I hope there are no S:CE hosers in Final Nights
R. David Zopf
mull over the following thought...
Say your favorite clan did, in fact, get a S:CE hoser that was at
least as good (easy to play) as Immortal Grapple. What I fear is that
the game would swing more and more toward solely combat oriented
themes, with all the juicy intrigue, politics, corruption,
negotiation, etc. taking a back seat. Yes, it might be neat if there
are a few more limited ways to beat a Majesty. Take that concept to a
(not too) distant point, though, and the game devolves into a vampiric
form of Rock'em Sock'em Robots. _Not_ something I'm particularly
interested in playing (How about you?)
I encourage small change ;-) What's your $0.02? Where's the balance
point for you? If combat is too weak, how do you change it without
making other tactics too weak in the process? What's your favorite
fruit?
Regards,
R. David Zopf
guenh...@mindspring.com
Atom Weaver
James Coupe
<guenh...@mindspring.com> writes
> Say your favorite clan did, in fact, get a S:CE hoser that was at
>least as good (easy to play) as Immortal Grapple.
And this is where it falls down.
Immortal Grapple is *the* S:CE hoser. You have to be at close range,
sure, but it *completely* stops it.
Telepathic Tracking is a useful power level to consider. It doesn't
*stop* it. You can still play it. Hand jam is thus hard to create.
And they can still escape again. But it gives you a much better shot at
it.
Consider something like this:
Psychic Taunt
Dementation
Combat
Play before range is determined.
If the opposing minion selects a "Strike: Combat Ends" effect for their
strike, that minion takes 1 damage at the end of the Choose Strike
phase.
(S) As above, but this damage is not preventable.
Okay, this card may not be perfect. It may not even be good. But it's
an alternate mechanic that gives S:CE a cost. It doesn't hose it. It
doesn't stop it. But it does make it less "cheap".
I think most people would agree (feel free to shout at me if I'm wrong)
that S:CE is very, very cheap. Giving it some minor costs doesn't hose
it, but it does make it less of a no-brainer in play.
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
"What's wrong with wanting more?
If you can fly -- then soar!
With all there is, why settle for just a piece of sky?"
Ian Lee
>least as good (easy to play) as Immortal Grapple. What I fear is that
>the game would swing more and more toward solely combat oriented
>themes, with all the juicy intrigue, politics, corruption,
>negotiation, etc. taking a back seat. Yes, it might be neat if there
>are a few more limited ways to beat a Majesty. Take that concept to a
>(not too) distant point, though, and the game devolves into a vampiric
>form of Rock'em Sock'em Robots. _Not_ something I'm particularly
>interested in playing (How about you?)
S:CE not only deals with 90% of combat, it also eliminates other combat
defenses by being strictly better. Remove S:CE (all together, which I don't
think is likely) and you should see more reliance on dodging and damage
prevention and less use of Immortal Grapple (as it ceases to become
"necessary").
There's nothing necessary about S:CE from a play standpoint (it was a good
interpretation of Majesty, though). By its existence as a common combat
defense it removes the viability of numerous strategies. I'd much rather see
the combat metagame framed by a variety of offensive and defensive combat
options then see it come down to S:CE v. IG, both of which bore me immensely.
theventrue
"R. David Zopf" <guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9a7jc4$a72$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
Make it only work at close range. It makes sense (not that i play the RPG)
that a vamp would have more presence at close range than long range. It may
even give weapons a boost as maneuvers would become more important. you'd no
longer be able to simply rely on majesty for combat defense, you'd need to
get in close to be able to use it and risk being grappled.
Halcyan 2
>>least as good (easy to play) as Immortal Grapple. What I fear is that
>>the game would swing more and more toward solely combat oriented
>>themes, with all the juicy intrigue, politics, corruption,
>>negotiation, etc. taking a back seat. Yes, it might be neat if there
>>are a few more limited ways to beat a Majesty. Take that concept to a
>>(not too) distant point, though, and the game devolves into a vampiric
>>form of Rock'em Sock'em Robots. _Not_ something I'm particularly
>>interested in playing (How about you?)
>
>S:CE not only deals with 90% of combat, it also eliminates other combat
>defenses by being strictly better. Remove S:CE (all together, which I don't
>think is likely) and you should see more reliance on dodging and damage
>prevention and less use of Immortal Grapple (as it ceases to become
>"necessary").
>
I somewhat agree with Mr. Zopf's statement. I myself don't really play with
S:CE clans (I usually go with Tremere), but it's probably just my conservative
side not wanting to completely "revolutionalize" the game.
I do however think that S:CE does play a valuable role in the game. Yes, it is
powerful, but I think it's necessary.
For example, Mr. Lee suggested that dodging and damage prevention would be
relied upon more.
But take dodging for example. 1. Dodging (like S:CE) is completely hosed by
Immortal Grapple and/or Thoughts Betrayed. 2. Even more importantly, any sort
of additional strikes (mainly Celerity) completely destroys the defense. Unless
I also have additional strikes (and additional dodges), celerity is going to
just about crush anything it goes up against.
I don't mind the damage prevention angle, but the problem is that this is much
more limited. With Dodge, there is the "Dodge" card so anyone can dodge. But
damage prevention is pretty much only for Fortitude (though Protean's Flesh of
Marble, Chimerstry's Apparition, and various Vicissitude cards may help). And
Precognition and Sideslip won't be much use since they can only prevent one.
Looking at it this way, think how powerful the Assamites would be without S:CE.
You can't prevent (if they rely on Blood Sweat or something). If you dodge,
that's fine. They'll just hit you with Blood Sweat with their two other
strikes. Your only hope is to try to outmanuever them which may be just as
hard...
So to conclude. Damage prevention is only available to a few clans. And Dodge
is not sufficient to defend against anything with additional strikes. Thus S:CE
helps keep the combat decks from becoming overly prevalent.
Halcyan 2
Wes
I'd like to see an Animalism card that doesn't so much destroy Majesty's
usefulness but makes it easier for their opponent to recover somewhat from
any wasted combos played.
I've noticed when playing my Animalism weenie deck lately that S:CE is a
pain. I don't mind that so much... what I mind is that I play three or four
cards and then all become useless when the opposing minion simply 'opts' out
of combat.
So, how about a card that doesn't prevent the opponent from ending combat,
but allows the other minion to somehow keep their card-combo for another
round? Maybe stack the combo next to the minion in question and allow them
to play each card as if it were played that round? Not sure if I'm
explaining that well enough so I'll give an example.
ROUND 1
Devin Bisley bleeds for two with Computer Hacking.
Gideon Fontaine blocks.
Devin Bisley plays Trap, Carrion Crows and Song of Serenity.
Gideon Fontaine plays Majesty to end combat.
Devin plays 'Animal loyalty' (dumb name) to keep Trap, Carrion Crows and
Song of Serenity for use in her next combat.
ROUND 2
Devin Bisley bleeds.
Gideon Blocks.
Devin Bisley sacrifices 'Animal Loyalty' to play Trap, Carrion Crows and
Song of Serenity again.
Gideon panics when he realizes his Methuselah master has run out of Majesty
cards.
Gideon goes to torpor.
Sound reasonable? Powerful, but give it a cost and a rarity that makes
sense. I'd say maybe 2 blood cost and an Uncommon rarity.
This would give the Ravnos, Gangrel, Nosferatu and Tzimisce a slight edge
against S:CE though not without drawbacks. Sure, Gangrel have 'Dog Pack' but
I've never found that card to be worth its cost or common enough. Nossies
have 'Immortal Grapple' and wouldn't need this card (unless they focus on
ANI maybe). Tzimisce and Ravnos could benefit but since both are liable to
lose a lot of blood for many of their 'nasty' cards, they'd have to be more
conservative with its usage. It wouldn't help the Assamites out at all (who
are also vulnerable to S:CE), but you can always give them Potence or
Animalism I guess.
Cheers,
WES
legbiter
i yield to almost no-one in my liking for combat but i still agree
with you completely. More anti-SCE is not the way to go. Gradually
phasing Majesty superior out of the game IS, IMO [i've no problem
with it being replaced by an identical card that only works for
big vampires].
Off topic, best wishes to you and Amy on your upcoming wedding.
Remember you're welcome to stay with us if your honeymoon plans
include Europe.
Roger Carhult
--
"Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:9a8v2...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> I think James Coupe is along the right track on making S:CE cost more.
>
> I'd like to see an Animalism card that doesn't so much destroy Majesty's
> usefulness but makes it easier for their opponent to recover somewhat from
> any wasted combos played.
>
I agree but there's already Terror Frenzy that does what James suggested
(and even more). Although it's a rare...
TigToad
S:CE is messed up by immortal grapple & things like hidden lurker
Immortal grapple is messed up by damage reduction and manuevers
Damage reduction is messed up by Thaumaturgy & having to have an
excessive number of cards in your deck
Thaumaturgy is hosed by dodges
Etc... the truely greatness of the game to me is that one strategy, no
matter how solid is always able to be pasted by another deck strategy
out there somewhere. The game _needs_ S:CE to keep from combat decks
from running wild. Now, I also really like the way the game limits
these things to, basically, keep from having one clan have access to
more of these abilities than others. (Gangrel actually have
Protean/Fortitude with dog pack being the closests to all of the
above).. but then trying to ever bleed or vote your opponent becomes
very hard since all of your cards help with combat.
Great game from a balance stand point.
Daniel-Tig
Sorrow
> matter how solid is always able to be pasted by another deck strategy
> out there somewhere. The game _needs_ S:CE to keep from combat decks
> from running wild.
Except that even given the current S:CE hosers, combat *isn't* running wild.
It may have a decent time beating up vamps but it is extremely difficult to
actually
win a given game (most VPs) with a combat deck.
With that said, let's take a look at the current S:CE hosers:
Immortal Grapple: _The_ premier hoser. Though it works only at close range,
it
is useful at both inferior and superior Potence. And with most clans that
have
potence, it's not that hard to stay at close.
Hidden Lurker: not that great because people generally stop blocking after
their
vamp gets hosed. See Todd's recent post in response to an Assamite deck.
It's
an ok card, but it doesn't end up seeing much use.
Fast Reaction: see above. A bit more useful as you generally control the
blocking
but unless you can get a really good strike right off, the fact that the
opposing vamp
can't S:CE is of no consequence. As soon as you press to the second round,
S:CE
can be played.
Telepathic Tracking: requires superior Auspex. While there are alot of
vamps
that have AUS (73; 33 at <= 7 cap), there aren't that many that have combat
support disciplines:
Disc - Num of Vamps (Capacity/ies)
Vic - 5 (5, 6 x2, 7 x2)
Tha - 3 (4, 6 x2)
Obt - 2 (6, 7)
Pro - 3 (6, 7 x2)
Cel - 12 (3, 4, 5 x3, 6 x4, 7 x3)
Ani - 8 (5, 6 x3, 7 x4)
As you can see, somewhat expensive vamps - something which combat decks
can ill afford.
Thoughts Betrayed: requires superior Dominate and also has a pretty steep
cost. Unless you have a way of getting the blood back fast, you can only
play a few of these. Now, let's take a look at the vamp selection we have
that can use this one right off the bat:
Tha - 8 (5, 6 x3, 7 x4)
Pro - 2 (6, 7)
Cel - 3 (5, 6 x2)
Ani - 1 (6)
You have an even smaller selection of vampires.
The reason why I have the vamps start out with AUS or DOM is because
though you can add skill cards, unless you can get some really close to the
start of the game, TT or TB is totally useless and allows S:CE to completely
shut down your deck. And I have the capacity <= 7 because, as I say above,
combat decks cannot afford really large vampires unless they have a major
source of pool gain. When you add this aspect to a deck (large vamps, pool
gain), it slows the combat deck down and this may or may not be a really
bad thing.
> Now, I also really like the way the game limits these things to,
basically, keep
> from having one clan have access to more of these abilities than others.
(Gangrel
> actually have Protean/Fortitude with dog pack being the closests to all of
the
> above)..
Problem with Dog Pack is that it can be blocked and has a high cost.
> but then trying to ever bleed or vote your opponent becomes very hard
since
> all of your cards help with combat.
> Great game from a balance stand point.
I disagree. Even decks using IG have a very, very difficult time winning
games.
Not impossible to do, but it's very difficult. So when you see decks using
_the_
premier S:CE hoser not winning all the time, why is it a safe assumption to
believe
that combat will overrun the meta game if another high tier S:CE hoser, like
IG,
were introduced? Of all the archetypes, combat needs the most help to
become
as viable as bleed and politics are in a tournament setting. I think that
TT went
a ways to help but I don't think it went far enough.
In short, I, for one, do hope there is a S:CE hoser in Final Nights.
Something
still needs to be done to help the combat archetype.
Just my 2 pool.
Sorrow
---
"I am Jack's wasted life."
- Narrator
Frederick Scott
> Except that even given the current S:CE hosers, combat *isn't* running wild.
> It may have a decent time beating up vamps but it is extremely difficult to
> actually win a given game (most VPs) with a combat deck.
I don't know about others but it isn't that clear to me that it's of any
importance that "combat decks", per se, be easy to win games with. There's
an infinite number of decks with which you can not win a game. Who told you
a deck that mainly only allows you to rush and beat an opposing vampire into
torpor or oblivion - what I believe you mean you refer to a "combat deck" -
should be any different?
What is of importance is that all the cards have uses. Some cards were simply
misdesigned from the start and are unlikely to ever be useful without errata.
When whole lines of cards have no function because a card like Majesty makes
them too difficult to use, then I'm concerned. I don't think it's accurate to
say cards like "Bum's Rush" and "Ambush" are useless because rush decks are
difficult to win. One could still use a few of them with a bruise and bleed
deck to take out the occasional problematic minion (similar to using Beast,
Leatherface, for instance). Other combat cards like Disarm and aggravated
damage cards can be mean "throw-ins" to decks that have other focuses. The
ones that actually worry me are some of the things used by Assamites and Gangrels,
which IMHO are clans that find striking back against S:CE very difficult. If
S:CE were just a niche tactic, then I'd be OK with that. As it is, S:CE is a
pretty major part of the game, so Gangrel and Assamite combat seems pretty
useless. (No, I don't consider Dog Pack to be a worthwhile answer to S:CE.
It's too expensive and vulnerable. If Dog Packs cost 1, you might have
something...)
So I don't want S:CE majorly hosed. I'd just like see it tinkered with so
that all of the major combat clans can do something about it.
Fred
Sorrow
wild.
> > It may have a decent time beating up vamps but it is extremely difficult
to
> > actually win a given game (most VPs) with a combat deck.
> I don't know about others but it isn't that clear to me that it's of any
> importance that "combat decks", per se, be easy to win games with.
There's
> an infinite number of decks with which you can not win a game. Who told
you
Are you using "you" in a generic sense? Or "you" to address me personally?
> a deck that mainly only allows you to rush and beat an opposing vampire
into
> torpor or oblivion - what I believe you mean you refer to a "combat
deck" -
> should be any different?
I believe this archetype should not be any more difficult (or perhaps
moderatly
more difficult; certainly not as difficult as it is currently) to win with
as your
average bleed or political deck. I'm not talking about specific deck types
(a la, !Gangrel/Gangrel Conspiricy, Giovanni/Ambrosius/Talbot's Chainsaw,
etc). I'm talking about the combat archetype as a whole. Yes, there are
even bleed and political decks that are difficult to win with right now.
But on
average, they are significantly easier to win games with than using a combat
deck.
> What is of importance is that all the cards have uses.
Even "Twising The Knife", as crappy as it is, has a use. This is moot when
discussing archetypes as a whole, as I was.
> Some cards were simply misdesigned from the start and are unlikely to ever
> be useful without errata.
This goes without saying.
> When whole lines of cards have no function because a card like Majesty
> makes them too difficult to use, then I'm concerned.
And this is what is currently happening in the game.
> I don't think it's accurate to say cards like "Bum's Rush" and "Ambush"
are
> useless because rush decks are difficult to win.
I did not say this. BR and Ambush are extremely useful and are effective
100%
of the time, even in a high S:CE environment. Regardless of what happens,
you
get into combat with a/the vampire. That's not the point. Whether that
entire
combat is effective is the point. And right now, S:CE makes it so that the
odds
are relatively high that the combat will not be effective in most cases.
> deck to take out the occasional problematic minion (similar to using
Beast,
> Leatherface, for instance). Other combat cards like Disarm and aggravated
> damage cards can be mean "throw-ins" to decks that have other focuses.
The
> ones that actually worry me are some of the things used by Assamites and
> Gangrels, which IMHO are clans that find striking back against S:CE very
> difficult. If S:CE were just a niche tactic, then I'd be OK with that.
As it is,
> S:CE is a pretty major part of the game, so Gangrel and Assamite combat
> seems pretty useless. (No, I don't consider Dog Pack to be a worthwhile
answer
> to S:CE. It's too expensive and vulnerable. If Dog Packs cost 1, you
might have
> something...)
Unlike the rest of the post, this makes it out as if you were agreeing with
me...?
> So I don't want S:CE majorly hosed. I'd just like see it tinkered with so
> that all of the major combat clans can do something about it.
I don't want it to be majorly hosed. I just would like it so that the
combat
archetype had an almost even footing with the other 2 archtypes with regards
to the possiblity of building a deck that won almost as much.
Of the 84 tournament winning decks archived at TheLasombra's site, only
8 were dedicated combat decks of which 3 or 4 were intercept combat. Then
there were 10 that had a bruise aspect to them with their primary focus was
either Bleed or Politics. 2 of those 10 were bascially the same deck
reworked
(Rob Treasure's "I'll be your dog" deck). So that is roughly 9% (I believe)
of
the archived tourny winning decks that are dedicated combat and roughly 18%
(again, I believe) that have combat in them. Compare against the other 91%
or
82% that are Politics and Bleed. Combat decks are not played in tournaments
because of this Sure, they are played in casual games but even then, the
don't
win that much. The Combat archetype is not even close to being on an even
footing as the other two archtypes and this is something that needs to be
addressed.
This is the point that I was trying to make.
Frederick Scott
>
> > > Except that even given the current S:CE hosers, combat *isn't* running
> > > wild. It may have a decent time beating up vamps but it is extremely difficult
> > > to actually win a given game (most VPs) with a combat deck.
> >
> > I don't know about others but it isn't that clear to me that it's of any
> > importance that "combat decks", per se, be easy to win games with.
> > There's an infinite number of decks with which you can not win a game. Who
> > told you
>
> Are you using "you" in a generic sense? Or "you" to address me personally?
You were the one (apparently) expressing the indirect concept that it's important
to allow combat decks to win the game. The question was addressed to you.
> > a deck that mainly only allows you to rush and beat an opposing vampire
> > into torpor or oblivion - what I believe you mean you refer to a "combat
> > deck" - should be any different?
>
> I believe this archetype should not be any more difficult (or perhaps moderatly
> more difficult; certainly not as difficult as it is currently) to win with
> as your average bleed or political deck. I'm not talking about specific deck types
> (a la, !Gangrel/Gangrel Conspiricy, Giovanni/Ambrosius/Talbot's Chainsaw,
> etc). I'm talking about the combat archetype as a whole. Yes, there are
> even bleed and political decks that are difficult to win with right now. But on
> average, they are significantly easier to win games with than using a combat deck.
This doesn't answer the question or respond to my problem with your position. I
so note that you are not referring to a specific type of deck. None the less, of
what benefit is it to the game that a "combat deck", even taken as an archetype,
be made viable? I repeat, there are an infinite number of decks that aren't viable
and won't likely get you a win. I'm sure any number of them can be grouped into a
major (unsuccessful) group archetype. You seem to care about the particular group
of them you call "combat decks". Since you say they're not easy to win with, I'd
say they must be "bad decks". What I want to know is, what differentiates the decks
you're talking about from any other grouping of bad decks. Why should the game be
altered (using new cards or by any other means) to make these decks into viable
decks.
> > What is of importance is that all the cards have uses.
>
> Even "Twising The Knife", as crappy as it is, has a use. This is moot when
> discussing archetypes as a whole, as I was.
That's misrepresenting my point. I mean, it is important that as many cards as possible have
real, true useful uses. I doubt it's possible to bat a thousand on that score but that
should be the goal. I am not referring to just theoretical uses in the perfect situation
which for all practical purposes never comes up.
> > Some cards were simply misdesigned from the start and are unlikely to ever be useful
> > without errata. When whole lines of cards have no function because a card like Majesty
> > makes them too difficult to use, then I'm concerned.
>
> And this is what is currently happening in the game.
But not on the level you seemed to be talking about. When you refer to as large a category
as "combat decks", which has a meaning that can vary greatly from player to player, you're
likely sucking in large numbers of cards which can be used effectively in winning decks. To
the extent that's true, I don't care about what S:CE does to their use in combat decks. If
a Vampiric Speed can be used to good effect in a Brujah deck or a Toreador deck, I couldn't
care less that it can't be used in an Assamite deck. I'm specifically worried about cards
like Weakness or Blood Sweat or Body Flare, which are geared for use by clans that are
pretty much helpless against S:CE IMHO. That's a far cry from worrying about the fate of
"combat decks" in general.
> Unlike the rest of the post, this makes it out as if you were agreeing with
> me...?
>
> > So I don't want S:CE majorly hosed. I'd just like see it tinkered with so
> > that all of the major combat clans can do something about it.
>
> I don't want it to be majorly hosed. I just would like it so that the
> combat archetype had an almost even footing with the other 2 archtypes with
> regards to the possiblity of building a deck that won almost as much.
I'm not sure where we're failing to communicate. What I consider to be the
"combat archetype" is of no particular interest to me. Just certain combat
cards that are not likely to ever have a use, whether in a deck that exists
purely to get into combat and do horrible things to the other guy's minion or
just to support tactics (e.g. vote and bleed) that win you the game in a more
direct fashion.
> The Combat archetype is not even close to being on an even
> footing as the other two archtypes and this is something that needs to be
> addressed. This is the point that I was trying to make.
And I disagree with it. Nothing is bad about the combat archetype not being
on an even footing with whatever other archetypes you feel exist in the game.
What's bad about S:CE to me is causes a lot of other cards that have been printed
to exist in a state that they won't reasonably get used in viable decks. And I
do not believe the number of such cards is all that large.
Fred
Bryan Nelson
opponent played a S:CE (one blood per card maybe).
Or maybe a card that gives back the blood to the vampire who played combat
cards with a blood cost then had a combat ends played against them.
Wes
"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se>
> I agree but there's already Terror Frenzy that does what James suggested
> (and even more). Although it's a rare...
Terror Frenzy only costs the opponent a blood if they play S:CE IIRC... not
that much of a cost seeing as you ALSO have to pay a blood and then combat
ends anyway.
Pat Ricochet
>> The Combat archetype is not even close to being on an even
>> footing as the other two archtypes and this is something that needs to be
>> addressed. This is the point that I was trying to make.
>
> And I disagree with it. Nothing is bad about the combat archetype not being
> on an even footing with whatever other archetypes you feel exist in the game.
> What's bad about S:CE to me is causes a lot of other cards that have been
> printed
> to exist in a state that they won't reasonably get used in viable decks. And
> I
> do not believe the number of such cards is all that large.
>
> Fred
Thank you, thank you, thank you. About freaking time someone
intelligently challenged the "3 legs" assumption. Yes, ASSUMPTION.
Unfortunately, the last time someone did it was Andrew Davidson, so it
seemed best to let it lie, since siding with him in an argument tends to get
you reamed here, even when he's right.
Now, I know this is a wide, commonly held belief that "The three deck
archetypes" are Bleed, Vote, and Combat, generally viewed in descending
order of power, though it's more like a 9, an 8, and a 4, respectively, on a
1 to 10 scale of "winningness." Several players, (notably, pure combat deck
players) even go so far as to assume that the game designers had this in
mind, but just botched the implementation, speaking as if this "3 legged
table" metaphor were canon or something.
About all that makes this idea plausible is the inherent describability
of these archetypes.
Bleed deck: "I make a bunch of bleeding actions, removing all my prey's
pool, ousting him."
Vote deck: "I pass a bunch of votes, removing all my prey's pool,
ousting him."
Combat deck: "I kill a bunch of guys, removing all my prey's minions.
Then I hope he spends more pool to bring out more guys for me to kill, and
in the mean time, I bleed him."
Really, every* pure combat deck is, inherently, a Bruise and Bleed deck,
just REALLY heavy on the Bruise (or Beats, if you prefer). But, they're
easy to build, easy to describe, and easy to play. DAMN hard to win with,
though. Which is the issue.
Well, WHY are they hard to win with? Is it because S:CE hoses them? Is
it so painful to point to the fact that combats remove minions, and not
pool? A Methuselah with no minions is pretty helpless. However, a
Methuselah with no pool is not only helpless, he's ousted. Not to mention
also out of minions, then.
Now, to be fair, if you can remove all of your prey's minions, and that
Methuselah wants his deck (that isn't "all masters") to DO anything, he has
to spend pool to bring out more guys. If he can't, he's not long for this
world. That's a bit different than "Bruise and Bleed" if you mean "Bleed
your prey, and if he blocks, kill him," where the Bruise is primarily used
to discourage blocking. In "pure combat" decks, the goal is to actually
kill ALL the minions, so your prey must either bring out more guys (spending
pool) or sit tight until his combat-playing predator is ousted.
This is also the goal for, say, a Cryptic Mission/Society of Leopold
deck. Not a deck people are clamoring need more help.
This is also very similar for "lockdown" decks, that make minions unable
to be used, such as all your prey's minions Haunted and hunting, or Sensory
Deprived.
This is also similar to a pure Shadow Twin deck, which tries to do what
the combat deck does, just skipping over the combats and going straight to
the damage part.
Really the "deck type" for combat decks is "minion removing deck," just
using combat at the way to do it. It's most obvious, most easily built,
most varied and largest "subclass" of these types of decks, but it has the
same ousting strategy: Stack the bodies, and force them to spend pool and/or
die.
But that doesn't make it "the third leg." Now, when you open up your
cards, you get a pile of Masters, and bunch of vamps, a whole lot of
Politics cards, a bunch of cards about stealth and intercept, and a whole
asston of combat cards. You also get a lot of equipment, allies, and
retainers. Why aren't "Ally decks," or "Gun decks" one of the "table legs?"
Well, because they don't oust people by themselves. Allies and guns are
just part of some larger strategy to oust people, and are cards to assist
that goal.
NO combat card says "remove X pool from your prey." Because combat
isn't an ousting strategy. It's an assistance, a vehicle, a means to an
end, just like allies, or equipment. There's a LOT of combat cards,
probably larger than any other single category. But those numbers don't
change the fact that no combat card will oust your prey.
(Let's quickly discuss Fame: A *great* card that lets combat decks
actually do pool damage. Not the original intent, much less wording. It's
change makes an interesting side effect to help combat decks oust, but it's
Uniqueness still limits the viability of "yo-yo" combat decks. It certainly
gives NO support to the assumption that Bleed, Vote, and Combat were ever
intended to be 3 equal Pillars.)
Now, the three words that stymie the combat deck approach are "Strike:
Combat Ends." Somewhat worse off is that Presence, that can both Bleed and
Vote, has one of the best (common) S:CE cards in the game, Majesty.
Meaning, of course, that unless you can stop it, they can go about their
business of bleeding and voting, and cheesily removing their prey's pool,
instead of taking it in the teeth like a man. It also means a great deal of
cards that dodge, press to end, maneuver away, etc, don't get used
(especially the "press to end" cards) since combat never gets even to damage
resolution in one card.
Now, I HAVE to agree with Fred here. The fact that there are many cards
that just don't see much or any use because S:CE *is* a shame. But, hosing
S:CE doesn't solve the problem of combat decks winning or losing. Peter
Bajika and James Hamblin have both effectively used Potence Immortal Grapple
and blow-your-head-off in-one-hit rush decks to get VPs and even win
tournaments, but even they can tell you it's tough. (But not impossible, as
many people will argue) If S:CE was *banned*, that doesn't change that fact
that "pure combat decks" still have to Rush every minion of their prey, and
to be effective, need to torporize or burn that minion THAT combat almost
every time, and (without Fame, a Unique card) they still aren't doing any
pool damage when they Rush someone. The inherent strategy "Remove all
Minions" is simply difficult to win to begin with.
THAT is a different issue, caused by the existence of ONE card, Fame,
that rewards a combat deck with pool damage, assisting the strategy in
ousting your prey (commonly agreed upon as the object of the game; some
upstreamers and Malk-role-playing twits disagree). If you want combat to
become a viable strategy for winning, making it "on par" with Bleed and Vote
to fulfill that flawed prophecy, you should have hooted and hollered more
when Ben Swainbank proposed his War Council:
War Council
Master
Unique Location
Tap when a Vampire is burned to force the controller of the burned
Vampire to burn 2 pool.
(I personally thought it should have been "burned in combat" or
somesuch, or tap for 1 pool "when a vampire goes to torpor or is burned,"
but the idea is in the right direction.)
Of course, that is all under the assumption that V:TES *should* allow
for a strategy that allows beating up your prey's vamps to lead directly
(instead of indirectly) to their ousting. That is, that it become a "viable
strategy." Here I have to waffle. A whole lot of (combat) cards are
considered a waste because they're never played; the reasoning given is that
S:CE hoses them, so you'll never see them. This of course missed the point
that if S:CE were nonexistent, those many cards still wouldn't oust people,
just fight combats. But, if S:CE were gone, and you wanted to defend
against combat, you'd a lot more to defend against combat (well, putting
aside the Daddy-MacDaddy, Obedience), or you'd have to fight back, which
might well result in a whole cornucopia of combat, seeing Body Flare and
even Quick Exit played.
Beating up vamps can be fun and all, but that reduces the game to "king
of the hill" of combats, and then, well, bleeding for one a lot. Moves the
game toward the ideal that if you lose all your minions, you're out of the
game. To borrow from another part of the thread:
> Say your favorite clan did, in fact, get a S:CE hoser that was at
>least as good (easy to play) as Immortal Grapple. What I fear is that
>the game would swing more and more toward solely combat oriented
>themes, with all the juicy intrigue, politics, corruption,
>negotiation, etc. taking a back seat. Yes, it might be neat if there
>are a few more limited ways to beat a Majesty. Take that concept to a
>(not too) distant point, though, and the game devolves into a vampiric
>form of Rock'em Sock'em Robots. _Not_ something I'm particularly
>interested in playing (How about you?)
How about me? Not interested at all.
If people want to try, they can invent their own S:CE hosers. Better
yet, just BAN all S:CE cards in their local playgroup, and see how the games
turn out. Can't convince them to give up S:CE? Is it because they're
afraid of getting beat up? Or just wanting to play a game where you do more
than just fight?
* A "pure combat deck" does exactly as I said. Extraneous examples of
specific combat decks you've played that torp all the vamps and then take
some other cardless pool-removing action besides bleeding that I've
forgotten can be stuck in your ear. Those that take actions requiring cards
to remove pool aren't "pure" combat decks, and are, in all likelihood, a
"Bruise and X" deck.
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
legbiter
Hmmm, just for once i don't fully agree with you, Pat. i do, however,
agree with you and Fred PARTIALLY, and even with Andrew davidson, about the undesirability of boosting combat. i hold this position because i
think combat, unintelligently played, is no more than a table-
destabilising factor, which can result in the winner being the lucky
guy/gal who just happens to avoid the worst combat damage. If you've
played in an all-combat tournament you will know what i mean! i hold
the [possibly elitist] view that rush-combat should be something
pretty much restricted to experienced players and/or unjamming playgroups which have got stuck on malky bleed/deflect/counter decks.
But i don't agree with you when you say combat is only a tactic like
putting guns in your deck [sorry if i've misunderstood your argument,
but i don't believe i am being unfair]. Whether this was designed
to be the case or not i don't know, but i think the
following deck-types are viable in VTES at the moment;
Bleed
Vote
Bloat
Combat
Intercept
Swarm
Takeover
Shutdown
Poison
Each deck type has an offense, a defense and a weak spot.
Bleed: Offense: Reduce Prey's Pool by bleeding
Defense: Speed
Weak Spot: Bleed bounce, rush combat, Politics
Vote: Offense: Reduce Prey's Pool by voting
Defense: Various, but often vote-based bloat
Weak Spot: Intercept, not getting vote dominance
Bloat: Offense: Poke-bleeds, Surviving longest
Defense: Too much pool for opponents to whittle down
Weak Spot: Rush-combat, politics
Combat: Offense: Wipe out prey's minions, bleed for 1
Defense: Wipe out predator's minions
Weak Spot: Table-destabilising - may just end up handing
victory to A.N. Other.
Intercept Offense: Stop everything your prey does.
Defense: Stop everything your predator does.
Weak Spot: Table-destabilising - may just end up handing
victory to A.N. Other.
Swarm Offense: have too many minions for your prey to stop
Defense: Have too many minions for your predator to get
through
Weak Spot: Failing to achieve effective swarm.
Takeover Offense: Take over your prey's minions
Defense: Take over your predator's minions
Weak Spot: Expensive and/or slow
Shutdown Offense: Hamstring your prey's minions
Defense: Hamstring your predator's minions
Weak Spot: Table-destabilising - may just end up handing
victory to A.N. Other.
Poison Offense: Turn your prey's minions into liabilities
Defense: Speed
Weak Spot: Politics, relies on rares.
Most of these strategies can be mixed. For example, rush-combat/Fame
is a combat/poison deck. ToGP is a Bloat/Takeover deck. But these are
all real STRATEGIES and the tactics of putting in guns, allies, action
modifiers or whatever are not IMO to be lumped in with the strategic
package. As you and Fred point out, there is no intrinsic reason why
all the above have to be equal, and i'd certainly agree that any
strategy whose weak point is that it's table-destabilising should
NOT be boosted without a long, hard think about the consequences.
As for whether it's desirable or designed to be as i've described,
i think one of the many great things about this game is that it is
bigger than any of us - it is a WORLD within which we are continually
discovering new stuff. One of the implications of this is that the
list i've given above is CERTAINLY wrong - not just because there
are many different incarnations of the strategies with different
weaknesses, but because there WILL be other strategies that remain
to be discovered.
i think it's legitimate to wonder about whether we should plug in
new strategies, boost some strategies at the expense of others,
completely abolish some strategies and so on, but the kind of
discussion i would rather have focusses on neglected cards, and asks
how we might integrate them better into the game. Sometimes this
can be done within the existing rules and card-set just by thinking
a bit harder. Other times perhaps we need new cards or rules to
achieve the same end. That's where this discussion started - people
were thinking aloud about how to make the Assamites more popular.
One idea is that they should get an anti-SCE card. i'd prefer that you
guys get a web-cam up so that EVERYONE can see how Todd plays
them, which would have the additional plusses that people could [a] see
how YOU play the Giovanni, and [b] marvel at the uncanny physical
resemblance of Derek to Angel's Evil Childe in Somnambulist.
Roger Carhult
> I disagree. Even decks using IG have a very, very difficult time winning
> games.
> Not impossible to do, but it's very difficult. So when you see decks
using
> _the_
> premier S:CE hoser not winning all the time, why is it a safe assumption
to
> believe
> that combat will overrun the meta game if another high tier S:CE hoser,
like
> IG,
> were introduced? Of all the archetypes, combat needs the most help to
> become
> as viable as bleed and politics are in a tournament setting. I think that
> TT went
> a ways to help but I don't think it went far enough.
>
> In short, I, for one, do hope there is a S:CE hoser in Final Nights.
> Something
> still needs to be done to help the combat archetype.
I hope there's won't be many more S:CE hosers actually. Maybe one for
Chimerstry and Quietus but that's about it. There's already pretty many and
if more are introduced S:CE simply won't be very useable. Why not? Because
any combat deck will have a version of a S:CE hoser and then S:CE becomes
pretty pointless. It will only be useable agaisnt non-fighting decks, so
then what's the point of S:CE? You don't exactly invclude them ebcause you
fear non-fighting clans, you want them against decks that beats the crap out
of you. Nowadays they still usually do (unless you also have fortitude but
that's nto Majesty's fault). That combat decks doesn't gain VP's that much
isn't really because of S:CE as I see it. Brujah has both IG and access to
plenty of maneuvers, and they STILL don't get that many VP's compared ot
other decks. Obviously that's not the fault of S:CE. I think what makes S:CE
slightly too good still might be the Majesty, Ventrue becomes very powerful
with this since they can bleed, untap and then vote AND they have fortitude
(which also includes Freak Drive). The rest of the S:CE hosers aint THAT
powerful really. So Maybe a card that only hoses Majesty would be a solution
and make poeple consider to include some other type of S:CE card as well.
I think it was Sorrow that made a post about alternative (new) ways to hose
S:CE (can't find that post now again dangit) that had some new and very
interesting ideas though. At least some of them could be nice to be seen in
new cards, such as the effect that if someone S:CE then you play this card
you jump to press phase instead of ending combat. Maybe at inferior it would
give the opposing minion a press to end combat, while at superior he won't
get that. I think that's a kind fo solution I'd like to see, but not much
more powerful than that, except for Assamites that could have a good card
(quietus, so that other clans can't use it easily) because they're supposed
ot be KILLERS and they can't bleed as good as Brujah's either so they need
to be better fighters than them.
Roger Carhult
The I must ask, how many of these combat decks had IG's in them? I haven't
had a look at the winning decks but I suspect that most of these have S:CE
hosers in them, and it STILL didn't help. So creating S:CE hosers isn't the
problem IMO. Brujah combat decks rarely wins and they still have TWO hosers,
IG and Psyche of which IG is even considered _the_ hoser. Whhy would dding
more hosers help?? It won't, because the problem is that the combat decks
doesn't bleed for much, so you just don't block them and you can play Secure
Haven on a very important vampire and you can make use of Obedience, Elysium
or weenie blockers etc etc.
Roger Carhult
--
"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3AC92C8A...@netcom.com...
I completely agree with your points Frederick. I also wonder why combat
decks should be improved with S:CE hosers because they have problem gaining
VP's while intercept decks have problems gaining VP's too but them there's
nobody who wants to improve? IMHO it's equally important to improve them as
well as the combat decks then since I see intercepting as an important (and
fun) part of the game. just like bleed, combat and voting.
Roger Carhult
--
"Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:9abjc...@enews4.newsguy.com...
But the suggestion was of a card that the opponent could play to make S:CE
cards cost more if played in cmabt, and TF does exactly that already. I
dind't quite get the last part of your sentence...?
Derek Ray
On 4 Apr 2001 05:01:16 -0500, legbiter<legb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:27:42 -0400 Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote:
(some stuff which I snipped)
>Hmmm, just for once i don't fully agree with you, Pat. i do, however,
>agree with you and Fred PARTIALLY, and even with Andrew davidson, about the
>undesirability of boosting combat. i hold this position because i
>think combat, unintelligently played, is no more than a table-
>destabilising factor, which can result in the winner being the lucky
>guy/gal who just happens to avoid the worst combat damage. If you've
>played in an all-combat tournament you will know what i mean! i hold
>the [possibly elitist] view that rush-combat should be something
>pretty much restricted to experienced players and/or unjamming playgroups
>which have got stuck on malky bleed/deflect/counter decks.
Possibly elitist it may be, but I can certainly UNDERSTAND the
position. Anyone who's ever been on the wrong end of an "ah, screw
it, i'm gonna fuck up... THAT crucial minion of yours cross-table"
deck can also certainly sympathise.
And realistically, it's not possible to forbid noobies from playing
combat; so that adds yet another factor to consider when creating.
>but i don't believe i am being unfair]. Whether this was designed
>to be the case or not i don't know, but i think the
>following deck-types are viable in VTES at the moment;
>
>Bleed
>Vote
>Bloat
>Combat
>Intercept
>Swarm
>Takeover
>Shutdown
>Poison
>
>Each deck type has an offense, a defense and a weak spot.
>Most of these strategies can be mixed. For example, rush-combat/Fame
I'd almost go ahead and pitch out the concept of deck "archetypes"
altogether. I think the original idea was to attempt to classify
decks by the manner in which they ousted their prey; ie bleed, vote,
or beat guys up and hope they bring one out. It now seems likely that
that system of classification simply isn't going to be adequate, and
you'll have to swap back to something like the above; defining briefly
what the deck DOES.
Although again, the mix is best. I think you have to just treat it
like a big set of checkboxes; "my deck does X, Y, and Z". It's not
uncommon to see a deck that mostly bleeds, but occasionally hits you
for something, and carries just enough light intercept to stop very
offensive things from happening. As I wrote in a post that never made
it here (was written at 4am, and i reread it this morning and said
"thank god i didn't send that"), each of these types is simply a leg
of the cow to be considered when building one's deck. A cow with one
leg (weenie dominate bleed) is unstable and can be tipped over easily,
but is easy to make, faster to start, and can give just as much milk
(VPs) as any other cow. And if you put both legs on the same side
(trying to mix combat and shutdown), you might find your cow tipping
over of its own accord, such as when you kill the guy you just Sense
Depped.
...and now you know why I didn't send the other one.
>is a combat/poison deck. ToGP is a Bloat/Takeover deck. But these are
>all real STRATEGIES and the tactics of putting in guns, allies, action
>modifiers or whatever are not IMO to be lumped in with the strategic
>package. As you and Fred point out, there is no intrinsic reason why
>all the above have to be equal, and i'd certainly agree that any
>strategy whose weak point is that it's table-destabilising should
>NOT be boosted without a long, hard think about the consequences.
And this is a large bit. Intercept carries this problem with it, and
the Tzimisce just got a HUGE boost in Sabbat War. As a result, there
are an awful lot of Tzimisce intercept-and-explode decks running
around out there, and the state of the game has been affected. If you
head to a tournament, you need to consider that you may sit next to
something with more intercept than God, and nothing to do with it all
except stop everything you do.
Fortunately, the Tzimisce are capable of building a deck that not only
intercepts, but also ousts people, so the potential problem ends up
being merely a mirage. But any potential problems were also of
smaller scope, since only one clan needed to be considered.
Providing some sort of global S:CE weakener would be MUCH more risky,
and would need to be considered against the clans that can already
make use of S:CE stoppers. Consider the Assamites, everyone's
favourite target. Obfuscate isn't appropriate. Celerity would affect
the Toreador and !Gangrel, which could be seen as being a good thing;
but it would also affect the Brujah, who simply don't need another way
to thump people. Quietus? possibly.. but then you get back to the
point that the Assamites simply don't NEED to be able to stop S:CE
with only one discipline. You're already in the position of fighting
a clan that can't be dodged (Celerity), can't be prevented (Blood
Sweat), and can't be easily fought back against (long range and
possible "dodge" for initial strike). The only defense starts to end
up BEING S:CE. Frustrating for the Assamites? Yes, but is there a
good alternative?
Also consider this: the problem as defined is partly that there are a
great number of cards that sit by the wayside; presses, guns, numerous
nifty "strike" cards, etc. Will hosing S:CE provide more use for
those cards, or will it simply make the existing S:CE-proof strategies
just that much better, and STILL leave those cards on the side?
Immortal Grapple's strength isn't solely in its ability to zap S:CE.
It's also in its ability to stop weapon strikes, Coma strikes, and all
kinds of other annoying non-hand-strikes... and all you have to do is
stay at close range. Why don't we see more Fleshcraft decks? It
seems like a perfect tool for the Tzimisce; free, and it makes it even
easier for them to do their own job. You should be able to spend
intercept to catch them once, and then just include lots of untap as
opposed to lots of intercept as they frantically take -1 stealth
actions to remove the card. Except that Fleshcraft loses to S:CE,
Dodge, *and* IG... three of the most common combat effects. Then it
becomes "why waste the card slot on it?".
>i think it's legitimate to wonder about whether we should plug in
>new strategies, boost some strategies at the expense of others,
>completely abolish some strategies and so on, but the kind of
>discussion i would rather have focusses on neglected cards, and asks
>how we might integrate them better into the game. Sometimes this
>can be done within the existing rules and card-set just by thinking
>a bit harder. Other times perhaps we need new cards or rules to
>achieve the same end. That's where this discussion started - people
>were thinking aloud about how to make the Assamites more popular.
>One idea is that they should get an anti-SCE card. i'd prefer that you
>guys get a web-cam up so that EVERYONE can see how Todd plays
>them, which would have the additional plusses that people could [a] see
> how YOU play the Giovanni, and [b] marvel at the uncanny physical
> resemblance of Derek to Angel's Evil Childe in Somnambulist.
There is a lot to be said for "playing the clan properly", as opposed
to just looking at the disciplines and making something according to
the disciplines. Sure, the Assamites have OBF/CEL/QUI, but is it
necessary to include lots of OBF when making the deck? Do you WANT to
stay out of combat that much?
There's also a lot to be said for beating Legbiter with a stick and
taking his pint away from him. I'm in favour of that, preferably on a
webcam. :P
-- Derek
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- C. Darwin, 1871
Ian Lee
>agree with you and Fred PARTIALLY, and even with Andrew davidson, about the
>undesirability of boosting combat. i hold this position because i
>think combat, unintelligently played, is no more than a table-
>destabilising factor, which can result in the winner being the lucky
>guy/gal who just happens to avoid the worst combat damage. If you've
>played in an all-combat tournament you will know what i mean! i hold
>the [possibly elitist] view that rush-combat should be something
>pretty much restricted to experienced players and/or unjamming playgroups
>which have got stuck on malky bleed/deflect/counter decks.
I don't think it is necessarily true that removing S:CE promotes combat.
Players adjust in unpredictable ways.
Anyway, there are (as usual) a variety of arguments going on. On the one hand,
I hate what S:CE does in the game. On the other, I find rush combat as it is
done now to be incredibly boring and, as you say, potentially highly
destabilizing. The two relate but not directly.
My interest is in interesting combat. S:CE (which isn't just Majesty) defeats
90% of the possible combat offenses. The predominant corrective answer is
Immortal Grapple rush. Assuming the Immortal Grapple gets played, the deck
annihilates minions. Minion loss, in my mind, is the single most destabilizing
possibility (including through minion theft or Banishment or whatever) and
should be minimized.
So, what I'd like to see is less lethal combat but more combat cards played.
Of course, one way to achieve this is to print more combat cards but make them
defensive oriented. For instance, Personal Scourge could have been interesting
if it prevented a point of damage (at damage resolution) as a strike. While it
won't happen by rule (though I could see some interesting cards based on it),
capping damage would be preferred. Openended damage is yet another reason not
to play high cap vamps as they go down just as easy, often enough.
Frederick Scott
>
> Now, I HAVE to agree with Fred here. The fact that there are many cards
> that just don't see much or any use because S:CE *is* a shame. But, hosing
> S:CE doesn't solve the problem of combat decks winning or losing. Peter
> Bajika and James Hamblin have both effectively used Potence Immortal Grapple
> and blow-your-head-off in-one-hit rush decks to get VPs and even win
> tournaments, but even they can tell you it's tough. (But not impossible, as
> many people will argue) If S:CE was *banned*, that doesn't change that fact
> that "pure combat decks" still have to Rush every minion of their prey, and
> to be effective, need to torporize or burn that minion THAT combat almost
> every time, and (without Fame, a Unique card) they still aren't doing any
> pool damage when they Rush someone. The inherent strategy "Remove all
> Minions" is simply difficult to win to begin with.
Yea. You said a lot of the things I was thinking. To add to this, one thing
that bothers me about both rush combat and especially intercept combat are the
way these decks simply do not work well for purposes of gaining victory points
yet they still hose their neighbors. (Or in the case of intercept, they tend
to hose their predator and, if their prey is a bleed deck which doesn't need to
do non-directed actions, will often let their prey run free and easy.) This is
the Jyhad equivalent of a "dog-in-the-manger" attitude. You have a deck which
is very difficult to win with yourself yet you effectively destroy your neighbor's
chances of winning. The VPs tend to fall to other players, such as your
grandpredator in the case of rush combat or your prey in the case of intercept.
I'm not that interested in hosing S:CE just so decks like these will be even
worse news to their neighbors yet probably not do that much better in terms of
victory points themselves. People need to recognize bad/ineffective decks for
what they are. And if classic bleed decks or vote decks need more hosing, then
create cards that hose them a little more directly than simply making rush combat
or intercept combat more effective.
> THAT is a different issue, caused by the existence of ONE card, Fame,
> that rewards a combat deck with pool damage, assisting the strategy in
> ousting your prey (commonly agreed upon as the object of the game; some
> upstreamers and Malk-role-playing twits disagree). If you want combat to
> become a viable strategy for winning, making it "on par" with Bleed and Vote
> to fulfill that flawed prophecy, you should have hooted and hollered more
> when Ben Swainbank proposed his War Council:
>
> War Council
> Master
> Unique Location
> Tap when a Vampire is burned to force the controller of the burned
> Vampire to burn 2 pool.
>
> (I personally thought it should have been "burned in combat" or
> somesuch, or tap for 1 pool "when a vampire goes to torpor or is burned,"
> but the idea is in the right direction.)
To reward the kind of play I'd like to see rewarded, my preference would be for
a card like this to do something like, "Tap when a vampire in combat with a vampire
you control goes into torpor. That vampire does not go into torpor. Combat ends.
Its controller must burn 3 pool." That would be a way to convert combat advantage
into pool loss yet not totally screw the victim from ever having a chance to come
back (as long as he can afford the pool loss).
Fred
Frederick Scott
> But i don't agree with you when you say combat is only a tactic like
> putting guns in your deck [sorry if i've misunderstood your argument,
> but i don't believe i am being unfair]. Whether this was designed
> to be the case or not i don't know, but i think the
> following deck-types are viable in VTES at the moment;
>
> Bleed
> Vote
> Bloat
> Combat
> Intercept
> Swarm
> Takeover
> Shutdown
> Poison
>
> Each deck type has an offense, a defense and a weak spot.
>
> Combat: Offense: Wipe out prey's minions, bleed for 1
> Defense: Wipe out predator's minions
> Weak Spot: Table-destabilising - may just end up handing
> victory to A.N. Other.
>
> Intercept Offense: Stop everything your prey does.
> Defense: Stop everything your predator does.
> Weak Spot: Table-destabilising - may just end up handing
> victory to A.N. Other.
> Shutdown Offense: Hamstring your prey's minions
> Defense: Hamstring your predator's minions
> Weak Spot: Table-destabilising - may just end up handing
> victory to A.N. Other.
The problem I have with looking at the game on this level is that besides
table-destabilization being a disadvantage to the deck type that features
it, it also tends to build in a random fuck-factor into the game I don't
personally care for. I'll concede, this may just be my tastes, but I don't
think the game needs more ways of losing that don't have much to do with how
you personally play the game. Granted, even without this effect, random
fucks exist in the game (I choose stealth-bleed and my opponent has a ton of
deflections in his deck) and cannot be eliminated. I just don't care to
encourage people building decks that will make them bad news to sit next to
no matter what kind of deck you have. (You can build the fortitude deck to
defend yourself but it often doesn't help you win, either.) I'd rather see
such things limited to how you do in outguessing the metagame.
> i think it's legitimate to wonder about whether we should plug in
> new strategies, boost some strategies at the expense of others,
> completely abolish some strategies and so on, but the kind of
> discussion i would rather have focusses on neglected cards, and asks
> how we might integrate them better into the game.
It sure is. I simply object to the assumption that the combat deck
archetype "must" be propped up. If people think it does, then tell us
why first. Then worry about how it needs to be done.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
>>My interest is in interesting combat. S:CE (which isn't just Majesty)
defeats
90% of the possible combat offenses. The predominant corrective answer is
Immortal Grapple rush. Assuming the Immortal Grapple gets played, the deck
annihilates minions. Minion loss, in my mind, is the single most destabilizing
possibility (including through minion theft or Banishment or whatever) and
should be minimized.>>
But if you minimize minion loss, you completely neutralize the combat deck as a
viable strategy option. The whole point of a combat deck is to make others lose
their minions--if you aren't doing this, you will *never* oust them. The only
way to oust someone as a Rush deck is to torporize/burn all of their vampires.
The harder this becomes to do, the more unlikely it is that a combat deck can
actually survive, let alone win. If combat decks become less useful, then S+B
decks become *more* useful, and the game ceases to work well.
As the game stands, IG can be hosed by manuvers, fortitude, Obediance, agg
damage, and more Potence, and IG is the pre-eminent combat option. I suspect
that the only S:CE hoser that folks are looking for at this point out of the
next expansion is something to help the Assamites out, which if comes to pass,
adds yet another option to use against the IG decks--if Assamite decks become
viable (which they currently really aren't, as Psyche isn't really that good of
a S:CE hoser), this makes combat more interesting.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"Why so many swords?"
"I must kill many."
-Kikuchiyo
Frederick Scott
>
> Ian wrote:
> >>My interest is in interesting combat. S:CE (which isn't just Majesty)
> defeats
> 90% of the possible combat offenses. The predominant corrective answer is
> Immortal Grapple rush. Assuming the Immortal Grapple gets played, the deck
> annihilates minions. Minion loss, in my mind, is the single most destabilizing
> possibility (including through minion theft or Banishment or whatever) and
> should be minimized.>>
>
> But if you minimize minion loss, you completely neutralize the combat deck as a
> viable strategy option. The whole point of a combat deck is to make others lose
> their minions--if you aren't doing this, you will *never* oust them. The only
> way to oust someone as a Rush deck is to torporize/burn all of their vampires.
Therein lies the point. The games needs something *else* you can do with combat
besides utterly destroying the opponent's minions and destabilizing the game,
without that great a benefit to yourself. I mean, it is a benefit but of limited
nature: that minion no longer harasses what you're trying to do including bleed
your prey. But if it's your predator's minion, it also can't be used to defend
himself against his predator as needed. And if it's your prey, once you've ousted
him (if you succeed at doing that), you have to start over with the next prey -
who may be all that much better off because your prey was weakened and prevent from
doing much to him from the start.
That's why things like Fame are good. The game needs more stuff like that, perhaps
even more directly useful than Fame for ousting your prey with combat. (Fame has
its drawbacks, unfortunately.)
> The harder this becomes to do, the more unlikely it is that a combat deck can
> actually survive, let alone win. If combat decks become less useful, then S+B
> decks become *more* useful, and the game ceases to work well.
Combat isn't the only thing that keeps S & B in check. Nor does it need to be.
However, if they can solve the problem of giving combat ways to win that aren't
so destabilizing, I don't mind it having that side effect.
Fred
Pat Ricochet
Well, as Leggy noted, combat should almost be restricted to skilled
players. Sure, you can make combat more types of combat effective by making
a "generic" S:CE hoser, or even make the Assamites more effective by giving
them a Quietus S:CE hoser. But that doesn't mean they oust people more
effectively, just makes more "table-unbalancing" decks viable. If combat
becomes even harder to defend against, it makes it easier for Bozo T. Twit
to run rampant at whoever he wants. The counterargument is that these
people will either learn or give up.
If you make a card that says "Master. This card cannot be burned by
playing another Master Card. You and your prey and predator are both
ousted, but your predator gains 2 VPs instead of 1, and you and your prey
both gain none," people WILL play it. Tournaments have plenty of sore
losers, poor players, and people who think that having a "vindictive
reputation" is a useful goal if you can't win.
Making a strategy that is capable of being table-unbalancing MORE
capable of it being unbalancing doesn't seem the right way to go. It seems
exactly the WRONG way to go. The Assamites don't need to win every combat
guaranteed, just so people will play them more. More people would just be
playing tournament-losing Assamite decks. They need ways to survive and
ways to oust.
I like that better, too. Notably, it doesn't "stack" with Fame, but I
also like the reasoning that it allows the target to keep playing their
deck, not unlike unblocked and passed votes or unblocked bleeds.
Pat Ricochet
> agree with you and Fred PARTIALLY, and even with Andrew davidson, about the
> undesirability of boosting combat. i hold this position because i
> think combat, unintelligently played, is no more than a table-
> destabilising factor, which can result in the winner being the lucky
> guy/gal who just happens to avoid the worst combat damage. If you've
> played in an all-combat tournament you will know what i mean! i hold
> the [possibly elitist] view that rush-combat should be something
> pretty much restricted to experienced players and/or unjamming playgroups
> which have got stuck on malky bleed/deflect/counter decks.
>
> But i don't agree with you when you say combat is only a tactic like
> putting guns in your deck [sorry if i've misunderstood your argument,
> but i don't believe i am being unfair].
myself, and was getting to the "half-baked" part of the post.
But, I let the point stand just to take things "outside the box."
Combat doesn't DO anything by itself. Combat is what happens when one
vampire blocks another. Now, Bum's Rush DOES something. It *deliberately*
gets you into combat. Now, the point, usually, is to torporize the target
minion, but it's the combat cards that help you do that. But if you equip
with a Hawg, 2 sets of IR Goggles, and an RPG Launcher, you can Rush people,
and never play a combat card, and torp damn near anyone who *doesn't* play a
combat card. Really it's a "Rush Combat" deck. Sometimes you hear them
called "Rush decks" or "Combat Decks." The first is correct, and about as
explicit as it needs to be. There really aren't any Rush decks that aren't
Rush Combat. But there are Combat decks that don't Rush.
Notably, Intercept decks. It's just another vehicle for getting into
combat. The question new players find themselves asking (as I asked myself
and the group long ago) is "what do you do, playing an intercept dog, when
you actually *catch* the mailman?" Tear him a new one is certainly one
option. This leads to Tzimisce intercept decks. But you can actually just
leave him alone, and just stop him; in fact, that's sometimes the best thing
against your predator. This leads to Tory/!Tory run-away-Majesty-untap
intercept decks. The first is an "Intercept Combat" deck, where the latter
is not, but is still an Intercept deck.
As several people have noticed, Intercept decks can be as equally
unbalancing to the table as Rush Combat decks. But you don't find as many
people pointing out that "pure" Intercept (Combat) decks ALSO don't win as
many tournaments as vote or bleed. Why not? Same reason as Rush Combat;
because the deck doesn't remove pool from it's prey. But it's an equally
valid deck "archetype" as Combat, Vote, and Bleed. Among other things, it's
as good a counter to Vote and S&B as Rush Combat is. Though, I agree with
Derek that the whole "archetype" thing is pretty pointless, but I want to
take explicit attention to the fact that the idea of deck archetypes is
artificial, and it's painfully artificial, not to mention wrong, that
Combat, Bleed, and Vote are, or were ever meant to be, the "3 equal legs."
James Coupe
<rogc...@student.luth.se> writes
>I agree but there's already Terror Frenzy that does what James suggested
>(and even more). Although it's a rare...
Certainly, though Animalism isn't the only place to act, nor is this
mechanic the only necessary one.
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
"What's wrong with wanting more?
If you can fly -- then soar!
With all there is, why settle for just a piece of sky?"
Roger Carhult
--
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:XSYV5pGL...@cooling-towers.freeserve.co.uk...
> In message <9a9ibh$cud$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult
> <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes
> >I agree but there's already Terror Frenzy that does what James suggested
> >(and even more). Although it's a rare...
>
> Certainly, though Animalism isn't the only place to act, nor is this
> mechanic the only necessary one.
>
No but a lot of the combat clans who doesn't naturally have access to IG och
TT och Psyche have Animalism. Thus may not be the best solution but it's
always somehting :) I really don't want to see more S:CE hosers för
disciplines used by more than one clan...as stated many times by now (and
yet hasn't gotten a good counter argument) hosing S:CE won't give combat
decks more VP's, which is what they'd need.
Halcyan 2
>slightly too good still might be the Majesty, Ventrue becomes very powerful
>with this since they can bleed, untap and then vote AND they have fortitude
>(which also includes Freak Drive).
Well, right now there's Charnas the Imp and The Treatment. Though they're clan
specific for requirements, they inflict damage *each* time the minion untaps.
Thus untapping with Majesty costs the blood and then also does a damage. While
there are plenty of cards that do damage during the untap phase or requires
blood to be spent to untap during the untap phase, perhaps we could see more
cards that deal damage each time the vampire untaps?
Alternatively, Majesty's untap power becomes unusable if the vampire doesn't
have the blood. Vampiric Disease and Society of Leopold can help with that. And
if Ventrue I really causing problems, you can always add some Cultivated Blood
Shortage to whittle them down...
Halcyan 2
Peter D Bakija
>>Therein lies the point. The games needs something *else* you can do with
combat besides utterly destroying the opponent's minions and destabilizing the
game, without that great a benefit to yourself.>>
Destroying your opponents minions, as a Rush deck, provides a great benefit to
yourself--your predator can no longer hurt you as much, and your prey needs to
spend pool to get out more minions (thereby making him that closer to getting
ousted).
I'm a little unclear as to what you see as a possibility for combat *other*
than destroying minions--yeah, Fame is useful, but only in the context of a
deck that can reliably torporize vampires (thus the Destroying is of firstmost
importance, and the Fame secondmost). More cards like Fame would be useful,
sure (say an action modifier that says something like "If a vampire goes to
torpor during this action, that vampire's controller loses 1 pool"), but still
you need to be able to torporize. What other possible use could there be for
combat?
>>I mean, it is a benefit but of limited nature: that minion no longer harasses
what you're trying to do including bleed your prey.>>
The Benefit is immense--as a Rush deck, killing your Predator's vampires keeps
you alive. Killing your prey's vampires gets him ousted. This is the aim of any
strategy in VTES--keeping yourself alive while ousting your prey. Rush decks do
this just like any other deck.
>>But if it's your predator's minion, it also can't be used to defend himself
against his predator as needed.>>
You may have to do that for him. Rush decks are all about table control.
>>And if it's your prey, once you've ousted him (if you succeed at doing that),
you have to start over with the next prey - who may be all that much better off
because your prey was weakened and prevent from doing much to him from the
start.>>
How is this any different from how a Bleed deck operates? If I, as a S+B deck
say, bleed the hell out of my prey, once I've ousted him, I have to start all
over with the next prey, who may be much better off because my prey was
weakened. I'm a little unclear as to the difference.
I fully accept that Rush decks, in the hands of the foolish, *can* destabilize
the game through completely random actions (random cross table rushes or
whatever), but the exact same can be said about a vote deck (who can randomly
oust people across the table with KRC/ConAg) or, say, a TotGP deck, who can
cripple people across the table by stealing all of their vampires. Pretty much
*any* deck can destablize a table when played badly--anyone who takes actions
that are not in their own best interest can destroy a multi-player game. This
is not the sole province of a Rush deck.
>>That's why things like Fame are good. The game needs more stuff like that,
perhaps even more directly useful than Fame for ousting your prey with combat.
(Fame has its drawbacks, unfortunately.)>>
But you'd still have to be able to torporize folks with impunity for such cards
to be worth playing--and if you can torporize folks with impunity, you are
destroying minions.
>>Combat isn't the only thing that keeps S & B in check. Nor does it need to
be.>>
No it isn't, but it is the most effective thing that keeps it in check. It is
Rock to S+B's Scisors. Deflection and Intercept are much less effective at
stopping S+B than combat decks on the whole (as they are passive stratigies
rather than active ones).
>>However, if they can solve the problem of giving combat ways to win that
aren't
so destabilizing, I don't mind it having that side effect.>>
Combat decks, when played intelligently, aren't any more destabilizing than any
other deck strategies. They keep themselves alive while weakening their prey.
Just like every other deck.
James Coupe
<sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes
> Thank you, thank you, thank you. About freaking time someone
>intelligently challenged the "3 legs" assumption. Yes, ASSUMPTION.
Richard Garfield's writings suggest otherwise. It appears to have been
a design decision.
If I could find my copy of the book, I'd cite. (I appear to have
permanently lost it now.)
James Coupe
<rogc...@student.luth.se> writes
>hosing S:CE won't give combat
>decks more VP's, which is what they'd need.
An interesting assertion.
Consider:
A combat deck rushes 10 times, torporising 5 minions in 5 combats, but
having the other five S:CE-ed. (Assuming perfect deck construction,
perfect card flow, perfect play etc.)
Those 5 actions could, instead, be used to bleed their prey out. That
would give them more VPs.
Is this a good thing?
James Coupe
<rogc...@student.luth.se> writes
>I completely agree with your points Frederick. I also wonder why combat
>decks should be improved with S:CE hosers because they have problem gaining
>VP's while intercept decks have problems gaining VP's too but them there's
>nobody who wants to improve?
Intercept decks are, very often, combat decks.
In general terms, intercept decks *can* (but don't have to) fall under
the category of combat decks.
James Coupe
<fre...@netcom.com> writes
>> i think it's legitimate to wonder about whether we should plug in
>> new strategies, boost some strategies at the expense of others,
>> completely abolish some strategies and so on, but the kind of
>> discussion i would rather have focusses on neglected cards, and asks
>> how we might integrate them better into the game.
>
>It sure is.
And, in some ways, this is what "we" are doing.
Consider all the combat decks that get hosed by S:CE tactics e.g.
Tzimisce combat. Assuming that, on consideration, we decide that S:CE
is "too" powerful against Tzimisce combat, we can argue about potential
mechanics to over-ride such.
As I said, the predominant feeling on the newsgroup, so far as I could
grasp it (prior to this thread and others going on now), was that the
initial consideration (that S:CE was "too" powerful) was a fairly
accepted point.
Frederick Scott
>
> In message <9ado2f$o0p$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult
> <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes
> >hosing S:CE won't give combat
> >decks more VP's, which is what they'd need.
>
> An interesting assertion.
>
> Consider:
>
> A combat deck rushes 10 times, torporising 5 minions in 5 combats, but
> having the other five S:CE-ed. (Assuming perfect deck construction,
> perfect card flow, perfect play etc.)
>
> Those 5 actions could, instead, be used to bleed their prey out. That
> would give them more VPs.
...but likely not. That's 5 pool. Or maybe 10 pool if they all have
laptops. More importantly (I guess), it means bleeding out the prey 5
actions earlier, if that makes a difference. And assuming they don't
discover they desperately need the actions to cross-table rush their
grandpredator or do other table management operations to fend off
impending disaster. And it also means they're 5 actions ahead of the
game on their grandprey, too. Though with the number of actions they
have to spend destroying their grandprey's minions and bleeding their
grandprey out whilst continuing to fend off disaster behind them, 5
extra actions may be a drop in the bucket. (Though by that time, if
their grandprey is not able to use S:CE as well, the savings may also
accumulate.)
It's complicated to figure, exactly. No doubt the elimination of S:CE
would make combat decks more viable to some extent. How *much* more
viable is the question. I still think this part of the equation is not
that important in helping decks that use combat to gain more VPs (except
for decks based on clans that can do next to nothing about it), compared
to other stuff you could do for them.
And as for whether it's a "good thing", I don't think it's good enough
and I think it has a definite downside.
Fred
Frederick Scott
>
> Fredrick wrote:
> >>Therein lies the point. The games needs something *else* you can do with
> combat besides utterly destroying the opponent's minions and destabilizing the
> game, without that great a benefit to yourself.>>
>
> Destroying your opponents minions, as a Rush deck, provides a great benefit to
> yourself--your predator can no longer hurt you as much, and your prey needs to
> spend pool to get out more minions (thereby making him that closer to getting
> ousted).
I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free benefit
to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things considered,
the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you
can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five.
> I'm a little unclear as to what you see as a possibility for combat *other*
> than destroying minions--yeah, Fame is useful, but only in the context of a
> deck that can reliably torporize vampires (thus the Destroying is of firstmost
> importance, and the Fame secondmost). More cards like Fame would be useful,
> sure (say an action modifier that says something like "If a vampire goes to
> torpor during this action, that vampire's controller loses 1 pool"), but still
> you need to be able to torporize. What other possible use could there be for
> combat?
Now *I'm* a little confused. You just got done lauding the benefits of destroying
a predator's minion in one paragraph and then in the next, you turn around and
minimize the benefit of bleeding your prey for 3 for only torporizing his vampires.
What am I not seeing here? Or rather, what are you *not* seeing here? The
possibilities for cards like this seem clear and obvious to me. The game works
much better when combat decks Fame a prey's vamp and spend all their time putting
the same vamp in and out of torpor. Compared to running around blowing up minions
for no particular gain except their absence, the amount of table destabilization of
the former tactic is practically nil.
> >>I mean, it is a benefit but of limited nature: that minion no longer harasses
> what you're trying to do including bleed your prey.>>
>
> The Benefit is immense--as a Rush deck, killing your Predator's vampires keeps
> you alive.
I just disagree. It helps keep you alive for a moment, but the table destabilization
makes it difficult to predict what will happen in the long run.
I'm not going to argue with you about the point that combat decks find ways to win
using combat. They do. They just aren't very easy ways to win and I feel that the
amount of chaos they cause - in the form of undeserved boons and banes to various
opponents - harms the game in general.
> >>And if it's your prey, once you've ousted him (if you succeed at doing that),
> you have to start over with the next prey - who may be all that much better off
> because your prey was weakened and prevent from doing much to him from the
> start.>>
>
> How is this any different from how a Bleed deck operates? If I, as a S+B deck
> say, bleed the hell out of my prey, once I've ousted him, I have to start all
> over with the next prey, who may be much better off because my prey was
> weakened. I'm a little unclear as to the difference.
That seems deliberately dense to me, to compare the way combat and S & B
operate. Stealth and bleed attacks the remaining pool your prey leaves after
he's brought his minions out - unless you can make huge bleeds in the early going
sufficient to prevent him from bring out as much force as he normally would.
He has as much force as he started out with until the moment he's ousted.
Combat decks, on the other hand, rob the victim (predator or prey), of
desperately needed force which they use against both you and the guy on the
other side. You need to do a bunch of rushes and thus damage before you can
bring your goal into view. It's this time that imbalances the game.
> I fully accept that Rush decks, in the hands of the foolish, *can* destabilize
> the game through completely random actions (random cross table rushes or
> whatever), but the exact same can be said about a vote deck (who can randomly
> oust people across the table with KRC/ConAg) or, say, a TotGP deck, who can
> cripple people across the table by stealing all of their vampires. Pretty much
> *any* deck can destablize a table when played badly--anyone who takes actions
> that are not in their own best interest can destroy a multi-player game. This
> is not the sole province of a Rush deck.
Not in that sense, no. But unlike the bleed deck and the vote deck, the rush
deck *must* destabilize the game for a period of time before it can be successful.
Bleed and vote both attack pool, which has no direct consequences until the moment
you go over the top - if you ever do.
> >>That's why things like Fame are good. The game needs more stuff like that,
> perhaps even more directly useful than Fame for ousting your prey with combat.
> (Fame has its drawbacks, unfortunately.)>>
>
> But you'd still have to be able to torporize folks with impunity for such cards
> to be worth playing--and if you can torporize folks with impunity, you are
> destroying minions.
No. You torporize *one* minion. Then bring it out of torpor. Then torporize
it again. I believe the difference is pretty obvious.
>
> >>Combat isn't the only thing that keeps S & B in check. Nor does it need to
> be.>>
>
> No it isn't, but it is the most effective thing that keeps it in check. It is
> Rock to S+B's Scisors. Deflection and Intercept are much less effective at
> stopping S+B than combat decks on the whole (as they are passive stratigies
> rather than active ones).
Maybe. But it still doesn't work very well. I'm much more keen to find
another rock. They are *not* "just like any other deck".
Fred
James McClellan
>Ian wrote:
>>>My interest is in interesting combat. S:CE (which isn't just Majesty)
>defeats
>90% of the possible combat offenses. The predominant corrective answer is
>Immortal Grapple rush. Assuming the Immortal Grapple gets played, the deck
>annihilates minions. Minion loss, in my mind, is the single most
destabilizing
>possibility (including through minion theft or Banishment or whatever) and
>should be minimized.>>
>
>But if you minimize minion loss, you completely neutralize the combat deck as
a
>viable strategy option. The whole point of a combat deck is to make others
lose
>their minions--if you aren't doing this, you will *never* oust them. The only
>way to oust someone as a Rush deck is to torporize/burn all of their
vampires.
Currently this is absolutely right. But i'd be in favour of more cards
templated on monomancy - eg rush a minion of your predator. The targetted
minion may avoid combat by accepting a minus to bleed, loss of a vote or
inability to take a D action. Other cards could be targetted at your prey -
eg
the rushed minion may avoid combat but becomes tapped and will not untap in
its controller's next untap phase. Cards of this kind could refocus new
people
on the paramount importance of actually ousting their prey, and they would
IMO
reduce the tendency for the rush-combat deck to make things easy for
everyone
who is not its predator or prey.
>The harder this becomes to do, the more unlikely it is that a combat deck can
>actually survive, let alone win. If combat decks become less useful, then S+B
>decks become *more* useful, and the game ceases to work well.
>
>As the game stands, IG can be hosed by manuvers, fortitude, Obediance, agg
>damage, and more Potence, and IG is the pre-eminent combat option. I suspect
>that the only S:CE hoser that folks are looking for at this point out of the
>next expansion is something to help the Assamites out, which if comes to
pass,
>adds yet another option to use against the IG decks--if Assamite decks become
>viable (which they currently really aren't, as Psyche isn't really that good
of
>a S:CE hoser), this makes combat more interesting.
i think classic rush-combat is a fine strategy and i like it that it's
difficult to play. i'd like more people [good players] to play rush-combat
and
i think if this happens that clans like the assamites will suddenly not need
fixing at all, because the assamites are REALLY good in a high-combat
environment. What i DON'T want to see is rush-combat becoming easy, because
there's a danger of recreating the immensely boring counterspell deck which
is
one of the main things wrong with Magic IMO.
>
>
>
>Peter D Bakija
>PD...@aol.com
>http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
>
>"Why so many swords?"
>"I must kill many."
>-Kikuchiyo
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
James McClellan
>must... wade... in...
>
>On 4 Apr 2001 05:01:16 -0500, legbiter<legb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:27:42 -0400 Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>
wrote:
>(some stuff which I snipped)
>
>>agree with you and Fred PARTIALLY, and even with Andrew davidson, about the
>>undesirability of boosting combat. i hold this position because i
>>think combat, unintelligently played, is no more than a table-
>>destabilising factor, which can result in the winner being the lucky
>>guy/gal who just happens to avoid the worst combat damage. If you've
>>played in an all-combat tournament you will know what i mean! i hold
>>the [possibly elitist] view that rush-combat should be something
>>pretty much restricted to experienced players and/or unjamming playgroups
>>which have got stuck on malky bleed/deflect/counter decks.
>
>position. Anyone who's ever been on the wrong end of an "ah, screw
>it, i'm gonna fuck up... THAT crucial minion of yours cross-table"
>deck can also certainly sympathise.
>
>And realistically, it's not possible to forbid noobies from playing
>combat; so that adds yet another factor to consider when creating.
PRECISELY my point, but better put.
>
>>but i don't believe i am being unfair]. Whether this was designed
>>to be the case or not i don't know, but i think the
>>following deck-types are viable in VTES at the moment;
>>
>>Bleed
>>Vote
>>Bloat
>>Combat
>>Intercept
>>Swarm
>>Takeover
>>Shutdown
>>Poison
>>
>>Each deck type has an offense, a defense and a weak spot.
>>Most of these strategies can be mixed. For example, rush-combat/Fame
>
>I'd almost go ahead and pitch out the concept of deck "archetypes"
>altogether. I think the original idea was to attempt to classify
>decks by the manner in which they ousted their prey; ie bleed, vote,
>or beat guys up and hope they bring one out. It now seems likely that
>that system of classification simply isn't going to be adequate, and
>you'll have to swap back to something like the above; defining briefly
>what the deck DOES.
Fair enough, but the natural historian in me WANTS to categorise and analyse
with a view to assessment and prediction. i'm not laying down laws but
sharing
an opinion or perhaps hypothesis.
>
>Although again, the mix is best. I think you have to just treat it
>like a big set of checkboxes; "my deck does X, Y, and Z". It's not
>uncommon to see a deck that mostly bleeds, but occasionally hits you
>for something, and carries just enough light intercept to stop very
>offensive things from happening. As I wrote in a post that never made
>it here (was written at 4am, and i reread it this morning and said
>"thank god i didn't send that"), each of these types is simply a leg
>of the cow to be considered when building one's deck. A cow with one
>leg (weenie dominate bleed) is unstable and can be tipped over easily,
>but is easy to make, faster to start, and can give just as much milk
>(VPs) as any other cow. And if you put both legs on the same side
>(trying to mix combat and shutdown), you might find your cow tipping
>over of its own accord, such as when you kill the guy you just Sense
>Depped.
See, now YOU are analysing. If Faery stories an italian recipes turn out to
conform to basic archetypes [check out KM Briggs' Dictionary of Fairies and
Alan Davidson's Meditteranean Seafood for evidence that they do] that's
useful
information which makes it easier for you to tell good stories or cook good
food. Similarly, my interest in analysing deck-types is just me feeling my
way
to designing better decks.
>>i think it's legitimate to wonder about whether we should plug in
>>new strategies, boost some strategies at the expense of others,
>>completely abolish some strategies and so on, but the kind of
>>discussion i would rather have focusses on neglected cards, and asks
>>how we might integrate them better into the game. Sometimes this
>>can be done within the existing rules and card-set just by thinking
>>a bit harder. Other times perhaps we need new cards or rules to
>>achieve the same end. That's where this discussion started - people
>>were thinking aloud about how to make the Assamites more popular.
>>One idea is that they should get an anti-SCE card. i'd prefer that you
>>guys get a web-cam up so that EVERYONE can see how Todd plays
>>them, which would have the additional plusses that people could [a] see
>> how YOU play the Giovanni, and [b] marvel at the uncanny physical
>> resemblance of Derek to Angel's Evil Childe in Somnambulist.
>
>There is a lot to be said for "playing the clan properly", as opposed
>to just looking at the disciplines and making something according to
>the disciplines. Sure, the Assamites have OBF/CEL/QUI, but is it
>necessary to include lots of OBF when making the deck? Do you WANT to
>stay out of combat that much?
Sacrificial Lamb, Swallowed by the Night and concealed weapon? i take the
point, of course.
>
>There's also a lot to be said for beating Legbiter with a stick and
>taking his pint away from him. I'm in favour of that, preferably on a
>webcam. :P
NOOOOO .... not the BEER .....
Spookily enough, TWO, erm, close friends have recently had nightmares about
me
being beaten up or tortured. Perhaps this is the place, and time, to testify
that Angel's Evil Childe is a dam' handsome fellow, and SIGNIFICANTLY
shorter
than you are.
>
>-- Derek
>
>"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
> - C. Darwin, 1871
------------------------------------------------------------
Sorrow
A majority, I believe.
> I haven't had a look at the winning decks but I suspect that most of these
> have S:CE hosers in them, and it STILL didn't help.
Huh? These combat decks *won* the tournament. How did IG _not_ help?
> problem IMO. Brujah combat decks rarely wins and they still have TWO
hosers,
> IG and Psyche of which IG is even considered _the_ hoser. Whhy would dding
> more hosers help??
Potence combat wins more often than other combat decks, it seems. This
is most likely due to IG. So how would a hoser for another clan/skill not
help other combat decks?
Sorrow
---
"Are they dead?" - Pugsly
"Does it matter?" - Wednesday
Sorrow
> >decks should be improved with S:CE hosers because they have problem
gaining
> >VP's while intercept decks have problems gaining VP's too but them
there's
> >nobody who wants to improve?
> Intercept decks are, very often, combat decks.
Indeed. A few of the combat decks that I included in my post when listing
the
tournament winners were intercept/combat.
Sorrow
---
"...but you know, evil is an exact science..."
Sorrow
> >intelligently challenged the "3 legs" assumption. Yes, ASSUMPTION.
> Richard Garfield's writings suggest otherwise. It appears to have been
> a design decision.
Indeed.
> If I could find my copy of the book, I'd cite. (I appear to have
> permanently lost it now.)
I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was released
for Jyhad (not "Darkness Unveiled", the other one; I'm almost certain
that is where I read it). And this is coming from the guy who designed
the game. So no, it is not an _*ASSUMPTION*_.
Sorrow
---
"This is my costume.
I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else."
-- Wednesday Addams
Derek Ray
wrote:
>James Coupe wrote:
>>
>> An interesting assertion.
>>
>> Consider:
>>
>> A combat deck rushes 10 times, torporising 5 minions in 5 combats, but
>> having the other five S:CE-ed. (Assuming perfect deck construction,
>> perfect card flow, perfect play etc.)
>>
>> Those 5 actions could, instead, be used to bleed their prey out. That
>> would give them more VPs.
>
>...but likely not. That's 5 pool. Or maybe 10 pool if they all have
Indeed. So bleeding for 5 isn't necessarily the answer. It still
comes down to the fact that a Rush deck's use of resources is aimed
directly at a Methuselah's SECONDARY resources, instead of primary.
And directly after that (as you note below), number of actions is
critical. The simple 'equip with a bleed retainer' action, which is
worth it in almost every single deck, is NOT worth it in a Rush deck,
which relies on all its actions to simply survive at first, and later
relies on its actions to survive its OWN actions in destabilizing the
table. Once it tips the balance of the plate, it has to keep moving
or the balance keeps going. (Speaking of, did you ever see an
animated short called "Balance"? If you can find it on the web, it
illustrates this situation excellently.)
>laptops. More importantly (I guess), it means bleeding out the prey 5
>actions earlier, if that makes a difference. And assuming they don't
>discover they desperately need the actions to cross-table rush their
>grandpredator or do other table management operations to fend off
>impending disaster. And it also means they're 5 actions ahead of the
>game on their grandprey, too. Though with the number of actions they
>have to spend destroying their grandprey's minions and bleeding their
>grandprey out whilst continuing to fend off disaster behind them, 5
>extra actions may be a drop in the bucket. (Though by that time, if
>their grandprey is not able to use S:CE as well, the savings may also
>accumulate.)
So you've got a drop in the bucket.
OK,... how about THIS card?
Careful Preparation
Action Modifier
(discipline symbol)
1 blood
(I) Only usable after a combat where the opposing minion played Combat
Ends as a strike. The opposing minion takes one point of
unpreventable damage.
(S) As above, and untap this acting vampire.
What does this card do to the game? It doesn't directly hose S:CE, so
you can't automatically make vampires dead with it, and this is a good
thing. It provides something very important to combat decks, however:
a non-wasted action, which is the truly crippling effect of S:CE on
combat. Since NRA is still in effect, you can't use the same Rush
card again; and if you want to mix Bum's Rush, Ambush, Monomancy, and
the like, then you could, with the associated risks. So you have a
card that doesn't visibly help make vamps dead. And if you include it
in your deck and players don't play S:CE against you, then you have
some automatic discards handy. But you could use those untapped
vampires for a number of things...
(a) blocking - it's much more worth it to put a KRCG in your deck
(b) bleeding for 1 or more
(c) getting a weapon, retainer, etc.
(d) ??
I don't include the discipline because, with Telepathic Tracking out,
it's not so immediately obvious as to which clans need help anymore.
James Coupe
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>>> Those 5 actions could, instead, be used to bleed their prey out. That
>>> would give them more VPs.
>>
>>...but likely not. That's 5 pool. Or maybe 10 pool if they all have
>
>Indeed. So bleeding for 5 isn't necessarily the answer.
True.
The point is, if just *1* of those "failed" combats could be utilised
for something else, you get slightly closer to victory - however you
might choose to achieve that. Perhaps, rescuing someone from torpor to
use Fame again? With an upped action success count, you have 1 action
"free".
Bleeding would be the lowest common denominator.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
What's the meaning when you speak with so much feeling? B457CA213D7E6
Is it over when you're sober? Is it junk? 68C3695D623D5D
Roger Carhult
--
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:E5ihTzPi...@obeah.demon.co.uk...
> In message <9ado2f$o0p$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult
> <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes
> >hosing S:CE won't give combat
> >decks more VP's, which is what they'd need.
>
> An interesting assertion.
>
> Consider:
>
> A combat deck rushes 10 times, torporising 5 minions in 5 combats, but
> having the other five S:CE-ed. (Assuming perfect deck construction,
> perfect card flow, perfect play etc.)
>
> Those 5 actions could, instead, be used to bleed their prey out. That
> would give them more VPs.
>
> Is this a good thing?
>
Since IG decks still doesn't win all that often, I consider it proved that
S:CE hsoers doesn't make combat deck that good. Of course without the hosers
they'd suck, but once again, the problem for combat decks not gaining VP's
isn't because of S:CE, it's because of their lack of bleed ability and that
you have to spend a lot of actions to bring the vampires down (even if you
do it successfully with every rush action). Derek Ray made a good post below
about this.
Tom Kassel
>Currently this is absolutely right. But i'd be in favour of more cards
>templated on monomancy - eg rush a minion of your predator. The targetted
>minion may avoid combat by accepting a minus to bleed, loss of a vote or
>inability to take a D action. Other cards could be targetted at your prey -
>eg
>the rushed minion may avoid combat but becomes tapped and will not untap in
>its controller's next untap phase. Cards of this kind could refocus new
>people
>on the paramount importance of actually ousting their prey, and they would
>IMO
>reduce the tendency for the rush-combat deck to make things easy for
>everyone
>who is not its predator or prey.
>
It would be tricky to make this sort of card very attractive. Predator
minions can do too many nasty things that you need to stop - bleed, vote,
bounce, various unpleasant D actions. Being in torpor deals nicely with all
of this but cards which cover only one function PER MINION rely on good luck
in the particular predator's focus to be useful. Now if you could rush a
minion and restrict the METHUSELAH, that would be worthwhile. Obviously
"Meth
can't bleed you" is a little (ok, enormously) too good, but can't bleed for
x
turns or for more than x or more than once a turn, etc might be worthwhile.
Tom
Roger Carhult
--
"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message
news:tcm3slj...@corp.supernews.com...
Sorry was a bit unclear, but what I mean is that is IG would help so much
the combat decks would win more than just 9%. They still fail to win often
despite IG and such a like. I base this on the reasonable assumption that
there's combat decks with S:CE hosers in every tournament (since almost all
combat decks have S:CE hosers nowadays, and there's always at least one
combat deck in tournaments).
Roger Carhult
Now this is a card I like! Something like this would still let S:CE stay
good but also make combat decks better.
Hmm I think it would be nice witha Quietus card that allows the vamp to
hose S:CE but he cannot then strike with hand.
Tom Mad&Co
"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> escribió en el mensaje
news:9afcn6$a6q$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
Well, indeed there are many ways. Just don't focuse your deck on a heavy
combat objective.
Since in tournaments there are not so many combat decks, you shouldn't build
yours with 50% combat cards. Just rely on combat and strength cards as a
kind of "intimidatory stealth", and build a bruise & bleed deck with more
enphasis on the bleed side. For example: A !Toreador with 6 or more Palla
Grandes, art of pain and guns. And a bunch of presence action cards. Fast
Reaction just bypases that S:CE, and you just play your additionals cards
when opposing minion has no S:CE to play.
Also, someone has said that there is nothing extra in burning your prey
minions. Does anybody remember such cards as Anathema?? It sounds to me it
is a good card to play in a Brujah (specially a Donal/Constanza deck) or
Nosfi Justicar potence deck.
Though it's still obvious that a combat deck hasn't the same chance to win
any tournament.
A combat deck uses 40-70% of their deck in combat focused cards. Other decks
focuses that amount of their deck in bleeding/voting cards.
To kill a 7th capacity vamp you spend 4-9 cards. A simple Sensory
Deprivation does the same work. I makes me remind...
But, well, combat decks are, usually, funnier to play.
Sunbeam
James Coupe
<rogc...@student.luth.se> writes
>Since IG decks still doesn't win all that often, I consider it proved that
>S:CE hsoers doesn't make combat deck that good.
Consider:
1) The popular perception is that combat doesn't win
-> people don't play combat, therefore combat *can't* win very
often because it isn't played very often.
2) The received wisdom is that clever and useful play of a combat deck
can only be performed by experienced and talented players. The
standard S&B can be put together by anyone and played to a
relatively good level quite quickly. Combat requires more
thought, skill, planning, diplomacy and strategy.
3) A number of people like to vary the decks they play, for an added
surprise element. Okay, I'll play my Brujah IG Pound for Pound
deck, but sometimes I might want to play with my Malkavian
Derange deck.
Thus:
We have a large set of V:TES players.
(A)
We have a smaller set of player who play combat decks.
(B. B is a subset of A.)
We have a smaller set of players who play combat decks and are also of a
high skill level.
(C. C is a subset of B.)
And at any given point, not all of C will be playing.
The jump between A and B is large, but can be "controlled". That is,
players can be encouraged to play combat decks. The jump between B and
C is hard to control. It is hard to make players "good" (in the current
environment).
Comparatively, I would assert that few people believe that politics
decks can't win, so the drop-off at B is smaller. Similarly, I would
assert that the level of experience, skill etc. needed to play politics
is less than that required for rush combat (in the current environment).
Similarly, I would assert that similar claims can be (rightly) made
regarding stealth and bleed. However, stealth and bleed is hampered by
an additional factor - players dropping out because of perceived cheese.
However, I would still suggest that, globally[0], the set C (players
playing the deck style regularly and having the necessary skill) is such
that C for politics is larger than C for combat, and C for bleed is
larger than C for combat. (I make no such assertion regarding C bleed
vs C politics.)
I would suggest, therefore, that there are two points:
1) Combat decks don't win very often (I will grant that, of course)
2) S:CE hosers don't make combat good (a point under debate)
The reasons behind 1) are very complex, not solely that of 2) even if it
is true.
[0] Groups function somewhat more anecdotally. A group of 20 people may
have certain leanings, another group will do other things. These will
all be influenced by meta-game, relative skill level, card pool, card
availability, creativity, what the "good" players like (that is, if
*all* the good players really, really like Hostile Takeover, a circle
will adjust around that).
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
James Coupe
<TomK...@MailAndNews.com> writes
>Obviously
>"Meth
>can't bleed you" is a little (ok, enormously) too good, but can't bleed for
>x
>turns or for more than x or more than once a turn, etc might be worthwhile.
Trial by Combat
Action
You must control a ready titled vampire. This vampire need not be the
acting vampire.
(D) Enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah. If
that vampire goes to torpor (or is burned) during this combat, all
bleeds by that Methuselah are reduced by 1 until your next untap phase.
If that vampire remains in the ready region at the end of this combat,
burn 2 pool.
Pat Ricochet
> In message <B6EEEE2D.3230%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet
> <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes
>> Thank you, thank you, thank you. About freaking time someone
>> intelligently challenged the "3 legs" assumption. Yes, ASSUMPTION.
>
> Richard Garfield's writings suggest otherwise. It appears to have been
> a design decision.
>
> If I could find my copy of the book, I'd cite. (I appear to have
> permanently lost it now.)
Which book? I've got "both," I think, from various tournament prizes.
If you mean "not the green book, but the other one, the hardback with the
tassels" then I've got "both." (Sorrow seemed to refer to two separate
books, and makes the same assertion that you do, that the "3 legged table"
is/was a design decision from the start.)
I don't recall reading that, ever, except on this newsgroup, but I'll
give the books another gander and see if I see counter-evidence to my
counter-claim.
Pat Ricochet
> In message <3AD8...@MailAndNews.com>, Tom Kassel
> <TomK...@MailAndNews.com> writes
>> Obviously
>> "Meth
>> can't bleed you" is a little (ok, enormously) too good, but can't bleed for
>> x
>> turns or for more than x or more than once a turn, etc might be worthwhile.
>
> Trial by Combat
> Action
> You must control a ready titled vampire. This vampire need not be the
> acting vampire.
> (D) Enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah. If
> that vampire goes to torpor (or is burned) during this combat, all
> bleeds by that Methuselah are reduced by 1 until your next untap phase.
> If that vampire remains in the ready region at the end of this combat,
> burn 2 pool.
Now THAT'S more like it. (I'd change the wording to "all bleeds by that
Methuselah'S MINIONS are reduced by 1..." or whatever matches the Protracted
Racehorses card text.
I'm sure the "weenie potence and nothing else" players won't like the
"titled" part, but I'd recommend some of the cheap Bishops with Potence for
those players.
Also, you need the flavor text:
"Two men enter, one man leave."
--The Crowd, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome
Frederick Scott
>
> > > Thank you, thank you, thank you. About freaking time someone
> > >intelligently challenged the "3 legs" assumption. Yes, ASSUMPTION.
> > Richard Garfield's writings suggest otherwise. It appears to have been
> > a design decision.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > If I could find my copy of the book, I'd cite. (I appear to have
> > permanently lost it now.)
>
> I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was released
> for Jyhad (not "Darkness Unveiled", the other one; I'm almost certain
> that is where I read it). And this is coming from the guy who designed
> the game. So no, it is not an _*ASSUMPTION*_.
Well, hey, let's see the cite first. Not that I doubt such a thing exists.
But actually seeing what Garfield *said* will shed light on what you're talking
about. For instance, stating that combat is supposed to be the third leg of
three archetypes the way it's currently understood and expressed on the newsgroup
may turn to out to be a misunderstanding or misstatement of Garfield's ideas.
Fred
Frederick Scott
> OK,... how about THIS card?
>
> Careful Preparation
> Action Modifier
> (discipline symbol)
> 1 blood
>
> (I) Only usable after a combat where the opposing minion played Combat
> Ends as a strike. The opposing minion takes one point of
> unpreventable damage.
> (S) As above, and untap this acting vampire.
Yep. Very interesting. (Though I'd probably change the name to something
that "felt" a bit more like what it did for aesthetics' sake.) This is
another way you could go that would make basic combat more interesting. It
would hose S:CE (sort of, kind of) in a way that doesn't destabilize the game
as much and practically forces the combat deck to get on to its true objective:
ousting its prey. Or at least varying the rush cards it uses, as you say.
Fred
Sorrow
> Action
> You must control a ready titled vampire. This vampire need not be the
> acting vampire.
> (D) Enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah. If
> that vampire goes to torpor (or is burned) during this combat, all
> bleeds by that Methuselah are reduced by 1 until your next untap phase.
> If that vampire remains in the ready region at the end of this combat,
> burn 2 pool.
Huh, what? Unless I'm misreading this, if you rush a vamp and that
vamp S:CEs, you burn 2 pool. If this is correct, how does this help
combat decks? It makes them even *more* vulnerable against S:CE
in that if the combat fails, you not only waste the action but also have
to burn 2 pool.
The bleed reduction is ok, but not worth the two pool if S:CE is played.
Sorrow
---
If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on,
you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made
your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you
from the earth.
James Hamblin
>
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> >
> > Destroying your opponents minions, as a Rush deck, provides a great benefit to
> > yourself--your predator can no longer hurt you as much, and your prey needs to
> > spend pool to get out more minions (thereby making him that closer to getting
> > ousted).
>
> I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free benefit
> to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things considered,
> the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you
> can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five.
But bleeding your prey for 5 can be defended against; by bleed bounce,
by intercept, by Archon Investigation, etc. The point of combat is to
try to exploit a weakness in the other deck, namely a lack of combat
defense. If I'm playing a combat deck, I don't care if my opponent has
intercept -- I want to get into a fight. I don't care if they have
bleed bounce or AI. But if I'm playing a bleed deck, those defense
measures influce my game tremendously.
> Now *I'm* a little confused. You just got done lauding the benefits of destroying
> a predator's minion in one paragraph and then in the next, you turn around and
> minimize the benefit of bleeding your prey for 3 for only torporizing his vampires.
> What am I not seeing here?
You're not seeing that the number one priority of a combat deck is to
destroy its prey's vampires. "But," I hear you say, "any decks #1
priority should be to oust its prey." You're right. But the _way_ the
deck does that is by _first_ destroying all of its prey's vampires.
Getting a little pool loss in there is just a bonus.
> Or rather, what are you *not* seeing here? The
> possibilities for cards like this seem clear and obvious to me. The game works
> much better when combat decks Fame a prey's vamp and spend all their time putting
> the same vamp in and out of torpor.
Not necessarily. It's very possible that by concentrating your efforts
on the Famous vampire, you're allowing the other vampires to set up
something which can really hurt you. If, for example, my prey is
playing a deck with guns and I'm light on maneuvers, I don't want them
to be able to get any guns. So my #1 priority is to kill all the
vampires I can, to keep _any_ of them from taking an equip action.
> Compared to running around blowing up minions
> for no particular gain except their absence, the amount of table destabilization of
> the former tactic is practically nil.
No one is claiming that winning with a Rush deck is easy. You are right
that completely destroying any player's minions is destabilizing. The
successful rush player controls that destabilization as much as they
can. But sometimes you can't control it. If my predator is a fast S&B
deck, I pretty much have to destroy every vampire they bring out. If my
prey is playing with a 5th/Tap deck, I need to kill the fatty titled
vampires to keep them from gaining lots of pool. A Rush deck defends
_actively_, which sometimes means destroying all of someone's vampires.
> > The Benefit is immense--as a Rush deck, killing your Predator's vampires keeps
> > you alive.
>
> I just disagree. It helps keep you alive for a moment, but the table
> destabilization makes it difficult to predict what will happen in the long run.
It's hard for a Rush deck to survive until the long run; a lot of things
have to go right for you. Rarely will you want to destroy all of your
predator's vampires. As you say, that usually just gives you a new,
stronger predator. But sometimes you have no choice but to eliminate
your predator.
> I'm not going to argue with you about the point that combat decks find ways to win
> using combat. They do. They just aren't very easy ways to win and I feel that the
> amount of chaos they cause - in the form of undeserved boons and banes to various
> opponents - harms the game in general.
Well, I don't know what to tell you. Anyone can play randomly and give
unexpected benefits to the wrong person. A Malk S&B deck which uses
Malkavian Pranks to keep cross-table allies (and future victims) in the
game is doing the same kind of thing. If I have a heavy bleed deck, and
a Deflection makes me accidentally oust my grand prey, I've
"destabilized" the table, and given my prey an "undeserved boon."
> > How is this any different from how a Bleed deck operates? If I, as a S+B deck
> > say, bleed the hell out of my prey, once I've ousted him, I have to start all
> > over with the next prey, who may be much better off because my prey was
> > weakened. I'm a little unclear as to the difference.
Or because your prey had to keep vampires up to try to block, or had to
get out fewer vampires to conserve pool. I agree with this analogy.
> That seems deliberately dense to me, to compare the way combat and S & B
> operate.
You know, Fred, you seem to have this problem a lot. People disagree
with you, and you think they're deliberately being stupid. Can't you
conceive of a point of view other than your own? Can you accept that
some people aren't convinced by your arguments?
> Stealth and bleed attacks the remaining pool your prey leaves after
> he's brought his minions out - unless you can make huge bleeds in the early going
> sufficient to prevent him from bring out as much force as he normally would.
> He has as much force as he started out with until the moment he's ousted.
> Combat decks, on the other hand, rob the victim (predator or prey), of
> desperately needed force which they use against both you and the guy on the
> other side. You need to do a bunch of rushes and thus damage before you can
> bring your goal into view. It's this time that imbalances the game.
Smart players who realize that their predator is a Rush deck will
influence so as to get out 3-4 vampires on a single turn. This way,
unless the Rush predator is very lucky, the prey will be able to take
actions and "participate." If you bring out vampires one at a time, the
Rush deck can kill them one at a time, while simultaneously handling
their predator.
Bleed decks versus Rush decks... both decks are denying their prey
resources. A bleed deck directly removes pool, which is more directly
effective, but it's also (relatively) easy to defend against. There's
no "Deflection hoser", and there shouldn't be. Combat (well-constructed
and in the right environment) is better at completing its task, but that
task doesn't directly oust people. It's a trade-off.
> Bleed and vote both attack pool, which has no direct consequences until the moment
> you go over the top - if you ever do.
Of course losing pool has direct consequences. I think you are the one
being deliberately dense. If I'm at 15 pool, I'm more willing to buy
things (Hunting Grounds, etc.) which I think will strengthen my
position, or gain me pool in the long run. I'm more willing to tap out,
or feign defenses I don't have in order to affect my prey. If I'm at 3
pool, I can't do these things. If I tap out or pretend to have defenses
I don't have, I'm risking being ousted.
> > But you'd still have to be able to torporize folks with impunity for such cards
> > to be worth playing--and if you can torporize folks with impunity, you are
> > destroying minions.
>
> No. You torporize *one* minion. Then bring it out of torpor. Then torporize
> it again. I believe the difference is pretty obvious.
The difference being you allow your prey to take actions and build up.
While this might have the long-term benefit of having them weaken your
grandprey for you, it usually has the short-term anti-benefit of them
either ousting their prey (which hurts your position by giving your prey
more pool and giving you a new, strong grandprey) or setting up defenses
which hamper your abilities. Keeping their vampires alive lets them
equip bad things, call votes which damage you, steal your vampires,
etc. Why give them the option to hurt you, in the vain hope that
they'll hurt their prey more?
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"What drives you on can drive you mad.
A million lies to sell yourself is all
you ever had."
-- Garbage
James Hamblin
>
> I just don't care to
> encourage people building decks that will make them bad news to sit next to
> no matter what kind of deck you have. (You can build the fortitude deck to
> defend yourself but it often doesn't help you win, either.) I'd rather see
> such things limited to how you do in outguessing the metagame.
I don't think that the average combat deck is necessarily "bad news." A
potence rush deck is trying to take advantage of a lack of combat
defense (fortitude, maneuvers) in the average tournament deck. There
are plenty of decks which will make the potence player say "oh, shit,
I'm screwed." If Combat is Rock, there are as many Scissors as there
are Papers.
> It sure is. I simply object to the assumption that the combat deck
> archetype "must" be propped up. If people think it does, then tell us
> why first. Then worry about how it needs to be done.
I'm not saying I think Combat (as a strategy) needs any boosting. But
how could the hypothetical existence of more _kinds_ of combat decks be
bad? I can't really play my Gangrel +strength combat deck because I
don't have any way to deal with S:CE. If there's some anti-S:CE
Animalism card, say, in Final Nights, how will that affect things?
Majesty will be just as screwed against this new card as it is against
Grapple, Psyche! and Tracking. It doesn't make the Tzimisce any better;
they can already deal with S:CE. It just means that the game will have
more diversity. There will be more _kinds_ of combat decks -- there may
not be any more combat decks per se. And, even if combat decks become
more prominent, the metagame envrionment will adjust. Ventrue decks
with huge amounts of combat defense will become prominent. And then
those decks will get screwed when the metagame shifts away from combat.
How is this a bad thing?
Wes
Does any one here know what eventually became of Dr. Garfield? Does he still
design games? Does he still involve himself with any of the games he
invented? Just curious...
Cheers,
WES
Wes
"Tom Mad&Co" <t...@almadrava.net>
> For example: A !Toreador with 6 or more Palla
> Grandes, art of pain and guns.
Both Palla Grande and Art of Pain are uniques (not to mention rares). Having
six or more might be counter-productive.
> Also, someone has said that there is nothing extra in burning your prey
> minions. Does anybody remember such cards as Anathema?? It sounds to me it
> is a good card to play in a Brujah (specially a Donal/Constanza deck) or
> Nosfi Justicar potence deck.
I'm looking at Anathema for a theme deck as we speak. It's an ana-theme-a
deck, uh yeah... It seems a bit hard to set up though and if your predator
ends up burning the Anathemed guy before you do, problems could arise.
Still, it bears closer examination.
Cheers,
WES
Peter D Bakija
>>I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free
benefit
to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things considered,
the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you
can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five.>>
And bleeding your prey for 5 provides a free benefit for your grand prey--the
five pool that they lost could have been a 5 cost vampire hurting your grand
prey, but because you took that pool, you have denied your prey this
opportunity, and consequently, provided a free benefit to another one of your
opponents. Any action you take against your prey or predator indirectly helps
someone else at the table. Bleeding someone for 5 (denying them a possible 5
point minion) or burning a 5 point minion (denying them an existing minion) has
the same end result--your other opponents benefit. Please explain the
difference.
>>Now *I'm* a little confused. You just got done lauding the benefits of
destroying
a predator's minion in one paragraph and then in the next, you turn around and
minimize the benefit of bleeding your prey for 3 for only torporizing his
vampires.>>
No, no, responding to the following comment:
>>The games needs something *else* you can do with combat besides utterly
destroying the opponent's minions>>
about wanting combat to be useful for something other than destroying minions.
I was pointing out that even *with* Fame, you still need to destroy
minions--Fame does not minimize the need to destroy minions. Fame encourages
you to destroy minions.
>>What am I not seeing here? Or rather, what are you *not* seeing here? The
possibilities for cards like this seem clear and obvious to me. The game works
much better when combat decks Fame a prey's vamp and spend all their time
putting the same vamp in and out of torpor.>>
Not for the Rush deck it doesn't. You are spending 3 actions to cost your prey
6 pool. If you spend those three actions torporizing more than 6 pool worth of
vampires, the three Rush actions are more effective than the Lather, Rinse,
Repeat Fame manuver. Pool loss is pool loss. I fail to see how it is more
beneficial for anyone for this pool loss to be in the form of loose pool than
pool tied up in minions for the same amount. Yes, torporizing a vampire of your
prey gives your grand prey a free bonus (one less vampire to deal with).
Bleeding someone for the same amount does the same thing.
>>Compared to running around blowing up minions for no particular gain except
their absence, the amount of table destabilization of the former tactic is
practically nil.>>
I still fail to see where the "no particular gain" comes in. I play Rush decks
all the time. I do very well with them. I get into the finals of pretty much
every tournament I play in. Sometimes I win. What defines "particular gain" in
VTES more than getting VPs? If killing vampires gets me VPs, I am gaining
something in particular. Victory points.
>>I just disagree. It helps keep you alive for a moment, but the table
destabilization makes it difficult to predict what will happen in the long
run.>>
And deflecting a bleed for 6 helps keep you alive for the moment as well.
Again, please detail the difference.
This concept of "Table Destabilization" is a nebulous one to me. Any deck that
does what it intends on doing is weakening another player. Any time a player's
position is weakened, another player benefits. This is what all decks do. If I
am playing a bleed deck, every pool I remove from my prey is one less pool for
my prey to spend ousting *his* prey. Thus, my grand prey gets a free benefit
from my actions. If I am an intercept deck, and I stop all of my predator's
actions, I am denying him resources and keeping him from doing what he wants to
do. As a result, my grand predator is going to be in a better position, and he
gets a free benefit. How is what a Rush deck does any different?
>>I'm not going to argue with you about the point that combat decks find ways
to win using combat. They do. They just aren't very easy ways to win and I
feel that the amount of chaos they cause - in the form of undeserved boons and
banes to various opponents - harms the game in general.>>
What chaos do they cause? They weaken their prey (just like any other deck) and
slow down their predator (just like any other deck). If by "chaos", you are
referring to folks who randomly Rush folks across the table for no good reason,
and take actions that run contrary to their own best interest, and do so with
no concern as to their ability to win or lose, I again point out that pretty
much *any* deck can do this, and isn't the fault of the Rush deck. It is the
fault of a bad player. A bad player using a vote lock KRC deck can do the exact
same thing--kill folks across the table for no good reason, destabilize the
whole game for no personal gain, and just play stupid.
Again, this is not the fault of the Rush deck. Or of the rules for combat. It
is the fault of bad players.
>>That seems deliberately dense to me, to compare the way combat and S & B
operate.>>
How? How is it dense? Please explain to me the difference between:
A) I bleed you for 6. You now are now denied 6 points of resources.
B) I burn a 6 point vampire. You are now denied 6 points of resources.
Please explain the difference in a strategic sense.
>>Stealth and bleed attacks the remaining pool your prey leaves after
he's brought his minions out - unless you can make huge bleeds in the early
going
sufficient to prevent him from bring out as much force as he normally would.>>
You only have so much pool to spend. How is denying your prey that pool before
he uses it to buy vampires any less destabilizing than denying them that pool
after they bring out vampires?
>>He has as much force as he started out with until the moment he's ousted.
Combat decks, on the other hand, rob the victim (predator or prey), of
desperately needed force which they use against both you and the guy on the
other side.>>
So does a bleed deck. Again, 5 pool lost is 5 pool lost. If I bleed you for 5,
you are denied a 5 point vampire. If I didn't bleed you for 5, you can make
that 5 point vampire. If I didn't bleed you for 5 you can make that 5 point
vampire that you desperately need to use against me and the guy on the other
side. If I do bleed you for that 5, you can't. How is this any different than
you making that 5 point vampire and me killing it?
>>You need to do a bunch of rushes and thus damage before you can
bring your goal into view. It's this time that imbalances the game.>>
How? How does it imbalance the game? I am denying my prey resources. A bleed
deck does the *exact* same thing. I am denying my predator resources. An
intercept deck does the *exact* same thing.
>>Not in that sense, no. But unlike the bleed deck and the vote deck, the rush
deck *must* destabilize the game for a period of time before it can be
successful.>>
Again with the destabilization. A Rush deck weakens its prey and slows down its
predator. Just like any other deck.
>>Bleed and vote both attack pool, which has no direct consequences until the
moment you go over the top - if you ever do.>>
No direct consequences? Wha? If I am bled for 12 pool, I am denied 12 pool
worth of resources I would have had otherwise. How is this not a direct
consequence?
>>No. You torporize *one* minion. Then bring it out of torpor. Then
torporize
it again. I believe the difference is pretty obvious.>>
Obvious, and much less effective. Fame is useful in a pinch, but building a
deck around it is mostly pointless.
>>Maybe. But it still doesn't work very well.>>
Rush decks are the most effective anti S+B decks there are. Very little drives
people away from the Malkavians more effectively that having every one of their
minions destroyed before they take a single action.
Pat Ricochet
Certainly. But, in practice, it has too many moving parts. Hard to
guarantee vote lock AND combat dominance in one deck, not to mention having
all the cards come up in the right order. And still defend itself.
But, really, the biggest problem is that big vamps=votes!=Anathema
passing. Small vamps = Anathema being not worth it. You're better off
playing Govern the Unaligned twice to gain the 6 pool you'd get out of
killing a 4 cap and a 2 cap.
But, I understand. I'm getting the itch to play one, too. =)
Halcyan 2
>Methuselah'S MINIONS are reduced by 1..." or whatever matches the Protracted
>Racehorses card text.
In addition, I'd like to add the clause that it only reduces bleeds to you.
If it does reduce all bleeds by that Methusaleh, it has the potential to
greatly destabilize the game.
Currently, the only things you can do to reduce others' bleeds are DI, Eagle's
Sight and block, and Ignis Fatuus, all of which are rather limited. But this
new card has the potential to completely shut down any swarm decks (even
cross-table).
While I think it's good that this might help discourage weenie decks, I think
it would give the combat decks way too much table control. And think of the
havoc it would cause if some vindictive or unreasonable Methusaleh was playing.
I'd be pretty annoyed if I was cross-table and about to oust my prey when my
"ally" decides to reduce ALL of my bleeds by one!
Halcyan 2
Xian
> I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was released
> for Jyhad (not "Darkness Unveiled", the other one; I'm almost certain
> that is where I read it). And this is coming from the guy who designed
> the game. So no, it is not an _*ASSUMPTION*_.
"After Gamma I was pretty sure I wanted to equalize the pursuit of the combat
monster, sneak-and-bleed, (sic) or political decks." Note that Gamma refers
to the third version of the game as it was being designed.
Xian
--
I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold.
A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart.
--_Shellshock_, New Order
www.waste.org/~xian
Xian
"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3ACABF11...@netcom.com...
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
[snip]
[rushing your predator's minions]
> I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free
benefit
> to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things
considered,
> the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things
you
> can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five.
Hmm. I'm detecting a strong pro-bleed bias here. Oh well, I'll provide the
rebuttal.
> > The Benefit is immense--as a Rush deck, killing your Predator's vampires
> > keeps you alive.
>
> I just disagree. It helps keep you alive for a moment, but the table
destabilization
> makes it difficult to predict what will happen in the long run.
Yet it still keeps you alive. Who knows? Maybe your grand-predator is being
hammered on by his predator, so he hasn't been doing anything to yours? As
Peter mentioned elsewhere, table control is very important with a Rush deck.
[comparing S&B to combat]
> That seems deliberately dense to me, to compare the way combat and S & B
> operate. Stealth and bleed attacks the remaining pool your prey leaves
after
> he's brought his minions out - unless you can make huge bleeds in the early
Hardly. They both reduce pool, in the long run. How is nuking a 5-capacity
vampire immediately after it's brought out, before it has a chance to act any
different from a bleed for 5? It's still an expenditure of 5 pool that can't
be easily regained.
And how often is a S&B deck *not* able to pound out a huge bleed early on?
Usually they have trouble a little later, when something starts jamming up
their hand...
> sufficient to prevent him from bring out as much force as he normally would.
> He has as much force as he started out with until the moment he's ousted.
A bleed is a pre-emptive rush. You've eliminated the pool before he can get
the vampire out. A rush is an after-the-fact bleed. You've eliminated the
pool after he spent it, but he can no longer get it back with a Minion Tap or
Blood Doll.
> Combat decks, on the other hand, rob the victim (predator or prey), of
> desperately needed force which they use against both you and the guy on the
It's a tactic. Deal.
> other side. You need to do a bunch of rushes and thus damage before you can
> bring your goal into view. It's this time that imbalances the game.
So I deflect all of your bleeds for 5 after I let you stealth them. This is
just as imbalancing, but it works the other way around the table.
> > *any* deck can destablize a table when played badly--anyone who takes
> > actions that are not in their own best interest can destroy a multi-player
game. > >This is not the sole province of a Rush deck.
>
> Not in that sense, no. But unlike the bleed deck and the vote deck, the
rush
> deck *must* destabilize the game for a period of time before it can be
> successful.
Depends on what you call destabilization, I suppose. Vote decks often have to
make table-stabilization compromises in order to get their votes through,
though. It happens.
> Bleed and vote both attack pool, which has no direct consequences until the
> moment you go over the top - if you ever do.
Prevents the victim from bringing out the full force that they might have
otherwise. Hmm. I think I've heard that before.
[Fame deck]
> > But you'd still have to be able to torporize folks with impunity for such
cards
> > to be worth playing--and if you can torporize folks with impunity, you are
> > destroying minions.
>
> No. You torporize *one* minion. Then bring it out of torpor. Then
torporize
> it again. I believe the difference is pretty obvious.
It's also not all that efficient, unless you're playing with agg damage and
making the victim pay for the rescue. Otherwise, you're using lots of your
own resources to do that pool damage.
James Coupe
<sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes
> I don't recall reading that, ever, except on this newsgroup, but I'll
>give the books another gander and see if I see counter-evidence to my
>counter-claim.
Xian's post should help here.
James Coupe
Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes
>And bleeding your prey for 5 provides a free benefit for your grand prey--the
>five pool that they lost could have been a 5 cost vampire hurting your grand
>prey
BUT if they get *another* vampire out, you have to spend more cards on
killing it, which is also a "free benefit" for your grand-prey (assuming
you oust your prey), since you have fewer cards to kill her with.
James Coupe
<jcb...@yahoo.com> writes
>Huh, what? Unless I'm misreading this, if you rush a vamp and that
>vamp S:CEs, you burn 2 pool. If this is correct, how does this help
>combat decks?
The idea was to replace Bum's Rush with this (not all, obviously), and
pile other cards in on top. (From my point of view.)
People were saying that combat needed to be helped in other ways, with a
suggestion of a card along those lines. I merely crystalised a
potential card text for argument.
Frederick Scott
>
> "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message
> news:tcm4ihl...@corp.supernews.com...
> > I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was released
> > for Jyhad (not "Darkness Unveiled", the other one; I'm almost certain
> > that is where I read it). And this is coming from the guy who designed
> > the game. So no, it is not an _*ASSUMPTION*_.
>
> "After Gamma I was pretty sure I wanted to equalize the pursuit of the combat
> monster, sneak-and-bleed, (sic) or political decks." Note that Gamma refers
> to the third version of the game as it was being designed.
OK. But the point of wanting the cite is to see the context of the quote, as well.
Just as a potential example of why you need that, his next sentence might
theoretically be, "But it turned out to be completely misleading to view the game
in these terms." This would change its meaning a great deal. For that matter,
it really isn't clear what he means by, "combat monster". That might also refer
to using combat to make bleeding work (as opposed to stealth) instead of using it
to mindlessly rush (or intercept) and destroy opposing minions. We don't know.
Fred
James Coupe
<fre...@netcom.com> writes
>OK. But the point of wanting the cite is to see the context of the quote, as well.
>Just as a potential example of why you need that, his next sentence might
>theoretically be, "But it turned out to be completely misleading to view the game
>in these terms."
It's not.
Sorrow
> >vamp S:CEs, you burn 2 pool. If this is correct, how does this help
> >combat decks?
> The idea was to replace Bum's Rush with this (not all, obviously), and
> pile other cards in on top. (From my point of view.)
> People were saying that combat needed to be helped in other ways, with a
> suggestion of a card along those lines. I merely crystalised a
> potential card text for argument.
Perhaps, but if there was ever a chance that I had to burn 2 pool for
an action, especially with how S:CE trumps most combat, I would
never use this card. As it is, I *might* only ever include 1 or 2 in a
Pot/IG deck. The -1 bleed for a single turn isn't worth *that* much.
Sorrow
---
"Happiness sucks" -me
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> >
> > Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > >
> > > Destroying your opponents minions, as a Rush deck, provides a great benefit to
> > > yourself--your predator can no longer hurt you as much, and your prey needs to
> > > spend pool to get out more minions (thereby making him that closer to getting
> > > ousted).
> >
> > I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free benefit
> > to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things considered,
> > the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you
> > can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five.
>
> But bleeding your prey for 5 can be defended against; by bleed bounce,
> by intercept, by Archon Investigation, etc. The point of combat is to
> try to exploit a weakness in the other deck, namely a lack of combat
> defense. If I'm playing a combat deck, I don't care if my opponent has
> intercept -- I want to get into a fight. I don't care if they have
> bleed bounce or AI. But if I'm playing a bleed deck, those defense
> measures influce my game tremendously.
That's fine. None the less, I still dispute Peter's assertion that the benefit is
all that wonderful. It's the same problem I have with things like Sudden Reversal.
You burn a card and an MPA and your opponent does likewise. It's good because it was
a master you _really_ didn't want him to play. But you're not his only opponent and
you're not even his only directly-opposed opponent (weird way to put that but I mean
"as opposed to a cross-table/somewhat allied opponent") so someone else on the table
likely benefits even more than you do. I give red marks to "benefits" that work like
that. If you truly need them, OK. But let's not pretend this is the greatest thing
since sliced bread.
> > Now *I'm* a little confused. You just got done lauding the benefits of destroying
> > a predator's minion in one paragraph and then in the next, you turn around and
> > minimize the benefit of bleeding your prey for 3 for only torporizing his vampires.
> > What am I not seeing here?
>
> You're not seeing that the number one priority of a combat deck is to
> destroy its prey's vampires.
This comment (and supporting paragraph) misses the point I just wrote. I'm not
arguing what the "combat deck's" priority is. I'm arguing that it's the wrong
one. That may be the number one priority but it's a difficult way to work.
> > Or rather, what are you *not* seeing here? The
> > possibilities for cards like this seem clear and obvious to me. The game works
> > much better when combat decks Fame a prey's vamp and spend all their time putting
> > the same vamp in and out of torpor.
>
> Not necessarily. It's very possible that by concentrating your efforts
> on the Famous vampire, you're allowing the other vampires to set up
> something which can really hurt you. If, for example, my prey is
> playing a deck with guns and I'm light on maneuvers, I don't want them
> to be able to get any guns. So my #1 priority is to kill all the
> vampires I can, to keep _any_ of them from taking an equip action.
Sure. But this way of looking at the game and how to handle your opposition is
using a total bludgeon to respond to the unknown. You eliminate the possibility
that your opponent can ever do anything to harm you but you necessarily do a whole
lot of other, not necessarily good things at the same time. If you can make it work,
I suppose that's fine. I just don't like what the instability does to the game. It's
never good news to wind up next to this type of a combat deck so far as I know. You
might survive it with a fortitude deck or some such but you never actually *win* that
metagame in terms of gaining by outguessing it. Someone else always "wins" - from
having the thing show up elsewhere on the table in a position that's not next to him.
I don't like strategies that set up these kinds of deals.
> > I'm not going to argue with you about the point that combat decks find ways to win
> > using combat. They do. They just aren't very easy ways to win and I feel that the
> > amount of chaos they cause - in the form of undeserved boons and banes to various
> > opponents - harms the game in general.
>
> Well, I don't know what to tell you. Anyone can play randomly and give
> unexpected benefits to the wrong person. A Malk S&B deck which uses
> Malkavian Pranks to keep cross-table allies (and future victims) in the
> game is doing the same kind of thing. If I have a heavy bleed deck, and
> a Deflection makes me accidentally oust my grand prey, I've
> "destabilized" the table, and given my prey an "undeserved boon."
Of course. But the fact that these things happen unavoidably is no reason to
encourage decks which are much more egregious causes of the problem, which combat
decks undoubtedly are. If someone were to tell me that Malk S & B with lots of
pranks didn't work very well, I sure wouldn't lean over backwards to change the
game so that _that_ worked, either.
> You know, Fred, you seem to have this problem a lot. People disagree
> with you, and you think they're deliberately being stupid. Can't you
> conceive of a point of view other than your own? Can you accept that
> some people aren't convinced by your arguments?
I can conceive of a point of view different from my own. But when someone
tries to compare two obviously different situations, I get kind of frustrated.
I'm pretty damn sure that if Peter knows better than the argument he attempted
to advance: that stealth & bleed causes as much destabilization as combat. If
he wasn't trying to defend the necessity of rush combat decks - which I'm
guessing he likes and is frustrated don't work better than they do with the
current card set - I doubt he'd make such a claim. Arguing about this is a
waste of time, IMO. There's a lot of chaos in the game, period. Combat causes
more than the other types of decks. If you or Peter aren't willing to concede
that, then we're living in different worlds and wasting each other's time trying
to communicate about this. If you are, then drop this lousy line of reasoning
and let's get down to our real differences.
(Rest of the post snipped as it just continues to rehash the comparison.)
Fred
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> >
> > I just don't care to
> > encourage people building decks that will make them bad news to sit next to
> > no matter what kind of deck you have. (You can build the fortitude deck to
> > defend yourself but it often doesn't help you win, either.) I'd rather see
> > such things limited to how you do in outguessing the metagame.
>
> I don't think that the average combat deck is necessarily "bad news." A
> potence rush deck is trying to take advantage of a lack of combat
> defense (fortitude, maneuvers) in the average tournament deck. There
> are plenty of decks which will make the potence player say "oh, shit,
> I'm screwed." If Combat is Rock, there are as many Scissors as there
> are Papers.
Combat is usually always bad news to sit next to. Or at worst, mediocre news
if you have enough combat cards to survive it. If you "win" the metagame by
packing enough combat evasion, the guys who really win are still the ones
sitting on the other side of the table.
> > It sure is. I simply object to the assumption that the combat deck
> > archetype "must" be propped up. If people think it does, then tell us
> > why first. Then worry about how it needs to be done.
>
> I'm not saying I think Combat (as a strategy) needs any boosting. But
> how could the hypothetical existence of more _kinds_ of combat decks be
> bad?
Assuming by "combat decks" you mean big, bad-boy rush combat that bludgeons
all its neighbor's minions to destruction, the answer is because then you'd
have more combat decks. I don't like what they do to the game. And fully
admitting, that's a matter of my personal taste. I don't like decks that
are just a total screw factor to their neighbors. I'd like to have answers
to S & B in the game. I'm just looking for a different answer.
Fred
Sorrow
> > > I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was
released
> > > for Jyhad (not "Darkness Unveiled", the other one; I'm almost certain
> > > that is where I read it). And this is coming from the guy who
designed
> > > the game. So no, it is not an _*ASSUMPTION*_.
Xian wrote:
> > "After Gamma I was pretty sure I wanted to equalize the pursuit of the
combat
> > monster, sneak-and-bleed, (sic) or political decks." Note that Gamma
refers
> > to the third version of the game as it was being designed.
Fred wrote:
> OK. But the point of wanting the cite is to see the context of the quote,
as well.
> Just as a potential example of why you need that, his next sentence might
> theoretically be, "But it turned out to be completely misleading to view
the game
> in these terms." This would change its meaning a great deal. For that
matter,
> it really isn't clear what he means by, "combat monster". That might also
refer
> to using combat to make bleeding work (as opposed to stealth) instead of
using it
> to mindlessly rush (or intercept) and destroy opposing minions. We don't
know.
Ok, thanks to Xian's quote, I was able to find it. This text is from
"The Eternal Struggle: A Players Guide to Jyhad"
taken from the forward written by Richard Garfield. Copyright, all rights
reserved, reproduced without permission, a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo,
yadda, yadda.
Starting on page 14:
"The Beta version of Jyhad(tm) had few political cards relative to what was
eventually published. The political cards were being tested to see if the
flavor they added justified the complexity they added to the rules. I knew
we had to have princes and Justicars, the only question was whether they
added the depth of a political system or were just more of the same. The
political cards were greatly loved and served to throw some curveballs in
the two major strategies that were evolving: the combat monster strategy
and the sneak-and-bleed strategy.
"The combat monster strategy was pretty straightforward: if your vampires
were so deadlyl in combat that no one dared to block them, you could just
waltz over to your prey and bleed him at will. Your predator, on the other
hand, would think twice about sending a vampire to bleed you when she
might have to face one of your servance in combat. The two major clans
used for this purpose were the Gangrel and the well-armed Brujah, though
the Tremere could give a run for the blood. The Gangrel had the edge in
combat over the others, because of their claws and fortitude. After all,
the Brujah do have Presence.
"The sneak-and-bleed strategy was build about the premise that if you
can't catch my minions then I don't have to worry about giving them combat
skills at all. Just needing stealth cards for this gives me plenty of room
in
my deck to devote to enhanced bleedings. This strategy was used most
effectively with Malkavians who had Obfuscate for stealth and Dominate
for the bonus bleeds.
"After Gamma I was pretty sure that I wanted to equalize the pursuit of
the combat monster, sneak-and-bleed, or political decks. Ideally the best
decks would have elements of at least two of these pursuits. After all, a
few enhanced bleed cards in a Brujah combat deck can be an improvement.
"The political cards were even wilder than I anticipated. Sometimes they
were near meaningless while other times you cannot win without political
influence. The political deck has wierd tricks and traps whereas the others
are fairly straightforward, at least in their purest forms."
--Richard Garfield
Straight from the horses mouth.
Sorrow
---
I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am
anymore |--------------------------------
I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...?
anymore | you never seen anyone try to
I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Coupe
writes
>Perhaps, but if there was ever a chance that I had to burn 2 pool for
>an action, especially with how S:CE trumps most combat, I would
>never use this card.
Certainly, but I felt it needed a down side, whatever that might be,
otherwise it would be quite a lot better than Bum's Rush. (Maneuvers
are had in spades. Anvil etc. are not hard to access.)
Sorrow
> >an action, especially with how S:CE trumps most combat, I would
> >never use this card.
> Certainly, but I felt it needed a down side, whatever that might be,
> otherwise it would be quite a lot better than Bum's Rush. (Maneuvers
> are had in spades. Anvil etc. are not hard to access.)
How about putting the card on the acting vampire and you burn the
card during the next untap phase instead of untapping the vampire.
Or making the acting vampire burn 2 or 3 blood. Something other
than a pool loss. Pool is already difficult to come by for a combat
deck.
Sorrow
---
"This is my costume.
I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else."
-- Wednesday Addams
James Hamblin
Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> James Hamblin wrote:
> >
> > But bleeding your prey for 5 can be defended against; by bleed bounce,
> > by intercept, by Archon Investigation, etc. The point of combat is to
> > try to exploit a weakness in the other deck, namely a lack of combat
> > defense. If I'm playing a combat deck, I don't care if my opponent has
> > intercept -- I want to get into a fight. I don't care if they have
> > bleed bounce or AI. But if I'm playing a bleed deck, those defense
> > measures influce my game tremendously.
>
> That's fine. None the less, I still dispute Peter's assertion that the benefit is
> all that wonderful.
Benefit of what? The benefit of playing a combat deck vs. a bleed
deck? It depends on what you think is going to be at the tournament.
In my experience, tournament-goers tend to over-prepare for bleed and
under-prepare for combat. That gives combat an edge.
> > You're not seeing that the number one priority of a combat deck is to
> > destroy its prey's vampires.
>
> This comment (and supporting paragraph) misses the point I just wrote. I'm not
> arguing what the "combat deck's" priority is. I'm arguing that it's the wrong
> one. That may be the number one priority but it's a difficult way to work.
What should the combat deck do instead? You keep suggesting the "Fame
loop", which is relatively inefficient, and dangerous in ways that I've
explained.
> > So my #1 priority is to kill all the
> > vampires I can, to keep _any_ of them from taking an equip action.
>
[snip]
> If you can make it work,
> I suppose that's fine.
It _is_ tough to make work, I admit.
> I just don't like what the instability does to the game. It's
> never good news to wind up next to this type of a combat deck so far as I know.
In my experience, many decks are unfazed by having a combat deck on
either side of them. Against Potence at least, it's not incredibly
difficult to have some kind of defense; very often a bunch of maneuvers
is enough to keep you alive long enough to oust your combat prey.
> If someone were to tell me that Malk S & B with lots of
> pranks didn't work very well, I sure wouldn't lean over backwards to change the
> game so that _that_ worked, either.
Has someone told you that combat doesn't work very well? It certainly
wasn't me. The reason some people would like to see a new S:CE hoser is
just so that MORE KINDS of combat decks can be played, not so that
"combat" (as a genre) can be more effective.
> > You know, Fred, you seem to have this problem a lot. People disagree
> > with you, and you think they're deliberately being stupid. Can't you
> > conceive of a point of view other than your own? Can you accept that
> > some people aren't convinced by your arguments?
>
> I can conceive of a point of view different from my own. But when someone
> tries to compare two obviously different situations, I get kind of frustrated.
As opposed to compare two identical situations? It's an _analogy_.
Sheesh.
> I'm pretty damn sure that if Peter knows better than the argument he attempted
> to advance: that stealth & bleed causes as much destabilization as combat.
Whatever "destabilization" is. Every deck tries to hurt its prey.
Hurting your prey weakens them, and makes them less able to hurt _their_
prey.
> If
> he wasn't trying to defend the necessity of rush combat decks - which I'm
> guessing he likes and is frustrated don't work better than they do with the
> current card set - I doubt he'd make such a claim.
You're guessing wrong. Me and Peter (back me up here) have no problems
with the effectiveness level of combat decks. We both play combat decks
frequently and have success with them. I don't know where you're
getting the idea that we're trying to make combat (as a whole) better.
It's already quite good. Difficult to win with, yes, but that's due to
the indirect nature with which it kills people.
> Combat causes
> more than the other types of decks. If you or Peter aren't willing to concede
> that, then we're living in different worlds and wasting each other's time trying
> to communicate about this. If you are, then drop this lousy line of reasoning
> and let's get down to our real differences.
Well, once again you follow your standard argument sequence. Step 1:
put forward outlandish argument filled with holes. Step 2: when others
try to refute your argument and point out holes, you call them stupid
for not agreeing with you. Step 3: when others continue to disagree,
you quit arguing. Why do you even bother?
> (Rest of the post snipped as it just continues to rehash the comparison.)
Yeah, you wouldn't want to acknowledge anything which might (a) be
correct and (b) disagree with you.
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"You seem to think you know it all
Let me tell you something, you can't win."
-- Pat McGee Band
Peter D Bakija
>>I can conceive of a point of view different from my own. But when someone
tries to compare two obviously different situations, I get kind of
frustrated.>>
As I requested in another post, please explain the realistic difference between
denying an opponent 6 pool worth of resources by bleeding them for 6 and
denying an opponent 6 pool worth of resources by burning a 6 point vampire.
>>I'm pretty damn sure that if Peter knows better than the argument he
attempted to advance: that stealth & bleed causes as much destabilization as
combat.>>
I am debating that combat, played intelligently, causes "destabilization" at
all--I maintain that combat, when played with actually winning in mind (as
opposed to just playing an idiot rogue) has the same effect on the table as any
other viable strategy--it ousts its prey and slows down its predator.
>>- which I'm guessing he likes and is frustrated don't work better than they
do with the current card set - I doubt he'd make such a claim.>>
I have no problem with combat decks in the current card set. They work just
fine. Again, I play them all the time and do quite well with them. I never
claimed that they needed to be improved. I simply debated the concept that A)
they are in some way more "destabilizing" (whatever that means) than, say, S+B
deck and B) combat should be tailored to be capable of doing something other
than destroying vampires (your assertion).
>>Arguing about this is a waste of time, IMO.>>
Arguing about everything is a waste of time. Yet here we are on usenet...
>>There's a lot of chaos in the game, period. Combat causes more than the
other types of decks.>>
I'm not quite sure what kind of players you are playing with and what kind of
combat decks you are playing with, but where I come from combat decks are used
to A) oust their prey and B) slow down their predator. Just like every other
deck in the game. If you are playing with people who regularly Rush across the
table, act irrationally, take actions that don't further their own victory,and
generally act chaotically, then that is the players you are playing with, not
the decks they are using.
>>If you or Peter aren't willing to concede that, then we're living in
different worlds and wasting each other's time trying to communicate about
this.>>
Apparently we are. Again, I play combat decks all the time. I do very well. I
regularly win games with them. I play to get VPs. I rarely Rush across table. I
primarily act to destroy my prey and secondarily act to slow down my predator.
I fail to see how my decks are "destabilizing" anything (especially as more
often than not, I win a game where I am capable of killing folks with
reliability). I fail to see how my decks are any more damaging to the game or
environment than a standard S+B deck.
Sorrow
> > > I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was
> > > almost certain hat is where I read it). And this is coming from
> > > the guy who esigned he game. So no, it is not an
> > > _*ASSUMPTION*_.
Xian wrote:
> > "After Gamma I was pretty sure I wanted to equalize the pursuit
> > of the combat monster, sneak-and-bleed, (sic) or political decks."
> > Note that Gamma refers to the third version of the game as it was
> > being designed.
Fred wrote:
> OK. But the point of wanting the cite is to see the context of the
> quote, as well. Just as a potential example of why you need that,
> his next sentence might theoretically be, "But it turned out to be
> completely misleading to view the game in these terms." This
> would change its meaning a great deal. For that matter, it really
> isn't clear what he means by, "combat monster". That might also
> refer to using combat to make bleeding work (as opposed to stealth)
> instead of using it to mindlessly rush (or intercept) and destroy
> opposing minions. We don't know.
Ok, thanks to Xian's quote, I was able to find it. This text is from
James Coupe
writes
>How about putting the card on the acting vampire and you burn the
>card during the next untap phase instead of untapping the vampire.
>Or making the acting vampire burn 2 or 3 blood.
Certainly possible; all sorts of potential downsides can be had. I just
definitely wanted one on there, so thought of something that seemed
"reasonable" off the top of my head.
Roger Carhult
>
> So does a bleed deck. Again, 5 pool lost is 5 pool lost. If I bleed you
for 5,
> you are denied a 5 point vampire. If I didn't bleed you for 5, you can
make
> that 5 point vampire. If I didn't bleed you for 5 you can make that 5
point
> vampire that you desperately need to use against me and the guy on the
other
> side. If I do bleed you for that 5, you can't. How is this any different
than
> you making that 5 point vampire and me killing it?
The difference is that in reality, that vamp usually doesn't cost 5 pool,
because he'll be able to drain off some pool from it through blood doll, or
take actions with it gaining him pool (enchant kindred etc) before it gets
killed. It takes one action to bleed for 5, while killing a vamp only at
best takes one action (plus a lot of more cards).
<snip>
James Hamblin
Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> James Hamblin wrote:
> >
> > potence rush deck is trying to take advantage of a lack of combat
> > defense (fortitude, maneuvers) in the average tournament deck. There
> > are plenty of decks which will make the potence player say "oh, shit,
> > I'm screwed." If Combat is Rock, there are as many Scissors as there
> > are Papers.
>
> Combat is usually always bad news to sit next to.
Do you realize how absurd this statement is?
> Or at worst, mediocre news
> if you have enough combat cards to survive it. If you "win" the metagame by
> packing enough combat evasion, the guys who really win are still the ones
> sitting on the other side of the table.
Speaking as someone who has played rush combat decks a lot, I can tell
you that this just isn't true. Your deck doesn't have to be 50% combat
defense to foil a combat deck. You just need to know that effective
combat decks are out there, and plan for it. If your prey is a combat
deck which is bashing its head against your defensive wall, there's
nothing stopping you from ousting them quickly. Combats decks generally
don't have standard vote or bleed defense; if you can usually survive
the combats, you can probably oust them. How does that make someone
across the table win?
> > I'm not saying I think Combat (as a strategy) needs any boosting. But
> > how could the hypothetical existence of more _kinds_ of combat decks be
> > bad?
>
> Assuming by "combat decks" you mean big, bad-boy rush combat that bludgeons
> all its neighbor's minions to destruction, the answer is because then you'd
> have more combat decks.
Why? It just doesn't follow. Just because there are more kinds of
combat decks which can be viable doesn't mean the proportion of combat
decks at tournaments will increase.
> I don't like decks that
> are just a total screw factor to their neighbors.
It sounds like you've never seen a combat deck get screwed. It happens
a lot; maybe in your local group combat reigns supreme or something. I
don't know.
> I'd like to have answers
> to S & B in the game. I'm just looking for a different answer.
Huh? What does combat have to do with S&B? There are plenty of ways to
deal with S&B without turning to a combat deck. Bounce, intercept,
AI...
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"You seem to think you know it all
Tom Kassel
>In message <3AD8...@MailAndNews.com>, Tom Kassel
><TomK...@MailAndNews.com> writes
>>Obviously
>>"Meth
>>can't bleed you" is a little (ok, enormously) too good, but can't bleed for
>>x
>>turns or for more than x or more than once a turn, etc might be worthwhile.
>
>Trial by Combat
>Action
>You must control a ready titled vampire. This vampire need not be the
>acting vampire.
>(D) Enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah. If
>that vampire goes to torpor (or is burned) during this combat, all
>bleeds by that Methuselah are reduced by 1 until your next untap phase.
>If that vampire remains in the ready region at the end of this combat,
>burn 2 pool.
>
That would do nicely. I'd certainly replace a few Bum's Rush with this one.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew S. Davidson
>taken from the forward written by Richard Garfield.
>...
>"The combat monster strategy was pretty straightforward: if your vampires
>were so deadly in combat that no one dared to block them, you could just
>waltz over to your prey and bleed him at will. Your predator, on the other
>hand, would think twice about sending a vampire to bleed you when she
>might have to face one of your servance in combat.
This combat monster archetype seems fine to me. It roughly
corresponds to the bruise-and-bleed and intercept decks, right? It's
the Rush deck which is sick and wrong - a degenerate concept based on
overuse of one card.
The new card that I'd like to see would have the effect of deflecting
an "enter combat" action onto another minion. Call it "Mistaken
Identity" or "The Wrong Box". This would hose the Rush deck while
sparing the original combat monster archetype.
As for Garfield, I saw a recent press release from the WotC brand
manager for Magic which, apart from explaining away 2001 budget cuts,
said that Garfield was still working on that game. I don't know if
anyone here has his ear but it would be good to send him some of the
new cards and solicit a state-of-the-nation review.
Andrew
Tom Kassel
>> Now THAT'S more like it. (I'd change the wording to "all bleeds by that
>>Methuselah'S MINIONS are reduced by 1..." or whatever matches the Protracted
>>Racehorses card text.
>
>In addition, I'd like to add the clause that it only reduces bleeds to you.
>
>If it does reduce all bleeds by that Methusaleh, it has the potential to
>greatly destabilize the game.
>
reverse. A rush deck must first neutralize his predator for safety before
turning to his prey. This gives his prey free rein for a while. If his
bleeds can be reduced at the same time you are killing his minions, this
restores the balance.
Tom Mad&Co
> passing. Small vamps = Anathema being not worth it. You're better off
> playing Govern the Unaligned twice to gain the 6 pool you'd get out of
> killing a 4 cap and a 2 cap.
> But, I understand. I'm getting the itch to play one, too. =)
>
> --
> Pat Ricochet
> Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
>
The point is that Anathema referendum is more likely to pass than
Banishment- Even Malkav decks will try to get that price. The best thing of
Anathema isn't the blood-gaining aspect: The best is that you don't need to
disarm-decapitate or do massive amount of aggravatted damage to remove from
the game that annoying vamp when it comes to 0 blood. Also, such a rush deck
isn't vote-lacking (4 Princes, a Justicar and 2 primogens). Indeed it's
really prone to be killed by a Propaganda Deck
Roger Carhult
--
"Tom Mad&Co" <t...@almadrava.net> wrote in message
news:9afi4e$2p5$1...@talia.mad.ttd.net...
>
> "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> escribió en el mensaje
> news:9afcn6$a6q$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
>
> > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message
> > news:tcm3slj...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > The I must ask, how many of these combat decks had IG's in them?
> > > A majority, I believe.
> > > > I haven't had a look at the winning decks but I suspect that most of
> these
> > > > have S:CE hosers in them, and it STILL didn't help.
> > > Huh? These combat decks *won* the tournament. How did IG _not_ help?
> > > > problem IMO. Brujah combat decks rarely wins and they still have TWO
> hosers,
> > > > IG and Psyche of which IG is even considered _the_ hoser. Whhy would
> dding
> > > > more hosers help??
> > > Potence combat wins more often than other combat decks, it seems. This
> > > is most likely due to IG. So how would a hoser for another clan/skill
> not
> > > help other combat decks?
> > >
> > > Sorrow
> > > ---
> > > "Are they dead?" - Pugsly
> > > "Does it matter?" - Wednesday
> > >
> >
> > Sorry was a bit unclear, but what I mean is that is IG would help so
much
> > the combat decks would win more than just 9%. They still fail to win
often
> > despite IG and such a like. I base this on the reasonable assumption
that
> > there's combat decks with S:CE hosers in every tournament (since almost
> all
> > combat decks have S:CE hosers nowadays, and there's always at least one
> > combat deck in tournaments).
> >
>
> Well, indeed there are many ways. Just don't focuse your deck on a heavy
> combat objective.
>
> Since in tournaments there are not so many combat decks, you shouldn't
build
> yours with 50% combat cards. Just rely on combat and strength cards as a
> kind of "intimidatory stealth", and build a bruise & bleed deck with more
> enphasis on the bleed side. For example: A !Toreador with 6 or more Palla
> Grandes, art of pain and guns. And a bunch of presence action cards. Fast
> Reaction just bypases that S:CE, and you just play your additionals cards
> when opposing minion has no S:CE to play.
But as I understood it, decks with a lot of combat were included as well
(and then amounted for 18% I think, still far from 33% as it should ideally
be).
>
> Also, someone has said that there is nothing extra in burning your prey
> minions. Does anybody remember such cards as Anathema?? It sounds to me it
> is a good card to play in a Brujah (specially a Donal/Constanza deck) or
> Nosfi Justicar potence deck.
>
Anathema is great...the rpoblem is that a combat deck rarely has the votes
to pull it through. Only other combat decks would normally vote it through
and they probably don't have that many votes together compared to the others
on the table (who either are vote decks - where one would probably overrun
all the others - or S&B decks).
Frederick Scott
Yup. And I kind of feel like it vindicates my demand for the whole context,
as Garfield is simply talking about decks that use combat cards. _Not_
necessarily deliberate combat rush and intercept decks.
Given what I'm reading here, the "three-legged" view of the game that gets
expressed nowadays seems very different from the primitive views expressed
here. Understandably, as Garfield lacks a lot of the benefit from hindsight
and sheer amount of play experience that we have. Anyway, it doesn't seem
justified to expect that this represents a deliberate intent to set up rush
and intercept decks as an S & B foil, even if that's what ultimately happened.
Fred
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> >
> > James Hamblin wrote:
> > >
> > > But bleeding your prey for 5 can be defended against; by bleed bounce,
> > > by intercept, by Archon Investigation, etc. The point of combat is to
> > > try to exploit a weakness in the other deck, namely a lack of combat
> > > defense. If I'm playing a combat deck, I don't care if my opponent has
> > > intercept -- I want to get into a fight. I don't care if they have
> > > bleed bounce or AI. But if I'm playing a bleed deck, those defense
> > > measures influce my game tremendously.
> >
> > That's fine. None the less, I still dispute Peter's assertion that the benefit is
> > all that wonderful.
>
> Benefit of what?
The benefit of destroying an opposing minion Peter was talking about.
> > > You're not seeing that the number one priority of a combat deck is to
> > > destroy its prey's vampires.
> >
> > This comment (and supporting paragraph) misses the point I just wrote. I'm not
> > arguing what the "combat deck's" priority is. I'm arguing that it's the wrong
> > one. That may be the number one priority but it's a difficult way to work.
>
> What should the combat deck do instead?
You mean, "How, in my opinion, should combat cards be incorporated into the
game so they don't cause instability?" I'd like to see them used for such things
as bruise and bleed or things like Fame using the loop I was talking about. You're
right: Fame alone isn't necessarily that good (though the loop works better with
Humanitas and Catacombs). What I'm saying is that I'd like more cards _like_ Fame
to show up in the mix so combat can be used productive to win victory points without
the absolute destruction of minions which causes so much instability.
As for the Fame loop being "dangerous", no, you have not proved it any more dangerous
than any other strategy that doesn't involve messing with people's minions. Stealth
and Bleed is "dangerous" in exactly the same way.
> > I just don't like what the instability does to the game. It's
> > never good news to wind up next to this type of a combat deck so far as I know.
>
> In my experience, many decks are unfazed by having a combat deck on
> either side of them. Against Potence at least, it's not incredibly
> difficult to have some kind of defense; very often a bunch of maneuvers
> is enough to keep you alive long enough to oust your combat prey.
>
> > If someone were to tell me that Malk S & B with lots of
> > pranks didn't work very well, I sure wouldn't lean over backwards to change the
> > game so that _that_ worked, either.
>
> Has someone told you that combat doesn't work very well? It certainly
> wasn't me. The reason some people would like to see a new S:CE hoser is
> just so that MORE KINDS of combat decks can be played, not so that
> "combat" (as a genre) can be more effective.
Allowing "more kinds" of combat decks is no more a priority than allowing
more kinds of decks that can use Malkavian prank. As I've said elsewhere,
though, it does bother me that certain clans have dedicated combat *cards* that
are pretty much useless to play because of S:CE and the fact that they can't
do much about it. That strikes me as a waste of cardboard and should be
rectified. So we may not be that far apart on the particular issue of S:CE
hosers.
>
> > > You know, Fred, you seem to have this problem a lot. People disagree
> > > with you, and you think they're deliberately being stupid. Can't you
> > > conceive of a point of view other than your own? Can you accept that
> > > some people aren't convinced by your arguments?
> >
> > I can conceive of a point of view different from my own. But when someone
> > tries to compare two obviously different situations, I get kind of frustrated.
> > I'm pretty damn sure that if Peter knows better than the argument he attempted
> > to advance: that stealth & bleed causes as much destabilization as combat.
>
> Whatever "destabilization" is. Every deck tries to hurt its prey.
> Hurting your prey weakens them, and makes them less able to hurt _their_
> prey.
"Destabilization", as it's being used all over this thread, refers to the
tendency to cause chaotic and unintended effects on the relationships between
other pairs of players. For instance, removing your predator's ability to defend
himself from his predator as you use rush combat to remove his ability to attack
and bleed you.
> > Combat causes
> > more than the other types of decks. If you or Peter aren't willing to concede
> > that, then we're living in different worlds and wasting each other's time trying
> > to communicate about this. If you are, then drop this lousy line of reasoning
> > and let's get down to our real differences.
>
> Well, once again you follow your standard argument sequence. Step 1:
> put forward outlandish argument filled with holes. Step 2: when others
> try to refute your argument and point out holes, you call them stupid
> for not agreeing with you. Step 3: when others continue to disagree,
> you quit arguing. Why do you even bother?
I don't see much point in debating about this this way. IMO, my argument was not
outlandish, not "filled with holes", and the above does not represent any attempt
to "quit arguing". I simply said that if you cannot accept that combat causes
more destabilization of the game than strategies which attack a Meth's pool
directly, then we have nothing talk about. We simply disagree on how the game
plays, which is not something that we can resolve by arguing with each other.
Fred
Ian Lee
>between
>denying an opponent 6 pool worth of resources by bleeding them for 6 and
>denying an opponent 6 pool worth of resources by burning a 6 point vampire.
A vampire often doesn't cost 6 pool due to blood management (Blood Doll, etc.).
So, by removing a vampire, you are bleeding your opponent for less than you
would be if you got a similar size bleed through.
But, a vampire can take actions where pool in itself does nothing. By removing
vampires (minions), you remove the ability of your opponent to attempt to oust
his/her prey or defend from being ousted. Look at it this way, is an opponent
with 25 pool and no minions stronger than an opponent with 20 pool and one
minion.
Then, there's the issue of time. Getting really off topic because I haven't
seen a good Banishment rant lately, this is what makes Banishment so strong.
It takes time to bring out minions. Reducing pool has much less effect on how
much a player does (until the player is ousted) than removing minions.
I never get as worked up by a loss of pool as I do a loss of minions because
with minions I can still impact the game. Having nothing but pool removes my
ability to influence the game until I can get a minion back into play. And, if
you kill that to, I really have no interest in doing so. Unless somehow I can
arrange to bring out multiple minions so that I can do something, my game is
over yet I have to sit around and wait to die. Loads of fun.
While its nice and all that some people know precisely how to play combat decks
to prevent excessive destabilization, I really don't see these experts. What I
see are rush and intercept decks that do nothing but affect their predator
because if they take time to look forward, they die. Different if there are
multiple combat decks, but that hasn't come up often enough to note at least in
tournament play. Whether this is because the players lack experience, the
decks are badly constructed, or what, I don't know. I know I lack experience
playing a rush deck. Decks that do nothing but rush bore me immensely.
Frederick Scott
>
> Fredrick wrote:
> >>I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free
> benefit
> to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things considered,
> the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you
> can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five.>>
>
> five pool that they lost could have been a 5 cost vampire hurting your grand
> opportunity, and consequently, provided a free benefit to another one of your
> opponents. Any action you take against your prey or predator indirectly helps
> someone else at the table. Bleeding someone for 5 (denying them a possible 5
> point minion) or burning a 5 point minion (denying them an existing minion) has
> the same end result--your other opponents benefit. Please explain the
> difference.
If you can bleed someone for 5 on the first turn, I agree that that's approximately
the effect it has. In practice, this is not the effect it has once mid-game hits.
People recruit a certain number of vamps and leave as much pool as they're comfortable
sitting on to prevent being ousted. Bleeding for 5 mostly tends to have the effect
of either ousting them or not. And if not, it just makes them more uncomfortable
and may cause them to adjust their emphasis on defense vs. offense. It may also
constrain them from using small amounts of pool for things like locations and
equipment that they might have otherwise paid for. But for the most part, it's
nothing like - for instance - torporizing one or two of their princes, which is
what combat decks do.
> >>What am I not seeing here? Or rather, what are you *not* seeing here? The
> possibilities for cards like this seem clear and obvious to me. The game works
> much better when combat decks Fame a prey's vamp and spend all their time
> putting the same vamp in and out of torpor.>>
>
> Not for the Rush deck it doesn't. You are spending 3 actions to cost your prey
> 6 pool. If you spend those three actions torporizing more than 6 pool worth of
> vampires, the three Rush actions are more effective than the Lather, Rinse,
> Repeat Fame manuver. Pool loss is pool loss. I fail to see how it is more
> beneficial for anyone for this pool loss to be in the form of loose pool than
> pool tied up in minions for the same amount. Yes, torporizing a vampire of your
> prey gives your grand prey a free bonus (one less vampire to deal with).
> Bleeding someone for the same amount does the same thing.
I'm sorry, I just don't think the comparison between destroying a 6-cap minion
and bleeding for 6 is comparable in practice for reasons given above. It's not
like you destroy the minion and you're prey will automatically, necessarily bring
out another 6-cap to replace it with. He may react in all sorts of ways. Nor is
a 6-cap necessarily _like_ bleeding for 6 if it got brought out and Minion Tapped.
5 of those blood may be back in his pool, meaning you've cost him 1 blood, an MPA,
and some transfers. The latter two things get made up rapidly with time.
I'm also not sure where you're getting 3 actions for the cycle. The Fame/torporize/
rescue cycle initiates with an MPA, enough rushes to torporize (not necessarily one,
but definitely easier than burning), and an action to rescue. Then continues with
retorporizing (should be a single rush at that point) and rerescuing.
> >>Compared to running around blowing up minions for no particular gain except
> their absence, the amount of table destabilization of the former tactic is
> practically nil.>>
>
> I still fail to see where the "no particular gain" comes in. I play Rush decks
> all the time. I do very well with them. I get into the finals of pretty much
> every tournament I play in. Sometimes I win. What defines "particular gain" in
> VTES more than getting VPs? If killing vampires gets me VPs, I am gaining
> something in particular. Victory points.
I was referring to short term gain. That is, you don't cost your prey any
pool directly, albeit you may cost him pool indirectly if he decides his response
is to bring out more vampires to replace the destroyed one.
> >>I just disagree. It helps keep you alive for a moment, but the table
> destabilization makes it difficult to predict what will happen in the long
> run.>>
>
> And deflecting a bleed for 6 helps keep you alive for the moment as well.
> Again, please detail the difference.
Obvious. Your predator doesn't lose minions by having his bleed deflected.
(Unless you deflect it into an intercept combat deck. Even then, it would be
unusual for the two players not to pull their punches in a situation like that.)
I find it frustrating to respond to such demands that presume to equate too such
obviously different situations.
> This concept of "Table Destabilization" is a nebulous one to me. Any deck that
> does what it intends on doing is weakening another player. Any time a player's
> position is weakened, another player benefits.
But who benefits and what happens in the game in the interim? When attacking
pool, the victim's resources are basically left in tact until the moment of his
ousting. When defending by other means besides combat, the victim seldom
actually loses any resources at all. Combat creates periods of time when your
neighbors become partially or totally helpless but are not ousted. Those
periods of time are the openings for your non-neighboring players to take
great advantage of, because your grandprey has no predator and because your
grandpredator has a helpless prey. If you can manage the table and ultimate
win enough victory points to win tournaments, that's great. But you can't
tell me that it isn't an undeserved advantage for others to be your grandprey
and grandpredator and an undeserved disadvantage for others to be your predator
and prey - no matter what decks they bring to the table.
> If I am an intercept deck, and I stop all of my predator's
> actions, I am denying him resources and keeping him from doing what he wants to
> do. As a result, my grand predator is going to be in a better position, and he
> gets a free benefit. How is what a Rush deck does any different?
They're not. I have the same problem with intercept decks, actually.
> >>He has as much force as he started out with until the moment he's ousted.
> Combat decks, on the other hand, rob the victim (predator or prey), of
> desperately needed force which they use against both you and the guy on the
> other side.>>
>
> So does a bleed deck. Again, 5 pool lost is 5 pool lost. If I bleed you for 5,
> you are denied a 5 point vampire.
(This point is made over and over. I've refuted it above - a 5 point vampire
and 5 points of pool are two different things, especially in practice. So we
can debate it above. I've snipped the other rehashes of this dispute.)
> >>No. You torporize *one* minion. Then bring it out of torpor. Then
> torporize it again. I believe the difference is pretty obvious.>>
>
> Obvious, and much less effective. Fame is useful in a pinch, but building a
> deck around it is mostly pointless.
You may not find it to be effective and I won't argue with you about it. My
point was not to suggest Fame, used in this way, is a great tactic. My point
was to hold it out as the kind of card combat decks should be given to work
with so that minion destruction doesn't seem like the only way to use combat.
Minion destruction is not very effective, however much success a good player
can have with it, and adds bad elements to the game in general.
> >>Maybe. But it still doesn't work very well.>>
>
> Rush decks are the most effective anti S+B decks there are. Very little drives
> people away from the Malkavians more effectively that having every one of their
> minions destroyed before they take a single action.
I won't dispute that they're good anti stealth & bleed decks. But as I replied
to James Hamblin's post, I prefer the game find another "rock" to S&B's "scissors"
rather than making this one more workable.
Fred
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> >
> > James Hamblin wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think that the average combat deck is necessarily "bad news." A
> > > potence rush deck is trying to take advantage of a lack of combat
> > > defense (fortitude, maneuvers) in the average tournament deck. There
> > > are plenty of decks which will make the potence player say "oh, shit,
> > > I'm screwed." If Combat is Rock, there are as many Scissors as there
> > > are Papers.
> >
> > if you have enough combat cards to survive it. If you "win" the metagame by
> > packing enough combat evasion, the guys who really win are still the ones
> > sitting on the other side of the table.
>
> Speaking as someone who has played rush combat decks a lot, I can tell
> you that this just isn't true. Your deck doesn't have to be 50% combat
> defense to foil a combat deck. You just need to know that effective
> combat decks are out there, and plan for it. If your prey is a combat
> deck which is bashing its head against your defensive wall, there's
> nothing stopping you from ousting them quickly. Combats decks generally
> don't have standard vote or bleed defense; if you can usually survive
> the combats, you can probably oust them. How does that make someone
> across the table win?
Because simply having the answers to the combat deck *doesn't* win you the
game. You may survive the rushes. I suppose if it's your predator and he's
not bleeding you because he's been ineffective at torporizing your minions,
then that's good. But it doesn't help you oust your prey. And the deck
space you need to survive combat robs you of cards you could be using to
win the game.
It's not enough to simply survive to win the metagame. There needs to be
a payoff for guessing right. Guessing right that you're going to hit a combat
deck seldom provides much of a payoff. It mostly just screws the combat deck.
You have to forget the notion you seem to have that this is a zero-sum game.
What's bad for your predator isn't necessarily good for you.
> > > I'm not saying I think Combat (as a strategy) needs any boosting. But
> > > how could the hypothetical existence of more _kinds_ of combat decks be
> > > bad?
> >
> > Assuming by "combat decks" you mean big, bad-boy rush combat that bludgeons
> > all its neighbor's minions to destruction, the answer is because then you'd
> > have more combat decks.
>
> Why? It just doesn't follow. Just because there are more kinds of
> combat decks which can be viable doesn't mean the proportion of combat
> decks at tournaments will increase.
Sure it does. Assuming there are more kinds, they must increase their number
at tournaments. The new decks can come from the ranks of people who played
other combat decks or from those who didn't. If the former, then the net increase
is zero. If the latter, then it's positive. If you're arguing that they'll only
come from the former so the total net increase has a significant chance of being
zero or near zero, that strikes me as unlikely.
I suppose you could be making the point that the increase will be fairly minimal or
that others will cease playing combat decks at all in the shift to the new metagame.
My perception, though, is that if you create a new type of viable deck, it's
unpredictable what it will do to the percentage of existing decks so the most
reasonable assumption to make is that they'll stay steady - thus increasing the overall
number of combat decks if you add a new type of combat deck. If you have a specific
reason you think this would not be true, I'd like to hear it.
> > I don't like decks that
> > are just a total screw factor to their neighbors.
>
> It sounds like you've never seen a combat deck get screwed.
Oh, combat decks absolutely get screwed. It just doesn't necessarily help their neighbors
that much.
Fred
Talo...@hotmail.com
>> The I must ask, how many of these combat decks had IG's in them?
>
>A majority, I believe.
>
>> I haven't had a look at the winning decks but I suspect that most of these
>> have S:CE hosers in them, and it STILL didn't help.
>
>Huh? These combat decks *won* the tournament. How did IG _not_ help?
>
>> problem IMO. Brujah combat decks rarely wins and they still have TWO
>hosers,
>> IG and Psyche of which IG is even considered _the_ hoser. Whhy would dding
>> more hosers help??
>
IG?
wtf?
You guys need to post an acronym list somewhere so that we can make
sense of stuff like this! lol!
T
James Hamblin
>
> James Hamblin wrote:
> >
> > What should the combat deck do instead?
>
> You mean, "How, in my opinion, should combat cards be incorporated into the
> game so they don't cause instability?"
No, I mean: how should a deck dedicated to successful combat win the
game, if not by destroying all of its prey's minions? I don't know what
this whole argument is trying to accomplish; you seem dead-set on making
all-combat decks impossible to play. I'm also not sure _why_ you want
this. You don't like that a combat deck shakes up a table? Live with
it.
> I'd like to see them used for such things
> as bruise and bleed or things like Fame using the loop I was talking about.
Combat _cards_ get used for a lot of things. But Bruise and Bleed isn't
always good, because it's less effective at dealing with combat defense
(due to the smaller amount of combat cards it can include). For a deck
to be able to NEARLY GUARANTEE successful combat, it has to be NEARLY
100% FOCUSED on that goal. Anything less, and you're going to be less
successful in combat. Now, I grant you that the inclusion of bleed
cards will make the deck more effective in other situations. This is
another trade-off.
> You're
> right: Fame alone isn't necessarily that good (though the loop works better with
> Humanitas and Catacombs).
But the deck space and time spent to get these cards isn't really worth
what you get.
> What I'm saying is that I'd like more cards _like_ Fame
> to show up in the mix so combat can be used productive to win victory points without
> the absolute destruction of minions which causes so much instability.
Even if more cards like Fame are printed, the existing combat decks will
still exist. And if, like Fame, these cards require a weakening of the
combat in some area, then they will not be used.
It sounds like you want all combat decks to be Bruise and Bleed decks.
But that's unreasonable.
> As for the Fame loop being "dangerous", no, you have not proved it any more dangerous
> than any other strategy that doesn't involve messing with people's minions. Stealth
> and Bleed is "dangerous" in exactly the same way.
It's dangerous because messing with people's minions is how the combat
deck defends itself. Any player with any deck should want to oust their
prey as quickly as possible. Allowing your prey to take actions or
otherwise "set up" is only going to hurt you. If hurting my prey makes
them ease up on _their_ prey, then that player may become stronger. But
there's nothing in that statement which is specific to combat.
Your arguments seem to be a hair's breadth away from "Wah, combat decks
make me unable to take actions. It's not fair." It's not like combat
cannot be defended against.
> Allowing "more kinds" of combat decks is no more a priority than allowing
> more kinds of decks that can use Malkavian prank.
"Combat" is a common deck genre. Malk. Prank is a specific card.
There's a huge difference. What _is_ a priority is making the
independent clans stronger. One way to do that would be to print cards
which make combat decks easier to build for those clans. One way to do
_that_ would be to print an anti-S:CE card for the Ravnos and/or the
Assamites.
> As I've said elsewhere,
> though, it does bother me that certain clans have dedicated combat *cards* that
> are pretty much useless to play because of S:CE and the fact that they can't
> do much about it. That strikes me as a waste of cardboard and should be
> rectified. So we may not be that far apart on the particular issue of S:CE
> hosers.
Yeah, there will always be wallpaper cards. The fact that there are a
bunch of combat cards which won't work because of S:CE isn't a reason to
print a S:CE hoser. One problem I have is that it's hard to make an
all-Gangrel combat deck, because Dog Pack is slow and expensive.
Protean is a very combat-centric discipline, so maybe it should have a
S:CE hoser. Then again, maybe not.
> > Whatever "destabilization" is. Every deck tries to hurt its prey.
> > Hurting your prey weakens them, and makes them less able to hurt _their_
> > prey.
>
> "Destabilization", as it's being used all over this thread, refers to the
> tendency to cause chaotic and unintended effects on the relationships between
> other pairs of players. For instance, removing your predator's ability to defend
> himself from his predator as you use rush combat to remove his ability to attack
> and bleed you.
The predator point is a valid one. As a Rush deck, you certainly don't
want to weaken your predator so much that they can't defend themselves.
On the other hand, sometimes you have no choice. If my predator is a
weenie Dominate bleed deck, and I'm playing my Potence rush deck, I may
well lose. I'll have to destroy every vampire my predator brings out,
because I have no defense against bleeds for 6 from every minion. Given
this, I may still survive and even get a VP or two. That's a lot better
than other decks which just get rolled over by weenie Dom bleed.
> > Well, once again you follow your standard argument sequence. Step 1:
> > put forward outlandish argument filled with holes. Step 2: when others
> > try to refute your argument and point out holes, you call them stupid
> > for not agreeing with you. Step 3: when others continue to disagree,
> > you quit arguing. Why do you even bother?
>
> I don't see much point in debating about this this way.
It's just frustrating that you seemed to be giving up just because I
disagreed with you.
> IMO, my argument was not
> outlandish, not "filled with holes",
Well, of course not in _your_ opinion. But what about _my_ opinion? If
you're not willing to accept that I have opinions which differ from
yours, why bother having a discussion at all?
> and the above does not represent any attempt
> to "quit arguing". I simply said that if you cannot accept that combat causes
> more destabilization of the game than strategies which attack a Meth's pool
> directly, then we have nothing talk about. We simply disagree on how the game
> plays, which is not something that we can resolve by arguing with each other.
Since "destabilization" is something which I can't exactly define, much
less measure, I can't accept it. But I think attacking someone's pool
makes them turn backwards (or inward) just as much as attacking their
minions.
If I'm a combat deck, and I manage to kill all my prey's minions, I'm
doing well. I'll almost certainly get that VP. Now, if this makes my
grandprey stronger in the meantime, well, that's just part of life as a
combat deck. I don't care if they don't "deserve" to have their prey
killed. I don't care if you think this "advantage" they've received is
"unfair" or not. I've acheived the goal of the game, which is to earn
VP's.
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"What drives you on can drive you mad.
A million lies to sell yourself is all
you ever had."
-- Garbage
Xian
> Straight from the horses mouth.
Don't you mean straight from Rat's Warning's mouth?
Speaking of which, I'm having lots of weirdness with my news...not seeing a
lot of messages (most specifically my own posts), seeing the replies before
the original posts, etc. First time it's happened in over a year or so with
this ISP, and it's just all weird. I'm aware that this *sometimes* happens,
but I had thought that to be more a problem of the specific news server/ISP
rather than something that ebbed and flowed. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Xian
James Hamblin
Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> >
> > point minion) or burning a 5 point minion (denying them an existing minion) has
> > the same end result--your other opponents benefit. Please explain the
> > difference.
>
> If you can bleed someone for 5 on the first turn, I agree that that's approximately
> the effect it has. In practice, this is not the effect it has once mid-game hits.
> People recruit a certain number of vamps and leave as much pool as they're
> comfortable sitting on to prevent being ousted.
When I look at my initial vampire draw, I don't say to myself "Ah, I
will get out vampires X, Y, and Z, and then I will safely have 9 pool
remaining." There's no way you can control how much pool you're going
to have or whether you're ever going to be able to get out any more
vampires. Having X amount of pool doesn't prevent you from being
ousted. Being able to defend yourself from your predator and _gain_
pool prevents you from being ousted. If your deck can't handle losing
pool at a regular rate, it's not a good deck.
> Bleeding for 5 mostly tends to have the effect
> of either ousting them or not.
Torp'ing a 5-point vampire tends to have the effect of putting them down
for good (so that they can't get out any more vampires) or not.
> And if not, it just makes them more uncomfortable
> and may cause them to adjust their emphasis on defense vs. offense.
Ditto.
> It may also
> constrain them from using small amounts of pool for things like locations and
> equipment that they might have otherwise paid for.
Ditto. If they know they may have to get out another vampire because
all their current ones are going to die, they're less likely to buy that
pricey master card, etc.
> But for the most part, it's
> nothing like - for instance - torporizing one or two of their princes, which is
> what combat decks do.
You're right. Torporizing their princes is better. And harder.
> I'm sorry, I just don't think the comparison between destroying a 6-cap minion
> and bleeding for 6 is comparable in practice for reasons given above.
Reasons refuted. Your turn.
> It's not
> like you destroy the minion and you're prey will automatically, necessarily bring
> out another 6-cap to replace it with. He may react in all sorts of ways.
Sure. They can get mad and just sit there on a pile of pool, refusing
to get out any more vampires. But then they're not trying to fulfil
their victory conditions. You can't blame this irrational behavior on a
fault in the game. If they want to win the game, they have to try to
play. That means having vampires. Once again, one way to do this is to
get out a bunch of vampires all on the same turn.
> Nor is
> a 6-cap necessarily _like_ bleeding for 6 if it got brought out and Minion Tapped.
Generally, it's a good idea to kill the vampire before it can get minion
tapped. More reasons _not_ to concentrate on a Fame loop.
> 5 of those blood may be back in his pool, meaning you've cost him 1 blood, an MPA,
> and some transfers. The latter two things get made up rapidly with time.
_Not_ killing the vampire may cost you more, even if it has already been
minion tapped. If you let it get Fifth'ed and Tapped again, you're in a
bad place.
> I'm also not sure where you're getting 3 actions for the cycle. The Fame/torporize/
> rescue cycle initiates with an MPA, enough rushes to torporize (not necessarily one,
> but definitely easier than burning), and an action to rescue. Then continues with
> retorporizing (should be a single rush at that point) and rerescuing.
If, as a combat deck, you can't "point and kill" with impunity, you're
not going to be able to win. With this in mind, the Fame "loop" takes 1
action to send the vampire to torpor initially, and then 2 more each
time to "run" the loop (rescue, retorp). Two actions (and a bunch of
cards, and blood) to do 3 pool damage. Seems pretty inefficient to me.
> I was referring to short term gain. That is, you don't cost your prey any
> pool directly, albeit you may cost him pool indirectly if he decides his response
> is to bring out more vampires to replace the destroyed one.
If your prey has no ready vampires and chooses not to bring out any more
vampires, they're not trying to win the game. (Note: sometimes they
have no choice; if they are low on pool, sitting and doing nothing is
acceptable.) I can't control whether people at a tournament are or are
not playing to win. Here's a question for LSJ (or anyone else who runs
tournaments): would it be possible to penalize a player who is not
"playing to win"?
> > And deflecting a bleed for 6 helps keep you alive for the moment as well.
> > Again, please detail the difference.
>
> Obvious. Your predator doesn't lose minions by having his bleed deflected.
And your (combat) predator doesn't lose minions by having his combats
thwarted. Your point?
> I find it frustrating to respond to such demands that presume to equate too such
> obviously different situations.
I find it frustrating that you begin every other sentence telling us how
frustrated you are. If it makes you feel better, convince yourself that
we're all dumb, and we need you to show us "the light".
> > This concept of "Table Destabilization" is a nebulous one to me. Any deck that
> > does what it intends on doing is weakening another player. Any time a player's
> > position is weakened, another player benefits.
>
> But who benefits and what happens in the game in the interim?
I benefit, because my prey is weakened, enabling me to oust them. I
benefit, because my predator is weakened, enabling me to not get ousted.
> When attacking
> pool, the victim's resources are basically left in tact until the moment of his
> ousting.
And, in a way, that's less effective! If he still has minions up, he
can do things which may keep me from ousting him. If my prey has no
ready minions, they can't possibly keep me from killing them.
> When defending by other means besides combat, the victim seldom
> actually loses any resources at all.
...except pool.
> Combat creates periods of time when your
> neighbors become partially or totally helpless but are not ousted.
Your prey being helpless is good for you. Now you can oust them. Your
predator being helpless is only good in the short term. You don't want
them to get ousted unless they're about to kill you. It's difficult to
find the right middle ground between obliterating your predator and
leaving them alone. This is one of the fundamental difficulties with
rush decks.
> Those
> periods of time are the openings for your non-neighboring players to take
> great advantage of, because your grandprey has no predator and because your
> grandpredator has a helpless prey.
Your grandpredator shouldn't have a helpless prey unless you are in a
very bad spot. As for your grandprey? Well, they still have a prey who
is presumably not just sleeping. Plus, once your prey is incapacitated,
you can start taking actions against your grandprey (while still
bleeding your prey).
> If you can manage the table and ultimate
> win enough victory points to win tournaments, that's great.
I can, and have.
> But you can't
> tell me that it isn't an undeserved advantage for others to be your grandprey
> and grandpredator and an undeserved disadvantage for others to be your predator
> and prey
I could say that about a lot of decks. My friend Kevin's weenie
Dominate deck is a nightmare to be sitting next to, unless I'm playing
my intercept deck. So, sure. It's an advantage to _not_ be sitting
next to him.
> - no matter what decks they bring to the table.
Here's the murky part, and it's obviously not true. If someone sits
down as my prey with a shitload of combat defense, they're going to do
pretty well. If I have my potence combat deck, and I sit down next to a
Tzimisce deck with 10 Blood of Acid, I'm going to get wrecked.
> > If I am an intercept deck, and I stop all of my predator's
> > actions, I am denying him resources and keeping him from doing what he wants to
> > do. As a result, my grand predator is going to be in a better position, and he
> > gets a free benefit. How is what a Rush deck does any different?
>
> They're not. I have the same problem with intercept decks, actually.
What is your problem? There are a bunch of decks you don't like. So
what? You find them boring. Good for you. That doesn't mean people
shouldn't play them or that they shouldn't exist.
> > Obvious, and much less effective. Fame is useful in a pinch, but building a
> > deck around it is mostly pointless.
>
> You may not find it to be effective and I won't argue with you about it. My
> point was not to suggest Fame, used in this way, is a great tactic. My point
> was to hold it out as the kind of card combat decks should be given to work
> with so that minion destruction doesn't seem like the only way to use combat.
> Minion destruction is not very effective, however much success a good player
> can have with it, and adds bad elements to the game in general.
I think minion destruction is very effective. If you can keep someone
from being able to take any actions, or gain any pool, you can easily
kill them. There is only an "unbalancing" effect to your right if the
combat deck has a speedy deck as their predator. And the combat deck is
doing the table a FAVOR by eliminating a deck which probably has a fair
chance of sweeping the table. This seems like a balancing element, not
a "bad element."
> > Rush decks are the most effective anti S+B decks there are. Very little drives
> > people away from the Malkavians more effectively that having every one of their
> > minions destroyed before they take a single action.
>
> I won't dispute that they're good anti stealth & bleed decks. But as I replied
> to James Hamblin's post, I prefer the game find another "rock" to S&B's "scissors"
> rather than making this one more workable.
S&B is already pretty easily screwable. Archon Investigation is a
horrible card, and makes you never want to bleed for more than 3, lest
your vampire get burned and your prey _gain_ pool. Let's not get into
that now. There's also bleed bounce, which is impossible to defend
against. Permanent intercept is much easier to come by than permanent
stealth. And then, of course, there's combat.
Bleed is a fun deck to play. It's very straight forward; it's usually
either great or terrible. It shouldn't get screwed any more than it
already is.
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"You seem to think you know it all
James Hamblin
Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> James Hamblin wrote:
> >
> > Combats decks generally
> > don't have standard vote or bleed defense; if you can usually survive
> > the combats, you can probably oust them. How does that make someone
> > across the table win?
>
> Because simply having the answers to the combat deck *doesn't* win you the
> game.
Simply having bleed defense doesn't win you the game, either.
> You may survive the rushes. I suppose if it's your predator and he's
> not bleeding you because he's been ineffective at torporizing your minions,
> then that's good. But it doesn't help you oust your prey.
Since when does being able to defend against your predator help you oust
your prey?
> And the deck
> space you need to survive combat robs you of cards you could be using to
> win the game.
Having Deflections robs you of space you could be using for game-winning
cards, too. What's the difference?
> It's not enough to simply survive to win the metagame. There needs to be
> a payoff for guessing right.
Why? If you survive, you get a victory point. That's a pretty good
payoff.
> Guessing right that you're going to hit a combat
> deck seldom provides much of a payoff.
It makes you not dead.
> It mostly just screws the combat deck.
> You have to forget the notion you seem to have that this is a zero-sum game.
> What's bad for your predator isn't necessarily good for you.
If your predator can't kill you, then you're not dead. Being not dead
is good.
> > Why? It just doesn't follow. Just because there are more kinds of
> > combat decks which can be viable doesn't mean the proportion of combat
> > decks at tournaments will increase.
>
> Sure it does. Assuming there are more kinds, they must increase their number
> at tournaments.
No! You're completely wrong!!! According to this logic, every time an
expansion gets printed, then since new decks are possible, then EVERY
deck type must increase in proportion. Which is, of course, impossible.
> The new decks can come from the ranks of people who played
> other combat decks or from those who didn't.
Wait, what were the people who were not playing combat decks before
playing? Bleed decks? But wait, they also printed a new bleed card, so
by your reasoning there must be _more_ bleed decks. Do you see why this
makes no sense?
[snip more insanity]
> I suppose you could be making the point that the increase will be fairly minimal or
> that others will cease playing combat decks at all in the shift to the new metagame.
> My perception, though, is that if you create a new type of viable deck, it's
> unpredictable what it will do to the percentage of existing decks so the most
> reasonable assumption to make is that they'll stay steady - thus increasing the
> overall number of combat decks if you add a new type of combat deck. If you have a
> specific reason you think this would not be true, I'd like to hear it.
How can I be more specific?!? It's impossible for the proportions of
EVERY type of deck to increase or stay steady unless they all stay
steady. I'm not saying that there won't be more combat decks if more
combat cards are printed, just that it doesn't follow.
> > It sounds like you've never seen a combat deck get screwed.
>
> Oh, combat decks absolutely get screwed. It just doesn't necessarily help their
> neighbors that much.
Well, having a prey that's getting screwed is good. It makes them
easier to kill. Having a predator that's getting screwed is good. It
makes it harder for them to kill you.
This really is all very simple...
Roger Carhult
--
"James Hamblin" <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:3ACB2C18...@math.wisc.edu...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> >
> > I just don't care to
> > encourage people building decks that will make them bad news to sit next
to
> > no matter what kind of deck you have. (You can build the fortitude deck
to
> > defend yourself but it often doesn't help you win, either.) I'd rather
see
> > such things limited to how you do in outguessing the metagame.
>
> I don't think that the average combat deck is necessarily "bad news." A
> potence rush deck is trying to take advantage of a lack of combat
> defense (fortitude, maneuvers) in the average tournament deck. There
> are plenty of decks which will make the potence player say "oh, shit,
> I'm screwed." If Combat is Rock, there are as many Scissors as there
> are Papers.
>
> > It sure is. I simply object to the assumption that the combat deck
> > archetype "must" be propped up. If people think it does, then tell us
> > why first. Then worry about how it needs to be done.
>
> I'm not saying I think Combat (as a strategy) needs any boosting. But
> how could the hypothetical existence of more _kinds_ of combat decks be
> bad? I can't really play my Gangrel +strength combat deck because I
> don't have any way to deal with S:CE. If there's some anti-S:CE
> Animalism card, say, in Final Nights, how will that affect things?
> Majesty will be just as screwed against this new card as it is against
> Grapple, Psyche! and Tracking. It doesn't make the Tzimisce any better;
> they can already deal with S:CE. It just means that the game will have
> more diversity. There will be more _kinds_ of combat decks -- there may
> not be any more combat decks per se. And, even if combat decks become
> more prominent, the metagame envrionment will adjust. Ventrue decks
> with huge amounts of combat defense will become prominent. And then
> those decks will get screwed when the metagame shifts away from combat.
>
> How is this a bad thing?
>
It is a bad thing, because if all combatclans have access to S:CE hosers
there'äs simply no reason anymore to include S:CE's as defence. S:CE will
become obsolete since you use them to avoid combat clans, not exactly
Malkavians and such a like. So please explain to why anyone would want to
include S:CE in their deck then (ignore Majesty's untap effect since it's a
secondary effect and most other S:CE cards that don't have this and they'd
be useless).