A Change to Deflection: Case Study

It's a simple question: How would the environment change if Deflection was changed to have a cost of X, where X is the current amount of the bleed? e.g. Deflection Reaction Dominate X blood [dom] Only usable when you are being bled, after blocks are declined. Tap this reacting vampire and pay X where X is the amount of the bleed. Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting minion. The acting minion is now bleeding that Methuselah. [DOM] As above, but do not tap this vampire. 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

Assorted thoughts: 1. People would bounce just as much. 2. Bleed modifiers would handjam people, as they wouldn't get to play them. 3. AUS / Disciplineless bounce would see more play (especially AUS) 4. KS would be stronger, because it would be used to overwhelm DOM bounce. 5. DOM decks would include more blood gain, to offset the additional cost. Here we go again.... Dave Knowles (Advanced) Sabbat Bishop of Manchester

> KevinM wrote: > It's a simple question: How would the environment change if Deflection was changed to have a cost of X, where X is the current amount of the bleed? > e.g. > > Deflection > Reaction > Dominate > X blood > [dom] Only usable when you are being bled, after blocks are declined. Tap this reacting vampire and pay X where X is the amount of the bleed. Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting minion. The acting minion is now bleeding that Methuselah. > [DOM] As above, but do not tap this vampire. > Sounds like the CE Awe - you're paying 2X. My opinion is that it would be too expensive. A cardless card that deflects bleeds is already available: Lost in Translation. Let's compare: Usually, you're waiting for the lunge to play your KJMDeflection, so you wouln't use it on a bleed for 1 (except in some weird situations involving Helena adv). So, KJMDeflection would always cost at least 2. Basic KJMDeflectio vs Lost in Translation: dom -- younger, same cost, you tap in each situation. I'd say it's up to you. Some decks don't run dom, so Lost in Translation might be a more popular choice. Then, on a Govern bleed: KJMDeflection costs an extra blood, and you still tap. I think it starts to be worse right here. Now, sup' KJMDeflection, on a bleed for 2: DOM -- youger, but tap. DOM is better, since you can play a second one after that. Now on a bleed for 3: DOM costs 1 extra blood, LiT taps. Looks like the current choice between Deflection and Redirection. I'd say it's a tie. Deflection is good because it isn't that expensive, KJMDeflection is too expensive starting at +2bleed. Now, the question is : Is LiT used? Answer is not that often (some "Girls" deck might use it, but it's definitely not a card you see at every table). But then the idea of increasing the cost to make it less playable is what Narrow Minds does. I think that, if you increase the cost of Deflection (and Deflection only) - AUS is going to get played a lot (and Tel Misd would be the next one you'd change) - Redirection would get played a bit more But most importantly, there would be a lot more decks that bleed for 3 (GtU with THA/OBF/OBT/PRO), KS DEM/obf). I'd like to tell a story that happened to me at the LCQ in Montreal's NAC: My prey played Parity Shift, tried to steal 5 from her prey, who played two Poison Pills. The vote passed. That is: my prey lost 5 pool, my grand prey lost 5 pool. Guess who won. In your proposition, you're having player X and her prey lose X blood/pool when X's predator is bleeding. Do you really think this will increase X's chances to get the GW? I don't I think it's too expensive. Actually, I think I wouldn't even put the card in a deck.

> KevinM wrote: > It's a simple question: How would the environment change if Deflection was changed to have a cost of X, where X is the current amount of the bleed? > You mean making the card costs 6 blood when you're bled by a DOM deck or 4 blood when bled by a DEM deck? Oh, you can still deflect a bleed for 1 for 1 blood ... It would wallpaperize it, so I guess people will go the Redirection way, meaning more vampires will superior dominate, and more bleed stealth decks. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Maybe having it cost the cost of the action (including action modifiers) is a way to go. Govern, Conditioning: 2 blood. Kindred Spirits, Eyes of Chaos: 0 blood. Fleetness, Alacrity, Conditioning: 4 blood

Why change anything to Deflection? Telepathic Misdirection is more polyvalent and Aksinya much harder to counter. The only problem is that the same discipline has Govern, Deflection and Conditioning.

> Pascal wrote: > Maybe having it cost the cost of the action (including action modifiers) is a way to go. > To go where? The question was: what would it change to the game environment? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Shockwave wrote: > Assorted thoughts: > 1. People would bounce just as much. > 2. Bleed modifiers would handjam people, as they wouldn't get to play them. > 3. AUS / Disciplineless bounce would see more play (especially AUS) > 4. KS would be stronger, because it would be used to overwhelm DOM bounce. > 5. DOM decks would include more blood gain, to offset the additional cost. > The acting (bleeding) minion can play action modifiers before askiong for blocks, you know. You've never played a Govern, redrew, played a Conditioning, redrew, and announced, "Bleed for 6, block"? I'm sad for you. Interestingly, none of those things that you mentioned seem to bother 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

#3 and #4 would bother me a lot, so there you go. And in general, you're still going to want to drop your modifier afterward, even knowing you might increase the cost of Deflection. It's just not worth accidentally ousting your grandprey irresponsibly, or depleting his blood bouncing it on again. Here we go again.... Dave Knowles (Advanced) Sabbat Bishop of Manchester

> KevinM wrote: > > > Shockwave wrote: > > Assorted thoughts: > > 1. People would bounce just as much. > > > Interestingly, none of those things that you mentioned seem to bother me. > What was the point in changing Deflection?

> Pascal wrote: > Sounds like the CE Awe - you're paying 2X. > Did I not parse it correctly? Well, I think everyone knows what I meant to say, so I'll leave it for the cardsmiths to reword correctly for me. > Pascal wrote: > Usually, you're waiting for the lunge to play your KJMDeflection, so you wouldn't use it on a bleed for 1 (except in some weird situations involving Helena adv). > I'd use it all the time when it got down to 3-player, if I thought that my prey could or would block. That, by itself, seems quite interesting. > Pascal wrote: > I think that, if you increase the cost of Deflection (and Deflection only) > - AUS is going to get played a lot (and Tel Misd would be the next one you'd change) > Deflection is the "problem" card, not TM. TM is absolutely, stunningly balanced, and doesn't need to be touched. Ever. > Pascal wrote: > - Redirection would get played a bit more > But most importantly, there would be a lot more decks that bleed for 3 (GtU with THA/OBF/OBT/PRO), KS DEM/obf). > There are already, essentially, an infinite number of decks at any tournament that "bleed for 3". I see at least one on every single table. So, nothing changed. > Pascal wrote: > In your proposition, you're having player X and her prey lose X blood/pool when X's predator is bleeding. Do you really think this will increase X's chances to get the GW? I don't. I think it's too expensive. Actually, I think I wouldn't even put the card in a deck. > So, you're saying that changing Deflection to have a cost of X blood, where X is the bleed amount, is too expensive? Ok. 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: > Deflection is the "problem" card, not TM. TM is absolutely, stunningly balanced, and doesn't need to be touched. Ever. > Maybe you should first define the problem so that people know what you are trying to do.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Why change anything to Deflection? > Because that was the question I asked. If you don't want to or can't answer the question, that's fine. 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

> Non-existant user wrote: > Maybe you should first define the problem so that people know what you are trying to do. > I never said there was a problem. You said that. 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: > What was the point in changing Deflection? > Sigh. It was a thought-experiment. One which people are incredibly reticent to joyfully partake in, I see. 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: > > > Pascal wrote: > > What was the point in changing Deflection? > > > Sigh. It was a thought-experiment. One which people are incredibly reticent to joyfully partake in, I see. > OK, let me rephrase. Of all possible changes (this includes other cards), would this one have the biggest impact?

> Pascal wrote: > OK, let me rephrase. Of all possible changes (this includes other cards), would this one have the biggest impact? > Since I do not know all possible changes, I can't answer. Could you be more specific? 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

Maybe if the cost of deflection was X-1.... That would be more interesting. I don't think I want to see any change at this point, though. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

Kevin's OP was asking about a theoretical change to the game environment. As to why, Boris the Blade summed it up perfectly: > Non-existant user wrote: > The only problem is that the same discipline has Govern, Deflection and Conditioning. > Deflection is a problem because the same 3-cap dom weenie can bleed for 5, then wake and bounce a bleed for 5. How would the environment change if Dominate bounce could never be used on an older vampire, even at DOM? (besides preserving the RPG parameters of the discipline?)

In it's current form I think it could promote a lot of Blood-Denial + Mid-bleed Combinations... Personally I think Deflection is a card that should see revision, but I would prefer to punish the play of multiple Deflections in a row rather than each individual Deflection. "Cost: 1 Burn X where X is the number of Deflections you have played since your last untap phase. [same text as usual]" (To help get around the usual Tremere Ankara Citadel shennanigans.) Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

let's go back to Jyhad version and make it cost a pool

Still worth it to deflect those small bleeds sometimes.... Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

X = bleed amount would be way too expensive. Making the superior cost an additional blood might be appropriate.

Personally, I think Deflection is *mostly* balanced, due to the way it becomes completely useless once you get into the two-player phase of the game. That being said, it's still superior to the alternatives in almost all other ways. I don't like the idea of making it cost additional pool. What makes it so amazing is not the lack of age restriction - it's that t doesn't tap the minion at superior, and essentially gives a vampire multiple extra actions directed at your prey while protecting your own pool. I think it could be unchanged, but if it were to be changed, I prefer the "On the Qui Vive" solution. Add the following text to Deflection, problem solved: "A vampire may play only one Deflection between his or her untap phases." That way, it'd still get played (and it should get played!) but people would also have to consider combining it with alternatives like Redirection as well.

It's all those facts: 1) Usable by any capacity vampire. 2) Repeatably usable by any vampire with and blood. 3) Only redundant in a 2-player environment. There are 20 vampires with and 5cap or less and that dramatically jumps to 80 vampires 7cap or less. Having it so incredibly easy to access is what makes Deflection so powerful. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418