Limit master cards?

I´m sick and tired of the master decks. It´s getting monotonous, boring and way too good. Also, it´s not really in tune with what I perceive as the theme of VTES, with methuselahs influencing minions to do their bidding. Now it´s more like players flipping, fetching and shuffling in a more and more solitaire/MTG-style of game. It´s more and more about drawing the right card (Tablets, Infernal Pursuit etc) instead of make the right decision, for example block/not block. What about limiting master cards in decks? 20 % maybe? For example, rounded up, this would be 20 % of 90 cards = 18 20 % of 70 cards = 14 As I see it, Pros: Less master-focused decks, more minion-focused playing. Very subjective of course, but I think this is more fun. Cons: Limits deckbuilding. Limits odd masters seeing play. Another reason for deckchecking/penalties in tournaments. What do you think? Please be gentle. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

To quote one of my all time favourite commenters, Mr Horse: "No Sir, I don't like it." Currently, besides the deck minumum and maximum, there is no restrictions in the deck building. This would be just a needles complication. If the master heavy meta is aggravating to you build your own decks accordingly. There are many ways to approach this without being to reactive about it so you get to do your own thang too. Finnish Politics!

> Ashur wrote: > I´m sick and tired of the master decks. It´s getting monotonous, boring and way too good. > Then why not play more Sudden Reversal? Wreck the decks you don't like! Take revenge on them! Destroy any chances they have of getting a VP! Come on, people. You're better than this. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > Then why not play more Sudden Reversal? Wreck the decks you don't like! Take revenge on them! Destroy any chances they have of getting a VP! > I love how you try to make believe it would work. Using 100% of your master phase to counter 50% or 33% of their is not exactly enough.

> KevinM wrote: > Then why not play more Sudden Reversal? Wreck the decks you don't like! Take revenge on them! Destroy any chances they have of getting a VP! > > Come on, people. You're better than this. > Sudden Reversal doesn't really cut it as a master-hoser vs multi masterphase action decks. Take the increasingly popular Huitzilopochtli-AAA deck, with Anthelios out a sudden reversal barely dents it's the master phase, it just picks up the same master card and plays it again. (Consider 4 master phase actions with Parthenon out). One player in stockholm started to use wash/bleeding the vine and house of sorrows which has been working out better, but master phases are hard to stop/interact with. My main problem though is how combat is becoming less and less valid without an Ashur package, that worries me. Ivan - Maybe this?

> Myrdin wrote: > My main problem though is how combat is becoming less and less valid without an Ashur package, that worries me. > IMHO, combat deck is the worse deck to include Ashur Tablets in. It screws your card flow. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > IMHO, combat deck is the worse deck to include Ashur Tablets in. It screws your card flow. > I beg to disagree, looking at rushdecks that have won tournaments since Oct 1 2011 (sample taken from twda from decks with >3 rush actions or with permanent rushes): Anson Guns with ashur 6 Shalmath rush with Ashur 1 Howler rush with Ashur 1 Nana Buruku weenie Ani with Ashur 3 Nana Nangila rush Wish Ashur 2 Girls will find aids (ashur) 1 ---- total 16 Ally rush 2 Gerald freakshow 1 (Deep Earth 1) Ani-Aus rush 1 AUS FOR NEC ANI 1 Hermanas 1 Eurobrujah 1 AAA-Alastor 1 Lucian, the perfect rush 1 ---- total 10 Out of the 10 without Ashur Deep earth is not a dedicated rush deck since it uses deep son to tap minions and the Hermanas deck was commented in the twd forum that it ran out of cards fairly often which kind of confirms my suspicions that rush decks have a hard time to consistently win tables without Ashur tablets to help distill and recycle the deck. Ivan - Maybe this?

> Myrdin wrote: > My main problem though is how combat is becoming less and less valid without an Ashur package, that worries me. > Combat decks without Ashur Tablets are exactly the same now as they were before. If they suck now, they already sucked before. Ashur Tablets did not make comabt without it weaker, it made combat as a whole stronger. It is exactly what the card was designed for and combat badly needed it. The problems are more that: 1) Ashur are hard to get. 2) They make Anson and Nana too strong. 3) (Corollary of 2) It is almost impossible to play casual Ashur Tablets because you will eventually meet an Anson/Nana that will beat you to the Ashur race. 3) is the most problematic for me because it takes the card away from its intended purpose. I don't like the OP proposal, though: VTES should remain without card limits. Someone else proposed a very simple rule fix: a methuselah can never get more than 2 MPAs per turn. The wording might need to be polished not to allow a Wash + 2 MPAs, but you get the idea.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Ashur Tablets did not make comabt without it weaker, it made combat as a whole stronger. It is exactly what the card was designed for > Is that so? Source on this statement thanks. If Ashur Tablets was designed to make combat stronger, it is a design mistake that is both major and weird. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > What about limiting master cards in decks? 20 % maybe? > It's quite possible for a deck to have a disproportionate number of master cards without being one of the decks you don't like. For example, there are a number of decks using discipline masters for created weenies that aren't stacking AAA type tech (Anson, Parthenon, Rumors, Huitz, or whatever else), and where it would seem harsh to force those decks to change. Similarly, there are a few using quite high numbers of Aye or Orun. The TWDA entry from Matt Wedge (September 4, 2010) ends up with 25 masters out of 90, 14 Aye, which is heading for 30%. (It's 27.7...%) From, Matthew Strehlow (June 27, 2010), it's 27 out of 80, of which 12 are Aye. I think it would be more useful to determine where the crunch point is. Is it just lots of masters? Is it recursion? If so, is it selective recursion directly to your hand (Anthelios) or to your library generally (Ashur)? Could we tweak those - a rules change, errata, or a new card that interacts with them? Is it that the tech to thwart such decks might exist, but exists in the 'wrong' place? For example, maybe taking out the key vampires is important - but is most of that at a minion card level which could easily be DI-ed (Banishment, rush, Seeds of Corruption...)? Would a master or event be better? Just looking at some recent heavy-master decks, they don't tend to have Sudden or Wash (but do tend to be packing DI). Perhaps there's a Pentex-like master that could be formulated to take a vampire's special out, amongst other things. Is Secure Haven (which is played quite a bit in such decks) too hard to remove? Is the problem that the tech to thwart such decks does exist, but isn't useful except against those decks? Is the problem that people are hitting the wrong place in the deck? Aargh, the masters are overpowering me, and I can't Sudden them all. But perhaps my time would be better spent Arson-ing (or Disputing) the Parthenon - should many more decks include 3-4 location screwers?

Defeat master decks. I agree that Sudden doesn't get the job done, though if everybody played more Sudden a master deck could find itself suddened multiple times per turn and then it starts to hurt. But of course you can't count on other players to help you oust your prey. You have really two routes to go then. You either have to remove the source of extra master phase actions or you have to have sufficient payload to get past the bloat. Removing the source of extra master phase actions usually means combat. There are good combat decks. I don't think they absolutely need Ashur, that's just the trend right now. You could also simply Banish Anson/Nana repeatedly or contest/Disputed Territory/Arson the Parthenon. And of course you must play The Uncoiling! If you want to go the payload route, pick a deck that sets up fast or starts killing right out of the gate. Many weenie bleed decks fit the bill as does the Vignes deck. Anarch Troublemaker is your friend as the master deck probably won't play wakes (at least not many). Be sure to make good use of your own master phases. A well-tuned deck plays a master card every turn. Master cards are the most powerful in the game by design. Master decks are good, but their main strength is to exploit the way people play. They work best in environments where you have a bit of a honeymoon phase where everybody is sort of allowed to set up and the killing is done after dark (to mix metaphors a bit). Break the rules and the master deck is left wondering what happened.

I think we have serious failure to communicate here. I´m talking about master decks are broken, ie they cannot be meta-played against in any effective or fun way. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > I think we have serious failure to communicate here. I´m talking about master decks are broken, ie they cannot be meta-played against in any effective or fun way. > I disagree. Master decks are very strong but they can be beaten and I have explained how. We go in cycles worrying about a particular deck being too strong, then we learn how to beat it. Often we need to adjust our style and deck choices. See also: Imbued. They seemed unbeatable in 2007. In 2012? Not really the threat they once were.

> Ashur wrote: > I think we have serious failure to communicate here. I´m talking about master decks are broken, ie they cannot be meta-played against in any effective or fun way. > It may be the case that it's hard to defeat them, and not all decks have the options to do so. Identifying where the appropriate 'friction' points are (or could be) means that we could - as a community - consider adding rules, errata, cards or (selective) bans that do allow you much more freedom to combat them. But there may also be tricks that decks are currently missing. Working out if more aggressive use of current anti-master tech is feasible is also a good thing to explore. Otherwise, things can get changed, and then the alternatives are discovered, and the change was way over the top (in retrospect). It's not unheard of to hear players express the opinion that - in the fullness of time - Archon Investigation was an overreaction to stealth-bleed, for example, and it can harm other decks that try to force the occasional big bleed through much more than an identi-kit obf/whatever sneak-bleed deck. Best avoided. Trying to ban a whole deck type in a very blunt way has potential for considerable collateral damage, and that's not fun at all.

> vtesocrates wrote: > See also: Imbued. They seemed unbeatable in 2007. In 2012? Not really the threat they once were. > Eh? Edge Explosion and Memories of Mortality was banned. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Some TWD perspective: Total # of TWDs since 1/1/2009 (KoT released November 2008): 758 Total # of TWDs since 1/1/2009 with selected cards: Pentex(TM) Subversion: 423 Deflection: 298 Vessel: 276 Conditioning: 232 Villein: 228 Blood Doll: 224 Govern the Unaligned: 223 Direct Intervention: 222 Wash: 150 Parity Shift: 127 Ashur Tablets: 119 Anthelios: The Red Star: 107 Voter Captivation: 104 Sudden Reversal: 98 Immortal Grapple: 56 *edit added a few more cards When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

MMPA is strong and doesn't interact very well with other decks, which were properties of imbued decks, and still are, but without memories of mortality and edge explosion they weren't as huge of a problem. the MMPA decks are re-sculpting how the game is played, and not really in a good way. the game is about Methuselahs using their minions to defeat one another through various means, and the reason master cards are limited to one per master phase from the beginning is garfeild knew that part of the theme is that if ancient and powerful methuselahs are directly getting involved too much, the game is less about the cards being played by minions. thematically from the fluf, if a really old vampire is getting personally involved all the time, the major sects are going to notice (the sabbat would handle them differently than the camarilla, but they would still be an issue) when an ancient ravnos wakes up, the kue-jin and the technocracy get into the mix to put him down. from a game mechanics standpoint, trifles are the methuselah barely getting involved, regular master cards are them personally doing one thing, and multiple master phases are them getting way too involved. the primary issue with playing masters like the mmpa decks do is that they just pick up what they need with ashurs or anthelios and can bloat and deck thin with liquidation. if ashurs only picked up minion cards, the archetype would be weakened. if there was a limit on playing any master cards beyond 2 and a trifle, decks that just use 1 extra master phase without breaking the concept wouldn't be hurt, but the mmpa decks would be. i don't like the idea of deck construction limits, but some cards allow for the mmpa shenanigans to work without any penalty, and i think those cards could be changed.

> Jeff wrote: > Ashur Tablets: 119 > > Anthelios: The Red Star: 107 > Taken into account that a.) it´s hard to get enough Tablets to play them, and b.) many metas don´t seem to bother to play decks that abuse what is broken, this is high. Counting the last two years only, I guess it´s even worse. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Also, 98 sudden for 119 Ashur, which seem not to have impacted it too much. If you want to counter MMA deck should you play 6 sudden in your deck ?

Metagames shift. In my most recent tournament final, I was thwarted as three Sudden Reversals/Washes stopped my Maleficia deck cold. If all Methuselahs cared enough to consider MMPA a problem, they would try to metagame against it, meaning include more SR/W. Others have suggested rush combat as a strategy against MMPA decks. If the vampires which provide extra MPAs are not ready, then the deck stalls. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > If all Methuselahs cared enough to consider MMPA a problem, they would try to metagame against it, meaning include more SR/W. Others have suggested rush combat as a strategy against MMPA decks. If the vampires which provide extra MPAs are not ready, then the deck stalls. > That there are solution is likely. Fact is : * if a deck able to win against a MMA deck without sacrificing too much ability to beat something else exist, he is not well known. Partly because with master recursion AND Ashur you can have a solution against about everything in the long term (like blind spot against redirect, majesty cycliung for combat, etc). * and more importantly, saying that people should just play more Sudden is ridiculous. It's not even a very good card against MMA decks. Combat have more or less the same problem - if it's not your prey, you may have to either rush cross table (not like you had to rush your predator and prey already ...) or risk that when you will have him as pred / prey he will have cycled enough Majesty or put enough Inner so that you won't be able to stop him. Peoples also talk about using quicker deck. It's just that a quick oust is regulary a bad idea to win the GW, in addition to the fact that if the aforementioned MMA deck survive long enough (say he is your grandprey and you took a bit of time to kill him), then again he will steamroll you because his long term plan is so much better. In short, yes they may be metagame solutions. No, they are not exactly simple to find, or even really known.

I have played against these Master decks and I don't believe they need to be put under any sort of rules change, cards banned, or anything of the like. Imbued was pointed out as a problem once. They were a problem due to two cards that made the decks broken. They were banned. The masters decks typically feature Ashur Tablets as it main staple card. Anthelios and Parthenon are close seconds. The difference is on their own these cards are fine and often are good put to different uses. So banning any of these cards is a bad idea. And you want to know why? Because there is a lot more to it than two or three cards. The Masters decks are an idea themselves. Which puts the only way to curb them is to come up with a new Master card that is a super sudden reversal and then hoses decks that don't abuses master cards (which again is a bad idea and won't happen). Or alternatively you make a percentage rule as noted. And that in and of itself could backfire as there are decks that use plenty of Master slots that don't involve the modern Masters deck. For instance using Slaughterhouse in multiples for it's burn option. And if it were a problem due to thematics and how it effects the flow of the game then Imbued should have never been introduced due to the interaction with several cards. That is the most obvious themed issue in years past. Oh, don't forget we don't have all the disciplines right on all the vampires according to the World of Darkness. Once you start thinking about it you might as well invent a new game if it is something that really bothers you on a thematic level. So to me it is something where we take the best we can in regards to thematics and deal with the rest as the majority seems decent. Like someone pointed out there is always some threat of a deck archetype or card people get up in arms about. I remember not too long ago people thought Parity Shift needed banned as turbo Parity was viewed as a large problem. You don't hear a lot about that now do you? People got used to it and how to deal with it. Here is another one that bothers people. Pentex Subversion. I love the card and think it needs to stay to keep things balanced. But, there will be whiners about that card too. If you take it all the way back to the beginning the first thing people historically whined about was Malk 94. Well dominate is strong and Govern and Conditioning are great cards as seen in the TWDA cards reference a few posts above. They are still a great threat to be honest as they are a good deck, but I don't advocate any rules changes. I get tired of all these posts of people up in arms about various cards or deck archetypes. In time things will change and while I fully expect Masters to stick, I do expect it to level out. Besides, you won't convince people on changing the percent of the masters. You might convince people to limit Ahurs to 6 in a deck maybe. That might discourage to a degree the level of focus on that card as it is the corner stone. But, master cards have always been good and considering you would have to deal with not only several cards, but also the vampires that make them good; Aksinya Daclaue, Anson, Cybele, Huitzi, Nana, etc. Bringing this back to my personal experience with them is they need a few things to do well and generally the vamps are expensive and required to be ready as well. Thus they also villein often in most cases. In my local environment combat hoses them pretty well. And a decent wall deck will shore them up as well. And anything extremely aggressive (stealth bleed, rush, big vote) will generally topple the deck without too much issue, esp. if it is fast from the get go. Notice they hardly bleed a lot and you could easily bounce something if you have the discipline to do so. And if you are not managing your pool well then you are begging for an issue as well. Master cards don't kill people. Bleeding, voting, and combat effects such as dragonbound/fame kill people.

One more thing. This is a card game. I don't know a single CCG that is perfectly balanced. And there will always be better cards, combos, or deck type that evolves out of the lot of cards that can be used. Some systems strive to limit that as much as possible where others embrace it and give everyone access to "broken" cards. With VTES the strongest method we balance things out is at the table as there are 4-5 players in a game and if someone is agreed to be a threat or a problem needs dealt with then that often is attempted to be dealt with. Given that VTES is a CCG and that it is near impossible to perfectly balance an asymmetrical game such as VTES, there will be people exploiting the best way to win the game. And that starts with a deck that has the best chance to bring you that GW. Player Skill of course helps as well.

> RoddimusPrime wrote: > One more thing. This is a card game. I don't know a single CCG that is perfectly balanced. > Yeah, but no-one is asking for that. Just one that isn't - in some people's opinions - extremely lopsided. So saying that perfect balance is impossible? Not a reason not to make the game better if warranted.

@Jeff - Thanks for pulling that data, but it is skewed by time frame. The Tablet Decks didn't hit the scene as soon as KoT as released. A narrower time slice would probably show a higher incidence of Tablet use. @Erik, if you're lurking - my complements on a series of elegant and effective deck designs. @Others I know some people haven't seen the best of these decks decks in action yet. Or they might have seen net-decked versions that might not be perfectly driven. I would love to outline how a my friends new 27 Tablet example works, but I want to see it in the TWDA before discussing it openly. Helping him tweak that deck has reinforced (in my mind) that there's a problem here. The only question is how should it be remedied. I believe we've already hit a historically applied solution that worked in a similar situation. Imbued were tweaked. There were 2 issues. - Non-interactive. Partially addressed by banning Memories of Mortality - Excessive recursion of conviction. Addressed by banning Edge Explosion. No rules changed, no card limits imposed, no additional silver bullets printed. Yet the problem was largely abated. Fast forward to today. MMPA-Tablets are tweaked, and we (might?) need to minimize the problem. As James said, what's the root cause? Chicken, or egg? MMPA existing long before Tablets. Pentex-through-Anthelios and Boomerang-Grand Ball are strong and can fit into a single powerful tournament archetype powered by MMPA. But I contend AAA wasn't winning as frequently and wasn't ever as frequently maligned as various MMPA-Tablets are. AAA is not nearly as robust, either in library construction or pool generation. Seeing that as the primary non-Tablet example of "MMPA are intrinsically broken" leaves me unconvinced. IMO, what really makes the MMPA-archetype broken is a familiar theme. Edge Explosion was troublesome because of wholesale recursion. Tablets are worse - they are non-specific in target. They require no minion actions - and so are even more non-interactive than Imbued were. Hmmmm....wholesale recursion.....non-interactive.....starting to sound like familiar themes to you too? If we need to fix this, we have a historical precedent for an effective solution to these very problems. Get rid of Tablets, you also get rid of the reason to use Liquidation in MMPA decks. That removes a lot of early-game pool creation and probably completely eliminates the troublesome archetype, with a single edict. Villein-Lilith's still exists, but players should be able to do something about fatties running around with 3 blood........and the new MMPA-tablet decks don't even need that module anyway. Among other options. IMO printing silver bullets sucks like a Hoover. - It's one more crap card that decks have to carry to plug a hole. - Silver Bullets still rely on you finding the damned thing in your library to play it. It does no good unplayed, in a "too little too late" situation and when the controller is ousted. - It necessitates additional cardflow to dump that chaff when not needed, or search for it when it is (dumping useful, core cards in the desparate search). Changing the base rules is a huge hurdle - and I would hope a last resort.. - Card limits (either as a fixed number or fraction of a deck) stifle creativity - in a stagnant environment already largely dominated by Dominate. - Limiting MMPA (either to a number per turn, or by DNR clauses) requires additional book-keeping. I still see people routine miss DNR clauses or have the wrong hand sizes - I really don't want to deal with another layer of complexity, especially if I ever have to teach new players. All in all, the easiest solution seems clear - especially given that we've seen such a similar problem before. I hate banning.....but "least of evils" keeps ringing in my mind. -D

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > MMPA existing long before Tablets. Pentex-through-Anthelios and Boomerang-Grand Ball are strong and can fit into a single powerful tournament archetype powered by MMPA. But I contend AAA wasn't winning as frequently and wasn't ever as frequently maligned as various MMPA-Tablets are. AAA is not nearly as robust, either in library construction or pool generation. > At least some of the frustration isn't about power per se, but more the fact that it's (sort of) playing a pretty different game to the rest of us. As others have said, that's a bit like the Imbued. Some of the frustration with the Imbued was that large swathes of your existing deck might well be unable to interact with them, because you'd foolishly made the assumption that decks would be playing vampires taking actions, and suddenly you can't use all this tech that says "vampire" on it to thwart them, and the more widely usable tech either: a) doesn't exist or b) is a bit rubbish. The MMPA deck heads that way a little. Expecting to block actions? Bounce bleeds? Delay votes? All a wee bit harder. At which point, even if the MMPA deck isn't super-powerful in itself, it can be immensely frustrating having no reasonable tech to attack it with. And a decent deck that you can't interact with as easily as you would a 'normal' deck? May well benefit from that lack of interaction. To my mind, there may well be better tech that people aren't currently exploiting, and which would promote interactivity - but it's quite possible that that may not be good enough anyway.

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > @Jeff - Thanks for pulling that data, but it is skewed by time frame. The Tablet Decks didn't hit the scene as soon as KoT as released. A narrower time slice would probably show a higher incidence of Tablet use. > I re-sorted the Ashur Tablet search. The first TWD entry with Ashur Tablets was from March 25, 2009, created by yours truly. My deck's meager use of them wasn't even close to the abuse by Erik Torstensson/Teemu Sainomaa's Girls will find... deck which brought great upheaval to the World of V:TES a mere 3 days later. So, yes, cutting the time frame by 3 months out of 41 would probably yield a slightly higher concentration of Tablet decks, but the underlying card use trends are probably still close enough. James really hits it on the head (and others have mentioned it as well). Decks which rely on MMPAs are "playing a pretty different game to the rest of us." This frustration is quite apparent, but I still think players need to control what they can (their deck designs) to better anticipate what decks exist in their metagames. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > @Jeff - Thanks for pulling that data, but it is skewed by time frame. The Tablet Decks didn't hit the scene as soon as KoT as released. A narrower time slice would probably show a higher incidence of Tablet use. > > @Erik, if you're lurking - my complements on a series of elegant and effective deck designs. > > @Others > I know some people haven't seen the best of these decks decks in action yet. Or they might have seen net-decked versions that might not be perfectly driven. > > I would love to outline how a my friends new 27 Tablet example works, but I want to see it in the TWDA before discussing it openly. Helping him tweak that deck has reinforced (in my mind) that there's a problem here. > You are correct on the time frame. I wonder though if some people aren't simply net decking the idea though at this point given it is still the newest concept out there that does well. And it also takes longer to get the necessary cards to run it. It is the most expensive deck type I know of. Erik did indeed open a door that many have exploited. I would love to see this 27 Ashur Tablet deck. Is it better or worse than what is out there? Seems to me you still have to oust at some point. Otherwise I might as well play Pander Boon, but at least I have swarm bleed with that and tossing in a mix of KRC does the trick. Mind you those decks die to intercept. You suggest as well that some maybe haven't played a good version or played against a decent driver of the deck. I agree Ashur Tablets are good and maybe placing even a 9 card limit could curtail at least some abuse of the card, but I still usually don't find them holding up against decent intercept combat for the few actions they do take, and I wonder how they deal with predators who bleed big/often and rush combat as they are solid enough to hold them off for a bit, definitely not for the long run. And in my local environment we have plenty of combat type decks as well as a variety of other decks. I simply don't think it would do well here. That being said maybe I personally need to take it for a spin and if it can conquer my local environment then I might start to agree more on a card limit, but not banning the card. So if I am to try one out is there one you recommend? I have all the cards to play any version of it. And once I build it I will try it out and let you know my experience in an environment that may drastically differ than most peoples. Also keep in mind this kind of deck has not done historically well State Side. We do play a little different than in most of Europe.

> Ashur wrote: > What do you think? Please be gentle. > If you truly hate something and don't meta against it, it is no one's fault but yours. Minion denial is lethal against most master-heavy decks. I'm sorry Anson/Cybelle, did my potence weenie eat you? Hopefully the next copy can counter IG. Many master heavy decks have a hard time with constant pressure. Add to that countering cards like Liquidation and Villein and they can be shut down. Weenieish DEM bleed with Sudden Reversals is good against many things, especially decks relying on large minions and masters. *Edit: and don't forget to KS bleed cross-table into the Girls. And then there's The Rising. Spin your wheels all you want, no pool for you! Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

> brandonsantacruz wrote: > If you truly hate something and don't meta against it, it is no one's fault but yours. Minion denial is lethal against most master-heavy decks. I'm sorry Anson/Cybelle, did my potence weenie eat you? Hopefully the next copy can counter IG. > That's good and all. Now, let's take a simple situation. You are A with a deck that can apply a lot of pressure, your prey B is potence rush, your grand prey C is MMA. If you want the MMA deck to go down, you must not put pressure on your prey for long enough so that he destroy C, and maybe help him. So, you basically have to do nothing or spend ressource to help your prey, and let pass the opportunity for a quick VP without gaining significant advantage. Even with a deck supposedly good against MMA, the presence of a MMA deck make you lose steam, and maybe have 0 VP. It does not look that good of an advice, especially when you could play MMA yourself. Also, MMA does not alway mean bad at combat. Anson + Gun is less stable and combat-y than a pure rush potence deck (or a pure celegun deck), but it can and will sometime resist to every rush, just because celegun is very good at combat.

the issue with girls is that meta-gaming against it would constitute drastic measures (building a deck around santaleous, using trochmancy, using seeds of corruption, emptying and torping 2-5 high cap vamps) and if the deck is not your actual predator or prey, it raises many questions about playing to win. current imbued can be hurt and halted with a few cross-table actions at it and the players on either side not being idiots about the fact that they have an imbued predator/prey. current girls decks can be halted if you do everything in your power to get rid of their vampires(or at least the vampires's special text), burn cards from their ash heap(trochomancy if prey, victim of habit, very few others), make them lose pool or unable to gain pool, or can readily cancel 1-2 masters a turn (meaning you need santaleous or bleeding the vine, and to draw an SR or wash every other turn or so. imbued can be beated by alot less strenuous means. anyone who doesn't think the girls decks are hard to cripple may have just not seen them played in their most optimal way. they are resilient above all else, and its hard to take their resources from them, they do put pressure forward, eventually, and they can block, DT, and bounce while picking what they want for a hand, bloating, and picking up optimal pieces of defence. if ashurs couldn't pick up masters, they would be weaker, but still strong. if ashurs could only pop once per game per methuselah, they'd be strong but not broken. without ashurs, you take away some bloat from a deck that wants mountains of pool, and you take away their efficient recursion that lets them use liquidation to begin with, limiting them to just using anthelios (and often recuring and still using a hand picked master card a turn...). recursion and minimizing the actual chance factors of the game, and gaining alot of pool is how the deck gains absolute strategic advantage. the entire table both having a way to hurt it and taking time away from winning if crosstable is the only way to absolutely crush it. its strong, its stupid good, and the problem cards could be changed and it would still be good, but not as nigh-unbeatable as it currently is.

Probalbly the simplest "solution" is banning Anson, Huitzilopochtli, Cybele, Nana and Isanwayen. Although, not a very creative solution. Overkill is highly underrated. You know, like in computor games and such.

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > All in all, the easiest solution seems clear - especially given that we've seen such a similar problem before. I hate banning.....but "least of evils" keeps ringing in my mind. > > -D > I wouldn't like this solution for 2 main reason even if this would make some game play sense. 1. Ashurs made suddenly many combat decks viable and that is good thing. 2. Some could have spent close to 100$ to get 9x Ashurs so banning it will make many many players angry. No other bans this far has been so major (well maybe someone with many PTO). I would just errata Ashurs. One errata to think about is to make Ashurs retrieve only minion cards. EDIT Also I don't think the solution for master decks is "play something else and try to change the meta". I think main reason why there are not even more Ashurs is because they are so hard to get. Would be better if everybody had Ashurs so this potential problem (not sure if Ashurs/masters are even a problem yet) would be easier to realize.

I saw this kind of conversation few times when it goes about: pentex, anthelios, lilith's blessing, tupdogs...even direct int... Personally I think that there is no need to ban or change some master cards or change master phase. Everything is in every player hands, so "good" players can handle with ashur/liq/villein combo (whatever), "bad" players will always complain (I don't want to offend anybody, but I see that we like to talk about cards, not about some ways of play or some solutions...) Theese kind of deck has so many weakness - look at twda, if the ashurs combo (whatever) was the main problem, there would be so many wins...one main problem is that the combo does real mess with game time. But that's ok because it's one of the elements of playing - stealing the time. Best regards Szewski

> Szewski wrote: > But that's ok because it's one of the elements of playing - stealing the time. > I think this is first time I read somebody saying that stealing time should be part of Vtes and one element of strategy. But yes I understand Ashurs being good in that. Ashurs is a perfect card if one part of play strategy is stealing time from other players.

> Surreal wrote: > I would just errata Ashurs. One errata to think about is to make Ashurs retrieve only minion cards. > As far as minimal erratas go, the simplest would be "only one Ashur tablet can be played per turn". This way, MPA would not help in the ashur competition. And with Anthelios, Dreams, and sometime Infernal Pursuit, dedicated deck should still have a bit of an edge.

> RoddimusPrime wrote: > So if I am to try one out is there one you recommend? > I appreciate that you have an open mind. I suggest running one of the "Girls Will Find Aids" [ANI] combat versions as a starting point. Hugh's version from NAC First Chance looks really solid. It's more fun to play (and play against) than some because it does interact with the table - the primary reason I recommend it. It fits a smackdown metagame more than some others, too. Keep in mind that playing these decks can require some practice to play quickly - they can convolute a part of the game we're not used to being complicated

This entire discussion is getting so old and repetitive it's unbelievable. Girls was strong, people figured it out, and suddenly girls isn't so hot anymore. It's bullshit it's unbeatable and needs the table to gang up on it. It's bullshit it gets 4 free MPA's a turn from the get-go. It's bullshit it recycles 2+ cards every turn and it's bullshit it has infinite pool. Smart players know this and play the deck's weakness instead of moaning about its strenght. Yes, by now we know you don't have Ashur Tablets. Really. Recently people started playing Anson Gun Ashur more which is strong but hardly much better than Anson Gun without the Ashur Tablets. Also, when people just meta against guns in general it's trash and gets 0 or 0,5 VP. > I appreciate that you have an open mind. I suggest running one of the "Girls Will Find Aids" [ANI] combat versions as a starting point. Hugh's version from NAC First Chance looks really solid. > Having played almost a direct copy of that at a recent tournamnt, I cannot recommend it, actually. It's WAY, WAY, WAY too slow to start up and it doesn't actually oust very quick either. Yes, it's hard to oust, but staying alive is not the goal of the game. Also. the argument about interaction is quite untrue. That decks needs about 7 turns to actually start doing something. The bleed variant that sports obfuscate and thaumaturgy stealth is way more likely to actually win games and also more fun to play. If you want an interaction type of deck, I suggest you look into a version of Martin Schumacher's Wax on Wax off (it's in the TWDA somewhere). That actually interacts with the table because it's a rush deck and doesn't really play that many masters. Just the Liquidation/Ashur module to pool buffer against bleeders and recycle the combat. Of course at that point we have moved away from the whole girls... theme. So if it's girls... you're after, take Erik's LV/EC day 1 deck from Paris and give that a shot. You will quickly find glaring weaknesses and problems you will have to play around while pretending to have what everyone in this thread thinks you have, which you actually don't.

> Ashur wrote: > > > vtesocrates wrote: > > See also: Imbued. They seemed unbeatable in 2007. In 2012? Not really the threat they once were. > > > Eh? Edge Explosion and Memories of Mortality was banned. > Imbued were still strong and still complained about after those cards were banned. If you don't like that example, pick another. Tupdogs were supposedly unbeatable. The same was said of Khazar's Diary decks or really whatever Orian Gissler was playing for a while.

Thanks for the perspective Isaak. I never said Girls X was unbeatable. There's really no such thing. I don't recall saying that people need to gang up on it (any more than they need to gang up on the Imbued, etc). I did say that the general MMPA archetype with Liq/Tab/Villein/Lilith is damn hard to oust with decks designed to unload pool damage or to deny pool gain actions. But then again, you're beating your head against its very strengths, so that isn't a surprise is it? I did say Ashur Tablets are broken, which I believe more of a problem than MMPA alone. I still think recursion on a grand scale is a problem - one that's not directly related to Girls X. It's not Ashur's envy that drives my belief, by the way. I will admit that I don't run MMPA Tablets in tournaments, though I've messed around with the archetype casually. I admire the elegance, but don't really enjoy its play. Your experience is perhaps more relevant than mine, because of more substantive tournament play. With regard to Rod's question, I happen to find [ANI] combat more "interactive" than [OBF]{THA] stealth, which is why I suggested it. Perhaps we just have a different definition of "interactive" IMO, a significant stealth package is actually designed to avoid table interaction - and head directly to pool loss. Others might say "interactive" is doing something every turn from turn 2 on, even if that interaction is Night Moves bleed that never sees a block. All good, either way, just a question of perspective. Have a good evening.

I think the explosion of MMPA indicates bad game design in VTES, stretching back years before it became this popular archetype. it's not necessarily broken, if your defintion of broken means it's unbeatable. but such decks do seem to gain the most from an imbalanced table, or nonaggressive predator. maybe for a multiplayer game like VTES, that's enough to be considered broken. breaking the "1 master per turn" rule has always been obviously strong, though it depends on how such a privilege is obtained and kept. the Jyhad set cards Anson and Rumors of Gehenna are not so much the problem here, so much as the cards that came later and built on top of the concept. Parthenon is terrible design. Anthelios is terrible design. super masters like Direct Intervention and Villein are worse problems than the slow and steady Ashur Tablets. (Anson's a little broken, but it's not entirely his special's fault -- he does have a Prince title and dominate after all) --- before anyone regurgitates the usual bullshit ad hominem argument that's been spewing around in this thread... yes, I have gotten to the finals of a 47-player tournament using a deck with 10+ Sudden Reversals. how about you? from a player's perspective, I have no problem metagaming around it. from a balancing perspective, I have no problem critcizing this flaw in VTES. the latter is what this message board is here for.

First of all, I think the easiest way to bring order into the chaos again would be to ban Ashur Tablets. Generic recursion should be a nec/giovanni-themed thing, not a master card. Also, with the multiple master action decks these do seem like the lynchpin card that would bring them down to earth again. With that said. Many people here state that the main problem with ashurs/anthelios/pathenon/etc is not the cards themselves, rather the combination. In the Game of Thrones LCG they have another solution to this problem, they made a "restricted list". Each deck may only contain one of the cards on the restricted list (in any number of copies). This way you do not ban the card, but you prevent the combination. This might not be a good thing to do in VTES, but I figured that I would throw the idea out there just to show that there are other ways of solving a problem than putting things on a banned-list.

> Jeff wrote: > Metagames shift. In my most recent tournament final, I was thwarted as three Sudden Reversals/Washes stopped my Maleficia deck cold. > > If all Methuselahs cared enough to consider MMPA a problem, they would try to metagame against it, meaning include more SR/W. > This doesn´t work in my experience. I have 1 Sudden/Wash each turn, they have 3-4 MPA:s. See also Myrdins reply here [url= > > Jeff wrote: > ]www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/41-card-balance-a-strategy-discussion/30901-limit-master-cards#30919[/url] > > > Jeff wrote: > > Others have suggested rush combat as a strategy against MMPA decks. If the vampires which provide extra MPAs are not ready, then the deck stalls. > > > Rush combat is very, very hard to play. If you want to win tables that is, and not just make a crater and ruin the day for 1-2 other players. > "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Surreal wrote: > I wouldn't like this solution for 2 main reason even if this would make some game play sense. > 1. Ashurs made suddenly many combat decks viable and that is good thing. > This is totally fxxxed up. If the design intent was to make combat decks more viable, I´m sure even the most stupid designers would have come up with something else. > Surreal wrote: > 2. Some could have spent close to 100$ to get 9x Ashurs so banning it will make many many players angry. No other bans this far has been so major (well maybe someone with many PTO). > This is a weak argument IMHO. I would gladly rip $100 to pieces to get rid of these decks. > Surreal wrote: > I would just errata Ashurs. One errata to think about is to make Ashurs retrieve only minion cards. > This is not a bad idea. Worth considering. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > With regard to Rod's question, I happen to find [ANI] combat more "interactive" than [OBF]{THA] stealth, which is why I suggested it. Perhaps we just have a different definition of "interactive" > > IMO, a significant stealth package is actually designed to avoid table interaction - and head directly to pool loss. Others might say "interactive" is doing something every turn from turn 2 on, even if that interaction is Night Moves bleed that never sees a block. All good, either way, just a question of perspective. > Oh my methuselah, this is so true. Kudos. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Jeff wrote: > The first TWD entry with Ashur Tablets was from March 25, 2009, created by yours truly. My deck's meager use of them wasn't even close to the abuse by Erik Torstensson/Teemu Sainomaa's Girls will find... deck which brought great upheaval to the World of V:TES a mere 3 days later. > Teemu's first TW version of the deck, without not-then-released Ashurs dates already back to June 17, 2007 and the second version makes a TW entry on September 6th, 2008. The idea kinda yet didn't make a spash around then. But adding Ashurs and Liquidations to the mix kinda ups the ante... Finnish Politics!

> Szewski wrote: > one main problem is that the combo does real mess with game time. But that's ok because it's one of the elements of playing - stealing the time. > Whenever I've been in a table that has had an Ashur deck in it I never recall seeing the Ashur player stealing time. Actually in most instances people tend to dig up the cards for Ashurs pretty quickly. Finnish Politics!

> Ashur wrote: > Rush combat is very, very hard to play. If you want to win tables that is, and not just make a crater and ruin the day for 1-2 other players. > Indeed so. That is why, for example, out of three Swedish Championships two have been won by such a deck! Finnish Politics!

> Ashur wrote: > Taken into account that a.)it´s hard to get enough Tablets to play them, ... > It is easy to obtain Ashur Tablets. I have dozens for sale/trade. If you personally encounter difficulty parting with money and/or cards in current value to them -- a stance with which I agree -- then that has nothing to do with the world outside your relationship with your pocketbook. fr.ex. I have dozens of Ashur Tablets for sale. PM me. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> brandonsantacruz wrote: > If you truly hate something and don't meta against it, it is no one's fault but yours. > That is the problem: I do meta. We do meta. It´s just not enough! Sure I can build a rush-deck that build a crater around me and someone cross table win the game. Sure I can play 10+ Sudden/Wash and Bleeding in each deck - the MMPA-player just laughs, as I make my chances of winning against other decks zero AND he still has 2-3 MMPA:s left after my Sudden. Sure I play Uncoiling in each deck. Sure I play Erciyes Fragments a lot. Do you play in a abusive meta at all? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Szewski wrote: > I saw this kind of conversation few times when it goes about: > pentex, anthelios, lilith's blessing, tupdogs...even direct int... > If you combare Pentex or LB with MMPA you don´t really understand much about this. > Szewski wrote: > Personally I think that there is no need to ban or change some master cards or change master phase. Everything is in every player hands, so "good" players can handle with ashur/liq/villein combo (whatever), "bad" players will always complain (I don't want to offend anybody, but I see that we like to talk about cards, not about some ways of play or some solutions...) > But yet, that is what you do, offend people. I have talked to just about every top player in Sweden, and some others, on this subject - all agree that MMPA:s are very, very strong and that the problem should be adressed _in some way_. So the "bad players"-talk just don´t work this time. The more I read on this forum, the more I think the problem is that most people don´t play in what I call a "abusive meta", where people play to win, at any cost. The design team/IC/whoever has the power over this game nowadays, have to take the most competitive environment in account (as well as others) when they make decisions. The design team has stated "We are not making "hosers."" - that is why I suggest some kind of rules changes instead. (As a sidenote, it would be interesting to know why Ashur Tablets was ever printed. All these remarks about who they finally make combat decks playable AND that no combat decks can be played without Tablets makes me worried. I don´t know if the KoT-NDA:s has expired, maybe someone can shed some light on this matter?) "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Izaak wrote: > Yes, by now we know you don't have Ashur Tablets. Really. > "Arguments" like this really don´t help you, if you´re interested in a serious discussion. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> vtesocrates wrote: > If you don't like that example, pick another. Tupdogs were supposedly unbeatable. The same was said of Khazar's Diary decks or really whatever Orian Gissler was playing for a while. > How/why should I pick these other examples, if I don´t think they are adequate for comparison? Khazar´s is strong. Tupdogs create a crater. This has nothing to do with MMPA:s and generic recursion. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > (As a sidenote, it would be interesting to know why Ashur Tablets was ever printed. All these remarks about who they finally make combat decks playable AND that no combat decks can be played without Tablets makes me worried. I don´t know if the KoT-NDA:s has expired, maybe someone can shed some light on this matter?) > I was not in any way involved in the KoT design/playtesting, but here is why I brought that up. Combat decks are pretty much the only ones that can reliably empty a 90 card library, so they could really use the kind of massive recursion provided by Ashur Tablets. That is doubly true for gun decks that need to get rid of their extra guns and Concealed Weapons mid-game. If there were no MMPA, the cost of 3 MPAs would be high enough to deter most other decks to play Ashur Tablets. It looks like the design process failed to acknowledge that MMPA decks can afford to play much more Tablets than the decks who would need them just not to run out of cards. I believe that Ashur Tablets was conceived as a way to extend the 90 card limit and the potential abuses by Anson & Co were not spotted in the design process.

> Ashur wrote: > > > vtesocrates wrote: > > If you don't like that example, pick another. Tupdogs were supposedly unbeatable. The same was said of Khazar's Diary decks or really whatever Orian Gissler was playing for a while. > > > How/why should I pick these other examples, if I don´t think they are adequate for comparison? Khazar´s is strong. Tupdogs create a crater. This has nothing to do with MMPA:s and generic recursion. > Are you complaining about a game mechanic that you don't like or a deck archetype you think is too strong? If the former, suck it up. If the latter, it must be asked whether this is a passing trend (there is always a deck that is seen by some as too strong) or whether the archetype actually is too strong and the rules ought to be changed. Many of us remain unconvinced a rules change is in order because we've seen these other decks come and go and the same kinds of things were said at the time. Something that rarely gets talked about in vtes is pacing. Pacing is what makes a deck good, great or garbage. Right now the pacing is good for these master-heavy decks. Whether consciously or unconsciously, that will change. I hold that part of the problem is tables where nobody wants to make a move too soon. This lets the MMPA deck play many powerful cards without much fear. Master cards are better than minion cards except for of course during your minion phase. In an environment where the minion phase is diminished (at least for the early game), the MMPA will come out on top. Take a look at the Girls Will Find... deck. 41/75 masters and you need to influence Aksinya and either Cybele or Nana to have two MPAs. That is a slow-starting deck. How many turns does it need to set up? How many turns before it has a properly-tuned hand and can go forward? And what will it ultimately do? Rush. A single point of agg damage can put down any of its minions. A single stealth is sufficient to ensure a diablerie is successful. A single point of intercept stops any rescue attempt. This deck is good, make no mistake, but it's good because (like any good deck) it exploits holes in the metagame and takes advantage of pacing. I've played tables where this thing would be dead by turn 5.

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Ashur wrote: > > Rush combat is very, very hard to play. If you want to win tables that is, and not just make a crater and ruin the day for 1-2 other players. > > > Indeed so. > That is why, for example, out of three Swedish Championships two have been won by such a deck! > Well, this isn´t all about top-level play. Of course I think MMPA are unbalanced in that kind of play also, but it get´s especially ugly when say 3 players are good and the other 2 are newbies in a casual game. The MMPA:s cannot be stopped for players who aren´t used to them. The bloat is just too heavy. This is were the unbalance is the worst actually. It´s not fun playing. Actually, in the case of the newbies, it´s bad PR for VTES - what not so long ago was considered the best multiplayer CCG, were any decent sb-deck had a chance, is now the "some überdudes shuffling their decks and the newbies don´t have a clue what´s happening"-game. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Non-existant user wrote: > It looks like the design process failed to acknowledge that MMPA decks can afford to play much more Tablets than the decks who would need them just not to run out of cards. > If this is the case, I am _really_ disappointed in the designer(s). Which is kind of weird, for KoT otherwise is one of my absolute favourite sets. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> IMO, a significant stealth package is actually designed to avoid table interaction - and head directly to pool loss. Others might say "interactive" is doing something every turn from turn 2 on, even if that interaction is Night Moves bleed that never sees a block. All good, either way, just a question of perspective. > My definition of interaction is pretty much that you do something that people can interact with. Stealth/intercept/bounce is interaction as much as smashing a helpless vampire's face in is interaction. The ani rush deck that Hugh played (Girls on Tour) needs a ridiculous amount of turns to start doing something that involves other Meth's. > "Arguments" like this really don´t help you, if you´re interested in a serious discussion. > Nor does the throwing up the availability "discussion" all the time. Or spewing out nonsense like: > This doesn´t work in my experience. I have 1 Sudden/Wash each turn, they have 3-4 MPA:s. > I'll tell you how it *actually* works. You bring out Cybele/Nana or Anson. You then have 2 MPA's. One of those is reserved for either an Ashur Tablet, or a Liquidation or an Anthelios swap. The second is just the regular master phase, where you play Villeins, Pentexes and other stuff depending on what you play. Playing a Sudden on the trifle *cripples* this deck's cardflow. Suddening will always slow them down. Sure, they will probably recycle their Ashurs and Parthenon (that is, of course if you didn't bother to play Uncoiling to get rid of Anthelios) but it slows them down a turn. It forces them into defense another turn. Of course, at some point during the game, you will probably end up getting a Parthenon in play. This is also the point where your recursion starts kicking and Suddens don't really hurt *that* much anymore. By this time all the "deadweight" is out of your deck/hand an is either on the table or in your ashpile. This is where the decks become very strong. The trade-off for this is that during the first 6-8 turns it's a actually a very weak deck that basically gives its prey a free game during this time.

> vtesocrates wrote: > Are you complaining about a game mechanic that you don't like or a deck archetype you think is too strong? If the former, suck it up. If the latter, it must be asked whether this is a passing trend (there is always a deck that is seen by some as too strong) or whether the archetype actually is too strong and the rules ought to be changed. Many of us remain unconvinced a rules change is in order because we've seen these other decks come and go and the same kinds of things were said at the time. > Tupdogs and Khazars are decktypes that can be handeled, much like let´s say weenie-POT or Shamblings has been handeled for fifteen+ years. MMPA:s and card recursion are game mechanics. Do you understand the difference between “complaining” about these decktypes and “complaining” about game mechanics which has been extremely altered in the last three years? > vtesocrates wrote: > Something that rarely gets talked about in vtes is pacing. Pacing is what makes a deck good, great or garbage. Right now the pacing is good for these master-heavy decks. Whether consciously or unconsciously, that will change. > Do you see it changing in any direction? How will it change? You mean _everyone_ will start playing PRE-weenies or Vignes? Sorry, that is not how this game works – about 50 % of the people I play with will probably not change their decks a lot – and this has been one of the strong points of Vtes, to be able to show up with a 10 year old deck and still have a chance to win. Is this no longer desirable? (If it was design intent, it´s a sad coincidence WW cancelled the game so that this in my opinion bad intent could be completed.) > vtesocrates wrote: > Master cards are better than minion cards except for of course during your minion phase. > Yeah, and if you play Aksinya Daclau and Talbot masters are also kind of ok. > vtesocrates wrote: > Take a look at the Girls Will Find... deck. 41/75 masters and you need to influence Aksinya and either Cybele or Nana to have two MPAs. That is a slow-starting deck. How many turns does it need to set up? How many turns before it has a properly-tuned hand and can go forward? And what will it ultimately do? Rush. A single point of agg damage can put down any of its minions. A single stealth is sufficient to ensure a diablerie is successful. A single point of intercept stops any rescue attempt. This deck is good, make no mistake, but it's good because (like any good deck) it exploits holes in the metagame and takes advantage of pacing. I've played tables where this thing would be dead by turn 5. > Yeah. It´s a mystery how it, and other MMPA-decks just keep winning. And making the game boring while doing it. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > Well, this isn´t all about top-level play. Of course I think MMPA are unbalanced in that kind of play also, but it get´s especially ugly when say 3 players are good and the other 2 are newbies in a casual game. The MMPA:s cannot be stopped for players who aren´t used to them. The bloat is just too heavy. This is were the unbalance is the worst actually. It´s not fun playing. Actually, in the case of the newbies, it´s bad PR for VTES - what not so long ago was considered the best multiplayer CCG, were any decent sb-deck had a chance, is now the "some überdudes shuffling their decks and the newbies don´t have a clue what´s happening"-game. > Forgive the sarcasm, but if we start making rule changes that allow two newbies with "decent s/b-decks" to have a good chance of beeting three good players with well tuned Tier 1 decks we could start rolling dices. I don´t think causal play with new players should be a foundation for rule changes. It should be the top-level play that determines if something is "broken" and need to be fixed, and in my opinion this is not the case. That being said, to recruit new players, and I do think VTES need that in the long run, it is probably a bad idea to pick a MMPA deck for the first game. That however is a player issue and not something that is wrong with the game. Andreas Thomasson Prince of Linköping

> Izaak wrote: > > > Nor does the throwing up the availability "discussion" all the time. > > > Well, it´s a fact - not all players have the Tablets. > > > Izaak wrote: > > I'll tell you how it *actually* works. *Snip fictional "actualities"* > > > What you describe is not how Infernal-Anson works ( www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2012ecqbuk ) > > What you describe is not how Kiasyd-sb works nowadays ( www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2012gmgs ) > > What you describe is not Nana-potence ( www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2011ecday2 > > Try playing these decks, and try playing against them with non-MMPA-decks, you might understand the problem better. > "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Nightbringer wrote: > Forgive the sarcasm, but if we start making rule changes that allow two newbies with "decent s/b-decks" to have a good chance of beeting three good players with well tuned Tier 1 decks we could start rolling dices. I don´t think causal play with new players should be a foundation for rule changes. It should be the top-level play that determines if something is "broken" and need to be fixed, and in my opinion this is not the case. > Maybe my example was a bit to the extreme, but I absolutely think casual playing must be considered, and I know the design team agree. I don´t think it´s good that the gap between newbie-style-decks and top tier-decks gets any wider, it will make the learning curve impossible to climb. This game worked very good without the MMPA-bonanza from later years. At least, if it´s the designers intent to boost MMPA-decks, make also the appropriate counter measures. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > > Tupdogs and Khazars are decktypes that can be handeled, much like let´s say weenie-POT or Shamblings has been handeled for fifteen+ years. MMPA:s and card recursion are game mechanics. Do you understand the difference between “complaining” about these decktypes and “complaining” about game mechanics which has been extremely altered in the last three years? > Well of course I understand that, which is why I asked you about that specifically. Do you understand how to comprehend what you've read? Do you understand that obnoxious questions like that are not conducive to discussion? Great, now that that is out of the way, I will point out that all the same complaints you are making now have been made in the past about these other decks. That is my point here. That doesn't mean you are wrong, but it does mean we should be skeptical and not just make changes right away. > Ashur wrote: > Do you see it changing in any direction? How will it change? You mean _everyone_ will start playing PRE-weenies or Vignes? Sorry, that is not how this game works – about 50 % of the people I play with will probably not change their decks a lot – and this has been one of the strong points of Vtes, to be able to show up with a 10 year old deck and still have a chance to win. Is this no longer desirable? (If it was design intent, it´s a sad coincidence WW cancelled the game so that this in my opinion bad intent could be completed.) > I haven't been playing enough lately to see any shifts, but of course the metagame will shift. It always shifts. People will realize that their old decks aren't really doing it anymore and will tweak them and build new decks and a new pacing will emerge. This always happens. > Ashur wrote: > Yeah. It´s a mystery how it, and other MMPA-decks just keep winning. And making the game boring while doing it. > I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. Nobody is saying it is a mystery. It's actually quite obvious and easily explained. These decks have numerous weaknesses that aren't being exploited right now and in turn perfectly exploit a current popular style of play.

> vtesocrates wrote: > I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. Nobody is saying it is a mystery. It's actually quite obvious and easily explained. These decks have numerous weaknesses that aren't being exploited right now and in turn perfectly exploit a current popular style of play. > And I say these weaknesses are not enough. Sudden, Wash, Bleeding, Erciyes, Seeds, Uncoiling aren´t enough. Trochomancy is in a (kind of) rare discipline. Rush/minion-removal is too weak as concept (crater-playing). Big cap vote is better with MMPA and Tablets, sb is better with MMPA and Tablets, rush combat is better with MMPA and Tablets, wall decks are better with MMPA and Tablets. And so on. Note also : I´ve never been for banning Pentex, Lilith´s, DI or even PTO. I was against imbued, but that was mainly because I think playing imbued was so radically different from playing Vtes. I don´t like being associated with those people that want to ban and alter everything. But now it´s time to do _something_. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Well, it´s a fact - not all players have the Tablets. > Or Mind Rapes. Or Summon History. Or Unleash Hell's Fury. Or Parity Shift. Or Derange. Availability of cards is not an argument why cards are too strong. > What you describe is not Nana-potence (www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2011ecday2 > As you may or may not be aware I was actually in those very finals playing against that deck. I also played against it in one of the prelims the same day. I also played it myself during day 1 of the EC2010 in Paris. It works *exactly* how I describe it. A Sudden slows you down to the point where 2-3 Suddens on the right cards slow you down enough that you probably won't make the gamewin unless someone messes up real bad. In this specific case you mentioned the player playing the deck wouldn't actually have won the game (and with it become 2011's champion) if his predator wouldn't have allowed him to play 12 combat cards in the last round of the game (drawing into *exactly* enough +bleed to get a VP before timing). > Big cap vote is better with MMPA and Tablets, sb is better with MMPA and Tablets, rush combat is better with MMPA and Tablets, wall decks are better with MMPA and Tablets. And so on. > Except, it is not. It's different and more geared towards sitting tight, tuning its deck for 90 minutes and letting someone die. As vtesocrates correctly pointed out, Ashur recursion decks exploit a weakness in the metagame where nobody wants to make a move before the 1:30 mark. Start moving forward faster and see how good their cardflow is. I'll give you a hint: it will stink. There is a difference between weenie presence and a fast deck. If your playgroup and you think Vignes should be catagorized with weenie presence I don't know what to say. Last time I checked midcap S/B is still around and works just fine against Ashur based decks. Any Lawfirm type of deck completely destroys the ani rush based variant. Maybe, just maybe, you should actually try and play these decks instead of theorycrafting up a bunch of arguments and throwing this forum full of nonsense. Cos, ya know, I play them and I play against them a fair amount and yes, it's good. It's even great, like dementation and lawfirm are great. Is it broken? I don't think so. And yes, sometimes it stoppes you dead cold like sometimes a No Secrets stops you cold. Or you get oisted in 5 turns because you wanted to bring out an 11-cap from position #2 and your predator is play Lagacy of Pander. But that's what happens.

the first ashur decks that i remember seeing were slimmed-down anson+celerity+guns and they used ashurs to recur combat cards mainly, so that they could run 70ish-82 cards and not worry about the decks being too thin. i like the tablets in that sort of a roll. i still run them in that sort of a roll. the girls decks use them to recur masters at will among other things. no other deck that has generated heat from players has been as largely broken. tupdogs i have NEVER had a problem with, diary i've been ousted by for sure, but it was when i was playing a deck that had little to no table answers (samedi with dead hookers or malk 94...). tupdogs are strong, but other combat can smoke them easily (akunanse, nos, gangrel, brujah... if you can put out damage with potence, celerity, and or animalism and have some prevent, you can wreck tupdogs. if you steal a tupdog, the tempo of their deck goes to crap fast) i'm a huge fan of ashur tablets. i'm a fan of anson with guns with ashurs, i'm a fan of ferox gargolye comabt with ashurs, i'm a fan of everything other than mmpa decks with ashurs. generic recursion should be something nec has (since it sucks horribly at everything but making zombies, having spot stealth/intercept/block denial or ending combat[and earth meld is still the best s:ce]) but sudario isn't necro, its giovanni, and outside of that clan, there should be recursion. combat likes recursion. walls like recursion. decks stuck at a table with constant revolution/slaughterhouse garbage like recursion, especially if they are combat and can easily run out of cards by playing them. but the mmpa decks get trifle, regular mpa, minion generated mpa, possibly another minion generated mpa, then parthenon mpa. thats enough to do all sorts of bloating and recurring nonsense. in fact, they only need one more and they can liquidate twice and the pop 3 ashurs ina turn. its not THAT clunky to play, if your hand jams its less of a problem with that deck since even key cards can get recurred. i doubt anything will be done errata wise without a huge amount of consideration (and probably not until the girls decks take even more tournaments) but i'm not even opposed to the tablets, i'm just opposed to them recurring master cards or events, and being able to play multiples in a turn. really, my biggest problem is the fact that you can opo the tablets more than once per methuselah. if you can't have the absolute most optimal library by mid-game after putting back in 12 cards that were in your ash heap (probably pot stealth/intercept/bleed enhancement/combat/burned ally) and one to the hand, what deck are you playing and why? girls decks don't need to worry as much about things when every few turns can mean another liquidation and ashurs. if the tablets only worked once per methuselah, they'd be less of a problem. i'm more in favor of weakening them than banning them, since they would have value even without the mmpa girls decks abusing them (and they still were a very expensive common before girls took spotlight at tournaments). but arguing over if an archetype that is that durable and has that many wins is good/ broken is kinda redundent. i play combat, and combat doesn't automatically beat girls. metagaming isn't the issue, the abuse of masters and the flow of the deck is.

> Ashur wrote: > > > Szewski wrote: > > I saw this kind of conversation few times when it goes about: > > pentex, anthelios, lilith's blessing, tupdogs...even direct int... > > > If you combare Pentex or LB with MMPA you don´t really understand much about this. > Glad you know so much about my knowledge of the game and these forums. My point isn't that X card(s) = Ashur Tablets/MMPA. My point is that I have seen quite a few different things come up along the way in VTES about things being OP, people clamoring for a card to get banned or altered (like the ones I mentioned), and there are few times where it is warranted. The Imbued who were brought into a game when operating on their own mechanics screwed things over a little and with the two cards gone that really gave them an edge (no pun intended) the game was much more balanced. To continue this theme if we made a text change or banned a card every time someone thought it should be done and found something annoying then our landscape would be much different (again, cards like Parity Shift, Pentex, etc.). Some would think for the better and for the majority they would be saying not to change it. Keep in mind only so many people visit these forums. And to be honest I am more concerned about keeping people rather than introducing more difficulties or changes in the game at this point. And yes, give enough changes to a now defunct game and you risk shedding a few players. MMPA decks may be annoying, but it isn't like they aren't beatable. I have never had an issue facing one. Not even annoying versions you have mentioned. And like any other tables that declare someone an issue (Imbued Table Poison, Malk 94, etc.), people tend to work together to solve such issues. So your point that it imbalances a game to have play to against them that way is moot. Further, as someone else pointed out Ashur Tablets are used in decks that don't do the whole MMPA trick with Anthelios/Master tricks. Recycling what you need such as combat, intercept, stealth, and so on doesn't need to turn into an Evil MMPA deck. Heck, Nana and Anson decks with combat don't have to do that. And looking at various tournament wins in the TWDA I see plenty of tournaments won that are not the Evil MMPA referenced in this forum. Using Ahsurs doesn't automatically make a deck MMPA nor does it mean it will be Girls, etc. I simply would not be convinced at this point (nor likely the future) that something needs to happen at this moment as there is no good answer that doesn't either drastically hose other decks or completely reduce/ban Ashur Tablets. The Inner Circle would most likely have to have a unanimous agreement something needs to be done and that they have a way that will please the majority of people. And I don't see that happening either. I get that you are discontent with the way things are and feel something should be done as it is your opinion to have. But, you cannot force others to believe what you do. And while that may not be your goal, it sometimes comes across that only your opinion counts as the truth. Not a good way to convince people.

> Ashur wrote: > I have talked to just about every top player in Sweden, and some others, on this subject - all agree that MMPA:s are very, very strong and that the problem should be adressed _in some way_. > Is this the same Sweden that Isak just discussed in a recent C&E episode having following meta: little or no combat as well as little or no intercept, so no serious stealth is really needed? Based on this I sure can understand your concern as people just seem to want to have therr cake and eat it too (ie. play their own deck which does its own thang) without actually diluting the brilliant concept behind it in order to be prepared for certain archetypes and such. But banning/changing something that bothers your deck isn't really a good an option for the game. It seems that the trend in Sweden is to play only the few tier 1 decks and there ain't that many of those to begin with. Removing one archetype (MMPA) isn't going to help the game's diversity even on the short run Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Ashur wrote: > > I have talked to just about every top player in Sweden, and some others, on this subject - all agree that MMPA:s are very, very strong and that the problem should be adressed _in some way_. > > > Is this the same Sweden that Isak just discussed in a recent C&E episode having following meta: little or no combat as well as little or no intercept, so no serious stealth is really needed? > Whoever started that rumor forgot that there are more cities in Sweden than just Göteborg, Stockholm and Örebro. Where I come from you will often be shut down hard if you have little to none combat defense and/or stealth.

> Chaitan wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > > > > Ashur wrote: > > > I have talked to just about every top player in Sweden, and some others, on this subject - all agree that MMPA:s are very, very strong and that the problem should be adressed _in some way_. > > > > > Is this the same Sweden that Isak just discussed in a recent C&E episode having following meta: little or no combat as well as little or no intercept, so no serious stealth is really needed? > > > Whoever started that rumor forgot that there are more cities in Sweden than just Göteborg, Stockholm and Örebro. Where I come from you will often be shut down hard if you have little to none combat defense and/or stealth. > Sorry if I made it sound like I know what's going on in every playing group in the whole of Sweden. I were speaking about those casual play group I have played in and the tournament scene. I don't know much about the Malmö/Copenhagen cooperation, but it's more or less Denmark down there anyways But Lönkka's post is still relevant. You have to try to abuse the meta and the weaknesses of different deck to really improve you chances. Isak Esbjörnsson Bjärmark

> Forhead wrote: > But Lönkka's post is still relevant. You have to try to abuse the meta and the weaknesses of different deck to really improve you chances. > Which is why when Finnish combat heavy decks visit Swedish tournament scene they often tend to do well. I'm just wondering why the locals don't do it that much? Finnish Politics!

when choosing a deck within the 'minion control' category (refering the latest C&E) we tend to go mind rape(+abactor)/banishement/purge/spirit marionette instead. Usally tends to end up stronger... Isak Esbjörnsson Bjärmark

> Forhead wrote: > Usally tends to end up stronger... > Oh, like compared to Otto's Shamblers or Joni's Potence guys? Finnish Politics!

For the Stockholm play group, I do not think it is a fair assessment that there is a lack of combat or intercept at the tables. Lackeyname: Kris

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Forhead wrote: > > Usally tends to end up stronger... > > > Oh, like compared to Otto's Shamblers or Joni's Potence guys? > Joni's win wasn't the usual. Dont take we wrong, he great deserved to win. Shambling hordes is one of those archtypes that I tend to choose over the Joni-style decks. And was (among other archtypes) what I were refering to. Isak Esbjörnsson Bjärmark

I feel like, about how to counter master heavy decks, cards like sudden reversal and uncoiling are quite irrelevant. It does slow a master deck down, of course, but it's hardly a counter. In the same way that a 75 card deck with 4 bounces is not a counter to a DEM weenie. If you want to meta game against master heavy decks, and especially decks which rely on Ashurs to create their optimal library, I would recommend a fast deck which destroys (either ousts, kills its minions or create an unkillable setup) the deck before it has a chance to reach its crescendo. You can't create a slow bleeder, with light combat and some blood dolls for bloat to beat an Ashurs deck. You need something that increases in power at the same speed as the Ashurs deck or one that destroys the Ashurs deck before it gets off the ground. Joni's pot rush is an example of a deck that kills Ashur decks before it gets off the ground and Otto's shambling deck is an example of a deck which can increase in power at the same speed. (Shambling Hordes is an incredibly powerful permanent, and Sudario has the same qualities as Ashurs.) I think this was the cause of their decks' successes (together with intelligent play and experience, of course). Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Izaak wrote: > Or Mind Rapes. Or Summon History. Or Unleash Hell's Fury. Or Parity Shift. Or Derange. Availability of cards is not an argument why cards are too strong. > And all these cards are not cards that you generally need 6-9 of to make just about any crap deck into a winner. I´m sure you understand the difference. > Izaak wrote: > A Sudden slows you down to the point where 2-3 Suddens on the right cards slow you down enough that you probably won't make the gamewin unless someone messes up real bad. > But is this really "design intent"? That all decks should devote about 50 % of their master slots to be able to stop a Big cap vote with MMPA and Tablets, sb with MMPA and Tablets, rush combat with MMPA and Tablets, wall decks with MMPA and Tablets (and so on). Is this a evolution of the Vtes-game that we want? I think not. > Izaak wrote: > And yes, sometimes it stoppes you dead cold like sometimes a No Secrets stops you cold. Or you get oisted in 5 turns because you wanted to bring out an 11-cap from position #2 and your predator is play Lagacy of Pander. But that's what happens. > I think there is a big difference about deck X stopping deck Y cold (which is as it always have been in Vtes, although I think for example No Secret also is bad design) and the impact of the MMPA:s+generic recursion-module. I don´t like the way it is altering Vtes. But alright, if I´m not allowed to "theorycraft" I can´t say much more on the subject. I guess you are right, being a better player than me. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> And all these cards are not cards that you generally need 6-9 of to make just about any crap deck into a winner. I´m sure you understand the difference. > Adding 6-9 Ashurs to a crap deck will not make it a winner. It will just make it slower and still crap. You just don't seem to understand there is an actual cost to playing Ashur Tablets. Probably as a result of you never actually playing them. > That all decks should devote about 50 % of their master slots to be able to stop a Big cap vote with MMPA and Tablets, sb with MMPA and Tablets, rush combat with MMPA and Tablets, wall decks with MMPA and Tablets (and so on). Is this a evolution of the Vtes-game that we want? I think not. > Design intent is that certain cards or strategies stop other cards or strategies. For example: Playing without bounce is usually a bad idea, unless you have an alternate plan to deal with bleed decks. These plans are, for example, rush or bloat. Alternatively you can just accepting that bleed decks will kill you. Playing without some light combat is usually a bad idea, unless you have a backup plan for when you happen to run into Nephandus or War Ghoul decks. Backup plans may include extra Majesties, more presses to end or cards like Entracement. Or you can just outright ignore that part of your deck and accept that such decks will kill you. Similarly, playing without Suddens is not a good idea in general, unless you have a backup plan to deal with Ashur/MMPA decks. These backup plans include rushing a lot or playing a fast deck. You can also choose to not include any Ashur/MMPA tech and accept the fact that such decks will kill you. How is this different, really? No of course you can't always counter all strategies in one deck, but that's where guessing the metagame comes in. > But alright, if I´m not allowed to "theorycraft" I can´t say much more on the subject. I guess you are right, being a better player than me. > Cute.

> Izaak wrote: > Similarly, playing without Suddens is not a good idea in general, unless you have a backup plan to deal with Ashur/MMPA decks. These backup plans include rushing a lot or playing a fast deck. You can also choose to not include any Ashur/MMPA tech and accept the fact that such decks will kill you. > > How is this different, really? > By the fact that devoting 33% of non-trifle master is not the same investment than 6 majesty on 60 card. If you were having to put 20 majesty in your 60 card deck so that he don't die to combat deck people would complaint. That's the same here, with the added spice that sudden (as OOT master) also mess with trifle master. Edit : also, there is the problem that there is a lot of anti-combat solution, which help you choose the one who cost you the less. Here, you have sudden, maybe wash, and ? Trying to include rush and enough combat ?

> RoddimusPrime wrote: > My point isn't that X card(s) = Ashur Tablets/MMPA. My point is that I have seen quite a few different things come up along the way in VTES about things being OP, people clamoring for a card to get banned or altered (like the ones I mentioned), and there are few times where it is warranted. The Imbued who were brought into a game when operating on their own mechanics screwed things over a little and with the two cards gone that really gave them an edge (no pun intended) the game was much more balanced. > Oh, you have “seen quite a few different things” and all is fine. That is _not_ an argument for MMPA:s/generic recursion should not be fixed. I have also “seen quite a few different things” and all was _not_ fine. Kindred Restructure was banned. Imbued had cards banned. PTO was banned. Villein was altered. I rest my case. > RoddimusPrime wrote: > Keep in mind only so many people visit these forums. And to be honest I am more concerned about keeping people rather than introducing more difficulties or changes in the game at this point. And yes, give enough changes to a now defunct game and you risk shedding a few players. > Why would banning/errata/rule fixes scare away now active players? I experience that both old/returning players and newbies/potential players are more scared of new, complex mechanics that "brakes" the game than if a certain card or rule is altered a bit. > RoddimusPrime wrote: > And like any other tables that declare someone an issue (Imbued Table Poison, Malk 94, etc.), people tend to work together to solve such issues. > This argument is of course interesting. Sure it´s fun with people convincing other people a certain deck at the table is a threat, but this also have alot of drawbacks. People enter weird deals, newbies counting make out of game considerations ("Oh he is my pal" or "Oh he won the last tournament, he must be right), people not getting the chance to play the game etc. > RoddimusPrime wrote: > Further, as someone else pointed out Ashur Tablets are used in decks that don't do the whole MMPA trick with Anthelios/Master tricks. > I have no idea why someone would do this, unless you play with people that don´t own enough cards or not are allowed to use proxy. Decks with MMPA:s would in almost every game win the Tablet-race. > RoddimusPrime wrote: > But, you cannot force others to believe what you do. And while that may not be your goal, it sometimes comes across that only your opinion counts as the truth. Not a good way to convince people. > I am not really sure how to respond to this, but it is a common non-argument that just because someone states an opinion at a web forum, they are trying to "force" people to think that way. I try to use arguments that can be testet and argued against. That´s it. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Lönkka wrote: > Is this the same Sweden that Isak just discussed in a recent C&E episode having following meta: little or no combat as well as little or no intercept, so no serious stealth is really needed? > Well, not really. That is more the Örebro (and possibly Göteborg nowadays) meta, which also have done good at larger tournaments. The Stockholm meta is more diverse, with about 25-50 % Örebro-influenced decks and the rest combat, walls and crap We have quite a bit of players that don´t "evolve" alot, but their decks also has to be taken into consideration when you map the meta. I absolutely agree that rush/minion removal is good against most MMPA-decks, but I don´t like the paper-rock-scissor-effect of this. OK, say I need a rush-deck to beat deck X. On the other hand, my rush-deck is a obvious threat to most decks, making me forced to threaten people, possibly cross-table oust people. It´s very difficult to win with rush decks. When bad players try them they usually just make a crater and someone else win. Taken to extremes this “extreme” meta give tables with 5 players holding a hand grenade each and beginning the match by making all sorts of wild assumptions, accusations and deals. Fun, sure, but maybe not so fun for newbies or bad players, which I think also should have a place at our weekly casual games. > Lönkka wrote: > Based on this I sure can understand your concern as people just seem to want to have therr cake and eat it too (ie. play their own deck which does its own thang) without actually diluting the brilliant concept behind it in order to be prepared for certain archetypes and such. > OK, but this is when I would like that we ask ourself: What kind of Vtes do we want? Do we want more extreme/abusive decks (and their "counter-deck") that the "old" decks can´t handle? Or do we want a more smooth evolution of the game? There are alot of design space not used in Vtes - making it a more master-focused game is far from the only option. > Lönkka wrote: > But banning/changing something that bothers your deck isn't really a good an option for the game. It seems that the trend in Sweden is to play only the few tier 1 decks and there ain't that many of those to begin with. Removing one archetype (MMPA) isn't going to help the game's diversity even on the short run > I´m not sure about this. I think that there are possibly worth sacrificing a deck type that gets to strong (ie complex to counter), allowing others to be viable. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Izaak wrote: > Adding 6-9 Ashurs to a crap deck will not make it a winner. It will just make it slower and still crap. You just don't seem to understand there is an actual cost to playing Ashur Tablets. Probably as a result of you never actually playing them. > While I agree with most thinks you say, it´s not really worth continuing the discussion when you keep insulting me like this. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Wash and Sudden Reversal is pretty bad cards at countering MMPA-decks IMO. Assuming you play with Wash and Sudden: * You rarely see more than one MMPA deck per table. This MMPA deck can be placed as your prey (perfect location), predator (second best) but in the 2 out of 5 chances the MMPA deck is located as grand-prey or grand-predator. Do you seriously want to cripple a deck cross-table? A MMPA deck does not have this drawback. Every card can be used regardless of prey. * Wash and Sudden can jam your hand. They can only be played effectively if your prey or predator plays a master card of sufficient strength. Want to play wash on a hunting ground? Washing the hunting ground may enable him to play a stronger card instead? Perhaps better to wait for a stronger card your predator play instead? Before you know it is your turn again whereas normal master cards can be played reliably every turn. * Do you want to add wash just to be safe against cards such as Pentex Subversion? A MMPA will just use anthelios and play the same card again and now you are out of washes. it is often better to include your own Pentex and contest it. * The cheer amount of master phase action a master deck bring out more often than not overwhelm the amount of wash and suddens you have. No, Wash and Sudden is silver bullets. This is a biased opinion of course but I'd rather waste the few master phase actions I have to strengten my own deck instead of adding the bullets in the off-chance that I have a MMPA as prey.

> Chaitan wrote: > No, Wash and Sudden is silver bullets. > Huh? You've just argued - quite convincingly - that Wash and Sudden explicitly aren't silver bullets. They won't kill MMPA dead (like a silver bullet kills a werewolf dead, but is crap against, well, everything else). Instead, they're a broad-based defence that happens to be not so useful here, unless you get mildly lucky - right seating, and being able to play it against mildly lynch-pinny, like a Parthenon. But they can still be very useful against all sorts of non-MMPA decks/cards, though again not perfect.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Chaitan wrote: > > No, Wash and Sudden is silver bullets. > > > Huh? You've just argued - quite convincingly - that Wash and Sudden explicitly aren't silver bullets. They won't kill MMPA dead (like a silver bullet kills a werewolf dead, but is crap against, well, everything else). Instead, they're a broad-based defence that happens to be not so useful here, unless you get mildly lucky - right seating, and being able to play it against mildly lynch-pinny, like a Parthenon. But they can still be very useful against all sorts of non-MMPA decks/cards, though again not perfect. > You are of course right here, James. Sudden and Wash are very inadequate answers to MMPA decks, as has been pointed out various times here in this thread already. So, the argument of some players, that you should pack more Suddens (or any at all) and/or Washes to counter MMPA decks bears no weight at all. Btw, while I'm at it, let me state that Ashur Tablets are extremely bad card design. I have been repeatadly shown that AT are worthless cards in a non-MMPA deck. MMPA decks make it highly unlikely that you will ever pull of 3 AT if you don't stuff your deck full with it. They are simply dead cards and the cardslots could be used for other, more useful stuff instead. In tournaments, you will likely play at least one table where some sort of MMPA deck is present. In my experience, roughly every second game tends to feature a MMPA deck. The fact that all AT at the table are removed once one player has played 3 copies is annoying like hell and testament to bad card design and/or lack of playtesting. A normal deck cannot win the arms race against a MMPA deck in this regard. /rant off pckvtes.wordpress.com

Part of the point is that if the MMPA deck is cross table, you can either lose ressources to attack it cross table, cross finger that your prey or predator can stop it, or face it at the apex of its power - and after he have done 1/2 trio of ashur tablet, it's likely his deck is optimized against you.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Chaitan wrote: > > No, Wash and Sudden is silver bullets. > > > Huh? You've just argued - quite convincingly - that Wash and Sudden explicitly aren't silver bullets. They won't kill MMPA dead (like a silver bullet kills a werewolf dead, but is crap against, well, everything else). Instead, they're a broad-based defence that happens to be not so useful here, unless you get mildly lucky - right seating, and being able to play it against mildly lynch-pinny, like a Parthenon. But they can still be very useful against all sorts of non-MMPA decks/cards, though again not perfect. > I mean master removal cards is designed to be a silver bullet but (based on my reasoning above) fail to kill the werewolf when facing MMPA. In a normal game where each methuselah play one master card per round, wash or sudden is good enough. Since you depend on other methuselahs cardflow it is hard to get rid of a stack of Wash/Sudden. The cardflow don't scale as normal master cards do with MMPA.

> Chaitan wrote: > In a normal game where each methuselah play one master card per round, wash or sudden is good enough. Since you depend on other methuselahs cardflow it is hard to get rid of a stack of Wash/Sudden. The cardflow don't scale as normal master cards do with MMPA. > Are you saying that if nobody plays MMPA, you won't be able to get rid of a Sudden every turn? If that's the case, I can see why MMPA would be so overpowered because you already have players who are under-utilizing their master phases. It should be simple to cycle Suddens. If players aren't playing good masters almost every turn in normal games then they aren't building good decks.

> vtesocrates wrote: > Are you saying that if nobody plays MMPA, you won't be able to get rid of a Sudden every turn? > No.

> Chaitan wrote: > > > vtesocrates wrote: > > Are you saying that if nobody plays MMPA, you won't be able to get rid of a Sudden every turn? > > > No. > Then explain "Since you depend on other methuselahs cardflow it is hard to get rid of a stack of Wash/Sudden."

we have master cards that, in a way, cost less than a master (trifles) so why not master cards that cost more than one? for example, adding something like "When you play Ashur Tablets (or whatever other master people think is problematic) skip your next master phase action" that way regular decks can still play them (but every other turn) and MMPA decks are more limited in how many they can play, yet the functionality basically stays the same. I like the idea of a few of the really powerful masters actually costing more than one master phase, might work for Pentex, for example - and some cards already sorta do that anyway, by making you pay extra MPA for an effect, like investments and stuff. Another nice thing about this, is that like Trifle, this could easily be keyworded.

> vtesocrates wrote: > > > Chaitan wrote: > > > > > vtesocrates wrote: > > > Are you saying that if nobody plays MMPA, you won't be able to get rid of a Sudden every turn? > > > > > > > > No. > > > Then explain "Since you depend on other methuselahs cardflow it is hard to get rid of a stack of Wash/Sudden." > Context. Read the entire thing from a viewpoint where I criticize wash and sudden as a potential counter to MMPA. But since you want to bring it up again. Two reasons. First, in order for it to be a counter you need include more master out-of-turn cancel cards in your deck and since you are limited in the amount you can play it scales poorly compared to MMPA. Second. Normal master cards simply has a better card flow than master out-of-turn cancel cards for reasons I have already pointed out. A master card can be played instantly in the master phase (with exceptions of course). A master out-of-turn cancel card can not be played at any point during a master phase action without fullfulling a series of heavy requirements. This subtle difference inheritably makes those cards harder to play and stacking more of them scales poorly compared to MMPA decks. Granted, a MMPA player on the table increases the chance of you actually being able to play one sudden per turn.

> Chaitan wrote: > > > vtesocrates wrote: > > > > > Chaitan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vtesocrates wrote: > > > > Are you saying that if nobody plays MMPA, you won't be able to get rid of a Sudden every turn? > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > Then explain "Since you depend on other methuselahs cardflow it is hard to get rid of a stack of Wash/Sudden." > > > Context. Read the entire thing from a viewpoint where I criticize wash and sudden as a potential counter to MMPA. > I can't speak for vtesocrates but, in context, reading the entire thing, you say that Sudden/Wash won't work as a useful defence against MMPA and that they're hard to get rid of. And, having read the rest of your response, you're still giving the impression (even with context) that your players sit around flailing their arms in their master phase, rather than playing some of the strongest cards in the game, regularly, for their own benefit. Because Wash-ing masters is, apparently, oh so very hard. I weep for you. > Chaitan wrote: > But since you want to bring it up again. Two reasons. First, in order for it to be a counter you need include more master out-of-turn cancel cards in your deck and since you are limited in the amount you can play it scales poorly compared to MMPA. > Uh. You claim they're hard to get rid of, but are now saying that you can't make them a counter. That's two different things. Even if you can't defeat MMPA with Wash, you can still easily play Wash. > Chaitan wrote: > Second. Normal master cards simply has a better card flow than master out-of-turn cancel cards for reasons I have already pointed out. A master card can be played instantly in the master phase (with exceptions of course). A master out-of-turn cancel card can not be played at any point during a master phase action without fullfulling a series of heavy requirements. > Heavy requirements? My prey plays Villein, I play Wash. Much like my predator plays Parity Shift, I play Delaying Tactics. You play Bum's Rush, I play Majesty. These are really not heavy requirements. > Chaitan wrote: > Granted, a MMPA player on the table increases the chance of you actually being able to play one sudden per turn. > So in an average game, you are regularly finding that neither your predator nor your prey plays a strong master card? Your prey doesn't really often play Villein followed by Giant's Blood? Villein, followed by Ventrue Headquarters? Vessel, followed by Dreams of the Sphinx? Aye twice? Your predator isn't trying to hit you with Villein followed by Pentex Subversion?

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > And, having read the rest of your response, you're still giving the impression (even with context) that your players sit around flailing their arms in their master phase, rather than playing some of the strongest cards in the game, regularly, for their own benefit. Because Wash-ing masters is, apparently, oh so very hard. I weep for you. > Really ? For someone consistently asking to raise the debate, avoid calling names and refrain from trolling, you seem perfectly in harmony with your ideas. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > Really ? For someone consistently asking to raise the debate, avoid calling names and refrain from trolling, you seem perfectly in harmony with your ideas. > Uh, pointing out that someone is giving the impression that their players don't use master cards - which is fundamentally a really bad thing for players to be doing - is neither name-calling nor trolling.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Uh, pointing out that someone is giving the impression that their players don't use master cards - which is fundamentally a really bad thing for players to be doing - is neither name-calling nor trolling. > Your logic is sound so the appearance of ad hominem hyperbole is unnecessary. My whole point about playing more Sudden Reversal and Wash is that collectively that strategy can thwart many MMPA decks. Kind of like herd immunity. If everyone played with 2 Sudden Reversals or Washes, then they could fairly efficiently stop the MMPA deck at a critical time. However, Methuselahs are greedy and selfish and don't often have this mentality. If everyone hates weenie decks, then everyone should play with Scourge of the Enochians and they would disappear from the metagame. But, people don't do that. If Ashur Tablets becomes too good in the metagame, there are natural ways that this is tempered though contesting of Nana, Cybele and Anson. I still believe that if everyone had unlimited numbers of Ashur Tablets, that the problem would be lessened. FWIW, 27 TWDs with Ashur Tablets since 4/1/2010 (HttB). Of those, 20 had Anson, Cybele or Nana Buruku. Poland led the way with decks using Ashurs and other vampires. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > Poland led the way with decks using Ashurs and other vampires. > yeah we are good in keeping ashur's alive but no one is complaining during the game (I think so, some peaople are just prepared for whats coming ) Ashur's can be really badass but the decks aren't indestructible. Regards

> Jeff wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > Uh, pointing out that someone is giving the impression that their players don't use master cards - which is fundamentally a really bad thing for players to be doing - is neither name-calling nor trolling. > > > Your logic is sound so the appearance of ad hominem hyperbole is unnecessary. > Hi there! You don't appear to have met Sarcasm! He's just super, and I hope you'll be the best of friends! Ad hominem is about discrediting the speaker, therefore discrediting their views (even though the views expressed may be sound - but you smell, so your views smell). Pointing out that the speaker's playgroup appear to be playing sub-optimally is not ad hominem, and is absolutely necessary for a discussion in which someone is saying "Playing Wash is hard." Either that, or the playgroup is being misrepresented somehow, in which case it would be helpful to have it clarified. Again, this is not ad hominem. It is precisely about discussing the substance of what is being presented.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Hi there! You don't appear to have met Sarcasm! He's just super, and I hope you'll be the best of friends! > > Ad hominem is about discrediting the speaker, therefore discrediting their views (even though the views expressed may be sound - but you smell, so your views smell). Pointing out that the speaker's playgroup appear to be playing sub-optimally is not ad hominem, and is absolutely necessary for a discussion in which someone is saying "Playing Wash is hard." Either that, or the playgroup is being misrepresented somehow, in which case it would be helpful to have it clarified. Again, this is not ad hominem. It is precisely about discussing the substance of what is being presented. > Sarcasm, as a form of ridicule or derision, is an attempt to discredit the speaker, which can be a form of ad hominem. By criticizing his group, you are in effect criticizing him too. It may be justified, but it is not entirely necessary to prove the point. (And here's a shout out to everyone who is screaming "Irony!" inside their heads now.) When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > Sarcasm, as a form of ridicule or derision, is an attempt to discredit the speaker, which can be a form of ad hominem. > Or just to criticise something in a humourous way. (If criticising things is now forbidden, shut the website down now.) > Jeff wrote: > By criticizing his group, you are in effect criticizing him too. It may be justified, but it is not entirely necessary to prove the point. > When someone is saying "I can't play this because no-one in my group plays enough master cards", it is absolutely necessary to directly address why they aren't playing many master cards. This will, necessarily, involve discussing the play of the group (as it has been presented). Even if presented in a roundabout way, you will still get to the same point - masters are good, you're not playing enough masters, therefore... Simpler just to say: you're missing a trick by not regularly stacking your deck with some of the strongest cards in the game, and Wash is easily playable when people play better decks.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > (If criticising things is now forbidden, shut the website down now.) > Now, this is what clever irony looks like So, back the topic of master cards : playing wash is not so good because you can't really harm an mmpa deck cross table anyway. So, for something not already said : if the problem is the mmpa, why not take care of the vampires who provide MMPA ? Rushing or banishing Nana or Anson should not be so difficult, is it ? Stealing a parthenon or destroying it is not so difficult, is it ? There are plenty of solutions, but the players have to be willing to try them. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > (If criticising things is now forbidden, shut the website down now.) > > > Now, this is what clever irony looks like > > So, back the topic of master cards : playing wash is not so good because you can't really harm an mmpa deck cross table anyway. > > So, for something not already said : if the problem is the mmpa, why not take care of the vampires who provide MMPA ? > Rushing or banishing Nana or Anson should not be so difficult, is it ? Stealing a parthenon or destroying it is not so difficult, is it ? There are plenty of solutions, but the players have to be willing to try them. > shhhh! you're ruining my arika "lesser of all evils @ table" alastor deck's surprise factor..... arika comes out, calls alastor, gets a flamethrower, freakdrives, rushes anson, nana. cybele, whoever, freakdrives, graverobs, then i sit and hope the player keeps their parthenon...... in all seriousness, combat helps alot against mmpa decks, but combats biggest weakness is typically its inability to attack pool without dragonbound/fame/tension. so, the combat deck starting as the mmpa deck's predator is in luck, but the crosstable one who gets to it after its set up/ has to "reacharound" their prey or predator isn't in a good spot and has a very hard decision.

> Reyda wrote: > So, for something not already said > Still trying to be ironic? > > Rushing or banishing Nana or Anson should not be so difficult, is it ? > Banishment works great, especially if they abuse Villein. Rushing might not be so easy if they fight back. They are both highly vulnerable to ranged aggravated damage, though. > > Stealing a parthenon or destroying it is not so difficult, is it ? > That is another minor problem with the game: the existing actions that target locations suck. Arson is fine as a disciplineless action (that is, to use as a last resort only), but where is the better stuff we should get with disciplines? Rampage? You get to replace it, great. Haunt? You can also use it to protect your own location that nobody will ever try to destroy (see point 1: actions that target locations suck). Dominate Kine is better (at least it is flexible), but not all decks can afford the 2 blood cost. If for example had a rush/burn location card, burning the Parthenon would be a much more viable option. Also burning the Parthenon is like suddening a Villein: it only works in the short term, so you need the quick ousting power that goes with it if you want to benefit from it. Contesting or stealing it will hurt the MMPA deck much more.

Rushing Nana/Cybele/Anson is basically rolling the dice on card draws. Combat is weighted against minion-removal (the different combat mechanics make it harder to torpor your opponent than it is for them to avoid your strike). All of the main "+MPA" vampires have . Majesty, Charismatic Aura, Staredown and Catatonic Fear all easily weigh in on the side of defence. And since there is basically one major counter to those cards Immortal Grapple (because basically NOBODY uses Thoughts Betrayed for a combat deck unless it's some elaborate trick) is countered by Charismatic Aura (which saves Anson). Even if they don't go down the abusive road, Nana & Cybele have and it has one of the most efficient short-chain combat modules Crows + Bats. Killing these minions requires a lot more than just a passing "Oh hey, I put in Coma to catch some unlucky dude by surprise" or "Mostly I punch for 1 or 2... but there is a Burning Wrath or two in here...". If we are going to punish the MMPA decks, lets do it by creating new Minions that can interfere with people's master card plays. I'm not saying every second vampire needs to be printed with Rewind Time grafted on... but we should start trying to be CREATIVE not PUNITIVE. Expand the options, rather than limit options. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> vtesocrates wrote: > Are you saying that if nobody plays MMPA, you won't be able to get rid of a Sudden every turn? > See Chaitans excellent replies below, but I also want to add that you can´t cross table-Sudden things just to get rid of your Suddens. That´s like rushing cross-table to get rid of your rushes/combat cards. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Jeff wrote: > If Ashur Tablets becomes too good in the metagame, there are natural ways that this is tempered though contesting of Nana, Cybele and Anson. > How do you mean? I should play Nana Cybele and Anson just to contest them? Too prevent MMPA-decks from being popular? I prefer not contesting vampires, especially if my bloat is going to be a mess because that my MMPA-vampire is contested "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Reyda wrote: > So, for something not already said : if the problem is the mmpa, why not take care of the vampires who provide MMPA ? > Rushing or banishing Nana or Anson should not be so difficult, is it ? > Well, no. But you also want to win, and winning with rush/minion removal decks has proved much more difficult than most other ousting methods. You have to balance the table very delicately, not crippeling a player so that someone cross table gets the sweep. AND most people seem to want to keep it that way (combat as a vehicle for oust, much like stealth, not the ousting method in itself. We have no Fame on steroids for !Bru or more Hell-for-leather-like effects.) This is why I think something else than just "play more rush" has to be done to counter MMPA/generic recursion (ie, banning, errata and/or hoser-cards). > Reyda wrote: > Stealing a parthenon or destroying it is not so difficult, is it ? There are plenty of solutions, but the players have to be willing to try them. > Dominate Kine is extremelly underplayed, I agree. But cards like Rampage... not very flexible "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Rushing Nana/Cybele/Anson is basically rolling the dice on card draws. Combat is weighted against minion-removal (the different combat mechanics make it harder to torpor your opponent than it is for them to avoid your strike). > > All of the main "+MPA" vampires have . Majesty, Charismatic Aura, Staredown and Catatonic Fear all easily weigh in on the side of defence. And since there is basically one major counter to those cards Immortal Grapple (because basically NOBODY uses Thoughts Betrayed for a combat deck unless it's some elaborate trick) is countered by Charismatic Aura (which saves Anson). Even if they don't go down the abusive road, Nana & Cybele have and it has one of the most efficient short-chain combat modules Crows + Bats. > Ok, but nobody plays psyche anymore ? Isn't it time to try to play thoughts betrayed again, by the way, since it trumps those new strategies ?? To be honnest I saw people playing Charismatic aura over majesty, but it was 6 years ago ? Now they just stopped because the metagame has shifted towards Thaumaturgy or animalism fighters -so they can S:ce an escape all problems. Actually there are plenty of cards to cancel a strike -including cards that look stupid at first glance, like Botched move (which gives tasty GW against those very annoying 20+ earthmeld deck) or prevent certain disciplines to be played... Another good news is : Anson can run out of majesties. Especially if his master's hand is full of master cards Just play haven uncovered more often ? If nobody changes the way he plays, then the problem will stay forever, as well as the complaints. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > If nobody changes the way he plays, then the problem will stay forever, as well as the complaints. > You don't understand. Rushing someone throught its combat defence cross table may sometime be possible. But it need more than light combat, and with heavy combat you already need to remove the fang of your predator and maybe even kill your prey. So, if you are cross table, you may have to sacrifice yourself then and now, or let the MMPA install itself. Especially if you are grand predator, since your effort against your prey will be directly effort for the survival of the MMPA.

Isn't it the same for *every* menacing deck ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

The problem is card-intensity. Combat defence usually requires 1 or maybe 2 cards. Combat offence usually requires 3+ cards. (Most strong short-chain combats are 2 or 3 cards but the devastating minion-destroying ones are usually 4+) Trying to say that we should try eliminate the Nana/Cybele/Anson decks by using combat is kind of pointless advice. These decks are currently reigning supreme because there are few in-game counters to them without basically turning around and either completely sacrificing your ousting efficiency by loading up with Wash/SR to counter almost every vital card. So we should encourage the designers to basically create in-game counters (that are not horrid silver-bullets like Scourge of the Enochians, but more like Aranthebes) so that other strategies get lifted. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

It has already been said that playing a lot of wash or sudden has minimal effect. Come on, why don't everybody try combat, cards that are still existing, instead of waiting for a card that does not exist ? And combat is not 3 or 4 cards. It's a whole deck. If you prefer playing lazy ass with a vote deck and some stealth waiting to voter cap and hoping for someone to do the job of hampering the MMPA deck for you, you're doing it wrong. yeah, I'm trolling. So what ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > If we are going to punish the MMPA decks, lets do it by creating new Minions that can interfere with people's master card plays. I'm not saying every second vampire needs to be printed with Rewind Time grafted on... but we should start trying to be CREATIVE not PUNITIVE. Expand the options, rather than limit options. > Assuming that such options are warranted... Going only for new minions with new specials means that Groups 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4 are more or less hung out to dry. A new vampire in 5 might be useful to a group 4 deck, so 4 isn't totally screwed, but 1-3 are. Or you end up going for an Anarch Convert type vampire in all groups, which is liable to be much more hoser-y i.e. you only play it for that negative effect and the space in the box doesn't allow for much positive use, whereas Bobby the Proper Vampire is probably playable for his own sake in your MEL/CHI/PRO deck. So, I'd be wary of going down the crypt only route. (Maybe minion is okay if minion means "Library-based ally" too, here.) But I'd also be concerned about how to cost the special on Bobby the Proper Vampire. A permanent ability to screw reasonably bluntly with master phase actions/master cards/something relevant could well be reasonably expensive, even when it's relatively corner-case. So you'd need quite delicate design to make it worth it, without letting it screw other people too hard, and without making Bobby the Proper Vampire horrible to pay for when MMPA doesn't show.

Wait ! there's a card that makes them pay one pool whenever they play a master card ! It's called Walks-with-might ! You just have to convince them to include it in their MMPA decks :troll: or... maybe... slightly change the card text ? like "Unique werewolf with 4 life. 0 bleed, 3 strength. Master cards cost you an additional pool. Walks-With-Might gets +1 intercept against Followers of Set. Each strike or damaging effect made against him inflicts 1 less damage on him." and voilà, you've got a very good card ! Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > yeah, I'm trolling. So what ? > Stop doing it. Please. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

You know, it's been 12 pages already, I seriously think it's time to unleash the inner trolls... Nobody can agree in what to do with MMPA decks. Some people argued that it's just a natural evolution of the metagame. Others (inc. myself) suggested to rush the MMPA providing minion while their hands are full of master cards to get rid of the problem. Other are suggesting more sudden / wash. And finally, burning contesting parthenon has been evoked. What more do you want to add, really ? Is there more that can be said ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

Did you notice. reyda, that one of the most effective MMPA type decks (Nana) is based on combat? I find it very difficult to effectively and consistently be a winner against ANI with potential splash of POT while not dedicating my whole deck to combat and suck against everybody else.

Yes I noticed the nana animalism deck. But carrion + aid from bats is petty combat. Potence fortitude or Celerity quietus is what i call real combat. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

You know, most of what I read, what I really understand is "I can't oust my MMPA Prey by playing my usual Lutz calls a neonate breach deck + Voter cap so I complain" Hey people. There are plenty of decks that rapes Nana & Anson. Why don't you play them ? The problem is combat ends ? There are answers. Grapple, thoughts betrayed, psyche, death seeker, TeleTracking... The problem is aid from bats ? There are answers. Thoughts betrayed, maneuvers, slam, or just pop a stick, manoeuver back and hit them 3 times for 6 damage... "oh, but they can play terror frenzy too !" No problem bro : flying motorcycles, burst of sunlight, breath of the dragon, eye of unforgiving heaven... Just pick one, leave your keyboard and make a deck... For a change. :troll: Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > The problem is combat ends ? There are answers. Grapple, thoughts betrayed, psyche, death seeker, TeleTracking... > Lol. You can also read what people say.

( Hint : captionedgif.com/upload/2012/05/08/20120508125316-427c7ae7.gif ) Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > Hey people. There are plenty of decks that rapes Nana & Anson. Why don't you play them ? > Heck, there are options that don't involve combat: Seeds of Corruption: now you don't have any text on your vamp. Wanna remove it? It will cost you two successful actions (and some blood, should said vamp try to remove it) and you get several rounds without MMPAs. Those are even stackable...play !Tremere with Chamber to ensure you always have one in your hand.

> Kiddo wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > Hey people. There are plenty of decks that rapes Nana & Anson. Why don't you play them ? > > > Heck, there are options that don't involve combat: Seeds of Corruption: now you don't have any text on your vamp. Wanna remove it? It will cost you two successful actions (and some blood, should said vamp try to remove it) and you get several rounds without MMPAs. Those are even stackable...play !Tremere with Chamber to ensure you always have one in your hand. > Seeds of Corruption: +1 stealth action. Put this card on one of your prey's vampires. If the vampire is a Follower of Set, he or she burns 2 additional blood when attempting an action; otherwise, he or she burns 1 additional blood when attempting an action. The vampire's special abilities cannot be used. Any vampire(s) may burn this card with two +1 stealth actions. As above, but the vampire burns 2 additional blood when attempting an action; Followers of Set burn 3 additional blood. High opportunity cost, wouldn't you say? pckvtes.wordpress.com

> Reyda wrote: > Hey people. There are plenty of decks that rapes Nana & Anson. Why don't you play them ? > > The problem is combat ends ? There are answers. Grapple, thoughts betrayed, psyche, death seeker, TeleTracking... > The problem is aid from bats ? There are answers. Thoughts betrayed, maneuvers, slam, or just pop a stick, manoeuver back and hit them 3 times for 6 damage... "oh, but they can play terror frenzy too !" No problem bro : flying motorcycles, burst of sunlight, breath of the dragon, eye of unforgiving heaven... Just pick one, leave your keyboard and make a deck... > For a change. :troll: > People do play them. Curious thing, they rarely reach the final... Or is it because playing Grapple, Psyche!... rarely gives you the GW? While you'll be destroying Nana, your grand prey will be scoring his 2 VP. And when he's done, you've wasted so many ressources that you won't be able to survive. So yes, you can handle Nana with some decks. The thing is that you'll problably die to all the other decks. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Amenophobis wrote: > High opportunity cost, wouldn't you say? > Perhaps, but these days people tend to have a star vampire in a deck anyways...Seeds screw up these decks as much as they can't ignore it. It is not a card I'd include in any THA deck, but in a tournament environment it could be worth it (if you play Tremeres, you can lower its cost, since there is a fat chance you'll have Ankara in a deck anyways), and it totally screws MPAA-providing vamps.

> Ankha wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > Hey people. There are plenty of decks that rapes Nana & Anson. Why don't you play them ? > > > > The problem is combat ends ? There are answers. Grapple, thoughts betrayed, psyche, death seeker, TeleTracking... > > The problem is aid from bats ? There are answers. Thoughts betrayed, maneuvers, slam, or just pop a stick, manoeuver back and hit them 3 times for 6 damage... "oh, but they can play terror frenzy too !" No problem bro : flying motorcycles, burst of sunlight, breath of the dragon, eye of unforgiving heaven... Just pick one, leave your keyboard and make a deck... > > For a change. :troll: > > > People do play them. Curious thing, they rarely reach the final... > > Or is it because playing Grapple, Psyche!... rarely gives you the GW? While you'll be destroying Nana, your grand prey will be scoring his 2 VP. And when he's done, you've wasted so many ressources that you won't be able to survive. > If you are not familiar to combat, I suggest you try Eurobrujah. they can use Grapple, Psyche and even thoughts betrayed and slam. and big news ! They regularly go to finals. No, don't thank me ! I'm counselling you for the sake of the game B-) Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > If you are not familiar to combat, I suggest you try Eurobrujah. they can use Grapple, Psyche and even thoughts betrayed and slam. > and big news ! They regularly go to finals. > I've just checked the last 5 TWD including some Psyche! in them. All 5 played Anson and 9-12 Ashur Tablets. Let's check the latest Eurobrujah TWD: - QCF Lille April 7, 2012 10 players - Juiz de Fora, Brazil June 28, 2011 12 players It has won only twice in 1 year, and only 10-12 players tournament. I haven't seen a Eurobrujah deck since january. Are you sure you're Reyda? Because the Reyda I know usually play in the same tournament as I do. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

The last expansions being centered around sabbat and bloodlines, it's just a normal thing that people want to try new stuff. Note there was an Eurobrujah winning a tournament in Los angeles this week end though. but ok, challenge accepted. Next tourney I'll do my best with Eurobrujah trash. I'll also include juggler and flying Motorbikes to prove you finals is reachable. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Ankha wrote: > It has won only twice in 1 year, and only 10-12 players tournament. > vekn.net/index.php/forum/9-event-reports-and-twd/31309-twd-friend-of-mine-gamex2012-los-angeles-26-may-2012

> Reyda wrote: > I'll also include juggler and flying Motorbikes to prove you finals is reachable. > Final is certainly reachable. It will not remove the fact that : * cross-rush is very costly (you need torn + disarm + grapple / maneuver... at least) * you have other thing to rush (like your predator) * the reduced ousting capability that come with heavy combat may give the GW to your prey (since you're basically giving him his first VP by spending what you need to stop him afterwar) * people can still cross rescue, because table discussion is not alway in your favor. * it's easier to table talk to make the table static (advantaging the MMPA player) than to explain that someone need to die. * heavy combat tend to be more prone to hand jam, ousting problem, and/or defence problem by the way combat work. And then, when you have rushed Nana out of existance, you hope that someone have a rampage for the Parthenon. It's not independantly the existance of majesty, the fact that the long term plan of MMPA deck is extremely strong, or the others (somewhat variable) strengths of decks with MMPA that is overwhelming. It's the accumulation. Yes, grapple help for one problem. So what ? If Nana or Girls were losing the instant someone played red card, they would not succeed. Against MMPA, you'd better be its predator and hope your predator is not too aggressive.

Let's debunk some stuff. Final is certainly reachable. It will not remove the fact that : * cross-rush is very costly (you need torn + disarm + grapple / maneuver... at least) - Every deck need ressources, nothing new here, why the need to state the obvious ? You could take in account that a MMPA deck might have his hand clogged with master cards when he gets rushed, thus decreasing the chances he escapes combat unharmed. * you have other thing to rush (like your predator) - Still nothing new here, captain. Even if the MMPA deck is my grandprey, i don't want him to be well isntalled with tons of pool and minions out when I finally reach him. Hence the premptive rush if my prey get weakened. V:tes is all about negociations. If people prefer to negociate with the MMPA deck, then good for them : it's the same situation when someone makes a deal with a legacy of pander deck thinking they can maybe not outsmart the mechanics of the deck, but the player himself. * the reduced ousting capability that come with heavy combat may give the GW to your prey (since you're basically giving him his first VP by spending what you need to stop him afterwar) - Reducing ousting capability you say ? Please tell me about the ousting capability of a warghoul deck when your prey plays ahrimane ... About the ousting capability of weenie dementation when your prey plays an edward vignes 15 deflections deck.... The reduced ousting capability you are talking about is based on nothing but pure speculation, because in this game it is and will always be situational, providing the decks are optimal and the players know what they are doing. You say that playing combat can give the GW to your prey ? I'd simply reply you don't know how to play combat, my friend. And for the risk of giving someone else a VP : It's the same for all the decks. Evryone of them. Miscalculate something, underestimate your predator, and you give him your own VP. New information you're giving here ? I think not. * people can still cross rescue, because table discussion is not alway in your favor. - Talking about Breaking news... You can still threaten them with a rush, or better : rush them right away by just talking about rescuing. Or you can also play cards like Amaranth or decapitate that resolve the problem. Or you can diablerize and sacrifice a weenie for unvaluable turns of tranquility. Remember this mantra from Paul M Johnson : My minions serve me, I do not serve them. Losing Jimmy for diablerizing Anson or Nana ? It's a nice tradeoff if you want my opinion. Don't be conservative with your ressources : that's what the MMPA deck wants. * it's easier to table talk to make the table static (advantaging the MMPA player) than to explain that someone need to die. - With players being conservative and shy ? Of course. Rely on bold players. Talk with them. They don't want the game to end on a frickin time limit. They want to play the game, not sit on cards. simple anecdote, I've witnessed during a game a player with 2 no secrets on his magajis (plus raven spies), not attempting to block his predator's decisive actions. He said "but if he plays an elder intervention, I lose a no secret". Guess what : If you suspect him to have elder intervention in hand, make him play it. Else it stays in his hand, and you will never block him -remember me, what is the exact purpose for you playing no secrets ? blocking, right. So by having a single card, or bluffing he has one, he shuts down your game nicely. Try, make him play the card, and at worst you'll cycle into another no secrets. that's a typical example of conservative play. * heavy combat tend to be more prone to hand jam, ousting problem, and/or defence problem by the way combat work. - Almost every deck is prone to handjam, come on... Else why would people stuff their non combat decks with dreams of the sphinx ? There are ways to go around this, and you know it. As for combat decks having ousting problems, I'd like to evoke the existence of Fame, Tension, Dragonbound, Carver meat packing and storage, and if your combat has titled guys in it, Anathema, Perpetual care (Yes, I play this card and it's wonderful), or even Reckless agitation. Nothing prevents any player to build a rush deck with alternate ways to victory except lack of imagination. Now, stop the chitchat and go build a combat deck that wins. Don't thank me, I'm giving advices for betterment of the game B-) Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Ohlmann wrote: > * you have other thing to rush (like your predator) > One of the really nice things about Eurobrujah is that you have a bit more flexibility here because Second Tradition is great. You can rush whoever you want in your own turn, and still stand a good chance at punching one of your predator's vamps with Second. Obviously, it depends on what you're facing - a weenie hell predator will force you to play differently - but you have way better options than many combat-y decks in this situation.

> Reyda wrote: > - Almost every deck is prone to handjam, come on... > The fact that all deck can hand jam does not mean that combat deck jam harder. Maybe because they need 3+ cards for the base action (rush + combat chain) instead of 1-2 like most other. The others points have the same non-response feel. Your basic response to every point is "other deck can have more or less the same problem". It's still a problem and usually worse for combat than any other deck. News flash : when you need to get (and dig for) a 4 card combo to stop somebody crosstable, it is a lot costlier than deflecting to somebody cross table, or rescue someone cross table, or something. (as a side note, a lot of the strength of euro brujah are in anson + gun, so you'd better capitalize on the superiority of IG against Psyche or be quicker)

Your answer is disappointing. "The fact that all deck can hand jam does not mean that combat deck jam harder. " Thank you captain. This sentence is so devoid of information, I just forgot I read it. Stating the obvious is not, I repeat, is not giving an interesting view on the game. "The others points have the same non-response feel." Well, reading is an interesting skill to have and use at the proper time. Like when reading a half page answer to your part-obvious, part-fallacious statements. You can't rally people to your opinions using prehistoric old rethoric. " nice weather is'nt it ? We can agree it's a beautiful day -and by the way, MMPA is very strong against combat". No my friend, it's not because we implicitely agree that handjam occurs, that we are going to nod to the second idea you are trying to convey. Of course, if we were cavemen, there would be no question. And for the news flash, tell me, an efficient bleed deck plays only one card per action ? Because no one ever blocks at your tables ? No one ever deflects ? Most of the time it's (bleed card) + (stealth card) + (eventually more stealth) + (modifier to the bleed). Which also makes 3-4 cards. And you are always talking about cross table. You know, when I play combat, I want my GW too. I will not automatically rush cross table to please you. this conversation is going nowhere : You said that combat is weak against MMPA. I exposed my hints which lead to other conclusion. You are just too obtuse to see / read them. Ok, so keep on complaining. I'll keep on playin' the game. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> KevinM wrote: > Then why not play more Sudden Reversal? Wreck the decks you don't like! Take revenge on them! Destroy any chances they have of getting a VP! > > Ohlmann wrote: > I love how you try to make believe it would work. Using 100% of your master phase to counter 50% or 33% of their is not exactly enough. > new card, 'sudden reversal/wash' Triffle. problem solved UDHR18/19/27