The point I'm trying to make is don't just write of C Wing just cause he has 6 power. It seems you're set in that he's a sac card and that people can't possibly pill him. And that people will always throw him out first so you can pick and choose what to punish him with. He could easily just hold him and throw him at Spiaghi or Lea or something. And even if he gets thrown out first, well since you seem adament that he's just a sac card then how many pills you going to back your nuke up with? Too many and you don't have pill advantage. Too few and you lose a nuke. And even if its just right, and you pill exactly enough to beat him, you still take damage and I get pills back. Then I wait for a good opening and hit you with, say caelus. How about that scenario? Or are all our decks going to be filled with DR and SOA and full stops?
As for how C Wing bluffs, well, it is kinda like Uranus isn't it? Uranus wins, you take damage. She loses she reduces damage. Win-win. What's C Wing? Win damage, lose damage. Win-win. Or Spiaghi? His bonus gets crushed by Uranus, his damage is pitiful. Is he useless too? Believe what you want, I think you're not seeing all possible uses of a card.
Oh, and the difference between C Wing making things a finisher or say Lehane, is that with Lehane or any other card, you have to win. This can work if you lose. And letting him through? Go ahead, I'll do 3 damage instead of 2. Or are you going to spend a DR on him?
Did I forget to say that I will let your C Wing through before I consider other options? Why would I even pill hard or pill too much against that card? 3 damage doesn't scare me or anyone. If your C Wing loses and I lose 2 life it does't scare me as well, I'd treat it like I lost a round and lost two life, same as any other scenario. It's like I take a hit from Lehane for two damage while my opponent stays ahead with a 1 pill advantage. I'd treat it like that. But with C Wing? C Wing is different. C Wing losing a round means that I hurt you more than it hurt me. Even if not played first your C Wing must lose first to be an effective card. And by losing and getting hit you would face problems of your own. You're thinking if I lose 2 life it would pose more problems for me than you would? Ever thought that your opponent would be happier to see you get hit harder compared to the -2 that he'd take willingly?
"How about that scenario? Or are all our decks going to be filled with DR and SOA"
You don't need to tell that to GHEIST or Roots users let alone people who actually uses at least one SOA and at least one DR in their decks compared to a single C Wing in a person's deck. One C Wing against a horde of other cards just don't cut it. There are a whole lot of ways and a whole lot of cards that will pose heavy problems for that card. Specially in ELO where you can't expect to have a lot of heavy hitters in your deck.
"As for how C Wing bluffs, well, it is kinda like Uranus isn't it?"
C Wing is not kinda like Uranus. Again, way different. Not even close. You saying C Wing is a win / win bluff card is like saying that bluffing with a Redra is a win / win situation and comparable to bluffing with a Uranus. Again, not even close. Uranus is in another league compared to C Wing. Uranus is a very effective bluff card. Do you even consider Redra to be a very effective bluff card?
"Oh, and I'm sure you didn't mean to say use DR's against LT."
Why? Nothing can stop LT's damage nowadays? Since when? Please enlighten me more. Oh, I'm pretty sure you haven't heard of the whole clan called Pussycats which creates commonly used half decks in ELO or Redra or Arno or Bristone or Deebler or.....
And if in case you haven't read my earlier comment, I'd point it out again for you.
Even if I play first or you play first, in a very harsh environment it will not matter. For C Wing to be effective it means you'd have to take a hit. You just don't pill to win with a C Wing when facing commonly used clans like Uppers, Sakrohm, Montana, Ulu Watu, etc. specially in T2 as you'd only be wasting your pillz for a mere 3 damage. I'll give you an example..this is a pretty common hand. And by common I mean that a lot of players make decks with similar, if not, the same components. This hand is so common it's all over the place.
Let's say I have a Jackie, Rubie, Uranus, and GraksmxxT in hand.
What will a C Wing plus a hard hitter combo do now? Even if I play first you would already have problems. If you play first you'd have bigger problems. Actually, you would already have problems even before any player makes a first move because you have a sacrificial card in the form of C Wing. And you have to admit, this hand is a pretty common sight out there. In the more solid and heavier T2 builds you'd even face larger problems like DJ Korr with DR capability with an 8 damage played in the first round, Kiki Cr with SOA and 8 damage played in the first round, General Cr who no one really knows if it is going for the kill or just bluffing which at the same time has SOA, and so on. C Wing is just not big enough to hang around with the big guns. In the end, C Wing is not even a decent bluff card, he can't bluff his way out of that can he now? In the end he'd look like just that, a card waiting to get sacrificed, a card that will make you take a hit, it's just a matter of how hard you'll get hit.
And now you're trying to defend saying using DR's against LT? Apart from SOA clans, Skeelz, and the cats, which are 4 clans, she smashes every other DR into the ground? Everyone must run those 4 clans, right? Otherwise why is she banned when she's so easy to stop? Either she's too good and she's banned, or she's easy to stop and should not be banned. You can't have it both ways. You know, I was going to debate you further but from this I'm gathering you refuse to see any point but your own. So be it.
Lets just wait to more c wings get into circulation and see how everything plays out. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps not.
Oh, and SOA, +life and DR kills Kolos as well as any 8 damage cards too. So why is one banned, and the others aren't? I'm just looking for one rule for all cards.
Perhaps you didn't catch me on LT? Want a different scenario with General Cr?
I pointed out a Zatman / LT example in relation to your unbanning of Kolos because of your reasoning that there are easy stops against Kolos. Just as there are easy ways to stop a Kolos there are ways to stop a Zatman and LT, simple as that, no need to get all touchy. As I said before and will say again, this card can stop that card, this card can beat that card. Bans in ELO are in place to balance the power in ELO. If Kolos gets unbanned why not unban Zatman and LT as well? LT's a measly 4 damager that can further be DR'd same with Zatman. Did I ever mention she's easily stopped? No, but she can be stopped. Please..she's that good and broken to deserve a ban. I just said that she can be DR'd and now you are trying to tell me that I'd DR one whenever I see one? Would I even always SOA or DR a Kolos when I see one? Me saying LT can be DR'd doesn't say that it is mandatory that I should DR LT when I see one and everyone should carry specific cards just for LT. And really now..un-ban Kolos? Let's un-ban General Cr while we're at it.
"I'm just looking for one rule for all cards."
Have you ever played MTG? Do they have a specific rule for banning the powerful cards? What about other card games? Do they have specific standards as well? None. They do the bannings to balance out the playing field.