, 2012 19:28:18 GMT -5
IMO, PP is a card that a deck must be built towards. ie, deck core card.
Since it's a core card, I'll put in 5.
If I am not using PP as a core card, I might as well go with 5 Dama + other income boosters. (Crop, Merchant, Forced, DI, Knowledge, etc)
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Apr 3, 2012 0:41:02 GMT -5
IMO, PP is a card that a deck must be built towards. ie, deck core card. Since it's a core card, I'll put in 5. If I am not using PP as a core card, I might as well go with 5 Dama + other income boosters. (Crop, Merchant, Forced, DI, Knowledge, etc) Well, I'm already running 5 damas and 5 KIPs, so having 4 PP means I still have a good chance of it in my opening hand and less chance of drawing them mid game en masse... I'll still play it over plentiful crap cos it's +1 as well to crap's +2... Ok experimenting with it still, see how it goes
|
|
|
Post by ironcladtrash on Apr 10, 2012 19:37:03 GMT -5
It's more like a black lotus, lol. For dark ritual, I had to pay 1 cc. Pp is also cost 0. lotus was banned, that is PP's future too while we have more media memories. I really think it should be banned. As an old school MTG player I agree completely it is just like black lotus. Even comparing it in this game to a card like plentiful crop it is too powerful.
|
|
|
Post by lefthighkick on Apr 10, 2012 20:18:16 GMT -5
I'm 100% against the idea of banning PP. PP expands the # of possible strategies. Aggressive decks that use PP to get ahead of counterspells or discard will suddenly find themselves too slow if it gets removed. And while it's true that control decks can take advantage of PP, at least it forces them to play Media. Counter/Draw, Counter/Discard and their ilk will never get to play with PP.
Nerf PP? Maybe... I could see them dropping the +1inc or something. But ban it? I sure hope not. Believe it or not, I think we'd miss it.
|
|
|
Post by tortimer on Apr 10, 2012 20:28:25 GMT -5
I agree about not banning PP. PP is a really powerful card but I can't remember the last time PP has been played against me and they won.
|
|
|
Post by ironcladtrash on Apr 10, 2012 20:28:35 GMT -5
I'm 100% against the idea of banning PP. PP expands the # of possible strategies. Aggressive decks that use PP to get ahead of counterspells or discard will suddenly find themselves too slow if it gets removed. And while it's true that control decks can take advantage of PP, at least it forces them to play Media. Counter/Draw, Counter/Discard and their ilk will never get to play with PP. Nerf PP? Maybe... I could see them dropping the +1inc or something. But ban it? I sure hope not. Believe it or not, I think we'd miss it. I'd be fine with nerfing it. And I do agree with your point. I guess I was just think along old school Magic days where they would ban a card but put in something similar but less powerful.
|
|
|
Post by Rob (Roebidoebi) on Apr 11, 2012 1:56:55 GMT -5
Yesterday I had a day-one 2x PP / Doomsday combo thrown back at my face with a Clothes make the man! LOL
These days I wait playing anything until I see my opponent not playing PP. A first turn Untimely End has saved my ass multiple times already.
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on Apr 11, 2012 6:23:38 GMT -5
PP is strong. But banning/nerfing it will just make slow decks stronger than they already are. I'm not sure I'd like that. ^^
I got only 4 PP during ages. I swear to you you want 5 in a deck. 5 or 0.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Apr 11, 2012 7:04:04 GMT -5
Yeah, it's nice to have a balance between strong speed and strong control, and both are a bit of a toss up. Plus it's media-only - which means it's NOT an all-purpose black lotus.
|
|
|
Post by pryingtuna85649 on May 9, 2012 9:47:41 GMT -5
I know this is a bit older thread, but I'm currently really pissed at this card. I don't think it's fair that this card bumps up your income temporarily to above your maximum when played at the beginning. Someone played this immediately followed by the thief "opponent loses 1 income point" right at the beginning of a game....so I was starting a game with only 1 income. I immediately quit. Maybe no one else thinks so, but the way opponent income pops up on the screen after this card is used makes this look like a bug when played at the beginning of the game. No other card allows you to go ABOVE your max income...unless it either doesn't work for me or it's a situational thing or a card I don't have, no other card has worked like this. That gold Honest Worker card doesn't allow you to go above your max income when its ability is used. So I don't think it's fair for this one to do the same. Even if it is only at the beginning of a game and requires a specific situation to work, it has been used on me enough to know that it's not OK. I mean, seriously, saying that it's balanced when someone pulls out PP to bring out a 4 cost card during the VERY first turn when your opponent can't respond to it in any way is absurd. Especially when the one at the receiving end of this knows that their only options are to either stay and get creamed or leave. While you can argue about the red 1 cost "opponent discards 1 card" card is equally as obnoxious (which it is obnoxious, though not equally so) and unbalanced, I would disagree since it's not allowing a person to bring out cards that can't normally be played until a few turns later. That's what irritates me most about PP. It's the only card that puts you above your max income and allows you to bring out 4 cost cards when the game has only JUST started.
|
|
|
Post by dabooo on May 9, 2012 11:01:01 GMT -5
Someone played this immediately followed by the thief "opponent loses 1 income point"; right at the beginning of a game....so I was starting a game with only 1 income. There's no thief like this ! Or... i'm interested ! Maybe youre talking about Corrupt Herald (-1B when scores) or Brilliant Burglary (surprise) ?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 9, 2012 12:19:21 GMT -5
I agree, it should not increase your income above a max value, and would resolve many issues surrounding the card.
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on May 9, 2012 12:33:54 GMT -5
If so, control decks would be the only way to be competitive.
|
|