Part of the game (I would argue the most fun part) is adapting to your opponent. If your opponent likely has Invocation, don’t play a card in round 1 that you are unwilling to face later.
Having poor outcomes against a card when you play poorly is not convincing evidence the card is imbalanced.
What you're basically saying is, play your shitty cards because your opponent might have Invo. You know well how this will end. Losing R1, being pushed in R2 where you will have to play your good cards and eventually a lot of good targets for Invo will be there for the opponent to exploit in R3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An some general thoughts now after reading some posts in this thread.
All the "clever" ideas "don't go tall, go wide", "don't give your opponenet good targets", blah blah blah. It's all a load of BS. Decks are built to play certain way(s), not to avoid selected cards. And let's be honest, Invo targets are in most cases cards, that are later utilized by the opponent. People in this thread gave multiple examples how Invo can suck by snatching crappy bronze that got boosted. Although I consider this to be a mickey mouse argument, it is sometimes true, but then again, the amount of times Invo targets those is a small fraction, because except for maybe 1 deck that comes to my mind, no other decks play only shitty cards that has no value for the Invo player. But let's assume you Invo such crappy target. It means two things:
- you came to the conclusion, that your chances of winning the round is bigger if you remove a boosted shitty bronze (even if it will cost you sacrificing 1 mulligan) - which translates to: you removed a big chunk of points (not necessarily by nominal value, but by the percentage of what he's able to generate with his deck - by this I also mean the value that the card is able to do by damaging your points pool) from your oppoenent's side of the board. Simply put, you're not always removing points, but also potential.
- there's no other card on the board, that would be playable for you if you yoinked it
In both cases you usually remove a crucial card, even if it's sometimes a shitty bronze.
And one more thing, if this comes to your mind: "oh, I was playing against that deck, which had no valuable targets and my Invo sucked", then ask yourself two questions:
1. what was your intention to keep Invo in hand?
2. why did you keep Invo in hand knowing, that the chances for a good target, that would be useful for you, are slim?
I expect all sorts of made up answers, but in truth, it is this:
1. you were hoping to remove something that is of high significance for your oppoenet's deck/strategy.
2. you simply played poorly.
And I will repeat what I already posted dozens posts back. For 9 provision you have a removal with potential to replay that card yourself. When we take re-playing the card into consideration, we should be comparing with Renew or Hanmarvyn's Blue Dream. These cards are 12 provision. 12!! And only give you the possibility to re-play a 9 provision card at most. Therefore Invo is not at all balanced, just by comparing to the mentioned 2 cards. Defending Invo in the current shape is not justifiable in my opinion. You invest 9 provision and can remove and then play cards that are 10, 11, 12 provision. Meaning the provision swing for that card is way too much. And when it comes to removing shitty boosted bronzes, you invest 9 provision to remove significant amount of points + their potential to grow further. So the ony drawback and complaint, that you may end up with a shitty bronze on top of your deck, when you will still have a chance to mulligan it, is... laughable.
