On Tupdog 7. "problematic card".

This is the sixth thread of the discussions about cards some people see as problematic. This is a collection of arguments for keeping the card as it is (PRO card) or changing it in whatever way (CONTRA card). It would be most useful, if you could write above your entry, if your arguments are PRO or CONTRA the card as it is to attain best clarity of what speaks in favor of the card and what does not. After 7 days of discussion I will initialize a poll about that specific card, in which the alternatives can be found. Tupdog [LoB:C] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Gargoyle Group: 3 Capacity: 1 Discipline: POT VIS Sabbat. Tremere antitribu slave: Visceratika cards cost Tupdog 1 less blood [()]. Tupdog may enter combat with any minion as a action. Tupdogs are not unique. {After} the end of your minion phase, burn Tupdog and move the top card from your crypt to your uncontrolled region. Flight [FLIGHT]. PRO I hate Tupdog decks, I really do. Often enough they cripple their prey and predator. But often enough they don't win by it, because their new preys and predators are most likely very strong because of lack of pressure or the ease they had obtaining a VP. And Tupdogdecks cannot play slowly or carefully because the minions burn every round. So even though I hate the card I don't think it is bad for the game or even unfair. Tupdog is a very good cryptcard, but not broken at all. Baron of Frankfurt

PRO Even if I hate sitting near a Tupdog deck, it's not worse than sitting next to Una, a weenie DBR, a weenie POT or a malkavian reversal of fortune. Hopefully, the rarity of tupdogs make it scarce on tables. I'm more concern by the fact that no-brainer players may play it just for the fun of destroying her prey or predator (and scoring in the best case 1 vp). In the hands of a good player, it's a deck really hard to handle (both for the player itself and the rest of the table) and that is quite interesting, but not broken. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

PRO It is good as it is. There are lots of decks which can wreck your game from turn one-two, as ankha stated, and all are equally annoying for the first prey. Funny, thy do not win so many tournaments now, do they...

> Joscha wrote: > I hate Tupdog decks, I really do. Often enough they cripple their prey and predator. But often enough they don't win by it, because their new preys and predators are most likely very strong because of lack of pressure or the ease they had obtaining a VP. > Which can be said about *any* poorly played combat deck. > And Tupdogdecks cannot play slowly or carefully because the minions burn every round. So even though I hate the card I don't think it is bad for the game or even unfair. Tupdog is a very good cryptcard, but not broken at all. > Agreed. Tupdogs are on a timer. You hemorrhage pool and you are running out of crypt (and library) cards. You could potentially have larger crypts and libraries, but that increases the chance of crypt screw or handjam. Plus, you are also limited by the slave mechanic. If you face a smart combat deck, they will take out your Tremere Antitribu, leaving your Tupdogs aimless and confused. Normally the !Tremere are pretty defenseless, so if you can rush at +1 stealth you can normally nail them. I think Tupdogs are fine as is. But if there is the need for a change, the best idea I've heard floated is that you only get the free crypt card if the Tupdog is still ready when he burns. Then players actually have to care about the status of their puppies and they're not quite as disposable. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Ankha wrote: > PRO > > Even if I hate sitting near a Tupdog deck, it's not worse than sitting next to Una, a weenie DBR, a weenie POT or a malkavian reversal of fortune. > Hopefully, the rarity of tupdogs make it scarce on tables. I'm more concern by the fact that no-brainer players may play it just for the fun of destroying her prey or predator (and scoring in the best case 1 vp). > In the hands of a good player, it's a deck really hard to handle (both for the player itself and the rest of the table) and that is quite interesting, but not broken. > PRO, same reasons as Ankha, I'd like to add if we start putting in problematic list every card we're gonna destroy the game

Totally CON and here's why - I don't think they're too strong or anything. I just hate the fact that because of the way they work you either make someone unable to play or are you end up just being a free VP for someone. In either case it fucks up enough of the 5 player game to make the game stupid. Unlike popular believe, they also aren't exactly harder to play than any other rush deck and the 1 pool per turn thing is EASILY compensated by using Montreal and/or Dreams. The different is that when sitting behind something similarly retarded as weenie potence you can at least try and get some crosstable rescues and DO something. When up against Tupdogs your vampires end up in your opponents ready region and will just help him oust you while you sit there unable to play. As an example; on day 2 of the EC I sat next to Tupdogs in THREE out of four games. On the first table, the guy -my predator- got 100% shut down by a turn 2 Gran Madre (this is ALSO stupid btw) and thus was a free VP for his predator. He didn't perform a single action. In round two, some Tupdog guy was my predator and when I asked him if it was ok for me to have a guy out to hurt my prey he said no and thus I ended up being a 34 pool (2 dreams) poolsack for 1 hour and 58 minutes watching Otso (my prey) getting a free ticket to the finals. Yes, this is mostly the player being an idiot, but the archtype doesn't really lend itself for anything else than destroying someone's game in the first place. In the finals my prey was a Tupdog deck and he actually played it well. Still, just being "that deck" caused two guys at the table to try and figure out a way to actually act before getting their shit killed and graverobbed/raw recruited. Again, the Tupdog deck didn't win (ya know, like weenie potence doesn't usually win either) but the game was utter shit from a "let's play cards perspective". I mean, I had some fun playing "confuse the fuck out of everyone" and selling Parity Shift pool, but I wasn't playing cards. I was just waiting to get ousted with 0% chance of killing my prey. Dealing with Tupdogs just requires way too specific tech (Gran Madre, Tension and Hidden Strength is pretty much it) to incorporate in a deck so you end up either playing a deck full of silver bullets and pray or just die to Tupdogs. No other mainstream strategy has such an impact on the game as them goddamned 1-caps. I really believe it's totally bad design in a multiplayer cardgame that you can basically lose because of the crypt size of the guy next to you. So ye, totally against this shit. > PRO, same reasons as Ankha, I'd like to add if we start putting in problematic list every card we're gonna destroy the game > Ye... cos like, 10 possibly "problematic" cards is an extremely large percentage of the 3508 cards available, right?

I'm still somewhat undecided. I really don't like banning cards but I'm leaning towards CON. Izaak put it really well, what it does is essentially ruin the game for two players. There are some brutal hosers but stuffing every deck with enough of them (1 won't cut it, since you most likely won't have minions to cycle cards) for the off chance you're up against a tupdog is silly. We play the game to have fun, not sit and wait because influencing will lower you chance of winning. Madness of the bard was banned not because it was too good but because it ruined the gaming experience. Lidingö Scourge

> Izaak wrote: > In either case it fucks up enough of the 5 player game to make the game stupid. Unlike popular believe, they also aren't exactly harder to play than any other rush deck and the 1 pool per turn thing is EASILY compensated by using Montreal and/or Dreams. The different is that when sitting behind something similarly retarded as weenie potence you can at least try and get some crosstable rescues and DO something. When up against Tupdogs your vampires end up in your opponents ready region and will just help him oust you while you sit there unable to play. > Just like any case where there is a dangerous combat deck around, you have to carefully time your influencing of minions. Don't bring out one minion at a time. Preferably bring out 2 or 3 or even 4 simultaneously. Similarly, work with the guy on the other side of Tupdog, so that you bring all your guys out at the same time. Tupdog will eventually stall on the crypt cards. You eventually draw into all the Tremere Antitribu, and/or need to spend a turn using your transfers for a crypt card. Look for opportunities when there are few (or no) Tupdogs around for a turn, and then bring out your minions then. > As an example; on day 2 of the EC I sat next to Tupdogs in THREE out of four games. On the first table, the guy -my predator- got 100% shut down by a turn 2 Gran Madre (this is ALSO stupid btw) and thus was a free VP for his predator. He didn't perform a single action. > Then that is a very poor Tupdog deck. Poorly designed and poorly played. Gran Madre is very frustrating for Tupdog, but there are a few workarounds, including: As the Crow (to untap after you hunt), Heidelberg Castle, Lilith's Blessing (one of our *favorite* cards!). You could also include other blood management cards (one time Blood Doll, University Hunting Ground, the Coven) if Gran Madre is prevalent in the area. Most Tupdog decks should also have an answer to annoying locations (Secure Haven being the other one). > In round two, some Tupdog guy was my predator and when I asked him if it was ok for me to have a guy out to hurt my prey he said no and thus I ended up being a 34 pool (2 dreams) poolsack for 1 hour and 58 minutes watching Otso (my prey) getting a free ticket to the finals. Yes, this is mostly the player being an idiot, but the archtype doesn't really lend itself for anything else than destroying someone's game in the first place. > That could have happened with any sort of combat deck. Tariq/Muaziz/Hardestadt/Una/Tyler Eats the World for example. That is a very stupid player. Most of the time you want your prey to spend lots of pool on minions because it is less pool you have to go through. (Exceptions might be if he is super bloaty, or if you are packing a heavy deck with good bleed). Alternatively, if you didn't have any targets, then your predator should have used table management skills to keep your prey from running away with the table. > In the finals my prey was a Tupdog deck and he actually played it well. Still, just being "that deck" caused two guys at the table to try and figure out a way to actually act before getting their shit killed and graverobbed/raw recruited. Again, the Tupdog deck didn't win (ya know, like weenie potence doesn't usually win either) but the game was utter shit from a "let's play cards perspective". I mean, I had some fun playing "confuse the fuck out of everyone" and selling Parity Shift pool, but I wasn't playing cards. I was just waiting to get ousted with 0% chance of killing my prey. > That happens all the time, with lots of non-Tupdog and non-combat decks. There are a ridiculous number of "not fun to play against" decks. Girls decks. Sensory Deprivation decks. First Tradition decks. Imbued decks. Una decks. Grand Ball decks (especially with Anthelios recursion). > Dealing with Tupdogs just requires way too specific tech (Gran Madre, Tension and Hidden Strength is pretty much it) to incorporate in a deck so you end up either playing a deck full of silver bullets and pray or just die to Tupdogs. No other mainstream strategy has such an impact on the game as them goddamned 1-caps. > Tension is hardly a cornercase card. I hear Scourge of the Enochians is pretty popular nowadays. Obedience and Alpha Glint don't care about Tupdog combat. Kiasyd stealth bleed can wiggle out of grapples with Fae Contortion. Setites with Temptation are absolutely vicious (I take control of your Tupdog! Hey look I get a free crypt card. Thanks!). Other combat decks can potentially take out the Tremere Antitribu masters, preventing the Tupdogs from doing anything. So I hardly think you need "special tech" just for Tupdog. And hey, if push comes to shove, you can always build a deck around the "immune to Tupdogs" Ravnos, Hazimel! Or Claudio Severino! Or build your own Tupdog deck but with Rock Cats, which will totally p0wn other people's Tupdogs! B) pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

If you are an easy VP because you are playing Tup Dogs, it's your own damn fault. It makes the table go faster and less time outs. It destroys Girls decks (the root of all evil, by some accounts). It allows to cycle crypts in non or decks. Yes, I know Anarch Convert does that too, but forces you to turn your vamps anarch... It's pure destructive force against another Methuselah is not very different from weenie

CONTRA Tupdogs were acceptable until Heirs to the Blood came out. Then they got +1 stealth rush (Dive Bomb), +1 stealth steal vampire in torpor (Raw Recruit), and set range (Brick by Brick). These cards mean that you can't use weenies to protect your big vampires unless the weenies can produce intercept, and it means that you can't outmaneuver the Gargoyles and their aggravated grapple damage (plus press!). You basically have to have lots of Auspex weenies to spare or play with superior Hidden Strength, as Izaak said. > echiang wrote: > Just like any case where there is a dangerous combat deck around, you have to carefully time your influencing of minions. Don't bring out one minion at a time. Preferably bring out 2 or 3 or even 4 simultaneously. Similarly, work with the guy on the other side of Tupdog, so that you bring all your guys out at the same time. > This is of course the only strategy, and it's bad when there is only one strategy to choose from. You and your cross-table can't even take turns rescuing each other since your vampires will just be stolen. As I mentioned, it's not even usually feasible to bring out sacrifical vampires against the Tupdogs now. If you have a combat deck on the other side of you as well, you might as well play for 0.5 VPs.

PRO. Having played tupdogs, i know its a risky game. Playing it oftentimes results in crushing 1-2 players reliably. Getting through the 3rd and 4th player is oftentimes the trick, most often than not you get the ire of the whole table early and they start working cohesively against you. So it seems kinda powerful at first but too risky for a tournament in my opinion. So i'd rather keep them where they are right now.

Come on, here... "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> Having played tupdogs, i know its a risky game. Playing it oftentimes results in crushing 1-2 players reliably. > And this is exactly the problem. What other deck crushes 2 players reliably? What other deck does consistently make 40% of the guys at your table unable to play? There is also a HUGE difference between Tupdogs and "the other decks that were mentioned. For starters, they usually need rush cards so throwing upo chump blockers actually makes sense. Also, they can't influence out 2-3 early to shut you down so hard that you can't hurt them anymore. Furthermore, Tupdogs don't have to protect their minions. You're immune to Pentex and don't have to worry about ousting power because you are using someone else's minions to bleed. Of course !Tremere having 3 weenies available in the Tupdog grouping with dominate helps as well. Comparing Tupdog to to Tariq or Muaziz is so clueless.

I am not an experimented player, but if you believe the tupdog should be changed, how would you do ? It would be sad to just ban this fun card, so it would be better to find a way to make the card slower (since the problem is that it destroy vampire too quickly, if I understand correctly the problems) THe "must be ready" clause for crypt draw seem to not be too useful ; it force the tupdog to play more prevention and may make it more unreliable, but with a good draw (or against people unable to put significant harm) they will still destroy players quickly. Making tupdogs unique would limit the number of rush per turn, but may be too little. I'm not too sure. I don't give opinion on the topic, because how little I have played against tupdogs, but I definitely not want to see them banned.

> Izaak wrote: > > > Having played tupdogs, i know its a risky game. Playing it oftentimes results in crushing 1-2 players reliably. > > > And this is exactly the problem. > > What other deck crushes 2 players reliably? What other deck does consistently make 40% of the guys at your table unable to play? > > There is also a HUGE difference between Tupdogs and "the other decks that were mentioned. For starters, they usually need rush cards so throwing upo chump blockers actually makes sense. Also, they can't influence out 2-3 early to shut you down so hard that you can't hurt them anymore. Furthermore, Tupdogs don't have to protect their minions. You're immune to Pentex and don't have to worry about ousting power because you are using someone else's minions to bleed. Of course !Tremere having 3 weenies available in the Tupdog grouping with dominate helps as well. > > Comparing Tupdog to to Tariq or Muaziz is so clueless. > When there is a table with wennie Dragon's Breath Round Graverobing deck we have the same problem, prey and predator must coordinate their moves to bring out several vampires at the same time. Following you statement we should ban Dragon's Breath Rounds then. Honestly, I don't see the point about banning or changing Tupdog, I played Tupdog before for a while and normally is a good deck for arriving in the final, but then it's the most complicated deck for winning a final IMHO.

> acbishop wrote: > I played Tupdog before for a while and normally is a good deck for arriving in the final, but then it's the most complicated deck for winning a final IMHO. > This presents (at least to me) a new way to think about decks. I guess Tupdogs (or weenie , weenie DBR, NSftM, etc.) are a pain when in casual games since there is only that one game at stake. In a tournament where ultimately the deck needs to win the final table (compared to just getting 1+ VPs in previous rounds), player skill becomes increasingly more important as the game progresses (and the library runs thin, in this case). Advocate of Good-looking Deck Posts pulledfangs.blogspot.com :vtes: Manila V:tES

> When there is a table with wennie Dragon's Breath Round Graverobing deck we have the same problem, prey and predator must coordinate their moves to bring out several vampires at the same time. > Actually, no. Yes, weenie DBR is annoying as fuck as well. But, for starters, if you kill their guys they stay dead. They're not getting new ones for virtually free because they actually have to draw crypt cards. Also, they pay more than 1 pool per rush (because the gun costs 1 as well), have to actually play Bum's Rush, have the full combo (Conceal, SNS DBR) on hand AND get foiled by pretty much every defensive combat card in existence. > Following you statement we should ban Dragon's Breath Rounds then. > Yes because having to blow up a gun (that costs pool and takes effort to get) is the same thing. I can see you're following my logic perfectly... /sarcasm. If potence would have a FREE combat card that would make your handstrike aggrevated at inferior potence then yes, I think it should be banned. Welcome to Tupdogs. They get WAY WAY WAY too many combat goodies and abilities for a non-unique 1-cap. Their //only// disadvantage is not even a real disadvantage because you just end up getting free blockers. If anything Tupdogs should enter play tapped.

I should have said they can reliably oust a player or two if they dont stall, to get it moving reliably i have to stock some 20 or so tupdogs which if you played it often enough can mean that you wont get a Tremere anti in the next few turns. I've had several games where i didnt get a Tremere anti until the 5th round or so even with rapid cycle afforded by Tupdogs. True, it is hard to defend against them. But in our gaming group we have a lot of combat decks so we have gotten accustomed to some defense. But i understand where your frustration with this card comes from.

CONTRA agree with Izaak. Additionally it's just the most underpriced vampire in the game. I don't think changing it would make any good. It's just very bad designed from the very beginning, so banning it would be best option

PRO I think it's an interesting card. It helps trim and cycle your crypt in a non-anarch deck, and in the small numbers that most people have it's a completely balanced and fair (and fun) card. I would also point out that the majority (if not all) of the arguments against this card are actually against the Tupdog Deck. If you want to hamstring that deck without effecting anything else than the simplest way is to introduce a card limit to a players crypt. I don't think any other modern deck would be effected by a rule saying your crypt could contain only 12 - 15 cards.

Limiting Crypts to, say, 15 is actually a really good idea.

PRO I personally dislike Tupdog, but I don't think it's ruining the game. It's an annoying deck, but it's not imbalanced. The only problem I have with it is that it's so hard to defend against. The tupdog decks first prey and predator can't win the game, no matter how well or bad the tupdog player plays. It's a high risk deck, it should not have perfect answers to everything. Its' first prey and predator should always have a chance to win without having a "counter-deck" (25 fortitude prevent, for instance). With the addition of As The Crow Gran Madre is not a defense. With the addition of Brick by Brick Sniper Rifles or maneuvers is not a defense. Tupdog is fine. Brick by brick is really, really not warranted. It almost had perfect combat before. With this card, it almost can't be defended against in combat. A change which limits crypt size to 15 does seem like a workable change, but a bit drastic. I don't think the deck is competitive. It's been in day2's by multiple players of the EC the past three years and hasn't showed up in the finals once (cats and dogs != tupdogs). As soon as everyone realize it's a bad deck, the deck archetype will stop showing up. Making changes to disallow bad decks which ruins others' games might be tempting but it's a slippery slope. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

Tupdog annoys the crap out of me, but it's by no means a "broken" card. it is stupid, I dare say - retarded, but not broken. as it was pointed out in this topic, winning a tournament with a tupdog deck is quite uncommon, since a) you get a lot of table hate constantly and b) people will gang up on you whenever they can. I don't like tupdogs, I don't play them (unless I want to cycle crypt by other means than Wider View / Anarch Convert or I'm working on a !tre + gargoyle deck), I absolutely don't enjoy playing against them, they're simply annoying, although not unbeatable. The problem I see with tupdogs, contrary to other "problematic cards" is that it begins to "shine" in the hands of a bad player. You know, that dude who just sits there, completely obliterates your game and gives a GW to your prey in the process. This card is like giving a stick of dynamite to a monkey - you know the trouble is coming and you know it's probably not going to be fun either Tupdog's mechanic is just too simple for what he does, especially with the HttB cards (set range, untap, rush again...seriously?), there's no drawback to it other than being a slave, which is not as bad as it seems. first - tupdogs will play secure haven (so the !tre is secure, while your vamp is not). second - they do lack intercept, yes, but keep in mind that combat decks usually don't stealth either (with some exceptions of course, but generally - let's face it - they don't). So the argument for stopping them is kinda moot, chump blockers are usually a no-go, I've found out that they have issues with allies and lots of weenies though. In 90% of the cases I stopped tupdogs thanks to table talk and help from other players, not on my own - stuff like someone rescuing your vampire is gold in this situation. Also, consider how players treat tupdog decks - if they see it and gang up, you have a chance. If they see it and do nothing, the game is already lost, yes it's that simple. TL,DR version - it's not about the card itself, it's about the level of unbalance it can bring to the table, based on the personal experience of the player playing this deck. there's a crapload of things in this game that do the same trick, tupdogs just brought it to the whole new level of simplicity. oh and btw, limiting crypt to 15 cards - sounds good to me.

> Mael wrote: > I would also point out that the majority (if not all) of the arguments against this card are actually against the Tupdog Deck. If you want to hamstring that deck without effecting anything else than the simplest way is to introduce a card limit to a players crypt. I don't think any other modern deck would be effected by a rule saying your crypt could contain only 12 - 15 cards. > That is a bad idea, because it ends up impacting a lot of decks and cards besides just Tupdog: - Soul Gem decks (however much you hate them). Baron decks with every critter with often use larger than normal crypts. Turbo-Arika or Turbo-Aurora decks traditionally have used them as well. - Soul Scan decks can easily afford to use larger than normal crypts. Possibly also decks with Recruitment. Wider View has also made far larger decks more viable. - An excessively bloaty Samedi deck with Coroner's Contact and/or Little Mountain Cemetery might choose to use a larger than normal crypt. Same with Blood Brothers using Unwholesome Bond and Hive Mind for bloat. Maybe some Honor the Elder decks too. - Malgorzata and Paul Cordwood decks are fueled by their crypt. Decks centered around any of them could easily include larger than normal crypt sizes. - Sabbat Inquisitor + Possession decks aren't very good, but they also may use larger than normal crypts. - Betrayer decks were already partly hosed with the Grouping rule, but you'd be hosing them even more with a crypt limit. So using such a blunt instrument (as limiting crypt size) to target Tupdog ends up having large ramifications for a bunch of other cards. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> echiang wrote: > That is a bad idea, because it ends up impacting a lot of decks and cards besides just Tupdog: > > - Soul Gem decks (however much you hate them). Baron decks with every critter with often use larger than normal crypts. Turbo-Arika or Turbo-Aurora decks traditionally have used them as well. > TWDA shows that the majority of Soul Gem decks have 12-13 card crypts. Two decks there have 18 copies of a single vampire. > echiang wrote: > - Soul Scan decks can easily afford to use larger than normal crypts. Possibly also decks with Recruitment. Wider View has also made far larger decks more viable. > All TWDA decks featuring Soul Scan have 12 vampires. Only three such decks though, so not a very large sample size. > echiang wrote: > - An excessively bloaty Samedi deck with Coroner's Contact and/or Little Mountain Cemetery might choose to use a larger than normal crypt. Same with Blood Brothers using Unwholesome Bond and Hive Mind for bloat. Maybe some Honor the Elder decks too. > Again TWDA shows these decks mostly as 12 - 13 cards. The exceptions being two Honor the Elders decks, one having 15 cards, the other 20. > echiang wrote: > - Malgorzata and Paul Cordwood decks are fueled by their crypt. Decks centered around any of them could easily include larger than normal crypt sizes. > One such deck in TWDA had 19 cards, all others had 12 - 13. > echiang wrote: > - Sabbat Inquisitor + Possession decks aren't very good, but they also may use larger than normal crypts. > Again it's a small sample size, but of four TWDA decks using possession, all use 12 card crypts. I'm not sure why Sabbat Inquisitor decks should use larger than normal crypt sizes. > echiang wrote: > - Betrayer decks were already partly hosed with the Grouping rule, but you'd be hosing them even more with a crypt limit. > These were the decks I was thinking of when I included the word 'modern' in my earlier statement. They've already been completely hosed by the grouping rule. I'm not claiming that the TWDA is a perfect tool for gauging what decks are played in other areas, but it's the only alternative to anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence tells me that Tupdog is the only deck I've ever seen with more than 15 cards in the crypt. And I've both played with and against various of the archtypes you list above. To be clear, I don't think limiting the crypt is required, as I don't think the deck is broken enough to need any change to fix it. But if a change is to be made, I think limiting the max crypt size is better than banning or changing the card.

I agree that the TWDA is a limited tool. But your evidence seems to be indicating that players should be limited to decks that have already won tournaments. So because there is no TWDA deck containing 50 crypt cards, I shouldn't be allowed to try something like that in the first place? If you have a crypt of only a single vampire, you might as well go with 100 rather than just 18. The very fact that there are several TWDA decks with crypts greater than 15, proves that there are decks that would be affected. Plus, technically under the TWDA rule: "If a deck has 5 or 6 vampires of one clan, and no other clan has more members in the crypt of that deck, it will be listed under that clan." So you can theoretically build a single deck with 5 vampires of every clan. And if you win, it counts as a win for *every* clan. Right now, that would be 40 clans (if you include Caitiff and Imbued), so you'd need a crypt of 200 cards! But that's only possible without a crypt limitation! (This is me being facetious BTW). pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> alek wrote: > It's just very bad designed from the very beginning, so banning it would be best option > I strongly disagree : * first, it's very well designed in the lore perspective : it show how the !tremere are using the gargoyle as cannon fodder, as opposed to the defensive role in the regular tremere, and it caracterize both !tremere and sabbat very well. I believe strongly that one of the important part of VtES is the World of Darkness vibes, so banning flavorful card (and fun to boot) is very counter-productive. * second, I also disagree that mecanic-wise it's very badly designed. It's very different from regular vampire, but that's not a problem. The two problems it has are : - first and mainly, and I believe it's the main source of hate against it, it's (almost) alway readily available in exactly the needed amount. Kind of a rush that tutor itself from the library. You waste a lot less by cycling tupdog than library card to boot. That's the aspect that the 15-card crypt limitation is trying to address in my opinion, since you will be able to run out of tupdog more easily. - the second problem is that tupdog is dirt cheap. 1 pool for an on-demand action is pretty cheap. Look at metro underground or patronage to convince yourself with that. Both of thoses problems only arise because tupdogs are dirt cheap. A new tupdog with 2 or 3 capacity would be a lot less deadly, because increased cap will both make it a lot less "available on demand", and would ensure that you use it for *important* targets and not use it for a random vampire. I am not too sure that the 15-card limit would really do the trick, even if it's a lot more elegant than a card errata. A dedicated deck would still have about 6 to 10 tupdogs, meaning it can destroy at least 3 to 5 vampires more or less on demand. It may not be enough to win, but it would still be enough to be frustrating, no ?

> echiang wrote: > I agree that the TWDA is a limited tool. > > But your evidence seems to be indicating that players should be limited to decks that have already won tournaments. So because there is no TWDA deck containing 50 crypt cards, I shouldn't be allowed to try something like that in the first place? > This conclusion is a function of where I am taking my stats from. If you have a source of statistics that covers every deck played in/out of a tournament whether it won a game or not, I'll be only too happy to look at it. > echiang wrote: > The very fact that there are several TWDA decks with crypts greater than 15, proves that there are decks that would be affected. > I'd say four is a few rather than several, but we can agree that there are some decks that would be effected. Less than would be effected by banning or errataing Tupdog though. > echiang wrote: > Plus, technically under the TWDA rule: > > "If a deck has 5 or 6 vampires of one clan, and no other clan has more members in the crypt of that deck, it will be listed under that clan." > > So you can theoretically build a single deck with 5 vampires of every clan. And if you win, it counts as a win for *every* clan. Right now, that would be 40 clans (if you include Caitiff and Imbued), so you'd need a crypt of 200 cards! But that's only possible without a crypt limitation! (This is me being facetious BTW). > This deck I would like to see.

> Mael wrote: > > > echiang wrote: > > I agree that the TWDA is a limited tool. > > > > But your evidence seems to be indicating that players should be limited to decks that have already won tournaments. So because there is no TWDA deck containing 50 crypt cards, I shouldn't be allowed to try something like that in the first place? > > > This conclusion is a function of where I am taking my stats from. If you have a source of statistics that covers every deck played in/out of a tournament whether it won a game or not, I'll be only too happy to look at it. > It's true that our primary source of statistics is from the TWDA, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the TWDA is accurate. In fact, I would imagine that the TWDA is a highly biased (in terms of not representative of all players) source (similarly, top-level players is not very representative of all players). In the U.S., there's a classic example of sampling bias with the Chicago Tribune's prediction that Thomas Dewey would defeat Harry Truman for the 1948 presidential election, but that was because they were relying on a telephone survey (which was not representative of the general population). There has already been mention that an online poll on the VEKN website is not likely to be representative of all VTES players. Similarly, I do not think the TWDA is representative of the average player's deck (for better or worse). pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> echiang wrote: > It's true that our primary source of statistics is from the TWDA, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the TWDA is accurate. In fact, I would imagine that the TWDA is a highly biased (in terms of not representative of all players) source (similarly, top-level players is not very representative of all players). > Actually I'd take it further and say that if you had a deck list for every deck that was at every tournament, it still wouldn't be representative of the decks played in casual play. That doesn't make the TWDA worthless as a tool though, you just have to be aware of it with any conclusions you draw. Anyway, we're digressing from the point. The important point is don't ban or change Tudog.

> Mael wrote: > Actually I'd take it further and say that if you had a deck list for every deck that was at every tournament, it still wouldn't be representative of the decks played in casual play. That doesn't make the TWDA worthless as a tool though, you just have to be aware of it with any conclusions you draw. > > Anyway, we're digressing from the point. The important point is don't ban or change Tudog. > I agree with both points! B) pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Just leave the card alone. Everyone hates a Tupdog Deck as Prey or Predator. But you also hear a *sigh* everytime Arika, Una, Cybele, Nergal, Nana, Malk S&B, Giovanni Power Bleed, Garous, Mages or Shambler show up. It is just a part of the game to be complaining. Why else should you team up with your crosstable buddy and search for solutions of getting the situation under your control. Stop your whining and just play the game.

A good discussion, guys, but I did not see many change propositions. My bad? Please help me find them. Poll options so far: a) No change. b) Let the special about moving the top cryptcard only work while ready. c) Change Tupdog's cap to 2 or 3. d) Ban the card. Right? Baron of Frankfurt

Change cap to 2 i'd say. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Lucas wrote: > But you also hear a *sigh* everytime Arika, Una, Cybele, Nergal, Nana, Malk S&B, Giovanni Power Bleed, Garous, Mages or Shambler show up. > In my playgroup you hear players sigh *regardless* of what you bring up . And if you bring nothing up they also sigh, because you don't spend pool and it is harder to oust you. Baron of Frankfurt

I am surprised Tupdog even comes up here. I don´t think it is overpowered, I have seen many Tupdog decks in action, they can work great but they also tend to miserably fail because every rush costs pool and if they don´t work out then you die. A Tupog deck in the hands of a tactically unsavy player can be annoying because it will tilt the table in one direction quickly. But so does a weenie-POT, Computer Hackin bleed or any other sort of extreme deck. It is the nature of the multiplayer game and over many games you will be as much on the losing side of this as on the winning.

I don't think anybody is saying they're overpowered. Yes, I think giving that many goodies to a 1-cap whose disadvantage gets totally compensated with free crypt draws was a bad idea, but overpowered is a bit hard to nail in a multiplayer game. I think most people hate Tupdogs with a passion because it ruins games. Yes, weenie potence ruins games too but at least you can actually use potence and those crypt csrds for something that doesn't destroy games too. Tupdogs can *only* be used to make other people waste 2 hours of their time and are a big fuck you towards the whole multiplayer/playing the table meta that is so important in V:TES. That said, Adam made a good point how changing the game to discourage bad players from building bad decks is a slippery slope, which is probably the best argument I've read against a change. I'd rather see them go than stay, but unfortunately I realize they are here to stay so we'll just have to wait until everyone starts packing fortitude and the first thing that happens at a table is the Tupdogs getting removed with backwards and crosstable KRCs.

> Izaak wrote: > Tupdogs can *only* be used to make other people waste 2 hours of their time and are a big fuck you towards the whole multiplayer/playing the table meta that is so important in V:TES. > Can't a gargoyle deck play mainly non-tupdog crypt and 2 or 3 tupdogs to save when you absolutely need to kill something here and now ? Especially with wider view available to fish for a tupdog when your predator have some unholy abomination that will finish you off if you don't do something about it. Edit : I meant to say "play that kind of crypt and be efficient in table winning". Since having near to your entire crypt dedicated to kill thing does not really help you that much.