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 and all the cards that are in some way change the deck. I do not like this mechanic regardless, and 2 cards ever that I want to remove are the chancellor and the scout. 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.
then I thought, why not create a set of identical cards for each expansion? and I thought toglierne 5 for each set is a good choice as between the various rankings, especially that of rrenaud that is very close to my tastes, 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). also agricultural unbalanced cards banned from tournaments and are therefore eliminated! what's wrong?
