The question I would ask is why are you removing things. Your given reason is simply based on false premises - EVERY card has its uses, and virtually all of them can make a *huge* difference. Of course, there are a lots of boards where lots of the cards are basically meaningless - but you can't know this without seeing all the cards! If you start removing the 'weak' cards, then what you end up with is a confirmation of your beliefs, because often they need each other; but most important, all your games start looking the same, and that makes things less interesting. Some of the best bits of the game are making those weak cards into real stars.
But what I really don't understand,, and what stops me from giving useful advice, is *why* you're wanting to get rid of these cards.
then we say that the talk of eliminating the cards was born with the chancellor
Okay, I get this - chancellor rarely does all that much for you, so what is the point? What I don't understand is why you have to 'eliminate' the card. What actual purpose does that serve? Or are you just saying to not include it when you pick sets of ten cards? Because it's too boring? I get that, I suppose, but I think you will find that there aren't many cards you could get rid of that would have this little impact - perhaps scout and adventurer are about the only other cards that fit here.
and all the cards that are in some way change the deck.
But I don't understand what you mean by this. You want to get rid of cards that change the deck? What do you mean by the deck? And what do you mean by change? Because to my mind, all of them do, and I am not seeing how chancellor stands out in this regard. Could you re-phrase this possibly? Because right now I don't understand your meaning.
I do not like this mechanic regardless,
I presume that you mean deck-flipping; this would have me tell you to expect not to like scavenger, from Dark Ages, which is the only other card that really has this mechanic.
and 2 cards ever that I want to remove are the chancellor and the scout.
But I don't see how this relates. Indeed, I can find very little connection between scout and chancellor overall; the biggest is that both are pretty weak, but this is not at all a mechanical feature.
then taking prosperity, I loved the platinum and the colonies, but I did not like the addition of components such as victory points, so I decided to remove the monument, the bishop and other cards that affect these components.
And these have seemingly no connection at all! It seems to me that the real thing here is that these are just cards that you personally don't like. Which is totally fine, of course! But if that is the connection between them, then you can't possibly expect other people to be able to predict what they are!
then I thought, why not create a set of identical cards for each expansion?
I really don't know what you mean here. None of the expansions have any of the same cards, how could you make a set of identical cards from each expansion. You mean a set of cards you don't like? This is my best guess, but I really don't understand what you are saying.
and I thought toglierne 5 for each set is a good choice
And I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are trying to say here. Anyone have any idea?
as between the various rankings, especially that of rrenaud that is very close to my tastes,
See, but these ranking are based on strength, not how much you people like them. And so you will get cards like the VP chip cards here, as they're good. So I'm again confused.
I see that many people say that there are cards that have never picked up, so I do not think to do things so strange! some people prefer to have them but do not take them, and those who do not even want on the table (like me).
I see very few people who have played more than a handful of games who say that they have never picked up any card. Of course, it is not strange to almost never get a card, sure. But I ask you again, why do you feel a need to not have them on the table? What does it gain you to not have them on the table? I don't understand how this is a benefit over simply not buying them.
also agricultural unbalanced cards banned from tournaments and are therefore eliminated! what's wrong?
I again have no idea what you mean here.