I've noticed that, when discussing card balance (buff or nerf) several different arguments keep coming up over and over again that really aren't valid. Feel free to disagree with me and make your case as to why these are valid if you like. I've been known to be wrong on occasion.
Flawed arguments:
1) [card name] should be overpowered because it's rare
No it shouldn't. If rare cards are stronger than ones that can be bought in the bazar then it makes for a very negative experience for new players--there'll be no way they can compete since veteran players will have large numbers of overpowered cards, and will therefore almost always be able to field a stronger deck. Making rares overpowered is unfair to players who don't have access to the card. If anything, it's MORE important for a rare to be balanced.
2) [card name] is overpowered because it CAN do X (0.005% of the time. . .)
A card should never be evaluated for what it might do under absolutely ideal conditions. It should be evaluated by what it will do on average. Reliability is a virtue. After all, which is better, graboid or fate egg?
Fate egg CAN produce a creature stronger than a shrieker, but MOST of the time it won't.
3) [card name] is overpowered because in [PvP event] there was a deck using [card name] that dominated everyone.
Evaluating a card in-game versus just in theory IS very important, but there's a couple of things you need to look at before this is acceptable.
First, what are the rules to this PvP event? Almost all PvP events have a limited ruleset, and such rules often give an advantage to a specific tactic.
Second, how do you know that it was [card name] that gave that deck it's winning edge? You can make a lot of different speedbows from a big variety of different creatures, and no one creature can really be called essential. But building one without Supernova is a lot harder.
A card's performance in a tournament or similar event can be a good place to start from, but it isn't enough on it's own. If a given card dominates multiple PvP events (or conversely always performs poorly) then that's a good sign an adjustment is needed.
4) [card name] is overpowered/underpowered because everyone/no one uses it
Citing card usage statistics is easy, so a lot of people have taken to doing it, but doing so is wrong for several reasons.
First, not everyone plays a deck based on what cards are strongest.
Second, argument ad populum isn't a good place to stand. Its a logical fallacy.
Third, some cards you only need one of, while others you need many copies to be effective.
5) [card name] is underpowered because my deck doesn't work
Not meaning to be rude, but have you considered the possibility that the problem could be with your deck? If there are no deck that successfully use a given card that's one thing, but just being frustrated trying to get a tactic to work does not call for a change to the game.
The argument "[card name] is overpowered because someone beat me with it" is similarly flawed.
