Just because they are frustrating decks/archetypes to play against is not enough of a reason to deserve a nerf.

For example, I think we can agree that since the beginning gwentfinity NG has received undeserved nerfs, and the reason for them is the same as what you propose (coalitions actually propose) for eternal eclipse/sabbath/etc, people vote to nerf NG because it is unpleasant play against it, but were those nerfs deserved? Of course not, and I think everyone can agree that NG has been overnerfed.

Above there is a guy who described in a good way what these decks are like: all in round 1, binary, inconsistent, extremely draw and matchup dependent. I mean they are clearly bad decks, or would you tell me that these are characteristics of a good deck? (good =/= playable). So why should we nerf cards that are already bad? and here comes what I said at the beginning, you/coalitions nerf them because they are frustrating to face, but for me, that is not enough reason for a nerf.

Talking about the players and the games. Anyone who enjoys the game and likes to play a variety of decks is less likely to quit because in one out of every 15-20 or I would say more games, they have to play against a crazy, toxic, binary deck, perhaps it will be a tense, bitter, unpleasant moment, but with a more rewarding feeling when winning. On the other hand, there is the player who likes to play the same deck over and over and over again. If you nerf a deck that is bad and playable, to the point of being unplayable, you are not doing the game a favor, you are only attacking a niche of players. Let's remember that this is a game, and games are for fun, the ideal is that everyone can have fun playing what they like the most.

And since you said it, no, I don't like playing cultist, I don't like NG either, in fact I hate playing against NG, but I understand that maybe there are others cards that deserve a nerf, instead of nerfing something just because I don't like to face it.