Non-bounce bleed defence cards (was: Re: Non-bounce bleed defence)
Kevin M.
> If there were good (i.e. not highly conditional, not costing blood,
> reducing bleeds by 2 at a superior discipline) and flexible (i.e.
> the inferior ability is something useful and not bleed reduction
> involved) bleed reduction cards for non Auspex disciplines, they
> would be a reasonable basis for a non bounce bleed defense.
> Currently, other than a few sidelines (Truth in Ink is good, but
> limited to a small pool of minions; Nest of Eagles is good, but
> limited to a single clan, and doesn't save you from giant bleed-
> zookas; Detect Authority is theoretically good, but if you have tha,
> you also probably have dom...), bleed reduction is the sad abused
> stepchild of bleed defense. Make cards that are good and flexible,
> and not Auspex based, and you can start building good bleed defense
> that isn't bounce.
>
> The obvious (possibly too handy, but illustrate the idea) examples:
>
> obf: +1 stealth
> OBF: Reduce a bleed by 2
>
> cel: maneuver or press
> CEL: Reduce a bleed by 2
>
> for: prevent 1 damage
> FOR: Reduce a bleed by 2
>
> ani: Strike: 1R damage
> ANI: Reduce a bleed by 2
>
> Or whatever. These might be *too* flexible, and could use a bit of
> reigning in (especially the obf version), but the basic idea is what
> needs to be out there. Flexible, effective bleed reduction. Make
> bounce look slightly less like "Huh. I should have Deflection is
> every deck I ever make" than it currently is.
I don't think those kind of cards you cite as examples will ever
be printed, since a)they haven't already been, and b)they aren't
really in the flavor of those disciplines. What we need is something
more generic, something less-tied (or less able to be tied) to any
discipline, even if it becomes a staple. Something like:
Environmental Protection Agency
Event
Government.
All bleeds for more than 1 are reduced by 1. During your <x> phase,
remove from the game one card at random from your hand.
[or]
one of your minions takes 2 unpreventable damage.
[or]
lose 1 pool.
[or]
one of your minions takes 1 unpreventable damage and you lose 1 pool.
-or-
Oh No You Dint
Master: out-of-turn.
Discard X cards from your hand (draw afterward) to reduce a bleed
by X. A Methuselah may only play Only one Oh No You Dint per game.
-or-
And We Will All Go Down Together
Reaction
Only usable by an untapped vampire. Choose this vampire
and one or more other ready vampires of the same clan.
All chosen vampires may burn X blood to reduce a bleed by X.
These will probably never see the light of day, either. If they did,
I think you'd see them become staples, and maybe the game would
slow down a bit from where it is now, but really, stealth-bleed is so
strong now that, what, you'd see fewer stealth-bleed decks?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Please attend my qualifier! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/index.htm
Izaak
> Environmental Protection Agency
> Event
> Government.
> All bleeds for more than 1 are reduced by 1. During your <x> phase,
> remove from the game one card at random from your hand.
> [or]
> one of your minions takes 2 unpreventable damage.
> [or]
> lose 1 pool.
> [or]
> one of your minions takes 1 unpreventable damage and you lose 1 pool.
This would be quite playable, although all it does is bruise/bleed and more
toolboxy decks. You know, the kind of deck that usually bleeds for 1 and
sometimes for 2 or 3.
It would also really hurt Palla Grande and the Week of Nightmares. In the
case of the former nobody would really mind I guess, but the Week comes at a
rather steep cost. +1 bleed vampires would basically lose a 2-point special
and already cornercase cards like Pentex Loves You and that Anarch card that
does the same would never see play again.
>
> Oh No You Dint
> Master: out-of-turn.
> Discard X cards from your hand (draw afterward) to reduce a bleed
> by X. A Methuselah may only play Only one Oh No You Dint per game.
> And We Will All Go Down Together
> Reaction
> Only usable by an untapped vampire. Choose this vampire
> and one or more other ready vampires of the same clan.
> All chosen vampires may burn X blood to reduce a bleed by X.
>
>
> These will probably never see the light of day, either. If they did,
> I think you'd see them become staples, and maybe the game would
> slow down a bit from where it is now, but really, stealth-bleed is so
> strong now that, what, you'd see fewer stealth-bleed decks?
And even if they did, they are both so bad that we'd still end up crafting
on Dom and/or AUS.
Peter D Bakija
> I don't think those kind of cards you cite as examples will ever
> be printed, since a)they haven't already been, and b)they aren't
> really in the flavor of those disciplines.
Oh, sure, I realize that. But my assertion is that they *should* have
been. And still could be (see Steadfastness--essentially exactly what
I have been advocating for all these years, completely out of the
flavor of Fortitude, except not actually that good as it only reduces
by 1). There is no reason at all that bleed reduction should be in the
province of Auspex any more than any other discipline. The only reason
that people view bleed reduction as something that Auspex gets is
'cause in the original set, the designers made the mistake of giving
bleed reduction to Auspex instead of something else. And the game has
been hanging on that since day 1.
Like, in terms of game world flavor, there is no reason at all that,
say, Obfuscate couldn't get such a card--something like:
Conceal Assets
reaction
obf: Play when a minion takes an action to steal a location or
equipment (and/or ally/retainer?) you control. Cancel that action and
untap the acting minion.
OBF: Reduce a bleed by 2.
Totally viable, in terms of game fluff (you can use Obfuscate to hide
stuff, like equipment and resources!). A reasonably flexible reaction
only card. Gives modest bleed defense to a discipline that could use
it.
Animalism doesn't really need a bleed reduction card (as it has all
sorts of defense already). Celerity could probably use one. Maybe
Potence (a flexible Potence bleed reduction card? Something like "pot:
Make a hand strike at strength +1. POT: Reduce a bleed by 2"? That
would go a really long way towards making rush combat more viable.
See--it all comes together!). A better one for Fortitude. That might
go somewhere.
> What we need is something
> more generic, something less-tied (or less able to be tied) to any
> discipline, even if it becomes a staple. Something like:
Sure, that is an idea too. I like the "move bleed reduction to other
disciplines" just 'cause in a design sense, I think bleed reduction
should be in the hands of disciplines that can't bounce. As that makes
bleed defense more viable for non bounce disciplines. And if they were
flexible (i.e. reduce a bleed *or* do something not bleed reduction
related, so you can feel good about putting a bunch in your deck and
not have to be all "Man. My below the curve defense cards suck even
more now, as my predator is voting me to death..."), they see more
use, and the best way to make the flexible is with the multi level
discipline model.
Again, to look back at Steadfastness (which is *almost* a great card),
Fortitude gets two things that Fortitude never had before--intercept
(Fortitude intercept? Really?) and bleed reduction. So clearly, the
designers are willing to dabble in giving bleed reduction to
disciplines that don't have bleed reduction. But the "reduce a bleed
by 1" isn't really a strong enough effect to rely on for defense. Much
like the "reduce a bleed by 1" of Confusion of the Eye (again, a
discipline that didn't originally have bleed reduction getting bleed
reduction...), it is more of a "you can always cycle this card for a
modest effect if you can't use the main effect" aspect (i.e.
Confusion's strong effect on votes is conditional and often won't come
up; Steadfastness' +1 intercept is conditional and often won't be
needed) than something you really are going to put the card in the
deck for.
> Environmental Protection Agency
> Event
> Government.
> All bleeds for more than 1 are reduced by 1. During your <x> phase,
> remove from the game one card at random from your hand.
Yeah, see, that strikes me (fully realizing that it is just an example
and not that fully realized) as not as effective as simply giving some
new disciplines the ability to flexibly reduce bleeds by 2--how many
are going to be in a deck so that you get one early? And it shoots you
in the foot for playing it (in the snipped added text). And totally
hoses strategies that rely on modest bleeds of 2-3 while not affecting
bleedzooka decks at all, and the bleedzooka decks (the ones that bleed
for 5 per action with an inferior discipline, say) are the ones that
need trimming back, really.
> These will probably never see the light of day, either. If they did,
> I think you'd see them become staples, and maybe the game would
> slow down a bit from where it is now, but really, stealth-bleed is so
> strong now that, what, you'd see fewer stealth-bleed decks?
Yeah, probably not. Again, in the name of not having Too Much Defense
(which makes the game stop working), I don't need to see S+B decks get
anti-teched out of existence. But having some reasonably effective,
non bounce bleed defense available would probably go a long way
towards making S+B decks slow down some and make the "Huh. This deck
would be good. If I could graft Dominate in for Deflection." aspect of
deck construction less of an issue.
Bleed reduction isn't a great defense, relative to bounce, for all the
reasons already illuminated of late. And one of the big problems with
it is that it has a not insignificant opportunity cost--if your
predator isn't bleeding you, or is bleeding you for 1 a lot, having a
Telepathic Counter in your hand isn't that helpful. The same can be
said of Deflection, but the payoff for having a Deflection in your
hand is so much higher, so the tradeoff is worth it. Ancestor's
Insight (the auspex/Laibon "reduce a bleed by 1/bleed at +1") *would*
be an awesome card, if only the Laibon had a more viable crypt for
AUS. And didn't come with Telepathic Misdirection (so you could use a
card slot on Ancestor's Insight to reduce a bleed by 1 or bleed
someone for +1. Or a Telepathic Misdirection to reduce a bleed by 5
*and* bleed your prey for 5...). Now, if Ancestor's Insight was for,
like, Potence instead ("Ancestor's Might?" I dunno. Something. A
discipline that came on multiple Laibon clans, say), it would probably
be very useful.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> And even if they did, they are both so bad that we'd still end up [g]rafting
> on Dom and/or AUS.
Yeah, see, that is the thing--when was the last time anyone made a
deck that didn't go through the "Huh. How do I get bounce in here?"
phase, and started looking for minions with dominate to get it there,
or whatever, just for the bounce? Like, every deck I make these days
goes through that phase, and most of the time, I just end up figuring
out how to get a bunch of AUS in there for Telepathic Misdirections
(I'd rather have 3 cap nerds with AUS and TM than 3 caps with dom and
Deflections for the flexibility). All the time. And when I can't, I
just resign myself to probably getting killed.
People decry adding (good) bleed reduction to other disciplines as
making the game "boring", as it makes a lot of disciplines to the same
thing. I think the game, in many ways, already *is* boring--if you
don't have bounce? Your likelihood of doing well in a tournament is
incredibly small. So [slight exaggeration] all [/slight exaggeration]
decks have bounce. That is boring.
-Peter
Azel
and regular reduction are different, and why bounce often gets the nod
as being better for construction when entering a blind tournament.
barring counter-measures and magical meth hands with perfect setups,
let's break down the two effects:
bounce does 2 things. a) reduces bleed against you to zero. b)
launches the assault on you upon a target of your choice. it is both
defense and offense.
regular bleed reduction (RBR) does 1 thing. a) reduces bleeds against
you by X. often X = 1, with 2 being a high standard, higher reduce is
rare.
now, remember, every card is comprised of these elements to get into
play: 1) windows of opportunity, 2) restrictions (on targets, usage,
etc) 3) requirements (aka costs). i'm sure there's other things i'm
forgetting, but currently these are the big relevant things.
-- window of opportunity: both are during bleeds against you (some
exceptions do apply to some cross-table regular bleed reduction
"RBR").
-- restrictions: Redirection can't target allies, MEE + Determine must
use only against g-pred, MotFW targets younger only, LiT is
hamstrung... but overall Deflection & TM are pretty open. oddly, a lot
of RBR does have higher restrictions on average; Nest of Eagles,
Banner of Neutrality, Confusion of the Eye, Friend of Mine, Terra
Incognita, Truth in Ink, etc. a very strange difference, esp
considering power difference.
-- requirements: this is where RBR is supposed to overshine Bounce.
overall there is more access to sects, clan, traits, etc. both have a
disciplineless version (with neither really catching on).
of the 6 bounce cards (IIRC), 3 bounce are free (MotFW, Redirect,
MEE), 1 costs 1 conv, and 2 cost 1 blood. of the 24 RBR, 4 are Master
cards. of the 20 left, 7 cost blood, and 8 are clan/sect dependent.
and RBR has the saving grace of not having to tap to use, whereas all
bounce taps you (but isn't a strict cost, a la Mole's "tap to"
requirement, therefore circumventable by wakes).
these reference stats should help future design ideas.
overall though, remember the difference here is RBRs geared toward
spamming reduction while remaining untapped, while bounce takes a
bleed, reduces it to zero, and gets offense. what does that mean? it
means RBR works best against hordes of small bleeds and Bounce works
best against big bleed.
now, both horde bleed and big bleed appear in the tourney scene, so
why aren't they on par? RBR works great en masse v. small bleeds, but
falls quite short against big bleed. Bounce on the other hand, works
the best against big bleed. in fact, the only other real counterpoint
to big bleed is Archon Investigation (something we really should not
encourage further variations on). it gets you defense and offense,
which serves to rework a big bleeder into your tool, thwarting their
game. and even though it cannot spam enough against hordes of small
bleeds, each small bleed ends up as offense for which to weaken one's
targets and setup lunges for VPs.
bounce covers the immediate threat of early big bleeds, and big bleeds
in general. while its weakness against bleeding hordes ends up using
them as additional offense (and particularly the most dangerous of
these bleeds as well). regular bleed reduction pretty much grants
defense only, and cannot reliably save you versus serious big bleeds.
its major advantage against hordes is metagame dependent and card
intensive. in most games, you'll be bled with a mix of small bleeds
and big bleeds, but it is routinely "the lunge" you worry about. for
decks that lunge, big bleeding is pretty easy to get and splash,
whereas horde bleeding requires more focused construction. therefore,
on a 1-to-1 card ratio, bounce covers more angles defensively -- and
is the only one to give you additional setup for lunge.
this is why many players prefer bounce in general and particularly
when going into tournaments w/o a sure read on the metagame. sadly, i
cannot think of a way around this by continuing on the path we are
currently on. ideas for regular bleed reduction need to reassess
design in the face of this, particularly the 3 card elements and the 2
card effects. i cannot think of a way around the element of 'window of
opportunity,' and on the face of it bounce is slightly ahead in terms
of the elements of restrictions and requirements.
the easiest way i think improvement can be done is answering the
question "what other effect can i give RBR that compensates for both
not reducing a bleed to zero & giving me offense." that's a hard
creativity question...
Matthew T. Morgan
> These will probably never see the light of day, either. If they did,
> I think you'd see them become staples, and maybe the game would
> slow down a bit from where it is now, but really, stealth-bleed is so
> strong now that, what, you'd see fewer stealth-bleed decks?
Why is it desireable to slow the game down? I'd rather speed it up.
There are still too many timeouts for my taste.
Peter D Bakija
> Why is it desireable to slow the game down? I'd rather speed it up.
> There are still too many timeouts for my taste.
I wouldn't say the plan is to slow the game down, in the sense that
anyone wants to make games take significantly longer (as I don't think
it would if bleed defense was diversified some). And really, I don't
think that games timing out is the result of bleed defense, so much as
it is about people talking too damn much ("Hey! My prey! I'm gonna
spend the next 10 minutes trying to convince you to help me win, even
though it is patently insane to do so!")--in casual play, I rarely see
games go to the two hour mark. 'Cause in casual play, we don't have
people trying to verbally squeeze every possible advantage out of
every possible action. But that is a whole other subject. In any case,
I don't think that diversifying effective bleed reduction would slow
the game down such that games would time out more.
Currently, if you want a deck to be viable in a tournament situation?
You have bounce in it. Sure, once and a while, you run into a good
deck here or there that doesn't have bounce in it, but as a gross
generalization, most decks on the competitive level have bounce in
them. If some of those decks had access to flexible, reasonably good
bleed reduction instead of bounce, you'd probably have the same amount
of bleed defense in circulation, but you'd have more different kinds
of decks. And some decks that aren't currently viable ('cause they
have no reasonable access to bounce and no other good bleed defenses)
and aren't getting played in tournaments suddenly would be possibly
viable for competition. Which doesn't mean the game slows down, it
means that some deck that had bleed bounce is replaced by some deck
that had bleed reduction.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> i think the big issue here is people keep losing sight over why bounce
> and regular reduction are different, and why bounce often gets the nod
> as being better for construction when entering a blind tournament.
No one is losing sight of that at all. Bounce is, the vast majority of
situations, just amazingly better than reduction. For reasons that
have been expounded upon a great length already. Bounce is generally
preferable. And I don't think anyone (well, at least me) is interested
in making reduction as good as bounce.
I'm interested in reduction becoming something that decks that don't
currently have access to bounce (by giving effective and flexible
reduction to disciplines that don't have bleed defense available
already) get to look to as a possible defense mechanism. To open up
the number of potentially playable decks. And reduce the endless game
of "let's graft on Dominate!" that most decks go through and often
settle on. Flexible, effective (i.e. reduce by 2 at a superior
discipline) bleed reduction would *still* not be as good as bounce.
But at least it would be something. And would help diversify deck
design.
-Peter
Mathieu Rivero
Harbinger of One's Own Fall
(some clan requirement)
Master : Out-of-turn.
Play after a bleed against you is successful. The acting minion's
controller burns X pool, where X is the amount of pool you burn due to
the bleed. This Methuselah can burn one pool to cancel that effect and
the bleed (untap the acting minion). Only one Harbinger of One's Own
Fall can be played per game.
The clan requirement is necessary, and should be used to reinforce a
clan. Like Nagaraja, Harbingers, some Laibons... whatever.
Shatter the resolve
Reaction
Cost : X blood.
dem : reduce the bleed by X.
DEM : put this card on the acting vampire with X counters. The vampire
with this card gets -1 bleed per counter. Remove 1 counter during the
acting minion controller's untap phase. Burn this cards if it has no
counters. The acting vampire can attempt a +1 stealth action to burn 1
counter. A vampire can only have 1 Shatter the resolve.
My 50 cents...
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> Harbinger of One's Own Fall
> (some clan requirement)
> Master : Out-of-turn.
> Play after a bleed against you is successful. The acting minion's
> controller burns X pool, where X is the amount of pool you burn due to
> the bleed. This Methuselah can burn one pool to cancel that effect and
> the bleed (untap the acting minion). Only one Harbinger of One's Own
> Fall can be played per game.
Certainly a clever idea, but I'm generally opposed to, in this
instance, the "only once per game" effects that people keep coming up
with--cards that are only once per game aren't really good for
building a defense around. They help if you luckily draw one at the
right time (how many once per game effect cards in a deck?), but
aren't so much a viable defense model.
> The clan requirement is necessary, and should be used to reinforce a
> clan. Like Nagaraja, Harbingers, some Laibons... whatever.
Most of whom have access to bounce...
> Shatter the resolve
> Reaction
> Cost : X blood.
> dem : reduce the bleed by X.
> DEM : put this card on the acting vampire with X counters. The vampire
> with this card gets -1 bleed per counter. Remove 1 counter during the
> acting minion controller's untap phase. Burn this cards if it has no
> counters. The acting vampire can attempt a +1 stealth action to burn 1
> counter. A vampire can only have 1 Shatter the resolve.
Dementation has bleed reduction. And comes with Auspex.
-Peter
Demnogonis Saastuttaja
Ghouled Protectors
Reaction, usable by a tapped vampire.
Reduce a bleed against you by 2 unless the controller of the acting
minion discards a master card.
Anyway, I have nothing against introducing reduce to some disciplines,
and a cloned TC in Obfuscate would be fine with me.
Mathieu Rivero
was just for usual roleplay.
Concerning Harbinger of One's Own Fall : the card I proposed is in a
raw state. The clans I proposed were not here on purpose, i just threw
in not that played clans. The requirement can be whatever needs to be,
setite, brujah, anarch, and so forth. If the Once per game clause
bother you, let's just make it this way :
Harbinger of One's Own Fall
(some clan requirement)
Master : Out-of-turn.
Cost : 1 pool
Play after a bleed against you is successful. The acting minion's
controller burns X pool, where X is the amount of pool you burn due to
the bleed. This Methuselah can cancel that effect and the bleed
(untap the acting minion).
Another stupid idea :
Intelligence Agent Cell
Retainer
Requires an Assamite
Cost : 2 blood
Each time the minion with this card plays a reaction card, the
opposing minion's bleed is reduced by 1 until end of action.
>Nest of eagles = becomes spicy good.
SPORE
1) bleed bounce [deflection]
2) bleed reduction [telepathic counter]
3) catch the bleed; may involve ludicrous intercept or auto-catch
[draba]
4) cancellation of bleed cards [D.I.]
5) hindering the bleed action/s from occurring [lunatic eruption]
6) punishing the transgressor minion or methuselah; allow the bleed or
not. [Archon Investigation]
7) outgain bleeds with pool [con. boons]
8) meta-game combat/etc gangbang on bleeders.
this already seems like a good variety, with many possible variants
available, as well as many possible variants able to be added in the
future. i favor more of 5 and 6 (and 8!) in addition to new cards
that are somewhat like Sensory Dep just for bleeds, cards similar to
Touch of Pain, but a little stronger.
to encourage 8, more cards like Fast Reaction, but with combat bonuses
based on the bleed amount or that let you red-list the bleeder...
Azel
> On Dec 20, 11:29 am, Azel <opaop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > i think the big issue here is people keep losing sight over why bounce
> > and regular reduction are different, and why bounce often gets the nod
> > as being better for construction when entering a blind tournament.
>
> No one is losing sight of that at all. Bounce is, the vast majority of
> situations, just amazingly better than reduction. For reasons that
> have been expounded upon a great length already. Bounce is generally
> preferable. And I don't think anyone (well, at least me) is interested
> in making reduction as good as bounce.
wait, define this more. you do not want regular bleed reduction as
strong as the bleed reduction for bounce, correct? because both of
them reduce. what RBR does is permanently alter the bleed and not use
it as offense, leaving it at a failing bleed state while still
targeted action against you. so in essence, you do not want regular
bleed to cover the defensive territory as being the apex of bleed
reduction. you want it to still be vulnerable to big bleed, which is
why bounce i so popular. essentially you want it to fail in comparison
like it has been doing so already.
or are you just afraid of making an uncreative "palette swap" out of
RBR? see, i think that, even though this is a hard creativity issue,
it *could* be possible to dream up new solutions. but the big reason
to know why a lot of these new creations seem so lackluster is what
bounce covers defensively, and its additional add value. can we out
create this hurdle? or should we give up and continually address
the_wrong_problem (that RBR focuses on horde bleed and bounce on big
bleed).
> I'm interested in reduction becoming something that decks that don't
> currently have access to bounce (by giving effective and flexible
> reduction to disciplines that don't have bleed defense available
> already) get to look to as a possible defense mechanism. To open up
> the number of potentially playable decks. And reduce the endless game
> of "let's graft on Dominate!" that most decks go through and often
> settle on. Flexible, effective (i.e. reduce by 2 at a superior
> discipline) bleed reduction would *still* not be as good as bounce.
> But at least it would be something. And would help diversify deck
> design.
>
> -Peter
that's a pipe dream. only bounce can compete with bounce as it stands.
this is because of the nature of what bounce is defending against in
the game (big bleed) AND how its response also ends up with additional
offense for your game. what RBR *can* do is move from horde bleed
spamming into big bleed protection & add significant add value. now,
that add value can be personal (or table) benefit, in the form of more
offense, more defense, more resources *or* opposing punishment, by
loss of resources, offense, or defense.
here's a benefit example, focusing on gaining resources.
Fortuitous Bank Error
Reaction
1 blood
Requires a vampire with capacity greater than 4.
Gain X-3 pool, where X is equal to the amount of a bleed against you.
Then reduce this bleed against you to zero.
and now a punishment example, focusing on offense loss.
Lost Along the Way
Reaction
1 blood
Reacting minion must be older or of a different sect than the acting
vampire.
Tap this vampire. Cause a bleed action against you to fail. The acting
minion does not untap as normal next untap phase.
now both deal with reducing a bleed to zero so as to compete with
bounce v. big bleed. and this also illustrates additional effects to
increase value so as to compete with bounce.
with this sort of conceptual breakdown, people should have an easier
time figuring out where they can improve their creations. this should
help their creativity reach a competitive threshold of viability
versus bounce cards w/o being uncreative copies.
Orange Devil
> or are you just afraid of making an uncreative "palette swap" out of
> RBR? see, i think that, even though this is a hard creativity issue,
> it *could* be possible to dream up new solutions. but the big reason
> to know why a lot of these new creations seem so lackluster is what
> bounce covers defensively, and its additional add value. can we out
> create this hurdle? or should we give up and continually address
> the_wrong_problem (that RBR focuses on horde bleed and bounce on big
> bleed).
So how about "reduce the bleed to 0, this card can only be played once
per turn"?
It protects against the big bleed, and the worst part of the horde
bleed (although player skill is required to make sure this card hits
the right bleed) but because of it's restriction it won't make anyone
immune to bleed. It's still viable to pack like 6 or even more of
these in a deck. Give this as a superior effect to a discipline that
really needs it, make the inferior effect either something flexible,
or if that's too strong, make the inferior effect reduce a bleed by 2
or something (2 seems justified seeing as how now the card can't be
played on superior this turn).
Azel
> So how about "reduce the bleed to 0, this card can only be played once
> per turn"?
>
> It protects against the big bleed, and the worst part of the horde
> bleed (although player skill is required to make sure this card hits
> the right bleed) but because of it's restriction it won't make anyone
> immune to bleed. It's still viable to pack like 6 or even more of
> these in a deck. Give this as a superior effect to a discipline that
> really needs it, make the inferior effect either something flexible,
> or if that's too strong, make the inferior effect reduce a bleed by 2
> or something (2 seems justified seeing as how now the card can't be
> played on superior this turn).
well, this is a good start to thinking creatively.
but "once per turn" is a brutal restriction. bounce easily "reduces
the bleed to 0" multiple times in a turn (and then gives offense...).
so even if you made this have the routine "being targeted by a bleed"
restriction, and no other requirements (leaving you untapped after),
you still could only defend against 1 big bleed a turn. i could just
Deflect multiple times instead of praying i reduced the 1 big bleed
this turn.
second, let's think about this if its restrictions were open to use
cross-table. this could eventually void bleeds entirely for multiple
rounds at a table. that would be a disaster, asking for time outs
galore. is this what we want from the game? stagnation? again, the add
value is critical -- it gives a reason to destabilize stasis and keep
the game moving forward. this is a good thing.
now, after all that, i ask you and others: will this construction
entice you away from bounce grafting? you know, it's very easy to
change one's crypt so as to graft bounce -- and table collapse leads
to VPs.
Peter D Bakija
> wait, define this more. you do not want regular bleed reduction as
> strong as the bleed reduction for bounce, correct?
No, I don't think bleed reduction *needs* to be as strong as bounce.
Bounce is incredibly handy, but has a significant cost--generally tap
a minion (Deflection at superior mitigates this, but at the cost of
flexibility in that it is only useful vs bleeds as opposed to, say,
Telepathic Misdirection).
If reduction was flexible (i.e. came on cards that doubled as
something else useful at the inferior level) and effective (i.e.
unrestricted reduce by 2 at a superior discipline) and on disciplines
that came without bounce (i.e. Obfuscate or Celerity or Potence or
Serpentis for example), it would show up in decks that need bleed
defense and don't want to shoehorn in Dominate or Auspex. Which would
mean:
A) Increased bleed defense for non bounce enabled clans.
B) Less shoehorned in Dominate.
> essentially you want it to fail in comparison
> like it has been doing so already.
No, I want it to be more available in situations where it wasn't
already and when bounce isn't a reasonable option. Currently, bleed
reduction is unattractive, as the best reduction card (Telepathic
Counter) comes in the same discipline as one of the best bounce cards
(Telepathic Misdirection). For the same discipline and same card slot,
you could reduce a bleed by 2 *or* reduce a bleed by infinity and make
your prey take it instead. Consequently, the best reduction card in
the game (Telepathic Counter) seems like a waste of effort and
resources the vast majority of the time. The rest of the reduction in
the game tends to be undereffective by design--either it is too
conditional (i.e. has a lot of restrictions), not effective enough to
bother with (only reduces by 1), or again, comes from a discipline
that generally also has access to bounce (Tha, Dem).
If good, non conditional, flexible bleed reduction was available to,
say, Obfuscate or Celerity, it would likely see play, provide
increased bleed defenses where currently none exist, and reduce the
need to shoehorn in Dominate to every deck you ever make.
> that's a pipe dream. only bounce can compete with bounce as it stands.
I don't know that this is true. Yes. Bounce is incredibly good, and
reduction will never be as good as bounce (and shouldn't be, as bounce
comes with, generally speaking, a higher cost and higher risk--you
bounce a bleed, it can always be bounced back. You reduce a bleed, the
transaction is over). But if reduction was flexible (i.e. playable for
something other than bleed reduction as well), effective (reduce by 2
for no blood at a superior discipline), it would show up more and
result in less grafted on dominate. I mean, maybe it wouldn't. But all
that happens in that case is that 2 or 3 cards are printed that don't
see a ton of play (nothing new there) and people still graft Dominate
into all their decks. But I suspect that the result would be more
people trying more decks that don't have bounce, as they have, at the
very least, a reasonable alternative ot grafting on dominate.
-Peter
Mathieu Rivero
bleed. That is a positive affirmation and doesn't need to be
discussed.
Vampires with no access to bounce should be, however, be granted an
extra protection against bleed. I don't mean cards like "usable by a
tapped vampire, reduce a bleed to 0". I mean good bleed reduction like
Telepathic Counter or Keep it Simple. Effective deterrents like Archon
Investigation are not really enough to provide a good defence against
bleed. If bleed reducing cards are to be printed, two things should
not be underlooked : bleed shouln't be made useless by such cards,
bleed reducing has to be playable and accessible.
n some (a lot of, in fact) decks, Archon Investigation is not playable
because of its "volume" in a master module. If only it were trifle...
Tthere should be a "weaker" trifle version like : Play if a vampire
successfully bleeds you. If the bleed was less than 3, the bleed is
reduced to 0. If the bleed was more than 3, the bleed is reduced to 0
and the acting vampire goes to torpor.
50 cents again.
Orange Devil
Ah right, I was thinking of only letting that card reduce bleeds
against yourself, rather then any bleed on the table, since that's
what most reduce cards do. I don't think Deflection is a good standard
to judge reduce by, because really, every other bounce card other then
Telepathic Misdirection pales in comparison (and really, if I'm
playing bounce rather then intercept, I'd rather have another
Deflection then a Telepathic Misdirection in almost all cases). I
think "<superior discipline that needs a defense upgrade> Reduce a
bleed against you to 0, only usable once per turn." isn't all that bad
to address the problem of big bleed that regular bleed reducers can't
cope with, as you yourself pointed out. Say, 6-8 of such a card + a
small intercept module (maybe 8 cards and 2 or 3 permanent masters) or
another 6-8 more regular "reduce by 2" reduce cards (preferably with a
flexible alternative usage, such as gaining votes or intercept or
something) seems to me like an entirely playable defense module for a
90 card deck. Maybe add in a Narrow Minds and a few copies of Two
Wrongs. You'd be looking at about 15-20 cards tops for defense on a 90
card deck or as little as 8-12, which doesn't seem all that much more
then most deflection + wake modules. Especially if you get some anti-
referendum stuff build in on the bounce cards so you can cut out the 2
or so copies of Delaying Tactics you would probably otherwise be
using. A module like that would only need 2 new cards too: the 'reduce
to 0' card above and a regular 'reduce by 2 / do something against
votes' card.
Salem
>...
> If reduction was flexible (i.e. came on cards that doubled as
> something else useful at the inferior level) and effective (i.e.
> unrestricted reduce by 2 at a superior discipline) and on disciplines
> that came without bounce (i.e. Obfuscate or Celerity or Potence or
> Serpentis for example), it would show up in decks that need bleed
> defense and don't want to shoehorn in Dominate or Auspex.
Peter, while I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, I
disagree that it should be in obfuscate, specifically. Obf is already a
great payload delivery system, tying it to strong offenc. I'd be
disinclined to see it's defence get beefed up, too.
Pot or Cel or For would be fine though. Clans with those disciplines
need the defence (brujah, nos, bb, etc), or already have access to
bounce (tor, !vent, vent) so good reduce will still be unlikely to show
up in their decks.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Peter D Bakija
> Peter, while I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, I
> disagree that it should be in obfuscate, specifically. Obf is already a
> great payload delivery system, tying it to strong offenc. I'd be
> disinclined to see it's defence get beefed up, too.
Oh, ya know, fair enough. Obfuscate is just a really convenient
example. That being said, Obfuscate already has some sub optimal
reduction (in Confusion of the Eye), and I don't know that giving it a
Reduce by 2 at OBF card would really push Obfuscate over the edge--I
have a reasonably solid weenie obfuscate Black Hand bleed deck that
packs 8 Truth in Inks, and while it is a pretty good deck, it is
hardly tearing up the pea patch, and I don't know that, say, if the
Truth in Inks were slightly better and obfuscate based, it would
suddenly be a total killer. But I certainly see where you are coming
from.
> Pot or Cel or For would be fine though. Clans with those disciplines
> need the defence (brujah, nos, bb, etc), or already have access to
> bounce (tor, !vent, vent) so good reduce will still be unlikely to show
> up in their decks.
Yeah, that seems reasonable. But still leaves the Settites out in the
cold.
-Peter
ira...@gmail.com
Celerity has Aversion:
Aversion
Reaction
Valeren / Celerity
[1 Blood]
[cel] Reduce a bleed against you by 1.
[val] Burn X pool to reduce a bleed against you by 2X+1.
[VAL] Only usable when a minion is bleeding you for 1 or more. Put
this card on the acting minion. You still control this card. This
minion gets -1 bleed when bleeding you. Any minion may burn this card
as a +1 stealth (D) action.
I think the design problem that's trying to be addressed here is that
massive bleed is very strong, and any defense other than bounce is
much weaker. What about this non-bounce solution:
Slow Down
Master Out-of-Turn
Only playable during your predator's minion phase. Only playable if
you've lost more than 5 pool this turn.
Gain 3 pool. Your predator loses 3 pool.
That may be too powerful, so another option would be:
Slow Down 2
Master Out-of-Turn
Only playable during your predator's untap phase. Do not replace
until your next untap phase.
Put this card in play. If you lose more than 5 pool this turn, you
may burn this card to gain 3 pool and to cause your predator to lose 3
pool. Burn this card at the end of the turn.
Also, the current card text is broken by Enkil Cog a Remnant of the
Endless Storm, or taking a little pool damage, and then Enkil Cog
something expensive in your predator's turn. But I guess that's not
particularly broken since it's a difficult combo to pull off.
Ira
Jyhad
compared to bounce. However in the recent Storyline a Malk deck was
playing reduce while it cheesed forward. Typically leaving at least
one to stay untap to reduce with both TM and the Dem card. Sometimes
playing wakes in order to play multiples as well and was able to
survive and win a relatively bleedy table. Mistress Fanchion Deck(i
forget motivation) bleeding Weenie Assamite and Thucimia(Knowledge)
bleeding Laibon Assamites(Jyhad) bleeding Setites(secrecy) bleeding
Malks(Jyhad) was the final.
Two things saved the Malks. One was being able to reduce. The other
was the weenie's ousting me before I could oust him. As I had Blind
Spots and Deeds to counter his reduction and was also bleeding for min
of 3 as much as 5 at a time thanks to several permanents and what not.
But that reduce was able to handle setite bleeds and continuous bleeds
of 3 from the weenies and Thucimia, one of which had the equipment
card to bleed for 4 when the Malk tapped out and still the malk was
able to reduce. By waking and then reducing. And the Malk was low
enough pool wise that if it wasn't for the reduce at the end he'd have
lost.
I wouldn't mind seeing an improvement to bleed reduce making it a bit
more of an option for those that don't have bounce or aren't willing
to play Lost in Translation due to it's restrictive nature. Which also
makes the Mole such a horrid card at the Dom level even though causing
a bleed to fail is the ultimate in reduction. How about something like
the following:
Marijava Hemotologist 2 Pool
Requires Assamite
Unique Ally 3 life 0 str 0 bleed
While this ally is untapped bleeds targeting this minions' controler
are reduced by two.
Ripples of the Heart
reaction Quietus 1 blood
qui: reduce a bleed by 3
QUI: as above, and if the bleed is still successful the acting
methuselah loses pool equal to what the bleed is.
Salem
>> Pot or Cel or For would be fine though. Clans with those disciplines
>> need the defence (brujah, nos, bb, etc), or already have access to
>> bounce (tor, !vent, vent) so good reduce will still be unlikely to show
>> up in their decks.
>
> Yeah, that seems reasonable. But still leaves the Settites out in the
> cold.
but they already have great ways to offensively reduce their prey's
pool, so i am not sure they need great* defence too. But sure, throw in
something for serpentis, or clan specific to setites or something too.
may as well, since we're still in hypothetical land... ;)
* well, maybe not _great_ since we're still talking about reduce and not
bounce. but, you know, better than ecstacy. or at least something that
combos well with it.
Azel
interesting card ideas (don't like fighting for master slots, but
that's about details). but these cards, Ira, help lead me back...
this gets to a strong design point: worry about the effects first, to
sell the card, then worry about the tailoring to bring it in balance
with the game environment.
everyone remember the breakdown of cards: Effect/s + "Cost/s" =
Value.
and Costs = Window of Opportunity + Restrictions + Requirements.
bounce gives 2 Effects (reduce to 0 + offense) with a tailored cost.
regular bleed reduction gives 1 effect (reduce by X) for (supposedly)
less cost. bounce ends up being the defense of choice v. big bleed,
while granting more offense. this is why people favor it -- and will
continue to do so until RBR starts to cover big bleed.
but there is no reason for concern about "bounce design" leaking into
everything. find comparable effects to sell first, then tailor it to
the game state. a hint, reduce by X will never cover big bleed unless
it starts to hover around 4+. second hint, reduction w/o 2nd effect
destabilization makes for stasis -- a very bad thing for game play.
and finally, people need to slaughter their sacred cows. just because
something has always been done one way before does not behoove you to
continue to do something in perpetuity. if regular bleed reduction has
not been cutting it, and ends up drawing out games longer when they do
start to have higher inclusion, then following this path is not
productive. it is time to stop addressing the wrong problem and figure
out the "whys" people favor one over the other. then real creative
solutions can be pursued when we know what it is we really need
instead. stubbornness along the same failed path does not routinely
beget success; it's often the definition of madness.
Azel
compete with big bleed defense coverage, currently dominated by
bounce.
the criteria for card effects is twofold:
first card effect is big bleed defense. this will equal reducing a
bleed to zero OR reducing a bleed by 4 or more.
second card effect is add value. they will take the form of bonus
offense, defense, and/or resources, OR take the form of punishment, a
loss of resources, offense, or defense.
Cost factors comprise of Window of Opportunity, Restrictions, and
Requirements. these will be tailored as necessary, but overall are not
the main thrust of current card design. the point is to create 2 card
effects that sell regular bleed reduction as equivalent to bounce
without copying both of bounce's two effects. ... if you like the
ideas, but have a better idea for cost management, please feel free to
tailor and share.
Big Bleed Defense, Bonus Offense
Reaction
1 blood
dis: Reduce a bleed against you by 3. Each pool lost by this bleed
gives a vampire you control +1 bleed on your turn.
DIS: Reduce a bleed against any Methuselah by 3. Each pool lost by
this bleed gives that player +1 bleed to a vampire they control on
their turn.
Big Bleed Defense, Bonus Defense
Reaction
1 blood
Requires a vampire with capacity of 7 or more.
dis: Reduce a bleed against you to zero.
DIS: As above, and until the next turn bleeds against you are reduced
by 1 as long as this minion is untapped.
Big Bleed Defense, Bonus Resources
Reaction
Requires a vampire with a capacity of 5 or more.
dis: Reduce a bleed against you by 4.
DIS: As above, and for each point successfully reduced, give a blood
to one of your minions.
Big Bleed Defense, Punish Offense
Reaction
1 blood
Requires a bleed greater than 2 against you.
dis: Reduce this bleed against you to zero. Tap this vampire. The
acting minion does not untap next untap phase.
DIS: As above, and if this reacting vampire has more blood than the
bleed amount, enter combat with acting minion.
Big Bleed Defense, Punish Defense
Reaction
1 blood
Only one [BBD,PD] playable per action.
dis: Reduce a bleed against you by 3. If you lose any pool from this
bleed, give -1 intercept for each pool lost to the acting methuselah's
minion of your choice until their next untap phase. Intercept penalty
is not cumulative with other basic BBD,PD.
DIS: As above, but intercept penalty is cumulative with 1 basic and
any other superior BBD,PD.
Big Bleed Defense, Punish Resources
Reaction
1 blood
Requires a vampire with a capacity greater than 4.
dis: Reduce a bleed by 2. After resolving the action, burn 1 blood or
life on the acting minion.
DIS: Reduce a bleed by 4. After resolving the action, deal 1 damage to
the acting minion.
there, basic categorical examples. from here, designing should be
about picking which effects (and their directions) are most desirable.
then we tailor them into balance with the rest of the game.
oh, and for best coverage ANI, CEL, FOR, OBF, POT are the big 5
disciplines that will cover the most clans in need. (giving PRE a card
is not wise, especially considering it does quite well with a run
against DOM. big bleed, vote, vote bloat, s:ce versus bigger bleed,
bounce, Graverobbing, Obedience, etc. they already balance off well;
the other 5, well at least 4, could use the help.)
Peter D Bakija
> Celerity has Aversion:
It does. But Aversion at Celerity blows (1 blood to reduce a bleed by
1? Yeah, I'm getting right on that train...). Which is the problem
with most neo-bleed reduction cards. They blow. I like that there has
been a token effort to get bleed reduction spread around, but as
noted, most of it is simply not effective enough to actually be a
viable defense mechanism. Most of it is simply "This card does
something that isn't redcue bleeds, but in case you don't need
whatever that is, you can also cycle it to reduce a bleed by 1" (see:
Confusion of the Eye and/or Steadfastness. Really? Steadfastness
couldn't have been Reduce by 2 at superior? That would have broken the
system?). Aversion at Val isn't bad, but really, as Valeren comes with
Auspex, again, we have yet another example of "reasonably good bleed
reduction given to a discipline that doesn't really need it. As they
could just be using bounce instead."
> I think the design problem that's trying to be addressed here is that
> massive bleed is very strong, and any defense other than bounce is
> much weaker.
Well, kind of? I think I've been pretty clear about what *I'm* looking
for--reasonable, effective, and flexible cards that provide bleed
reduction for disciplines that could actually use the defense. Which
would at the very least open up some other strategies to being
possibly playable without grafting on dominate.
-Peter
ira...@gmail.com
Why are you looking for bleed reduction, specifically? You've
identified a design problem that is "the optimal bleed defense is
bounce, and I'd like greater diversity in bleed defense." Giving more
viable bleed reduction is good, but I think there are other
interesting choices to be considered.
Here are two more ideas that LSJ is welcome to use:
Archon Inquisition
Master Out-of-Turn. Trifle.
5 Pool
Only usable when a minion is attempting to bleed you and the bleed
amount is 4 or more.
Burn the acting minion. Reduce the cost of this card by 1 pool for
each pool by which the bleed exceeds 4. This card is also usable if
you've played exactly one Master Out-of-Turn Trifle since your last
master phase. This card counts against your next master phase as
normal.
Shared Resources
Master
1 Pool
Put this card in play. When a bleed against you is successful and the
acting minion's controller gains pool or adds counters to uncontrolled
minions as part of the action, you gain pool equal to the pool gained
and counters added. A Methuselah may only have 1 Shared Resources.
Or maybe this version is better:
Shared Resources 2
Master
1 Pool
Put this card in play and choose another Methuselah. When the chosen
Methuselah gains pool or adds counters to uncontrolled minions as part
of a bleed action, you gain pool equal to the pool gained and counters
added. A Methuselah may only have 1 Shared Resources.
Ira
Peter D Bakija
> Why are you looking for bleed reduction, specifically?
'Cause it is an underutilized and underdeveloped technology in this
game. Primarily 'cause (well, I'd gander at least) it was mistakenly
handed to Auspex when they designed the game (which means that ever
since, all other bleed reduction needs to be worse than Telepathic
Counter, as bleed reduction is arbitrarily the province of Auspex).
And I don't think this is an issue where the wheel needs to be
reinvented. The game already has bleed reduction, which could be
ported into disciplines that don't have it, and it could open up a lot
of strategies and decks that otherwise suffer from a lack of notable
bleed defense.
Bleed reduction, currently, gets a very short shrift. 'Cause (as I
have noted a few times elsewhere already :-):
A) The best reduction (Telepathic Counter) comes in Auspex. Which
could just use bounce instead.
B) The other good (i.e. reduce by 2) reduction cards are either
expensive and difficult to use (Friend of Mine, Truth in Ink) or
directly linked to bounce (Detect My Authority, Wrong and Crosswise).
C) Most of the rest of the reduction cards aren't effective (only
reduce by 1).
Lots of people have been throwing around a lot of clever (if generally
overly complicated) ideas. But I don't think we *need* clever new
ideas here. We have a good idea already (i.e. bleed reduction that
just reduces bleeds) that isn't currently being used much. If flexible
(i.e. cards that have useful ability A as an inferior and then "reduce
by 2" as the superior) and effective (non restricted, non blood
costing "Reduce bleed by 2" at a superior discipline) reduction cards
made their way into, like, Celerity and/or Fortitude and/or Obfuscate,
it is possible that fewer decks would feel the need to shoehorn in
bounce cards (i.e. "graft on dominate") and this would increase the
diversity of playable decks.
> Giving more
> viable bleed reduction is good, but I think there are other
> interesting choices to be considered.
There are. But again, reinventing the wheel. We have a wheel. It just
isn't getting used, as it is stuck on the hovercraft.
-Peter
ira...@gmail.com
Such a good analogy! Nicely done.
Ira, who likes the hovercraft.
Peter D Bakija
> > > Giving more viable bleed reduction is good, but I think there
> > > are other interesting choices to be considered.
>
> > There are. But again, reinventing the wheel. We have a wheel. It just
> > isn't getting used, as it is stuck on the hovercraft.
>
> Such a good analogy! Nicely done.
>
> Ira, who likes the hovercraft.
Heh. Thanks :-)
-Peter
Azel
> > viable bleed reduction is good, but I think there are other
> > interesting choices to be considered.
>
> There are. But again, reinventing the wheel. We have a wheel. It just
> isn't getting used, as it is stuck on the hovercraft.
to stretch your analogy: we have the wheel, and it's stuck on the
hovercraft, but bounce is a jet airplane also with wheels (landing
gear). both have wheels -- but it's the jet engine that makes the
difference. so again, focus on the add value.
remember, conceptually both are bleed reduction.
but when there's jet fighter bleeds, you don't send armored terrain
vehicles (even if they're hovercrafts) to counter. you send in other
jet fighters. and just like for swarms of ATVs attacking your front,
you are perfectly OK with countering with other ATVs. hence the
difference between bounce (big reduction + add value) versus regular
reduction (small reduction w/o tapping).
equivalent force people; don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Salem
analogy or metaphor?
(but yes, i too liked it)
--
salem
semantic simile.
Peter D Bakija
> to stretch your analogy: we have the wheel, and it's stuck on the
> hovercraft, but bounce is a jet airplane also with wheels (landing
> gear). both have wheels -- but it's the jet engine that makes the
> difference. so again, focus on the add value.
Hmm. You seem to have a gift for taking something simple and making it
incredibly complicated. But ok!
> remember, conceptually both are bleed reduction.
Yes. You keep saying that. But I don't know that it is necessary to
point that out. Yes. Both bleed bounce and bleed reduction reduce
bleeds. But for the purposes of this discussion, it is safe to refer
to bounce as bounce and reduction as reduction, as it makes keeping
the ideas separate.
> equivalent force people; don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
See, here is the thing. If clans/disciplines/strategies that don't
have access to bounce suddenly had access to good, flexible bleed
reduction, they'd probably be more likely to see play without
shoehorning in bounce. Yeah, you could reinvent the wheel and create
all sorts of crazy new card concepts that reduce bleeds *and* hurt
your prey at the same time. Or, you could just try to take what we
already have (bleed reduction) and is being underutilized, and move it
somewhere that it is needed and see what happens.
-Peter