juggernaut

"Juggernaut" Master: archtype. Put this card on a vampire you control. If this vampire is ready at the end of a successful action to enter combat, this vampire untaps and bleeds. "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" "Unstoppable Force" 1 Bleed at +1. If this action is blocked and the opposing vampire is not ready after combat, the action continues as if unblocked with +1 bleed. "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" "Immovable Object" Prevent 1 damage, or prevent 3 damage if this vampire blocked a bleed action. Only usable during a bleed action. This vampire enters combat with the acting vampire. If the opposing vampire is ready at the end of combat, the action continues as if unblocked. The reacting vampire untaps and has -1 intercept. "No one moves the Blob!" "Reconnaissance" 1 Contract Only usable when a vampire plays a reaction card. Put this card on the reacting vampire. This vampire may enter combat with that vampire as a +1 stealth action. "Wait and Reprise" Contract. Only usable by a vampire that fails to block a minion. Put this card on the acting vampire. The reacting vampire may enter combat with the acting vampire as a +1 stealth action. Burn this card during the acting vampire's untap phase unless this vampire's controller pays one pool. "Bury" Burn a vampire in torpor (this is not diablarie) and untap this vampire. Put this card on a vampire in your prey's uncontrolled region. That Methuselah burns a pool during his or her influence phase. A vampire may only have one Bury. This card may be burned as a +1 stealth action. "Ransom" Only usable when the opposing vampire goes to torpor and this vampire is still ready. Put this card on the opposing vampire. As an additional cost to rescue this vampire from torpor, the rescuing vampire's controller must give you 2 pool (3 pool if the vampire has "Fame" or "legendary Vampire") Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.

Well somebody has to love combat, especially when there are Haterz out there! In the end, I just want more diversity in Tier 1 decks. Bringing things like Combat into a Primary option are just one of the ways. Nobody needs to love S&B or Vote... they've got plenty of power already! Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

direwolf, what is your point ? Apart from Juggernaut thinking combat is a tad weak ?

Well Juggernaut, I don't have a problem with combat per se. However, improving the viability of combat is a difficult task. Combat typically eliminates an action a player can take. Temporary if only torpor (and at a cost!) and permanent if burned. Disallowing a player a minion can cause table imbalance and cause the victim to be unable to play the game (due to lack of minions.) Improving the effectiveness of combat is a subtle matter. Giving the combat player an advantage without disrupting other players is certainly a challenge. I played the board game "Carson City" for the first time yesterday. It is a "worker placement" game, and you have the ability to contest the other players. I thought they did an amazing job of allowing players to benefit from interfering with other players without ruining their game totally. Combat in and of itself should not win you the game, but it should be a means to accomplish that goal. Combat helps you by disabling your predator or prey. We need to find new and interesting ways of making combat win games without denying other players the ability to play the game. Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.

> Ohlmann wrote: > direwolf, what is your point ? Apart from Juggernaut thinking combat is a tad weak ? > Antagonizing you. EDIT: Just kidding. I don't have a problem with "improving combat" but I prefer to be constructive about it. Juggernaut really likes combat and so do a lot of other people. I'm interested in making a combat themed deck better in a constructive manner without imbalancing the game. Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.

As other people have said... There are few purposes for entering combat unless you plan to do one of two things - 1) Remove as much blood as possible (to waste their actions, stop flicks, stop other cards) 2) Put a minion in torpor because it doesn't need much blood to majorly interfere with your game (e.g. Lucian, Queen Anne, Leandro) So we either need to give combat bonuses for doing these two things (probably defences to ensure that they need to be done less often) OR we need to give them incentives to do option 1) but not option 2) (barring certain exceptions). Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > As other people have said... > There are few purposes for entering combat unless you plan to do one of two things - > 1) Remove as much blood as possible (to waste their actions, stop flicks, stop other cards) > 2) Put a minion in torpor because it doesn't need much blood to majorly interfere with your game (e.g. Lucian, Queen Anne, Leandro) > > So we either need to give combat bonuses for doing these two things (probably defences to ensure that they need to be done less often) OR we need to give them incentives to do option 1) but not option 2) (barring certain exceptions). > Removing blood from a vampire WITHOUT sending it to torpor is pretty crucial. It prevents minion taps and villeins as well as reducing the effectiveness of blood dolls and vessel, while keeping table balance (or at least the perception of table balance.) Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.

But there aren't many incentives to do that. There are plenty for dunking them; Fame, Dragonbound, Tensions, Perpetual Care, etc. But they are also not that efficient/effective in the short term. The only cards I can easily think of that give benefits for removing blood are: Taste of Vitae and Street Cred. Street Cred would be more useful for decorative purposes. Taste of Vitae is regularly played but isn't any good for defensive purposes unless you can siphon off the blood somehow... like Minion Tap which leaves your guys in a fragile state. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> direwolf wrote: > Removing blood from a vampire WITHOUT sending it to torpor is pretty crucial. It prevents minion taps and villeins as well as reducing the effectiveness of blood dolls and vessel, while keeping table balance (or at least the perception of table balance.) > If you put someone to 3-5 blood, you won't have do too much, maybe reducing a villain of some points. And you need a bloody good hand to do 4-7 damage to a vampire usually, especially if your opponent have some basic combat defense (like most deck have basic bleed defense at least). If you have reducted someone to 0 blood, then it's more or less than having dunked him. For some strange reason, 9/10 of the time I see shattering crescendo played, it is to put one or two vampire in torpor. Maybe there is a reason, namely that removing blood from vampire is more a fringe benefit, which is bad considering the ungodly amount of card needed to do combat efficiently ?

Honestly, it's because players who think like Izaak, Ankha and Drain seem to want combat to mostly be 'ultra-defensive'. It seems like they would like combat to not be a major component to Tier 1 decks (other than maybe Majesty like crazy every time you get blocked). Combat is a part of the game. It has always been part of the game. It's a tragedy that it is still not a major component of anything but a limited number of trick decks (such as XYZ Eats the World decks). This is an area of the game that need improvement. It's a shame that First Strike isn't the "first strike" but instead the 3rd Strike. It's not a major part of the game (only a few cards have it) but its fairly useless anyway, you often get better mileage out of additional strikes. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Honestly, it's because players who think like Izaak, Ankha and Drain seem to want combat to mostly be 'ultra-defensive'. > I never said that. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > It seems like they would like combat to not be a major component to Tier 1 decks (other than maybe Majesty like crazy every time you get blocked). > Wrong. There's no "will" behind. Enkidu makes a good tier-1 deck. Combat is a means, not an end. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Combat is a part of the game. It has always been part of the game. It's a tragedy that it is still not a major component of anything but a limited number of trick decks (such as XYZ Eats the World decks). This is an area of the game that need improvement. > Well, *that* point of view we don't share. Why is it a "tragedy"? Why would it be better the other way? I think that if combat was preponderent, V:TES would look like UFS . There would be no room for vote, bleed stealth or other strategies. I prefer to adjust myself to the game and build deck that wins, rather than daydreaming about combat and try to adjust the game to my desires. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > I never said that. > It is a summary of what your position seems to be based on your posts. It is the impression I get from reading your posts. > > Combat is a means, not an end. > This is where our opinions are very different. I don't think combat should just be a means. Stealth is a means to make your actions successful. Intercept is a means to stop others actions. Bleeding is an end. Voting is an end. I don't see why combat should relegated only to a means and not to an end. > > Why is it a "tragedy"? Why would it be better the other way? > I think that if combat was preponderent, V:TES would look like UFS . There would be no room for vote, bleed stealth or other strategies. > Why would there be nothing but combat? Plenty of cards already ensure that a combat won't occur. And already Combat Defence is far stronger than Combat Offence (S:CE. and already nerf most offensive combat). > > I prefer to adjust myself to the game and build deck that wins, rather than daydreaming about combat and try to adjust the game to my desires. > Is there no room for changing the game? You want the status quo to remain? There should be no new paths to win VPs? Combat should not play an affirmative role in that? I think VTES has the capacity to change, and keep changing and combat should have a role in that considering it is one of the three major interactions possible between vampires. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Bury and Ransom are not bad ideas, although Ransom should probably cost a pool. Unblockable crosstable rescues are more a glitch of the system than a feature, so providing a tool against them cannot hurt. And giving anything that is not I HIT YOU WITH MY BIG FIST! goes in the right direction too. needs some variety compared to other combat disciplines.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > This is where our opinions are very different. I don't think combat should just be a means. Stealth is a means to make your actions successful. Intercept is a means to stop others actions. Bleeding is an end. Voting is an end. I don't see why combat should relegated only to a means and not to an end. > I think that is where your understanding of the game differs a lot from other players. You can't just say that this vote deck and this bleed deck. It is not that simple. I would divide deck to five different parts you have to take care of when building a deck: 1. Oust: Vote, Bleed, little Combat 2. Means to Deliver oust: Combat, Stealth, Vote push, Tapping (Pentex & Misdirection) 3. Control: Combat, Banishment, Ally/location steal, Intercept with combat, Marionette etc. 4. Defense: Combat, Bounce, Intercept, Bloating, Unmasking 5. Building up: Taste of Vitae, Voter Captivation, Masters, Govern/enchant down, Equiptment When you look it like that combat is very strong with some parts. It is not strong with ousting and it should not be. Like bleeding should not be strong with control aspects. You have to think what your deck is good at when building it. If you just focus on oust aspect you are sacrificing other parts. Like DEM weenie has almost 0 control and that makes them lose some games. If you would give combat more ousting power it would be very strong with all those 5 parts so it doesn't make sense. What should be maybe done is make combat better as delivery mechanism + some other parts. Now packing just stealth can be more efficient. But also you can't use stealth as control, combat is best at it. You say also that combat doesn't win games. I totally disagree with this. Combat wins plenty of games (just look TWDA) but not when it is used as oust mechanism. Combat works great when used as different part of deck. For you combat should be oust mechanism also. I don't see sense with that. By doing that there would little sense playing anything other than combat. I feel game is fairly well balanced now. EDIT Changed 5. Blood management to 5. Building up

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > I never said that. > > > It is a summary of what your position seems to be based on your posts. It is the impression I get from reading your posts. > Well, reread my posts then. Your summary is plain wrong. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > Combat is a means, not an end. > > > This is where our opinions are very different. I don't think combat should just be a means. Stealth is a means to make your actions successful. Intercept is a means to stop others actions. Bleeding is an end. Voting is an end. I don't see why combat should relegated only to a means and not to an end. > Because it has been so for 15 years and the game is pretty balanced. I like the current game experience, I don't want to play to a game where combat is more important. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > Why is it a "tragedy"? Why would it be better the other way? > > I think that if combat was preponderent, V:TES would look like UFS . There would be no room for vote, bleed stealth or other strategies. > > > Why would there be nothing but combat? Plenty of cards already ensure that a combat won't occur. And already Combat Defence is far stronger than Combat Offence (S:CE. and already nerf most offensive combat). > Stronger? Combat defence requires less cards, but doesn't change the state of the game (vampires remains ready). Combat offence requires more card, but can dramatically alter the game state. It's good like that. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > I prefer to adjust myself to the game and build deck that wins, rather than daydreaming about combat and try to adjust the game to my desires. > > > Is there no room for changing the game? You want the status quo to remain? There should be no new paths to win VPs? Combat should not play an affirmative role in that? I think VTES has the capacity to change, and keep changing and combat should have a role in that considering it is one of the three major interactions possible between vampires. > Yes, but not a major change. I want to play V:TES, not another game. If it requires the game not to change, it's fine (we're far from exhausting the existing possibilities and game experiences) There could be, as long they don't disrupt the game too much No. It can change, but I don't want it to change the way you'd like. If you want to play a game where combat is more important, there are alternative formats for that. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > It's a shame that First Strike isn't the "first strike" but instead the 3rd Strike. It's not a major part of the game (only a few cards have it) but its fairly useless anyway, you often get better mileage out of additional strikes. > I agree with this, although technically First Strike comes second in the order of resolution. It would be nice for there to be another way around Combat Ends besides (yawn) IG or superior Psyche! Also dodges would be more important since they would still cancel the effect of a strike made with First Strike. It makes sense that you could strike faster than the other vampire could activate their combat ends power. Like you, I wonder why they even bothered designing all those combat cards when the cards don't directly help you win. But I guess the game can't change to make combat more important.

> AaronC wrote: > Like you, I wonder why they even bothered designing all those combat cards when the cards don't directly help you win. But I guess the game can't change to make combat more important. > I feel it is bit of marketing decision because many players like playing just rush combat or other combat decks. Cool assassin vampire riding sport bike with leather jacket and AK-47 sounds appealing for some players. But Vtes is not about that. There are better card games if you want to focus on fighting more but combat still is part of Vtes. Mainly this kind of discussion comes because players see combat different ways. Maybe the question should be: What kind of role you think combat has in Vtes? I would want to see combat part of Vtes but not focused on. You say combat cards don't directly help you win. Does stealth make you directly win? Nope but it and combat also can sure help.

> Honestly, it's because players who think like Izaak, Ankha and Drain seem to want combat to mostly be 'ultra-defensive'. > Even though I'm not too interested in furthering the fruitless discussion we've been having on the topic of combat I would prefer that you either quote me directly or paraphrase me correctly without putting words in my mouth. Again, your entire logic and argumentation is based on the assumption that combat is weak. Since that assumption is false from the start, everything else you enter into the discussion is flawed at best. Some clans are weak, fine. Everyone agrees here. Making combat better will not make these clans stronger. It will make the clans/decks that are already good with combat better. Which will turn Vampire: The Eternal Struggle into Vampire The Eternal Obliteration.

> Izaak wrote: > Even though I'm not too interested in furthering the fruitless discussion we've been having on the topic of combat I would prefer that you either quote me directly or paraphrase me correctly without putting words in my mouth. > Izaak, as I said, it is the impression. A summary of an overall position you have put forward across many posts. You do not want seem to want combat to become a major part of the worldwide meta beyond the appearance of cards like Majesty which have no significant impact on the minions of another player. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418