combat rebalancing

Continuing stream of ideas about changes of the game without reboot. How to make combat more fun for everybody. 1. Ban immortal grapple and psyhe. 2. Make dodge work against environmental damage or ban carrion crows 3. Make SCE work "at the same time as other strikes" - meaning opponents strike will be dealt and just after it the combat will end. 4. Make first strike work before other strikes, even dodge 5. Make aggravated damage be dealt in full (so 2agg means in torpor without 2! Blood) 6. Remove diablery from list of basic actions(diablery cards, such as amaranthe, will still work) 7. 4 transfers to put 1 blood on controlled vampire Result of all this, as I see it - all combat offence and defence strategies will be viable, on the other hand vampire in torpor will not be such a big problem. Also putting vampire of your prey in torpor will often "mean" 2 pool damage. Yea, and all of this will work without any serious card pool changes. NC Russia

"Fun" is highly relative. Your proposal doesn't seem fun to me. I have a couple of questions: 1/ why ban Immortal Grapple and Psyche! if you nerf down S:CE? 2/ why make agg damage deal the damage in full? this means you need 1 less damage to burn a vampire 3/ what is wrong with environmental damage? 4/ how do you know your proposal is balanced? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Round 2 > elotar wrote: > 1. Ban immortal grapple and psyhe. > 2. Make dodge work against environmental damage or ban carrion crows > 3. Make SCE work "at the same time as other strikes" - meaning after the first strike resolution phase, so the damage will be dealt. > 4. Make first strike work before other strikes, even dodge > 5. Make aggravated damage be dealt in full (so 2agg means in torpor without 2! Blood) > 6. Remove diablery from list of basic actions(diablery cards, such as amaranthe, will still work) > 7. 4 transfers to put 1 blood on controlled vampire > I see how point 1 and 3 can work, however that demands a range of new "first strike" cards because existing cards are wallpaper cards and S:CE will be too powerful. And I can guarantee you, it won't be long before we see "First Strike:Combat Ends" cards and then S:CE will reign supreme with no way to counter it. If no FS:CE cards are designed, I would even say First Strike is a better method of countering S:CE than Grapple or Psyche (Provided we see new First Strike cards). Point 2 makes Dodge a tad bit too good. Point 4 only makes sense with a range of new First Strike cards. Point 5, I totally agree. I think this is the part that requires the most explanation to new players; "How aggravated damage works". This interpretation is way more intuitive. Points 6 and 7, not sure why you offer up these points, diablerie is not really a problem imo. and the transfer idea is marginal at best. > elotar wrote: > Result of all this, as I see it - all combat offence and defence strategies will be viable, on the other hand vampire in torpor will not be such a big problem. Also putting vampire of your prey in torpor will often "mean" 2 pool damage. > Was your last sentence actually a point 8 rule idea? Your proposal does nothing at the end of the line. Players will still play complex combat decks with crappy ousting strategies. You just make S:CE and Dodge more powerful and combat as an alternative to stealth indeed crappier unless we see a range of new First Strike cards. If we do see a range of new First Strike cards, I will see you debating against those cards in the future as nothing really changes, nothing is solved. You have to a.) Abolish all combat and combat related cards or b.) give complex combat a viable ousting strategy that complements Dragonbound, Tension in the Ranks and Fame. Deep Song is a good example, not so much the added combat effect, but that it doubles as a +bleed cards. -1 Strength

> Ankha wrote: > 2/ why make agg damage deal the damage in full? this means you need 1 less damage to burn a vampire > Your absolutely right. Would it be too much if we dropped the burn rule from aggravated damage? Leaving only diablerie and cards like "Decapitate" and "Amaranth" as options to burn vampires? Putting vamps into torpor is nearly always good enough, burning them with a strike quickly leaves a player desperate and having a really crappy game. -1 Strength

Diablerie is, imo, much more frustrating than burn with agg - full 11 cap can be much easily aggropoked and diablerised to get a huge power swing. To burn you'll need few blood on vampire - so the power swing will be much less. NC Russia

> Ankha wrote: > 1/ why ban Immortal Grapple and Psyche! if you nerf down S:CE? > 2/ why make agg damage deal the damage in full? this means you need 1 less damage to burn a vampire > 3/ what is wrong with environmental damage? > 4/ how do you know your proposal is balanced? > 1) with nerfed SCE they are not needed, but they both are functioning outside of standard combat phases (bad) as well as nerfing other combat strategies (non hand strike close range for IG, presses to end for P) 2) 3) If dodges, SCE and most of prevents are not working against them than unchanged it will be too good. 4) combat is generally not so important to the game, so reasonable changes to it will not imbalance anything. Some archetypes will need to switch some cards for others, but generally it all will cancel each other. NC Russia

Reformulated part 3 3. Make SCE work "at the same time as other strikes" - meaning opponents strike will be dealt and just after it the combat will end. NC Russia

> GreyB wrote: > Round 2 > See reformulated 3. Was too drunk to gee clear at the first try So combat "matrix" will be those: First strike(FS) beats dodge(D) and SCE, but is easily prevented (P). Environmental damage (ED) beats everything but can be D D can be beaten by additional strikes(AS) and presses(P) AS and P are beaten by SCE But SCE are not so good against regular strikes. -2 pool appears because when you can move pool to torporised vampires(using transfers) you'll do it, instead of present whining about crosstable rescue or just sitting there doing nothing. NC Russia

I see no point in those changes except number 5 which is more intuitive than current rule for agro damage. Best thing we can do with first strike rules is to remove them. It's niche rules which bring only misunderstandings.

> alek wrote: > I see no point in those changes except number 5 which is more intuitive than current rule for agro damage. > Best thing we can do with first strike rules is to remove them. It's niche rules which bring only misunderstandings. > How to resolve aggravated damage and first strike may not be intuitive, but one can reasonably find out how they work from the rulebook. This is not the case for environmental damage. The term environmental damage has somehow entered the lexicon of the game, with myriad rulings that use "environmental damage" to refer to damage that is not from a strike. The term environmental damage does not exist in the rulebook or detailed play summary. Having rulings use a term that is not defined in the rulebook, I think, is a bigger issue than how intuitive first strike or aggravated damage are. It makes applying rulings a nightmare for casual players because they have nothing in the rulebook outlining what environmental damage actually is.

It sounds to me like the op wants his dom weenies discplineless dodges to be the end all answer to everything that the opponent might do.

Absolutely terrible. 1) and are pure combat disciplines. Removing their signature cards is not "rebalancing", it is nerfing them into oblivion. 2) Who cares? Do you really think you can have more dodges than I have Aid from Bats? 3) That completely wallpapers S:CE. If there was any point in planning further ahead than the first strike, then we would actually see some second round in play. The rest is debatable.

> alek wrote: > Best thing we can do with first strike rules is to remove them. It's niche rules which bring only misunderstandings. > First strike would be useful if the most common similar effect was actually using it: S:CE. Just make S:CE First Strike by default and remove one more special rule from the game. As a side effect, First Strike would allow one's strike to resolve against an opposing S:CE.

> Non-existant user wrote: > First Strike would allow one's strike to resolve against an opposing S:CE. > Sanity! — great idea. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

I think Strike: Combat ends would work better as "skip to the press step" instead of combat actually ending. This makes presses more useful. Psyche doesn't need to be banned or changed IMO. Right now it exists as a foil to S:CE and to make guns better. Immortal Grapple I am on the fence about. I don't think that it is necessary in order to make potence combat work once Strike: Combat Ends is nerfed or removed, which leaves hosing other people's combat and providing a press. I would rather see people playing other potence cards (i.e. Mighty Grapple, Slam, Undead Strength) than IG because it restricts interactions where the other cards promote it (press to end, maneuver away, dodge or prevent). Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

> Non-existant user wrote: > 1) and are pure combat disciplines. Removing their signature cards is not "rebalancing", it is nerfing them into oblivion. > 2) Who cares? Do you really think you can have more dodges than I have Aid from Bats? > 3) That completely wallpapers S:CE. If there was any point in planning further ahead than the first strike, then we would actually see some second round in play. > Your 1 and 3 contradict each other - if SCE will be nerfed (it's the goal, obviously - now they are too good) then "signature cards" will not be them anymore - they both are just glorified presses. 2) obviously press will "beat" dodge, that's the point. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > Non-existant user wrote: > > 1) and are pure combat disciplines. Removing their signature cards is not "rebalancing", it is nerfing them into oblivion. > > ... > > 3) That completely wallpapers S:CE. If there was any point in planning further ahead than the first strike, then we would actually see some second round in play. > > > Your 1 and 3 contradict each other - if SCE will be nerfed (it's the goal, obviously - now they are too good) then "signature cards" will not be them anymore - they both are just glorified presses. > Sort of. It makes additional strikes a lot worse, for things like cel/pot and Cel guns. Additional strikes are already quite a lot weaker than they were originally, due to extra damage having crept into many strategies and Target Head/Vitals being rather tasty. It does seem like another nerf to Celerity. Other questions: I was about to add cel/qui to the list (for things like Assamites blurring and finishing with a Taste of Death) and remembered Sanguine Entrapment. Removed too? What about Coordinate Attacks? If the issue is that ending combat so easily is a problem, what about Rotschreck? If an issue is that things in unusual timing phases are bad, then why is it not a better answer to just add those phases as standard timing phases? Or should we also go through and remove a lot of other cards? Taste of Vitae goes off in the same timing phase as Psyche! (end of round), so does that need to go too?

Thinking more about Elotar's S:CE suggestion... S:CE as it is now, can practically cancel 2-5 cards, in many respects a lot better than DI or a Sudden Reversal. This is why people play combat strategies with permanent cards like guns or 2 card combo's, otherwise you'll run out of cards before you even have a chance to oust. Lets say S:CE is just a round terminator leaving an option to press for another round as Elotar suggested and banning IG/Psyche. Boom, cancelled 2-5 cards in round 1 and boom, cancelled 2-5 cards in round 2. You'll run your predator/prey out of combat cards in no time... S:CE becomes more powerful, combat becomes a lot weaker. If any card(s) should be banned to make combat more interesting, it should actually be S:CE cards. Banning all S:CE cards would have a profound effect: 1.) Dodge will see a LOT more play. 2.) Additional Strikes will see a LOT more play. 3.) The Arboretum and Muriel will see a LOT more play. 4.) Damage prevention will see a LOT more play. I am NOT advocating a ban on S:CE, I am just painting a picture... The current combat mechanics are fine as is (a lot of cards wallpapered thanks to S:CE, but fine). Just add a little ousting power to combat oriented decks/clans/disciplines whatever. People like to play combat, people WILL play combat and you will keep seeing well crafted and fun combat decks that can't oust due to lack of space in their decks for ousting cards. It shouldn't matter if you die in 4-5 turns due to stealth bleed, votes or pure combat, all three options should be viable. Trying to rig combat mechanics in a manner that it becomes even less viable will have the opposite effect, MORE oustless combat because people WANT to play fun combat decks! -1 Strength

Apparently, nobody uses Hall of Mirror in Chimestry, Death Seeker in !Salubri and Evil Eye in Maleficia (not to mention Mind of the Wilds in ani/aus). Too bad, they counter S:CE very well too. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Apparently, nobody uses Hall of Mirror in Chimestry, Death Seeker in !Salubri and Evil Eye in Maleficia (not to mention Mind of the Wilds in ani/aus). > > Too bad, they counter S:CE very well too. > You forgot The Jones -1 Strength

Yeah cause that: - almost clan exclusive discipline - bloodline clan exclusive - daimoinon + cards - card that wasn't exactly in abundance at any point in time options have been tearing up the scene in the same sort of abundance as Majesty and Earth Meld for years! I'm can't think why people aren't really playing those cards Ankha. But the JONES! Everyone plays The Jones!! Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Yeah cause that: > - almost clan exclusive discipline > - bloodline clan exclusive > - daimoinon + cards > - card that wasn't exactly in abundance at any point in time > options have been tearing up the scene in the same sort of abundance as Majesty and Earth Meld for years! > > I'm can't think why people aren't really playing those cards Ankha. But the JONES! Everyone plays The Jones!! > Because maybe S:CE is not an issue? I personally find the following tradeof balanced: - S:CE cost you most of a time a blood (except for Earth Meld) and you don't do anything to the opposing minion - active combat costs cards, but you deal usually plenty more of damage. Damage is blood. Blood is pool you won't get back. There are two schools of combat: - either you go for the kill, trying to torporize / empty / burn the opposing minion in one combat. This means you must be able to handle any counters the opposing minion may present: S:CE of course, prevent, long range etc. - or you grind the vampires, meaning you play a few cards until the opponent can't evade anymore. Let's say S:CE is nerfed. What would it bring to the game? Would people start to play more combat? If so, would it be different from the two schools above? I don't think so, because decks need to be efficient anyway. You'd probably switch an Immortal Grapple for some Increased Strength for instance, or Psyche! for more Pursuit, but it would essentially be the same. People won't start playing crappy combat cards in Quietus because there's no more S:CE. As for talking about "abundance of Majesty", there are no more of them than decks with Presence, since S:CE is your only combat option in that discipline. Say you nerf S:CE, what would the Presence deck play against combat? Fake out? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > As for talking about "abundance of Majesty", there are no more of them than decks with Presence, since S:CE is your only combat option in that discipline. Say you nerf S:CE, what would the Presence deck play against combat? Fake out? > I for one was NOT advocating for a nerf to S:CE, just painted a picture And Elotar's suggestion was actually a boost to S:CE. Any discussion against IG/Psyche can easily turn around into a discussion against S:CE. It might just be that combat is fine the way it is... There's just a problem with ousting power when playing pure combat decks and people WILL play pure combat decks, it's an option, a fun and challenging one. However it does not measure up to stealth bleed or votes, it turns out to be only disruptive. Easily fixed though. Example Rush .1 Requires a vampire with capacity 6 or more. Enter combat with a minion or bleed at +1 bleed. The capacity restriction should make sure weenie combat doesn't get too powerful. +1 bleed isn't much, however card management wise it's huge, now you don't have to stack 8 computer hackings with your 8 rush cards. Example Rush .2 Requires a vampire with capacity 6 or more. Enter combat with a minion, if that minion is burned or sent to torpor in this combat, it's controller burns 2 pool. This example is equal to the previous one. It now takes 1 action to rush and burn pool, but the added effect is easily blocked. I'd say the first one is better when taking both predator and prey into account (you don't really want to burn pool from your predator). Example Rush .3 Requires a vampire with capacity 6 or more. Enter combat with a minion, if that minion is sent to torpor; put this card on that minion. While this minion is in torpor, it's controller burns 1 pool during the untap phase. To me this seems like a fun rush card, it stacks so you can actually build a deck around it. The rush cards above are not more efficient than bleed or vote cards, but add maybe enough ousting power to prevent non-ousting combat decks. It should not matter if you're bled/voted/bashed to death in 5 turns, all three options should be viable -1 Strength

I've been thinking of how, when and why V:tES could be modernized. After some thinking, I came to realize that V:tES should not be modernized - although many of the different phases can be clarified in the rules or cards can be phrased to be more easy to understand. V:tES works fine as it is, even if there are lots of "crappy" choices for cards (you don't need to use them). What I'd like to see is perhaps a new game, where you could use some of the old V:tES cards with new rules set. Specific V:tES cards allowed could be defined explicitly or by some other means (for example non-blood costing cards only). This game could be sort of a light-weight format from V:tES, which you can learn more easily. The most important thing in V:tES to me has always been the social aspect alongside with genius creativity of people in deck building. The social aspect needs to be maintained, and creativity enabled. In my opinion, these two things do not require complicated rules set. Or maybe complicated rules with different phases are truly what makes the social aspect and deck building shine. Back to topic: If combat in the V:tES game was to be changed, the whole combat rules set would require re-design. As a dedicated combat player I have always felt that there are too many poor choices for combat decks and only couple of viable ones. Maybe re-design would help here, but in the end lots of cards might be removed from card pool or would need re-wording. Messing with existing keywords is dangerous, especially if you remove some options or make some options work differently - how we can be sure if the result is as balanced as current combat system is? Every deck in the V:tES needs to trade off something to gain something. If you wan't to play a power bleed, you just can't afford may cards that do not support bleeding function. Instead, you try to overcome the library shortcomings by other means - usually with means that actually support the deck theme. Since goal of the game is to oust your prey, even good combat decks should trade off some combat in favor of direct pool damage. As an example, in your ordinary Ventrue law-firm deck you have cards that can be used to do pool damage and to gain pool. Usually a Ventrue law-firm has around four majesties. Then, a Ventrue grinder has perhaps twelve to fifteen combat cards. Three or four times that in the law firm. Both have good chances to win compared to each other - but when considering only combat, the grinder deck will best four Majesties since the grinder loses relatively less cards if the opponent plays majesty. Same goes other way around, if you play Torn Signpost, IG, Pursuit and Taste of Vitae, your opponent still has that majesty. Of course, in V:tES everything is more complicated than that. Sorry for the long post, but I needed to get it out. ---- Banging trashcans, breaking windows We'll wake you up tonight We like the good time, we scream and shout And that's what fun's about

My suggestion for SCE was not make them round enders - they will end combat all right just not instantly but after the resolution of the opponents strike. > Ankha wrote: > > There are two schools of combat: > - either you go for the kill, trying to torporize / empty / burn the opposing minion in one combat. This means you must be able to handle any counters the opposing minion may present: S:CE of course, prevent, long range etc. > - or you grind the vampires, meaning you play a few cards until the opponent can't evade anymore. > This is golden. After analizing the EC meta I've come to the conclusion that combat is quite fine, you just have to go with the second "school". People, who try to make "dedicated combat decks" must be discouraged, like people who try to make "dedicated hunt decks" ("6 minions with blood dolls hunting for 2 each with sabbat tech is so cool") - combat is an activity which doesn't win the game so it have to compliment real strategy, not be the main focus. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Combat is an activity which doesn't win the game so it have to compliment real strategy, not be the main focus. > Actually it can be the main focus. In most cases it just NEEDS some extra cards that would take care for ousting part: some bleed actions/ modifiers, permanent bleed bonuses, etc. It can even be the main and only focus of the deck in case of weenie combat, where number of minions take care of prey's pool quickly. Weenie DBR, potence weenie, weenie recruiting War Ghouls are probably best examples here (at least the ones I remember being very succesfull in tournaments).

> elotar wrote: > My suggestion for SCE was not make them round enders - they will end combat all right just not instantly but after the resolution of the opponents strike. > It would protect you from additional strikes (very rare, only Celerity use them) and from presses at the cost of 1 card that replaces your strike (so you don't even hit back). It would make S:CE extremely weak. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I was merely pointing out the the 'counters' you present, are in their nature relatively corner-case and unlikely to be considered in the majority of situations as a counter for S:CE. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I was merely pointing out the the 'counters' you present, are in their nature relatively corner-case and unlikely to be considered in the majority of situations as a counter for S:CE. > I don't consider Death Seeker nor Hall of Mirrors being cornercase. I'd rather say that players have not yet seen their potential. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > I was merely pointing out the the 'counters' you present, are in their nature relatively corner-case and unlikely to be considered in the majority of situations as a counter for S:CE. > > > I don't consider Death Seeker nor Hall of Mirrors being cornercase. I'd rather say that players have not yet seen their potential. > The potential for Hall of Mirrors combined with Illusions of the Kindred strikes me as probably the most interesting way forward. IotK has always been kinda interesting with things like IotK + Horrid Reality + Flamethrower (or whatever), but susceptible to S:CE and other defensive strategies. Toss in Hall of Mirrors and it seems more resilient. And you don't care so much about the blood cost because it's the Illusion paying that - though 2 for IotK that you can't Taste back is, of course, annoying in the first place. (And even more annoying when someone just plays S:CE against your Illusion.)

Their corner case is in their requirements. There are the following clans with Potence in-clan and hence likely to use IG: Brujah Brujah Anti Nosferatu Nosferatu Anti Osebo Guruhi Lasombra Giovanni Blood Bro There are the following clans able to use Death Seeker: Salubri Anti There are the following clans with Chimerstry in-clan: Ravnos The are the following clans with Animalism and Auspex in-clan: Tzimisce There are the following clans with Maleficia in-clan: (None) So yes, they are corner case in comparison with Immortal Grapple because they are comparatively difficult to access. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> GreyB wrote: > S:CE as it is now, can practically cancel 2-5 cards, in many respects a lot better than DI or a Sudden Reversal. > Kinda. In practice, the better/more popular(*) combat decks have tended to evolve into: - "definitely"(**) being able to smack you in the chops, so they're happy to play Torn Signpost up front - not playing that many cards up front, such as, say, a Celeritous gun deck maybe playing a maneuver to top up the gun's maneuver when you annoyingly play Swallowed by the Night to come back to close. Or in a different way, an aggro-poke deck holding its Claw until after both players have chosen strikes - short chain/very efficient combat. So even if you are playing cards up front, you're either not losing that many (guns feature here too, but so might - say - Stickmen), or you're playing cards that are super efficient (Carrion Crows is probably my favourite). Guns in a low maneuver environment can be fun because Psyche! can get you right back in there, with your built-in maneuver to use all over again. Even a Torn Signpost pot/cel deck can be reasonably efficient up front, unless you see a lot of players packing a mix of maneuvers and S:CE. (Does happen, but not ubiquitous.) A number of the less effective combat strategies tend to be the ones that rely on more cards up front to make themselves more useful, like having to go to range (without a nice gun to maneuver them), and play the strike, often with a cost, before seeing the S:CE. Or they're quite card intensive, such as - if they additionally strike - needing a strike card for each strike. And those are both relatively painful even in a world of little-to-no S:CE, because you can still dodge the strike and have DI-ed several up-front cards. Or they just have to use a lot of cards, like in the old favourite Mages on Speed - Thau/Cel, used to be considered fun back in the day, but blurring+2-3 Theft of Vitae is a tricky deck flow to manage. Also, some of the less useful/less popular combat strategies require more effort for less pay-off (e.g. cards that are more expensive, cards that don't let you stack up a damage bonus easily on top etc.), using more complicated/more annoying crypts. Thinking idly - because I mentioned Mages on Speed - I wonder what Thaumaturgy combat would look like in a world where there was some mechanism so that you could 'equip' some of the Thaumaturgy strikes somewhat like a gun. (*) There are some strategies that turn up a bit, without necessarily being super awesome. Aggro-poke has a history of turning up a fair bit but being relatively easily countered, for example, (**) Yeah, obviously, there are things decks can do to disrupt you with unusual cards. But you come in with a heavy-combat IG deck, you're pretty certain you smack people down.

Personal Spellbook Equipment 1 blood (?) Requires Thaumaturgy As a +2 stealth undirected action that costs 1 blood and untaps the vampire, you may put a Thaumaturgy card from your hand on this equipment. The vampire with this equipment may use each Thaumaturgy card on this equipment once per turn as if it was in your hand. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Personal Spellbook > Equipment > 1 blood (?) > Requires Thaumaturgy > As a +2 stealth undirected action that costs 1 blood and untaps the vampire, you may put a Thaumaturgy card from your hand on this equipment. The vampire with this equipment may use each Thaumaturgy card on this equipment once per turn as if it was in your hand. > I was trying to work out what it would look like in my head, and this is sort of in the area I was thinking, but the implementation would - I fear - cause other problems, principally around card ratios. How many do you have in the deck to pull it (with or without Magic of the Smith), and how reliable is it? The untap is a nice touch, though. I was somewhat torn between three options: 1) A few specifically-designed Thaumaturgy "guns" - the name in my head is "ritual". That way, you can control (from a card design perspective) which effects get the permanent treatment. Like maybe you'd be fine with a perma-Theft or a perma-Soul Burn, but not so much easy access to a perma-Flames of the Netherworld, maybe. My concern here would be that you end up with the same problem guns have, which is that people don't like wasting the action on them. Maybe you could toss in a free untap, or an untap at the end of the turn type effect. Or maybe it could be a combo card (combat/action, say), but that feels annoying. 2) Something along the lines of Spellbook. 3) Something along the lines of the V:TES wording of Torn Signpost which was a strike granter, rather than a strength setter. So you end up with something like "For the rest of combat, this vampire can strike: steal some blood, usable at long range." Although that only really helps Cel/Tha decks, rather than just plain Tha.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Personal Spellbook > Equipment > 1 blood (?) > Requires Thaumaturgy > As a +2 stealth undirected action that costs 1 blood and untaps the vampire, you may put a Thaumaturgy card from your hand on this equipment. The vampire with this equipment may use each Thaumaturgy card on this equipment once per turn as if it was in your hand. > As much as I think throwing out a bunch of new card ideas is not helpful to actually re-balancing combat because it is a distraction, here is another template idea for a card to make thaumaturgy combat better: Thaumaturgic Ritual Combat 1 pool Only Usable Before Range is Determined tha: Put this card on your vampire in combat with up to two combat cards that require thaumaturgy from your hand, ash heap and/or library. You may play these cards as if from your hand. When combat ends remove Thaumaturgic Ritual and any remaining cards on it from the game. THA: As above, but up to three combat cards requiring thaumaturgy. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

That ritual just ensures you burn through your THA Combat faster. The idea that James was kicking around was something I've used before: Fast Wizards. I ran one using Menele and the Tremere with Cel. Drum of Xipe Totec was a part of it as well. The biggest issue was: running out of combat cards. And considering that a number of those vampires with that skill set are Princes and 'proper old' vampires (8+ cap)... it is surprising that they wouldn't be able to stand around all day and Theft of Vitae. I find cooking up card concepts to be a way of seeing if the game-need people might be seeing has a reasonably viable solution. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Their corner case is in their requirements. > > There are the following clans with Potence in-clan and hence likely to use IG: > Brujah > Brujah Anti > Nosferatu > Nosferatu Anti > Osebo > Guruhi > Lasombra > Giovanni > Blood Bro > > There are the following clans able to use Death Seeker: > Salubri Anti > > There are the following clans with Chimerstry in-clan: > Ravnos > > The are the following clans with Animalism and Auspex in-clan: > Tzimisce > > There are the following clans with Maleficia in-clan: > (None) > > So yes, they are corner case in comparison with Immortal Grapple because they are comparatively difficult to access. > This is not what corner case means. Corner case is when you are playing a Faithful Servant bloat deck without much intercept and find yourself packing The Deadliest Sin so you can protect your investment. If you play those clans or disciplines and would like a better chance for your combat to be effective then you utilize those listed cards. Seen less often? Yes. Corner case? No. By that type of reckoning War Ghouls are corner case to Shambling Hordes because only 1 clan can bring out a Warghoul but 4 clans and any vamp with Nec can pull out a Horde.

Actually that would be the logic I'd use yes. Shamblers are not as strong as War Ghouls, but they are also less corner-cased than War Ghouls. Sure people focus decks on a War Ghoul, and designing new cards that may be utilised by a War Ghoul is a thought worth having... but ease of use of the card (i.e. How common are its requirements to play?) is important on how 'corner case' it may be. 2nd Tradition is a more corner-cased Wake card than Eyes of Argus. I'm not saying you won't see significant play with 2nd Trad because of its power, but there are more vampires with Auspex at Superior than Princes. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

You are still just trying to make this term work for a definition that you would like it to and sound like Alanis Morissette convincing us that ironic means what she thinks it means. Corner case does not mean 'less common'. Rarely or 'not as often' may be what you are looking for here but definitely not corner case, I've given you an example of that. For that matter, of my current combat decks that want to get by SCE/Dodge: 2 use IG ,1 Psyche!, whilst 5 use the other cards listed, including The Jones, Hah. Well, 3 also use Telepathic Tracking but that wasn't in the discussion.

I think the point was that you see Immortal Grapple more often than say Death Seeker because more vampires are able to effectively use it. Difficult to argue against that, regardless of one's opinion on what "Corner Case" means when applied to card games. Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

Death Seeker is VERY much less cornercase than Immortal Grapple. Death Seeker is a super-versatile combat card, while IG is just to counter non-hand strikes. That just a few vamps can play it is not = cornercase. Personally I think balancing Death Seekers power versus that just a few vamps that can play it is a strange thing, but it kind of works "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

OP has presented solutions without defining the problems. Fail.

> brettscho wrote: > I think the point was that you see Immortal Grapple more often than say Death Seeker because more vampires are able to effectively use it. Difficult to argue against that, regardless of one's opinion on what "Corner Case" means when applied to card games. > Yeah, I know what he means, Brett, and what the point was, but corner case does not describe it since it doesn't mean 'less frequent'. If I use Gabrin (a very popular vampire in the TWDA but even if it was Karmenita Yoryari) and I want my Carrion Crows to hit then I will include Hall of Mirrors to help make that so. This is not a corner case card. If I use the third ability of Dreams of the Sphinx to survive 2 Anarch Revolts in play (or any other scenario that would utilize that ability) that is the meaning of corner case.

> talonz wrote: > OP has presented solutions without defining the problems. > > Fail. > Please don't jump in on page 7 of a thread to nitpick the OP. There have been other discussions going around about rebalancing the game and combat, which this thread is using add a starting point. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

To clarify: "corner case" refers to a situation in a game, not to the utility of a card. When specific in-game factors directly affect the utility of a given card, this is "corner case." The card is not "corner case." More accurately, the card has limited utility when those specific in-game factors are not present. In other words, the card is "useless."

In terms of how many vampires can use "Death Seeker", it's indeed not "corner case", it's actually "edge case" since only !Salubri can play it. And "The Jones" would be "corner case" under the same terms as Vampires with serpentis are more numerous than !Salubri, but way less vital to the strategies used by those vampires and thusly falls outside of "normal parameters". In terms of usability both DS and IG are staple cards and The Jones is corner case. Ban the Jones and perhaps a few people are mildly irritated. Ban Death Seeker and people with !Salubri combat decks are incredibly annoyed. Ban IG and you piss off a large percentage of all VTES players, you'd get a way bigger fallout than the banning of Anthelios. Feel free to discus this even more, the original topic is ridiculous anyways. -1 Strength

> GreyB wrote: > In terms of how many vampires can use "Death Seeker", it's indeed not "corner case", it's actually "edge case" since only !Salubri can play it. And "The Jones" would be "corner case" under the same terms as Vampires with serpentis are more numerous than !Salubri, but way less vital to the strategies used by those vampires and thusly falls outside of "normal parameters". > Again, "corner case and "edge case" only apply to in-game situations. These terms need an operation (the game) with defined parameters (the rules and cards) to be performed. A corner case is one in which multiple factors affect the utility of a card (eg, a vampire in torpor (factor 1) is being diablerized (factor 2) and the minion performing diablerie, who has 1 blood (factor 3), plays lost in crowds (factor 4) and the controller does not have any useful combat cards in hand (factor 5). The Deadliest Sin would be very useful in this corner case). An edge case is one where a maximum or minimum limit was reached (eg, someone played Giant's Blood, wherein the maximum limit of 1 Giant's Blood per game is reached. Giant's Blood now becomes useless in this edge case).

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Again, "corner case and "edge case" only apply to in-game situations. > Thats just plain wrong. They apply in whichever context they are used, not the only context you want it to be used. Concerning banning cards, the context that should be used is the game as a whole including all players and existing decks in the world. Not a super focus on individual games. In that context, "Death seeker" is an edge case and IG is the status quo where those "type" of cards are concerned. In an "in-game" context, not a single card is corner or edge case... Anything is possible, any card can be used as, or become a staple card for a deck. So your context doesn't make much sense. -1 Strength

I'm not understanding what you mean by "Death seeker" is an edge case and IG is the status quo." In my definition, "case" means "situation." A card cannot be a situation.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > I'm not understanding what you mean by "Death seeker" is an edge case and IG is the status quo." In my definition, "case" means "situation." A card cannot be a situation. > Last try The availability of a S:CE counter is the situation. IG is widely available/usable by many vamps/clans. DS is only available/usable by !Salubri. DS is therefor edge case as a S:CE counter. I cannot use DS with my Nosferatu/!Nosferatu. I cannot use DS with my Brujah/Brujah. I cannot use DS with my Gargoyles. I cannot use DS with my Gangrel potence vampires. etc. etc. etc. Reminder context by OP: Ban IG. -1 Strength

If I see a vampire come into play with potence who looks like he wants to fight I expect to see Immortal Grapple. If I see a vampire come into play that is a !Salubri who looks like he wants to fight I expect to see Death Seeker. You all can make up or misuse terms that describe 'seen less often' or 'not as common' but call a duck a duck and realize that that is what you are doing. As for the ban IG topic: If I were to alter or ban Conditioning for whatever balance reasons, like weenies having access to too much bleed for cost, I would also alter or ban the Toreador effect of Aire of Elation, though used less often the balance problem would still exist and needs to be addressed.

> Robert wrote: > If I see a vampire come into play with potence who looks like he wants to fight I expect to see Immortal Grapple. If I see a vampire come into play that is a !Salubri who looks like he wants to fight I expect to see Death Seeker. You all can make up or misuse terms that describe 'seen less often' or 'not as common' but call a duck a duck and realize that that is what you are doing. > > As for the ban IG topic: > > If I were to alter or ban Conditioning for whatever balance reasons, like weenies having access to too much bleed for cost, I would also alter or ban the Toreador effect of Aire of Elation, though used less often the balance problem would still exist and needs to be addressed. > Not that the opinion of a neonate matters much, but I don't consider either combat ends or immortal grapple a problem. This despite my voting ventrues getting regularly torn apart by grappling combat in my weekly games. Both combat end cards and immortal grapple as an answer to them are in my opinion important cornerstones of VTES. You can't ban these, it would have too big an effect and not necessarily a positive one. In my opinion banning anything should be the last resort. I would first try to fix things by printing new cards that help with the problem, if a problem even exists. (ps. Theres also maneuver to long range as an answer to grapple. As an answer to combat end, theres psyche for celerity, telepathic tracking for auspex and grapple for potence. Thats quite a lot of bases covered. ) Rather, when considering game balance, I would direct our attention to the clans and ponder whether clans have an equal access to these combat options or the counter-options? I mean some of the clans have been considered weaker than others. Does the access to these cards have anything to do with that? (In my opinion it has more to do with access to game winning actions such as bleeding, voting and defense, but I digress ) Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

I like to Dark Influence those pesky Immortal Grapples in key timing and then, if I can, oust the guy doing them (if he's not my Prey already). All the while humming parts of Karma Police by Radiohead.