Is bloat bad for the game?

Subject says it all. Here's some context quoted from another thread, where I am discussing with LSJ. It's too new to find the quote on Google, but it's in the massive thread titled "Contesting" started by XZealot on August 10. best - chris >>> My suggestion would be that you can burn a vamp in your crypt to get the blood back off it, regardless of whether it is in danger of being contested or not. >> >> That seems like it would add more bloat to the game, especially for GtU user. Which seems like it would be bad for the game. > > You say "seems". Are you willing to be convinced otherwise? Or do you just say "seems" to be disingenuous? Yes, I've stopped beating my wife. I say "seems" because that's how it seems. For an abusive example: stuffing up an uncontrolled 2-cap vampire with 3X counters from X GtU actions from a school of X 3+ cap DOM weenies and then flashing him for pool gain (still having your full four transfers ready to go to get another). You are welcome to convince me that that is not how it seems. If you mean the second "seems", then I suggest that an argument against that deserves its own topic.

librarian wrote: > Subject says it all. Not quite. > Here's some context quoted from another thread, where I am discussing > with LSJ. It's too new to find the quote on Google, but it's in the > massive thread titled "Contesting" started by XZealot on August 10. The topic introduced in that thread isn't "bloat" but "more bloat". So the subject should be: Would adding more bloat to VTES be bad for the game? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Card-based bloat can be good because it can go to those who are weak to begin with. Rule-based bloat (i.e. dumping uncontrolled vampires back into your pool at a 1:1 basis) would provide bloat to those who don't need it. Or so it seems ;) Bloat's effect on the game can be good or bad. In my opinion, decks like !torry embrace and art scam are supremely annoying for their non- intereaction with other players. Bloat can also mean providing an avenue for a come-back. Blood Dolls, Minion Taps, Villeins, Vessels Tribute to the master all provide a way to have minions and stay in the game. This tech is pretty much a necessity for basic strategies, so I wouldn't want to see it go. Brandon

On Aug 25, 12:10 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > librarian wrote: > The topic introduced in that thread isn't "bloat" but "more bloat". > > So the subject should be: > > Would adding more bloat to VTES be bad for the game? Bloat is one of many defensive options available to a player. Empowering weaker deck types could be good for the game, like Flames of Insurrection. Empowering already strong deck types or disciplines would be bad for the game. One of the primary factors in my mind for determining good/bad for the game is: does the change expand or contract the total number of competitive decks? Expanding is good, contracting is bad. Ira

[ quoted text not captured ] The "reveal and dump crypt-card blood into pool" opens a collossal exploitation option for Tremere, Toreadors, !Toreadors & Ventrue. All clans who rarely need help to gain blood or pool. And to a lesser extent any other clan with Presence or Dominate, again clans that often don't need significant additional bloat (with exceptions possibly for Bloodline Clans). GtU or Enchant Kindred @SUP with 3 eligible minions combined with 1 effective management and you've got 6 to 9 pool for 3 actions, 1 master and removing 1 crypt card plus the same number of cards still in your uncontrolled region AND 4 transfers. It's more than a little obscene. "Reveal and Dump to Pool" will only favour the decks that already bloat well. "Reveal and Move to Crypt Card (poss for 4 transfers)" reduces the impact of "They influenced out the vamp I want" and doesn't add another "bloat rule". *We don't need another BLOAT rule*

[ quoted text not captured ] The current question is a bit simpler: Would adding more bloat, such bloat through the uncontrolled region, which especially means GtU bloat, be good for the game?

[ quoted text not captured ] > especially means GtU bloat, be good for the game?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No. The ability to bloat via the Uncontrolled Region is effective enough as it is.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >The current question is a bit simpler: > >Would adding more bloat, such bloat through the uncontrolled region, >which especially means GtU bloat, be good for the game? Potentially, it could be okay for the game if it could be reasonably restricted to clans or strategies that perform poorly at the moment. For example, a Laibon clan or Bloodline that is performing poorly might benefit from extra bloat and, in particular, uncontrolled region bloat. However, two caveats. 1) That's not the only way to help those clans or strategies. One might instead prefer to provide them with other options - better offence, more solid defence, a new strategy. Or perhaps to make their vampires more pokey, so that they get disciplines and specials that are on the top end of the notional points allocation, with especially good synergy. But uncontrolled bloating is a perfectly reasonable option to consider which has been used for various clans/strategies over the years. 2) That's not a general change to the rules. Any increases in bloat should be, relatively speaking, laser-guided. Making Tier 3 decks into Tier 2 or Tier 1.5 is perfectly sensible, but we probably don't want to make the Tier 1 decks even better. Something like being able to use transfers to take blood from controlled minions will likely make, say, Dementation weenies better, because they can drop the few Blood Dolls they'd have included and have better card flow as a result. This is likely to be quite a bit better as an outcome than a Bloodline that is struggling to make ends meet. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] > *We don't need another BLOAT rule*- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So the "Reveal and Dump to Pool" rule would be a pure addition to the game and not a replacement of undo influence? Because if you got rid of undo influence and had to burn a crypt card to get "govern down" blood back as pool you now need another resource (a crypt card) although you can get more than 2 pool a turn (assuming 4 transfers available). Eventually you will run through your crypt and be unable to "govern down" further (or run out of younger vampires). Later, ~Rehlow

[ quoted text not captured ] > ~Rehlow- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I was always under the impression that "Reveal & Dump to Pool" was to be an addition. Similarly the "Reveal and dump to another uncontrolled card" was to be an addition. I think that the CURRENT rules should remain unchanges and an ADDITIONAL rule should be added to allow: "During your influence phase you may spend 4 transfers and reveal a crypt card from your uncontrolled region that would contest a card in play controlled by another Methuselah or already being contested by at least one other Methuselah. Remove that crypt card from the game. You may move any blood/pool counters on this card to another card in your uncontrolled region." It avoids "They influenced out my vampire" (players have a way out), avoids "Creating more bloat" (only valid target is another crypt card for pool) and "maintains current bloat" (you can still Spend 2 Transfers to transfer 1 counter back to your pool). Running out of vampires is a simple enough problem to remedy: Scale up your crypt. Current Rules - 12 card Crypt contains: 3xCock Robin, 2xCasino Reeds, 2xNikolaus Vermeulen, 3x Sundown, 2xCalebros the Martyr. "Reveal & Dump to Pool w/ No Transfer Back" - 36 Card Crypt contains: 9x Cock Robin, 6x Casino Reeds, 6x Nikaolaus Vermeulen, 9x Sundown, 6xCalebros the Martyr. If I can manage to put pool down and burn my way through 30+ vamps in a game... all power to me. It's just a matter of scaling up your cypt. Just like people may assume that a Tupdog crypt would just be 12 cards and not say... 20 cards.