Fleder, Messenger, Greatsword- a card discussion.

This is no complain-post. It's meant to be a civilized discussion.

It's no news that Fleder and Messenger are by far the strongest bronze cards in their respective factions. And the good thing is that they actually succeded in bringing back old archetypes- vampires and rain.

The question is: why did CDPR ok such risky card design? Both Fleder and Messenger can be set up easily in the turn they are played, and escape the removal range of a standard removal options. And their respective decks are full of big threats (Elder, Orianna, Regis, Melusine, Defender) so wasting hard removal cards on bronze cards is a risky move.

Greatsword isn't even an autoinclude in ping-oriented SK decks because he has a harder time escaping the removal range on the turn he's played. And even if it was in it's vanilla form, both Fleder and Messenger would outpoint a Greatsword big time.

And I wouldn't bring Gord into the discussion because it's apples and oranges. Gord is made for a short round/pointslam turn, whereas these other cards suck in a short round.

Are Fleder and Messenger the "new" powerlevel CDPR is striving for? Or are they printed just so they can make irrelevant archetypes relevant again? What about Alumni? He requires the most set-up, but with PMP it's an apsurdly large amount of points, even for so much set up.

What's your take on this?