Hello dear reader,
I am convinced, that treatment to Gimpy Gerwin to change his provisions from 8 to 9 is inappropriate. Why do I think so?
Lets see, what kind of card Gimpy Gerwin is. He is not win condition or something, that you play and "BOOM, YOU WIN". Gimpy Gerwin is "tech card", which, when used in a deck, is making sure, that certain combo put into opponents deck, will not create something like "uncontrollable chain reaction". That is purpose and use of Gimpy Gerwin, that is, why he is played (at least by me) in (my) decks.
If developers think, that he is more effective than he should be, then proper treatment to tech card should not be making it less available to be put into deck (increasing its provisions from 8 to 9), but instead making card less effective (at example decresing power from 3 to 2).
Effect of decresing availability of a tech card has theoretically very significant impact on game environment and will just create other problems elsewhere. In my opinion, much better approach is to fix theoretically too high effectivity without creating other problems in same time.
Thank you for attention.
I am convinced, that treatment to Gimpy Gerwin to change his provisions from 8 to 9 is inappropriate. Why do I think so?
Lets see, what kind of card Gimpy Gerwin is. He is not win condition or something, that you play and "BOOM, YOU WIN". Gimpy Gerwin is "tech card", which, when used in a deck, is making sure, that certain combo put into opponents deck, will not create something like "uncontrollable chain reaction". That is purpose and use of Gimpy Gerwin, that is, why he is played (at least by me) in (my) decks.
If developers think, that he is more effective than he should be, then proper treatment to tech card should not be making it less available to be put into deck (increasing its provisions from 8 to 9), but instead making card less effective (at example decresing power from 3 to 2).
Effect of decresing availability of a tech card has theoretically very significant impact on game environment and will just create other problems elsewhere. In my opinion, much better approach is to fix theoretically too high effectivity without creating other problems in same time.
Thank you for attention.