I find it supremely annoying when a game is randomly decided one way or another through having two decks with a superstar randomly contesting said vampire. I mean, it's fun to see two Anson decks cross-table from one another but when it's two Hazimels the whole game leaves a sour taste (even if I'm not the one playing a Hazimel).
From a fluff perspective it of course makes perfect sense, but other than that I can't really see a justification for the mechanic.
Anyone think differently?
> Lemminkäinen wrote:
> I find it supremely annoying when a game is randomly decided one way or another through having two decks with a superstar randomly contesting said vampire. I mean, it's fun to see two Anson decks cross-table from one another but when it's two Hazimels the whole game leaves a sour taste (even if I'm not the one playing a Hazimel).
>
> From a fluff perspective it of course makes perfect sense, but other than that I can't really see a justification for the mechanic.
>
> Anyone think differently?
>
I think the contesting part is what saves us from having 5 Una players at each table, with the 1st one to play being the winner (and THAT is randomness).
> Pendargon wrote:
> No. Contesting is important and vital part of the game. It stops people playing Ansons all the time
>
Does it? Does someone really decide not to use an Anson deck because they are afraid of him getting contested?
Also note that having a balancing mechanic that works over multiple games by making some of them extremely difficult as opposed to making all the games balanced is kinda dubious, IMO.
> Lemminkäinen wrote:
> Does it? Does someone really decide not to use an Anson deck because they are afraid of him getting contested?
>
In my experience, yes, and it work for other vampires too. I don't see compelling reason to remove contesting, which is a really cool way to incite diverse decks and create very special situation. Yes, you Anson deck will once in a while have to rely on the rest of the crypt. It's good, expected, and part of the game.
Also, it nerf superstar deck. It's the logical extension of the outcry against Pentex Subversion to try to remove contesting. I understand why people want that, but they should find other responses to this problem instead of making superstar even more attracting.
I agree that contesting vampires between players doesn't make much sense. For me it is hard to take Vtes tournament and meta seriously because the game could be decided just because somebody is playing same vampires as you do.
> Surreal wrote:
> because the game could be decided just because somebody is playing same vampires as you do.
>
Which is very different from being decided by which one start, as would be with turbo deck
More seriously, there is more than enough vampire to actually avoid the most played one if you believe it will be too risky for that. And in a lot of deck, one vampire contesting is a random disavantadge but not the end of the world. Like is bad seating for your archetype, drawing villein + giant blood, etc etc ...
> Surreal wrote:
> For me it is hard to take Vtes tournament and meta seriously because the game could be decided just because somebody is playing same vampires as you do.
>
?
The meta is precisely what other people play. If you don't take it into account, you might end up involuntarily contesting vampires.
If you take it into account, you might en up voluntarily contesting vampires - I remember Kamel Senni had a copy of Beast in his Palla Grande, some time ago, in an EC. At that moment, Beast was popular.
> Lemminkäinen wrote:
> Does it? Does someone really decide not to use an Anson deck because they are afraid of him getting contested?
>
No. But I don't play Nana because of the danger of contestment.
Baron of Frankfurt
"Superstar" decks are fairly strong. Well-built Superstar decks are typically stronger than a non-Superstar deck.
Given that belief, I wouldn't want to remove one of the very mild defenses against those decks when it by definition affects non-Superstar decks very little.
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
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > Surreal wrote:
> > For me it is hard to take Vtes tournament and meta seriously because the game could be decided just because somebody is playing same vampires as you do.
> >
> ?
>
> The meta is precisely what other people play. If you don't take it into account, you might end up involuntarily contesting vampires.
> If you take it into account, you might en up voluntarily contesting vampires - I remember Kamel Senni had a copy of Beast in his Palla Grande, some time ago, in an EC. At that moment, Beast was popular.
>
For me contesting is way too rare to plan your crypt on (like putting 1x Beast in the crypt, players don't really do this at all). I can't see contesting a method of strategy or something which helps metagame planning. I see it only a disadvantage which sometimes randomly ruins some tables. Contesting is too rare to really plan/meta your deck but way too big thing when it sometimes happens. I just can't see the benefit.
> Lemminkäinen wrote:
>
> > Pendargon wrote:
> > No. Contesting is important and vital part of the game. It stops people playing Ansons all the time
> >
> Does it? Does someone really decide not to use an Anson deck because they are afraid of him getting contested?
>
> Also note that having a balancing mechanic that works over multiple games by making some of them extremely difficult as opposed to making all the games balanced is kinda dubious, IMO.
>
Oh yeah. I'd never come to any tournament with Anson or Cybele, just 'cause there's a high chance I'll contest. I know that a friend of mine plays G2 Kiasyd in tournaments mainly because Arcadian gets contested that much.
Contesting is a vital, important and highly interesting part of the game, and it's unique and promotes variety. I'd never remove it.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
I have seen one or two long threads on this subject in the recent past.
I agree with the OP's assertion that contesting is not a good game feature. At least, I agree that contesting vampires is not a good game feature. The contesting of vampires creates a wild card element that I do not consider to be a reasonable parameter to have to consider in deck building. Vampires are too basic to game play and deckbuilding and too expensive to have them randomly lost to contestation.
Contestation hurts both superstar and non-superstar decks. At NAC, day 1, game 3, my prey contested my Agrippina. He could afford the contest, and I couldn't. My deck needed four minions to function well, but my next choice was Normal, who would also have been contested. I lost 4+ pool to the random contest and loads of actions. I did not experience contestation again at the NAC.
And to say that superstar decks are so good that contestation is an appropriate balance is a real stretch. Pentex Subversion is an effective counter to superstar decks because everyone can play Pentex Subversion. The possibility that another deck might be playing Nana Buruku is not an effective counter to a Nana Buruku superstar deck.
That said, uniqueness is a fundamental concept of the game. The internal logic of the game system requires that a unique minion cannot be in physical combat with itself. I agree with that premise. Contestation is not going away.
Although it's been discussed ad nauseum and will not change because of the community's inherent conservatism, it seems as though the mechanism of contestation might be revisited.
> AaronC wrote:
> And to say that superstar decks are so good that contestation is an appropriate balance is a real stretch. Pentex Subversion is an effective counter to superstar decks because everyone can play Pentex Subversion. The possibility that another deck might be playing Nana Buruku is not an effective counter to a Nana Buruku superstar deck.
>
If my post were letting believe that, I should correct myself.
The anti-contest movement is a natural extension of the general pro-star deck movement. Vampire contest is something that can lead your 1-vampire mechanism to grip, and because it's partly random people are naturally inclined to say that it is bad and should be removed (ignoring the fact that there is a lot of way more important source of randomness in VtES !).
that does not mean that contest are the only, or the most important, balance for the newer big cap power* . It's one of the element of this. If you play superstar deck, you have a very weak link called your superstar, which can be torporised, pentexed, or contested. Your deck building ability should deal with it or choose another mechanism rather than trying to make superstar without any default.
Also, saying that deck that sport multiple vampires are hit just as hard seem a big stretch. It's like pentex in this regard : it can hit any deck hard, but superstar deck are hit way harder than other deck.
* because as a general trend, gr4-5-6 big cap tend in average to be better star than older group. I am not trying to deny Anson or Arika power, but admit that with only gr1-2 vampire you will have far less superstar potential vampire than with newer group.
My personal choice for a change is this:
When a player influences a vampire that is already in play (not meaning his own), the copy that is already in play is "banished" - sent face down to the uncontrolled region with any cards and counters still attached.
This allows scenarios that are more dynamic (and perhaps fairer) than the current contestation mechanic:
- The player with the first copy of the vampire could retrieve the blood counters from his "contested" vampire using transfers. A player in a weaker position could at least recuperate his investment to try for another vampire.
- The two players could trade control of the vampire in question back and forth. In this case they could at least react with the "contested" vampire until the other player's influence phase. The cost of this "contest" would be different than that of the current rules. The vampire in question would have to constantly be influenced to full capacity, and a game of attrition would ensue. This dynamic would be interesting since it would involve finding ways to remove blood from an opponent's vampire so that it is harder and harder for him to "contest" it by influencing it out fully, or indeed, waiting for the player to remove the blood himself.
I've never seen Lutz contested. I've seen him played a lot (heck - I've played him a lot) yet I've never seen him contested. Same goes for a lot of powerful vampires. Actually, during the hundreds of games I've played, I've seen someone important like Arcadian, Nana, or Anson contested maybe twice each. Yet I've seen Hazimel, Yseult, and innumerable other vampires who definitely don't need the "balance" of contesting getting contested and this deciding tables.
I don't see how having two copies of a unique minion in combat would break the system other than it being silly but then again so is Rico Loco giving bombs to Ambrosius the Ferryman who Bum's rushes people in a Helicopter.
That said, I very much like the Banishment idea and I can see the argument for changing the vampire contesting mechanic being probably better than outright removal.
Another possibility would be to allow the contester to change the vampire into someone else in his crypt whilst retaining the counters on it. That would still keep the balancing effect over superstar decks (even though I disagree that the balancing is real or that it even answers a real need) but allows for random contesting to be fixed with some inconvenience.
There are a few decisions people are merging above.
Deck Building
Deck Selection
In-Game Decisions
For Deck Building, choose any damned vampires you want. You can choose the most ideal crypt based on your chosen strategy. I expect you to do this within the limitation of your available card collection.
For Deck Selection, choosing to use the "Flavour of the Month" deck will probably backfire. If everyone is running around with Una-matic, Cybelotrons, Girls Will XYZ, AAA or Tariq Eats the World in your local games... can I suggest you choose something else that is competitive? This is the metagame decision. Around my local playgroup I know I should not choose G2-3 !Tor for most tournaments, since there are at least two people I know who have strong decks they'd be keen to choose. I'd also avoid G3-4 Lasombra, since myself and another player have some fairly strong Lasombra w/ani S&B decks based on that group. Ironically, AAA would be a great choice since there is really only one player who uses that deck. It'd also be worth choosing a StickMan or a Kiasyd Powerbleed or even a Girls Will XYZ around Sydney since those decks are rarely seen. But I'm not going to use a Girls Will XYZ if I was going to play in Europe any time soon... just too common (plus I will suspect that people will have started to develop moderate counters to Girls Will XYZ into many decks).
In-Game Decisions are easy. See the minion that is influenced out first, or if a tell-tale card is discarded (e.g. a Clan Card or a card which rarely sees play without minion X) then ask the question "Are you playing with vamp XYZ?" or "I'm planning to influence vamp XYZ, just so we don't contest".
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
As a side note, vampire contest may not be the worse kind of contest for deck building.
Replacing a vampire by somebody with the same kind of ability, either directly or via some card, is usually easy enough, except maybe for Una, Aksynia, and the malkavien that give intercept. On the other hand, finding a replacement for Talbot, Enkil Cog, or Gem of Etrius is very hard or flat out impossible. Unique equipment that give unique ability are pretty commonplace ; it's even why they are unique on the first place.
So,if people are somehow convinced that vampire contesting hurt metagame, then equipement contesting is arguably the same or worse.
(it does not change my opinion that contesting is useful. But if it is changed, better go all the way)
> Ohlmann wrote:
> As a side note, vampire contest may not be the worse kind of contest for deck building.
>
> Replacing a vampire by somebody with the same kind of ability, either directly or via some card, is usually easy enough, except maybe for Una, Aksynia, and the malkavien that give intercept. On the other hand, finding a replacement for Talbot, Enkil Cog, or Gem of Etrius is very hard or flat out impossible. Unique equipment that give unique ability are pretty commonplace ; it's even why they are unique on the first place.
>
> So,if people are somehow convinced that vampire contesting hurt metagame, then equipement contesting is arguably the same or worse.
>
> (it does not change my opinion that contesting is useful. But if it is changed, better go all the way)
>
Unique equipment contesting is easier to solve in that you can often try to intercept the equip action or try to deal with the vampire with the equipment. With vampires the contest cannot be interrupted (well, other than something extremely convoluted) and it is often the result of two or even three turns worth of pool investment so usually higher stakes (though admittedly contesting Soul Gem is usually just as high or even higher stakes).
> Lemminkäinen wrote:
> From a fluff perspective it of course makes perfect sense, but other than that I can't really see a justification for the mechanic.
>
> Anyone think differently?
>
LSJ and others proposed a number of variations as discussion topics, which would generally - to my mind - be more involving and allow for strategic choices.
For example, things were suggested such as:
- when yielding a contested vampire[0], its current blood total goes to your pool
- when yielding a contested vampire, its current blood total goes to a card in your uncontrolled region (and/or your pool)
- when a vampire is contested, when you burn a pool to carry on the contest, your copy of the vampire becomes temporarily controlled for the rest of your turn, and goes back into contest land at the end of your turn
- you can reveal a vampire that you would contest if you brought it out, get rid of it, and move the stuff over to another uncontrolled vampire
And so on. They seem to preserve the intention of making vampires somewhat slippery to control, without necessarily killing you because you lose the "contest lottery". Given that most contests happen, in my experience, with the more popular, more optimized vampires, it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a small disincentive to playing Arika or Lutz and playing another vampire instead. Star-vampire-only decks may still be screwed, of course.
[0] I'm saying vampire, but it could apply to Imbued. Generally, people weren't massively in favour of (or massively against) it applying to library cards, because they typically take a very different role in a deck. Additionally, where pool is involved, it's a lot less interesting with a library card. But for some of the suggestions, it might be possible to apply them equally to library cards in a fruitful fashion, if desired.
> AaronC wrote:
> When a player influences a vampire that is already in play (not meaning his own), the copy that is already in play is "banished" - sent face down to the uncontrolled region with any cards and counters still attached.
>
That is very interesting. It is more or less equivalent to the other ideas summarized by James but it integrates more naturally with the current system since we already have effects that send vampires back to the uncontrolled region.
Removing the attrition component might be a problem though: what stops players from contesting forever? Maybe the controller of the first vampire should burn a pool when his vampire goes back to the uncontrolled region.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> Maybe the controller of the first vampire should burn a pool when his vampire goes back to the uncontrolled region.
>
If I read correctly your suggestion, you have actually an advantage to start a contest since you would be the first one to make the other burn a pool.
Also, the two interlocked players are still at a serious disavantadge. AMong the suggestion, the one about putting the blood on another vampire when yielding to to avoid that, since while it's still pretty costly you still have a vampire out.
(of course, it have the problem that it help a lot more "normal" deck than star deck, because star usually don't have two star in the crypt. But it still can be circumvated with deck construction)
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > AaronC wrote:
> > When a player influences a vampire that is already in play (not meaning his own), the copy that is already in play is "banished" - sent face down to the uncontrolled region with any cards and counters still attached.
> >
> That is very interesting. It is more or less equivalent to the other ideas summarized by James but it integrates more naturally with the current system since we already have effects that send vampires back to the uncontrolled region.
>
Sort of. The more significant problem here is that if you do decide to 'give up' and not bring that vampire back out, the methods for shifting the pool to another vampire are generally very slow. The reason why transferring back was added to the game was to deal with contestation - by giving players a way out once they saw someone else had brought out Democritus - and the reason why LSJ was openly exploring alternatives was because of the perception that it just wasn't working. (This is in part because it appears current players are more focused on fewer vampires, while Jyhad playtesters may have had more varied crypts - but even allowing for that, getting to 10 pool on Arika and changing your mind when someone else brings her out is just really, really horribly slow.)
Tinkering with the rules on use of transfers is tricky, because no-one really wants to make superior Govern an even more efficient form of bloat. Then you start getting into slightly messy "Well, you can use 1 transfer to pull back from a minion who was contested, but 2..." etc. Which might be worthwhile, but is a little annoying.
> Removing the attrition component might be a problem though: what stops players from contesting forever? Maybe the controller of the first vampire should burn a pool when his vampire goes back to the uncontrolled region.
>
burn a pool, drain off during influence at 1 transfer per blood [period]
> My personal choice for a change is this:
>
> When a player influences a vampire that is already in play (not meaning his own), the copy that is already in play is "banished" - sent face down to the uncontrolled region with any cards and counters still attached.
>
> This allows scenarios that are more dynamic (and perhaps fairer) than the current contestation mechanic:
>
> - The player with the first copy of the vampire could retrieve the blood counters from his "contested" vampire using transfers. A player in a weaker position could at least recuperate his investment to try for another vampire.
>
> - The two players could trade control of the vampire in question back and forth. In this case they could at least react with the "contested" vampire until the other player's influence phase. The cost of this "contest" would be different than that of the current rules. The vampire in question would have to constantly be influenced to full capacity, and a game of attrition would ensue. This dynamic would be interesting since it would involve finding ways to remove blood from an opponent's vampire so that it is harder and harder for him to "contest" it by influencing it out fully, or indeed, waiting for the player to remove the blood himself.
>
if you and someone contest a unique, and one of you attempt to bring a third copy of it into play, this third copy decides the control.
perhaps simply 1 pool and 4 transfers, much like merging. INFLUENCE/CONTROL
the player with 2 cards keeps the contested card, the other player is forced to yield, and the winning player's duplicate copy is burned (or to put it another way, as the third card comes into play, both previously contested cards are both burned)
1 blood may be moved from a contested vampire to your pool, per transfer, instead of the usual 1blood per 2 transfers.
pay the cost of contestation from the vampire, not pool
cost of other uniques would be paid from pool
This perhaps greatly improves contest mechanic
there are many ways to improve contestation, are they all good?
> SJ and others proposed a number of variations as discussion topics, which would generally - to my mind - be more involving and allow for strategic choices.
>
> For example, things were suggested such as:
>
> - when yielding a contested vampire[0], its current blood total goes to your pool
> - when yielding a contested vampire, its current blood total goes to a card in your uncontrolled region (and/or your pool)
> - when a vampire is contested, when you burn a pool to carry on the contest, your copy of the vampire becomes temporarily controlled for the rest of your turn, and goes back into contest land at the end of your turn
> - you can reveal a vampire that you would contest if you brought it out, get rid of it, and move the stuff over to another uncontrolled vampire
>
> And so on. They seem to preserve the intention of making vampires somewhat slippery to control, without necessarily killing you because you lose the "contest lottery".
>
UDHR18/19/27
Don't play Anson at tournament. This is like saying someone else played Giant's Blood and you just happen to draw one. However, I do think there should be addition to just the two players contesting, that way speeds up the game for everyone, and everyone will hate others contesting, and either play decks with not-so-popular vamps or destroy the table fast, which either way, works for me for regular tournaments.
Get busy living or get busy dying
----Andy Dufresne