[Fairyworld] Examining combat cards and strategies and how they should work

Current Carrion Crows Only usable before range is chosen. The opposing minion takes 1R damage each round of combat during strike resolution. A vampire can play only one Carrion Crows each combat. As above, but for 2R damage. Main problem with Carrion crow is how uninteractive it (and all cards that it's based upon it) is. Fairytales Carrion Crows Start of round. Animal with 1 life. Limited (1) The opposing minion takes 1R damage each round of combat during strike resolution. Burn after combat. As above, but for 2R damage. This way, you can kill carrion crows with first strike/target retainer to avoid damage or get rid of it in next round. Limited (1) means minion may have only one, it's simpler than A vampire may have only one Carrion Crows but easier. Current Immortal Grapple Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. Grapple. Strikes that are not hand strikes may not be used this round (by either combatant). A vampire may play only one Immortal Grapple each round. As above, with an optional press. If another round of combat occurs, that round is at close range; skip the determine range step for that round. Main problem with it is that it doesn't offer counter mechanic out of the box for decks it shouldn't hose (other combat decks). Fairytales Immortal Grapple Only usable at close range before strikes are chosen. Grapple. Strikes that are not hand strikes may not be used this round (by either combatant), opposing vampire may discard two combat cards to cancel it. As above, with an optional press to continue. If another round occurs, opposing minion must discard a combat card or skip determine range this round. Current Majesty 1 Blood Strike: combat ends. As above, and this vampire untaps before combat ends. Main problem lies in surprise value of most (but not all!) combat ends. Majesty is something that should be used before violence is used, best step to describe it is before range is determined step. Fairytales Majesty 1 Blood Strike: dodge. Start of round. Unlock this vampire and this round the vampire may Strike: Combat Ends. This way, it's telegraphed so it don't hose combat card heavy decks and still get you out of trouble. Current .44 Magnum 2 Pool Weapon, gun. 2R damage each strike, with an optional maneuver each combat. .44 Magnum 2 Pool Weapon, gun. 2R damage each strike. If the bearer blocks an action or is unblocked, he or she may set the initial range for the first round of the resulting combat to long (bearer's initial strike that round must be with this weapon). This better portrays faster initiation of combat with shooting, don't work with psyche and isn't usable to go to close range against long range decks. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

The fix to the immortal grapple means that potence would have no reason to exists besides maybe using heroic might (but not preternatural). Majesty isn't the only "problematic" CE, so you should also modify Earth Meld, and people would, if this change were really deal breaking, play other unmodified combat ends, making fortitude or celerity (for multi-acting) even more powerful. Still, I don't see a real problem in combat, but in balance, and balance isn't solved by nerfing very popular things, but either adding new cards or nerfing auxiliar things (like nerfing anthelios instead of nerfing tablet+liquidation). Now, what is exactly what you feel is wrong with combat? Oh, and BTW, if you want to fix combat by nerfing cards, you missed the biggest, grossest offender of all: Target Vitals.

I only like idea to change text of Carrion Crows. i think is important to Immortal Grapple will continue to be a strong card because this proposal will weaken combat decks that are otherwise slow in winning points. about Majesty whu change text on this way,you have another card in presence whu give you strike dodge(inferior) and CE(superior)

Umm, you want to nerf majesty by making it even more powerfull? Yes, opponent can now see it coming and mayby does not need to waste combat cards, but what about using it offensively? I would so love your new version in any brujah deck, unlock at start of round and then use whatever combat package you were going to use anyway to pummel the hapless opponent to torpor, yes please.

> Ratadin wrote: > The fix to the immortal grapple means that potence would have no reason to exists besides maybe using heroic might (but not preternatural). > Because ? How it even affect potence combat against its most problematic matchups? I'd say it's making potence even more powerful against s:ce low combat module than before. > Ratadin wrote: > Majesty isn't the only "problematic" CE, so you should also modify Earth Meld, and people would, if this change were really deal breaking, play other unmodified combat ends, making fortitude or celerity (for multi-acting) even more powerful. > It's just showcase about how s:ce in general should work, for example celerity s:ce could have some condition (like get two maneuvers, if range is long you may end combat before strikes). It's to give more space to combat decks while not neutering s:ce as combat defense. > Ratadin wrote: > Still, I don't see a real problem in combat, but in balance, and balance isn't solved by nerfing very popular things, but either adding new cards or nerfing auxiliar things (like nerfing anthelios instead of nerfing tablet+liquidation). > No, the problem lies in how out of touch with rest of combat s:ce is. You can't fix it with cards "cancel enemy strike", "start new combat", "continue combat", "enemy can't s:ce", "create ultra powerful card that is played if enemy didn't played s:ce". Even if devs already try it instead of neutering s:ce instead. > Ratadin wrote: > Now, what is exactly what you feel is wrong with combat? > S:ce. > Ratadin wrote: > Oh, and BTW, if you want to fix combat by nerfing cards, you missed the biggest, grossest offender of all: Target Vitals. > T:V is very good, so is WWS.Yes, in ideal world those shouldn't exist. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Whisker wrote: > Umm, you want to nerf majesty by making it even more powerfull? > Yes, opponent can now see it coming and mayby does not need to waste combat cards, but what about using it offensively? I would so love your new version in any brujah deck, unlock at start of round and then use whatever combat package you were going to use anyway to pummel the hapless opponent to torpor, yes please. > Well, the wording could be better as "if blocking or blocked, untap" to not give unconditional untap. Still decent in Brujah. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

Perhaps instead of "seeing" majesty coming, a simple rule addition. "In combat, if opponent plays a card that uses "Strike:Combat Ends", the other minion can shuffle any cards used in that round of combat prior to S:CE, into their library.

> JohnP wrote: > Perhaps instead of "seeing" majesty coming, a simple rule addition. > > "In combat, if opponent plays a card that uses "Strike:Combat Ends", the other minion can shuffle any cards used in that round of combat prior to S:CE, into their library. > I don't think that's a simple rule. That's an oddly specific rule, the kind the game doesn't need more of, IMO. Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

Yep, and the rule that show that s:ce isn't well integrated into ruleset. S:ce is like giving a card: lock this vampire to burn 2 pool from your prey. It don't integrate well into ruleset and have no counter. Then print cards " if you lost pool this turn, reduce the loss by 3 pool and make your prey lose 1 pool.". Sure, counter would exist: would it be good design ? Not at all. But this is exactly what s:ce is. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Lech wrote: > Yep, and the rule that show that s:ce isn't well integrated into ruleset. > More like Combat is not well integrated into the Ruleset. It is too far away from the win condition. Long discussion, I know. I would over simplify combat and make it actually matter. Until then, Banishment continues to be the best combat card in the game.

> Brum wrote: > > > Lech wrote: > > Yep, and the rule that show that s:ce isn't well integrated into ruleset. > > > More like Combat is not well integrated into the Ruleset. > It is too far away from the win condition. > > Long discussion, I know. > > I would over simplify combat and make it actually matter. > Until then, Banishment continues to be the best combat card in the game. > I would argue that the popularity of Pentex Subversion and Banishment shows that combat is not really 'too far away from the win condition' but rather that it is not as efficient as those more popular cards.

> skimflux wrote: > I would argue that the popularity of Pentex Subversion and Banishment shows that combat is not really 'too far away from the win condition' but rather that it is not as efficient as those more popular cards. > Saying combat is not really "too far away from the win condition" is like saying stealth is not too far from a win condition in a stealth+bleed deck. Combat, Pentex, and Banishment are really delivery systems for the ousting mechanism, not ousting mechanisms in themselves. The difference between combat/Pentex/Banishment and a delivery system like stealth is that the former have an inherent "make other players lose" condition: removing an opposing player's minions is more likely to make that opposing player lose than ensure yourself a win.

> skimflux wrote: > > > Brum wrote: > > > > > Lech wrote: > > > Yep, and the rule that show that s:ce isn't well integrated into ruleset. > > > > > > > > More like Combat is not well integrated into the Ruleset. > > It is too far away from the win condition. > > > > Long discussion, I know. > > > > I would over simplify combat and make it actually matter. > > Until then, Banishment continues to be the best combat card in the game. > > > I would argue that the popularity of Pentex Subversion and Banishment shows that combat is not really 'too far away from the win condition' but rather that it is not as efficient as those more popular cards. > Unfortunately arguing doesn't help here. Math does. If one takes away the emotion from the analysis, one sees things clearer. At least it has worked for me. If 80% to 90% of a deck is just combat, instead of stealth N bleed or a solid politics module, you're fardest from the win condition than the other 2 counterparts. If all three archetypes have good crypts to work with and you leave table context out of the equation. I also don't subscribe to the theory that if something stands out as stronger, the way to even things out is to rebuke the strong. That breeds mediocrity. I think it is far better to empower all the others that need to grow. So yeah, combat as a pure strategy is the weakest of the 4 main archetypes (wall, politics, bleed and combat) in a vacuum. I think that it should be stronger. Without breaking the game, of course. Say... Disarm burns pool instead of subtracting strength... Or an action pot pre: ruch a minion at +2 tealth POT PRE: sup govern text Hell, go wild and give one of these to everyone. Inf text to help their strategy and sup govern text. Or a reaction (brujah, or gangrel or nosferatu or potence or whatever people think would be a good idea to help): Burn Assets Burn a vehicle or a location you control. Deflect a bleed and put this card on the bleeder. This minion may enter combat with the bleeder. Burn this card on the bleeder's unlock phase. Not real serious ideas. Just hypothetical examples

Before doing something you have to state your goal, then provide some proofed sequence of events between you planned actions and this goal. It's especially important in game design, where you theoretically can do whatever, there is no physical limits like roof falling down on your head in architecture. Combat, in an understanding of "action which makes other vampire unable to act" (to include banishment) is the worse thing to have in VtES - it destroys prey/predator structure, it makes people unable to meaningfully participate in the game and puts their preys randomly in "free reign" situation. So I see no possible chain of events from making this mess "better" (aka more effective) to making the game better. Actually the road leads other way. NC Russia

> Ratadin wrote: > > Now, what is exactly what you feel is wrong with combat. > Combat is effectively not a part of the game competitively. Decks routinely running around with a few red cards is curious as an acceptable meta end game. About 20% of the cards in game are combat cards and deck representation is far below that. It is overly complex and card intensive to implement in addition to underwhelming even if successful. I can accept that the current state 'works for you' but other than being obtuse it is hard to understand how one could fail to see that it doesn't work in general.

> elotar wrote: > Before doing something you have to state your goal, then provide some proofed sequence of events between you planned actions and this goal. > > It's especially important in game design, where you theoretically can do whatever, there is no physical limits like roof falling down on your head in architecture. > > Combat, in an understanding of "action which makes other vampire unable to act" (to include banishment) is the worse thing to have in VtES - it destroys prey/predator structure, it makes people unable to meaningfully participate in the game and puts their preys randomly in "free reign" situation. > > So I see no possible chain of events from making this mess "better" (aka more effective) to making the game better. Actually the road leads other way. > Arguably, it's preventing people from playing greedy decks with no combat cards whatsoever. It's important aspect of the game, and if someone choose to not play any combat at all, he should suffer horrible death. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Lech wrote: > Arguably, it's preventing people from playing greedy decks with no combat cards whatsoever. It's important aspect of the game, and if someone choose to not play any combat at all, he should suffer horrible death. > So you goal is to prevent people to play the decks they like, your means to reach it is to make them suffer until they submit. Can't share any of it. > Mewcat wrote: > Combat is effectively not a part of the game competitively. > From which competitions do you getting this crazy ideas? There was some time ago metagame statistics from one of the EC, combat was present in absolute majority of the decks. Modedit\\ Please keep consecutive quotes within a single post. No double-posting. NC Russia

> Mewcat wrote: > > > Ratadin wrote: > > > > Now, what is exactly what you feel is wrong with combat. > > > ...It is overly complex and card intensive to implement in addition to underwhelming even if successful. > I mean, combat is a very tricky mechanic because VTES is a multiplayer game. If one knows what they are doing, combat can certainly contribute to the winning strategy in a deck. But if played a different way, it can do nothing other than make someone else lose. My outsider opinion is that VTES has some "unwritten rules" that ensure responsible play. I have read about "responsible bleeding," or not just bleeding out your grand prey when bounced. I feel like a similar concept exists for combat, where players are seen as irresponsible if they don't play combat "the right way." These unwritten rules contribute to the social part of VTES that a lot of people find charming.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > These unwritten rules contribute to the social part of VTES that a lot of people find charming. > When you are playing in the environment, where this rules are followed. When you are out of it then the game became unbearable for many. And when crostable bleed is bearable, crosstable combat is a cancer. All rules should be written. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > Lech wrote: > > Arguably, it's preventing people from playing greedy decks with no combat cards whatsoever. It's important aspect of the game, and if someone choose to not play any combat at all, he should suffer horrible death. > > > So you goal is to prevent people to play the decks they like, your means to reach it is to make them suffer until they submit. > > Can't share any of it. > > > Mewcat wrote: > > Combat is effectively not a part of the game competitively. > > > From which competitions do you getting this crazy ideas? > > There was some time ago metagame statistics from one of the EC, combat was present in absolute majority of the decks. > > Modedit\\ Please keep consecutive quotes within a single post. No double-posting. > The notion that combat prevents people from playing the decks they like in some disparate manner is patently false. It is more punishing to be bled for 6 than to have a 6 cap put into torpor. Rescues and hunts are built into the game with the former capable by another player. Pool is the meta resource. The crazy fact comes from the actual decks people play. Look on the home page of this site. Combat is like the imbued, shows up once in a while and is annoying.

> Brum wrote: > > > skimflux wrote: > > I would argue that the popularity of Pentex Subversion and Banishment shows that combat is not really 'too far away from the win condition' but rather that it is not as efficient as those more popular cards. > > > (...) > If 80% to 90% of a deck is just combat, instead of stealth N bleed or a solid politics module, you're fardest from the win condition than the other 2 counterparts. > That just goes back to the efficiency point - an 80% to 90% stealth deck would have the same issue, yet I doubt anyone would say that stealth is innefficient - about 45% of all winning decks use stealth cards. The difference (IMO) is that often 1-2 stealth cards are enough to make an action successful, yet with combat you will need 3-4 cards for a 'successful' combat, and then you still need a second minion to get your action through. So a stealth module can be made with as little as 4-8 cards (average in the TWDA is 11), but few decks will be able to use combat aggressively with less than 12 cards. > Meow wrote: > Combat is effectively not a part of the game competitively. Decks routinely running around with a few red cards is curious as an acceptable meta end game. About 20% of the cards in game are combat cards and deck representation is far below that. > The TWDA disproves that: over 90% of the TWDA decks have combat cards, with an average count of 17 cards/deck, just below 20% - about on par with all action modifiers! Admitedly, a large part of those cards are SCE, dodge, and maneuver cards used as defense, but this only goes to show that combat is a huge part of VtES, even if it can't really stand alone on its own feet. > Meow wrote: > The notion that combat prevents people from playing the decks they like in some disparate manner is patently false. It is more punishing to be bled for 6 than to have a 6 cap put into torpor. Rescues and hunts are built into the game with the former capable by another player. Pool is the meta resource. > I agree - being brainwashed and bled out by turn 4 is worse than having a pure combat deck killing your minions.

What powers are you using to extract this data? I just see a list of decks.

> skimflux wrote: > The difference (IMO) is that often 1-2 stealth cards are enough to make an action successful, yet with combat you will need 3-4 cards for a 'successful' combat, and then you still need a second minion to get your action through. > That depends on what you consider successful. Personally, I prefer the short-chain combat definition. The goal is to come out ahead, not necessarily "own" the enemy minion. > skimflux wrote: > So a stealth module can be made with as little as 4-8 cards (average in the TWDA is 11), but few decks will be able to use combat aggressively with less than 12 cards. > Does that take into consideration the default action of the deck? Politics is already +1 stealth, so is Gremlins, for instance. I think you'd need to factor that into the average. Also stealth permanents: Jost, Opium Den, etc. equal 1 stealth card per turn. Did you factor in those as well? It get's all rough around the edges when you do that. So, my guess is that the "real" average is higher.

Let us redesign stealth to resemble combat. We now break stealth into 3 categories: high stealth where you jump on building, low stealth where you go in sewers and subways, and side stealth that is more about disguises and sneaking. If you play side stealth and I play high intercept you get -1 stealth from the card but if you play low stealth and I play high intercept you get +1. This is obvious because I have a birds eye view from my high perch but cant see you in the sewers. Now if you play 3 side stealth cards that is like a matching set in risk and all your stealth is doubled BUT I can counter it with 1 side, 1 high, and 1 low - I am monitoring everything! To make things even more fun and interactive the action itself has a flavor: can be grape, apple, or banana. If my intercept card has the appropriate color your action ends unsuccessfully. You do have the option of changing the action flavor with some stealth cards and this is key to the meta game. Skilled players will realize that all the good stealth cards are grape and play heavy grape intercept. Hopefully we can get this added in the next set.

> Mewcat wrote: > **stuff about stealth** > Personally, I would like to see stronger, but more conditional +stealth. So rather than generic "+1 stealth", it could be "+2 stealth vs political actions" or "+3 stealth vs older vampires". By the same token, I think conditional +intercept and conditional +bleed should be more present. I think it adds flavor and it distinguishes cards. > Mewcat wrote: > To make things even more fun and interactive the action itself has a flavor: can be grape, apple, or banana. > I understand you may be saying this sarcastically, but I would actually take a page from Justin Achilli's Prince's Gambit AND reference VTM by having actions be Physical, Mental, or Social. Then re-contextualize "combat" as "the struggle" / "struggles". It makes no sense for vampires to be literally fist-fighting or shooting guns at each other all the time, but it does make sense for them to fight and play mind-games and manipulate the opinions of their peers / damage the reputations of others. ____________ Also, in general, isn't the idea behind combat that your damage potential is so threatening that it's better to just let your actions happen? But the problem with combat is that it's too easy to avoid damage, no? You can maneuver to long, dodge, prevent, and S:CE. And of all of these, S:CE is the best, because the key S:CE cards all do double duty: Majesty and Earth Meld untap your acting vampire, and Form of Mist lets you continue the action. Those are really efficient cards. The other strong combat cards are those that let you avoid damage while still dealing damage (Aid From Bats and .44 Magnum come to mind. I also like Thrown Gate in Potence.) Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

> Mewcat wrote: > What powers are you using to extract this data? I just see a list of decks. > The power of Excel!!! ...and several hours of sanitizing and formatting data Check the 'TWDA Analisys' thread I started a few days ago, I posted an Excel file with all of the TWDA cards in a structured format.

Maybe I will look at the file on my computer some day. So majesty is the most popular combat card? I'm not sure that is an ideal situation. I guess crappy combat fits with vtes as co marketing for the rpg that also has crappy combat.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Mewcat wrote: > > > > > Ratadin wrote: > > > > > > Now, what is exactly what you feel is wrong with combat. > > > > > > > > ...It is overly complex and card intensive to implement in addition to underwhelming even if successful. > > > I mean, combat is a very tricky mechanic because VTES is a multiplayer game. If one knows what they are doing, combat can certainly contribute to the winning strategy in a deck. But if played a different way, it can do nothing other than make someone else lose. > > My outsider opinion is that VTES has some "unwritten rules" that ensure responsible play. I have read about "responsible bleeding," or not just bleeding out your grand prey when bounced. I feel like a similar concept exists for combat, where players are seen as irresponsible if they don't play combat "the right way." These unwritten rules contribute to the social part of VTES that a lot of people find charming. > I was thinking about this last bit and believe it has merit. It seems that there is some at large agreement that the correct way to Play is just lunge bleed and bounce around like stooges. Torping vamps limits ones ability to participate in this ecstatic ritual. Watching players lose a vamp or 2 and just sit there forcing a combat deck to bleed through a mountain of pool seems punitive. You wouldn't do it if you were trying to win.

> Mewcat wrote: > Let us redesign stealth to resemble combat. We now break stealth into 3 categories: high stealth where you jump on building, low stealth where you go in sewers and subways, and side stealth that is more about disguises and sneaking. If you play side stealth and I play high intercept you get -1 stealth from the card but if you play low stealth and I play high intercept you get +1. This is obvious because I have a birds eye view from my high perch but cant see you in the sewers. > > Now if you play 3 side stealth cards that is like a matching set in risk and all your stealth is doubled BUT I can counter it with 1 side, 1 high, and 1 low - I am monitoring everything! > > To make things even more fun and interactive the action itself has a flavor: can be grape, apple, or banana. If my intercept card has the appropriate color your action ends unsuccessfully. You do have the option of changing the action flavor with some stealth cards and this is key to the meta game. Skilled players will realize that all the good stealth cards are grape and play heavy grape intercept. > > Hopefully we can get this added in the next set. > Erm, let's not. For longest of time it has been said that the game is already way too complicated which means extremely high learning curve for new players. Adding more complexcity ain'y going to help any! Finnish Politics!

> Mewcat wrote: > Maybe I will look at the file on my computer some day. So majesty is the most popular combat card? > How did you compare the frequency of Majesty to non-SCE cards? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

looked at the post about twd analysis. the only combat cards that were listed as 'important' cards are majesty and taste of vitae.

> I was thinking about this last bit and believe it has merit. It seems that there is some at large agreement that the correct way to Play is just lunge bleed and bounce around like stooges. Torping vamps limits ones ability to participate in this ecstatic ritual. Watching players lose a vamp or 2 and just sit there forcing a combat deck to bleed through a mountain of pool seems punitive. You wouldn't do it if you were trying to win. > Not exactly. S&B played poorly ousts crosstable - rush combat played poorly ousts your neighbours and you, but not always in the order of your choosing. Well played rush combat is as high level of control as walls, and nets you retaliation. People of course don't want to be controlled. It's still a legit play style, but very hard to master. This isn't an issue of 'unwritten rules' within the game, but a question of playing better or worse. If you rush and diablerize Stanislava crosstable before they had time to Villein, be prepared to handle their predator in the end-game. If you did that without a solid plan, you played bad. If you bled into an obvious bounce at 8 with 6 stealth, you played bad. Any game has 'unwritten rules' if you will, but mostly they're just more experienced players knowing the winning strategies and moves. VtES is no different. The 'problem' is that everyone's trying to push and pull you verbally in a real game, so the CORRECT answer is to keep your chill, shut your ears, play your game and attend the discussion AFTER the game for a bit less biased post-game analysis with your peers. Otherwise there are some good points about stealth/combat comparison as a delivery method here. Shadow Boxing was a cool new design, but hasn't seen too much play yet. Maybe because of how non-dominate Nosferatu aren't really that hot. One thing though: if combat was made better, it will not speed up the game as a delivery method, but might just as well stall the games as that better combat will be available to walls as well. Combat is already pretty good in walls. If it's all about dealing damage, many decks wouldn't dare act at all. Afraid of blocking me? Well, many are already afraid of taking actions when facing Lambach for example. Stalls games, doesn't speed them up. "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

> Kraus wrote: > > > I was thinking about this last bit and believe it has merit. It seems that there is some at large agreement that the correct way to Play is just lunge bleed and bounce around like stooges. Torping vamps limits ones ability to participate in this ecstatic ritual. Watching players lose a vamp or 2 and just sit there forcing a combat deck to bleed through a mountain of pool seems punitive. You wouldn't do it if you were trying to win. > > > If you bled into an obvious bounce at 8 with 6 stealth, you played bad. > People are routinely ousted by their grand preys bleeding. It doesn't have to be at stealth and those bleeds don't even have to get through, they just set up the chain of events. The salt factor on this play is so much smaller than beating up some vamps. Its like the psychology of stealing someone cards - people go unreasonably berserk. Even the threat of beating up vamps makes people lose their minds often enough to be noteworthy.

> Mewcat wrote: > People are routinely ousted by their grand preys bleeding. It doesn't have to be at stealth and those bleeds don't even have to get through, they just set up the chain of events. The salt factor on this play is so much smaller than beating up some vamps. Its like the psychology of stealing someone cards - people go unreasonably berserk. Even the threat of beating up vamps makes people lose their minds often enough to be noteworthy. > So they are. Personally I find those irresponsible bleeds as offensive as bad rushes. Maybe it's just me though. People are individuals, and everything from national backgrounds to education to having a bad day affects those reactions. In Berlin's EC's one game we had this awesome situation, where a super swedish style Lasombra bleed deck was behind me, and Lazverinus behind them. I urged, at every turn, Lazverinus and his friend to bleed only for 1, and never more. Deflection + Narrow Minds meant that they'd eventually need to block and get beaten. If I died, the whole table would be steamrolled. Lazverinus' player was on edge about it, but kept those Governs in hand. I survived, we ground the Lasombra down by last 10 minutes, and once we felt it was safe enough, we voted a VP for both me and Laz. It was all about communication, and was an excellent, excellent game. Even the Lasombra player had fun being the 'bad guy', as we did give him merit for being threatening. I don't know about 'unwritten rules', but we established those 'rules' during the game ourselves, and played better for it. Then I've of course been on the receiving end of people trying to 'educate' others for being too aggressive, or 'betraying a deal' (sometimes they are too vague, also competitive is competitive). This one time Anson guns player went berserk, famed me backwards on a turn he could've easily gotten an oust, and used all of his resources on me. That was just bad playing (at that precise moment) on their part, plain and simple. Maths had him on the oust, but he flipped. You can't fault the game on that. And, I'll have to be fair, I did agitate him a wee bit, so there I probably had it coming. That people get crosstable ousted isn't the fault of the game, I'd say. It's people. Furthermore, i can't say it's 100% a fault - it's a feature. How people react to things is their own business, more or less. Now, balance wise, that's a bit more maths. The comparisons between stealth and combat as delivery are fair. "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

> Mewcat wrote: > looked at the post about twd analysis. the only combat cards that were listed as 'important' cards are majesty and taste of vitae. > That doesn't mean much. Majesty appears in high quantities because S:CE are not very diverse, and Majesty is one of the two or three S:CE that are widely played because Presence is the most common discipline for that matter (compared to Protean for instance). Other Presence S:CE are not common at all. Combat cards, on the other hand, are very diverse. For instance I'll play 6 Torn Signpost, 4 Blur, 7 Immortal Grapple... Even though I play 17 combat cards, none of them will show up in greater quantities than 8 or 10 Majesty. As a final note, you can play SCE un plenty of different decks (stealth bleed, vote, Shattering Crescendo, Ally decks...) whereas offensive combat cards tend to appear only in combat decks (in fewer numbers that the cumulated list I gave) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Kraus wrote: > S&B played poorly ousts crosstable - rush combat played poorly ousts your neighbours and you, but not always in the order of your choosing. Well played rush combat is as high level of control as walls, and nets you retaliation. People of course don't want to be controlled. > > It's still a legit play style, but very hard to master. This isn't an issue of 'unwritten rules' within the game, but a question of playing better or worse. If you rush and diablerize Stanislava crosstable before they had time to Villein, be prepared to handle their predator in the end-game. If you did that without a solid plan, you played bad. If you bled into an obvious bounce at 8 with 6 stealth, you played bad. > I'm not sure you're understanding exactly what the unwritten rule is. It's not that no one should ever make bad plays, it's that one should not ruin the "fun" for the opposing players. While lots of times bad plays results in ruining the fun for others, the spirit of the unwritten rules in VTES really only concerns the latter. > Any game has 'unwritten rules' if you will, but mostly they're just more experienced players knowing the winning strategies and moves. VtES is no different. > No, unwritten rules really have nothing to do with skill at all. We are talking about the things that make people mad. Bleeding and rushing irresponsibly make people mad. A skilled player can do this on purpose if they feel like it. The unwritten rule is to not be irresponsible on purpose. > The 'problem' is that everyone's trying to push and pull you verbally in a real game, so the CORRECT answer is to keep your chill, shut your ears, play your game and attend the discussion AFTER the game for a bit less biased post-game analysis with your peers. > If one's goal is to intentionally make people mad with irresponsible play, is that still the correct answer? > Otherwise there are some good points about stealth/combat comparison as a delivery method here. Shadow Boxing was a cool new design, but hasn't seen too much play yet. > Yet? The card has been around for 3 years. I think you have major rose-colored glasses when it comes to the VEKN-produced material. My sense is these cards range from wholly inconsequential to neat cards that could potentially be swapped in and out of an established strategy. > One thing though: if combat was made better, it will not speed up the game as a delivery method, but might just as well stall the games as that better combat will be available to walls as well. Combat is already pretty good in walls. If it's all about dealing damage, many decks wouldn't dare act at all. Afraid of blocking me? Well, many are already afraid of taking actions when facing Lambach for example. Stalls games, doesn't speed them up. > On this, I agree 100%. Making combat "better" via all the suggestions I've read here and in other posts will do nothing other than reduce the amount of actions people take and raise the amount of minions in torpor. Not necessarily good things.

> Ankha wrote: > > > Mewcat wrote: > > looked at the post about twd analysis. the only combat cards that were listed as 'important' cards are majesty and taste of vitae. > > > That doesn't mean much. Majesty appears in high quantities because S:CE are not very diverse, and Majesty is one of the two or three S:CE that are widely played because Presence is the most common discipline for that matter (compared to Protean for instance). Other Presence S:CE are not common at all. > Combat cards, on the other hand, are very diverse. For instance I'll play 6 Torn Signpost, 4 Blur, 7 Immortal Grapple... > Even though I play 17 combat cards, none of them will show up in greater quantities than 8 or 10 Majesty. > As a final note, you can play SCE un plenty of different decks (stealth bleed, vote, Shattering Crescendo, Ally decks...) whereas offensive combat cards tend to appear only in combat decks (in fewer numbers that the cumulated list I gave) > The ranking I posted is ordered by decks featuring the card - it is not ordered by number of copies played (but I have also done that ranking and Majesty becomes far more dominant by that measure, for the reasons you mentioned). Majesty is present in over 20% of all winning decks featuring any combat card at all. Overall, 3 out of the most common 5 strike cards are S:CE (the other two are Canine Horde and Aid From Bats). The most common 'aggressive' combat cards are Carrion Crows and Target Vitals - these are rarely seen together, yet less decks feature either one of them than Majesty alone. TLDR: Majesty is very good.

Then again, any deck that doesn't focus on combat won't be playing an offensive combat module. So the stats are just saying "there are more deck that don't focus on combat than deck that focus on combat", not that Majesty is broken/unbalanced/whatever. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

What would it take to convince you that majesty is broken/unbalance/whatever?

I feel more relevant to the conversation pointing out that the most commong "aggresive" cards are as you say, TV and Carrion Crows. The latter just means that in the late run, Animalism has become more efficient than Potence, making it almost obsolete, although I think this is more related with Deep Song giving you both combat and ousting capabilities than by Animals combat itself, although again, Carrion Crows is way better than Torn Signpost (unless you are playing celerity). For TV... Yeah, it is quite an oppresive card, and one of the only cards that I think should be considered for nerfing. Despite what we think of either IG or SCE, those two are cards that both require a discipline and are real tool that allow you to build an strategy and try to counter something. TV just give you as much damage as any combat discipline, for free, no requisites, no anything. Just freaking damage. When I played a palla grande deck full of embraces and we just decided to add 6-7 TV to the mix and saw those nobodies wreacking havoc now and then, I felt kind of disgusted. Not saying that it was really competitive or anything, just that I was pretty awful to play against.

> Mewcat wrote: > What would it take to convince you that majesty is broken/unbalance/whatever? > Convincing arguments, not logical fallacies. The figures are interesting, but the interpretations I have read are not following logic. For instance, if there are more Ancilla Empowerments than Anarchist Uprising in the TWDA, it doesn't mean that AE is stronger than AU (and we know that because they have exactly the same cardtext). And if there are more KRC than Ancilla, it doesn't mean KRC is stronger than Ancilla. Personally, I think that on the long term, S:CE loses against combat because as long as you play S:CE, the opposing minion takes no damage, and once you don't have any left, you take a serious beating; But it depends on how many S:CE you play, if your opponent plays more combat than you or permanent combat cards (such as a gun), and how long the game lasts. Also, if you build a combat decks, you should be able to handle the opposing minion's combat (whether he plays combat ends, or combat himself): if you go for war, be prepared for war. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Construct the beginning of what would be a convincing argument to you, please. We cant have a meaningful discussion without some agreed upon logical structure. Each person having their own facts or calling 'fake news' is amusing but little else.

> Mewcat wrote: > Construct the beginning of what would be a convincing argument to you, please. We cant have a meaningful discussion without some agreed upon logical structure. Each person having their own facts or calling 'fake news' is amusing but little else. > Conclusions based on the TWD are likely to be false. First of all, it doesn't contain all the deck of a tournament. For instance, a combat deck could be missing because it was ousted in the final by a stealth bleed deck playing no Majesty at all, and the Majesty deck somehow wins. It doesn't mean that the Majesty deck is better than the combat deck, even though it ranks better than the combat deck. If there were only* decks with Majesty in the TWD, then I would probably worry about it. But it's far from being the case. (* That's pretty much the only case you can deduce something: if a card is utterly missing, or utterly present) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Also, if 5 archetypes are played and win with equal probability, and 3 of them contain Majesty, Majesty will appear 3 times out of 5. It doesn't mean that Majesty make decks stronger (since they all win with equal probability), only that they are used more frequently (because they fit more decks, for instance because they use less slots than a combat deck). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Then again, any deck that doesn't focus on combat won't be playing an offensive combat module. > I don't think that's true - many decks feature aggressive combat cards as a splash/back-up/secondary tactic, specially since the appearance of Target Vitals and WWS. However, given huge variety of combat cards and strategies, I can't think of any easy and clear stats we can obtain to prove or disprove this idea. > So the stats are just saying "there are more deck that don't focus on combat than deck that focus on combat", not that Majesty is broken/unbalanced/whatever. > Again, I don't think you can conclude that - Majesty appears more often than other combat-avoidance cards, including non-Discipline cards that have greater availability.

> Ankha wrote: > Conclusions based on the TWD are likely to be false. First of all, it doesn't contain all the deck of a tournament. For instance, a combat deck could be missing because it was ousted in the final by a stealth bleed deck playing no Majesty at all, and the Majesty deck somehow wins. It doesn't mean that the Majesty deck is better than the combat deck, even though it ranks better than the combat deck. > > If there were only* decks with Majesty in the TWD, then I would probably worry about it. But it's far from being the case. > > (* That's pretty much the only case you can deduce something: if a card is utterly missing, or utterly present) > I think the point of looking at twd is to perform a random slice of reasonable decks. It may not be the 'best' deck in a tournament. It may even be the 'worst' deck but multiplayer mechanics and poor play elevated it. The utterly present or utterly absent idea is something to work with. Can we conclude anything if (nearly) every deck runs the same card?

> Ankha wrote: > > > Mewcat wrote: > > Construct the beginning of what would be a convincing argument to you, please. We cant have a meaningful discussion without some agreed upon logical structure. Each person having their own facts or calling 'fake news' is amusing but little else. > > > Conclusions based on the TWD are likely to be false. First of all, it doesn't contain all the deck of a tournament. For instance, a combat deck could be missing because it was ousted in the final by a stealth bleed deck playing no Majesty at all, and the Majesty deck somehow wins. It doesn't mean that the Majesty deck is better than the combat deck, even though it ranks better than the combat deck. > While the TWDA is an imperfect source of data, it is quite appropriate to determine 'good' decks - after all, the purpose of a 'good' deck (in a tournament context) is to win, a deck appearing in the TWDA more often will have won more, hence it is a 'better' deck. The sheer number of decks featured in the TWDA ensure that any flukes have a minimal effect. > If there were only* decks with Majesty in the TWD, then I would probably worry about it. But it's far from being the case. > > (* That's pretty much the only case you can deduce something: if a card is utterly missing, or utterly present) > You can deduce something well before that - a large deviation from the average has meaning. For example: in the TWDA about 20% of library cards account for 88% of all played copies. Such a skewed distribution is a result of imperfect balancing of cards, as we are all well aware of - nobody believes that Twisting the Knife is just as good as Govern The Unaligned... Now figuring out what/how /if it can/should be balanced, that's the tricky part!

> I'm not sure you're understanding exactly what the unwritten rule is. It's not that no one should ever make bad plays, it's that one should not ruin the "fun" for the opposing players. While lots of times bad plays results in ruining the fun for others, the spirit of the unwritten rules in VTES really only concerns the latter. > I didn't know there was a definition for Unwritten Rule. To me what you're describing reads "have fun and let people have fun", but VtES has always had a violent history. Or having played in Finland, the "Promised Land of Potence" has altered my perception. Who knows. I grew in an environment where everyone's vampire was fair game, and having your field leveled was just extra time for pints. > If one's goal is to intentionally make people mad with irresponsible play, is that still the correct answer? > There is no correct answers when playing with people, I suppose. If someone glaringly plays in conflict with 'play to win' in a tournament, you can always ask the judge what they think about the plays and situation. I have no idea what they'd say, but I'm not a judge. When people just do whack weird shit that conflict with their seemingly best line of play? Flipping yourself rarely works, that's what I found. What would you suggest? Is this a problem? I don't know what else to say. //shrug Star Trek put it well; really applies to VtES: "It is possible to make no mistakes and still lose. That's not a weakness, that's [VtES]." -Jean-Luc Picard ...well, the line says "life" instead of VtES, but what the heck. > Yet? The card has been around for 3 years. I think you have major rose-colored glasses when it comes to the VEKN-produced material. My sense is these cards range from wholly inconsequential to neat cards that could potentially be swapped in and out of an established strategy. > Okay, yeah, I was kind of thinking that if Nosferatu finally got a decent ousting mechanism for themselves or whatever it could see some play. The design is cute after all, and TRIES to address the combat=//=delivery problem. With the current card pool it's not fantastic (even though I've seen some funny Lucian the Perfect combat decks use it). @TWDA discussion: It would be beneficial if tournament organizers started reporting at least deck archetypes of each final, if they can't get a hold of decks lists from the finalists. "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

At least crypt should be reported, along with seating. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Lech wrote: > At least crypt should be reported, along with seating. > Seating is easy. Crypt being recorded wouldn't be hard, and I like it.

> Ankha wrote: > Then again, any deck that doesn't focus on combat won't be playing an offensive combat module. So the stats are just saying "there are more deck that don't focus on combat than deck that focus on combat", not that Majesty is broken/unbalanced/whatever. > Well, occasionally you do have an few offensive cards spicing up otherwise non-(combat) offensive deck. You know, add some cards dealing aggravated to keep the opponents guessing and afraid... ***************************** > TwoRazorReign wrote: > I think you have major rose-colored glasses when it comes to the VEKN-produced material. My sense is these cards range from wholly inconsequential to neat cards that could potentially be swapped in and out of an established strategy. > Sounds like an overstatement of the year! I totally agree with Kraus on Shadow Boxing (and I've seen it work just beautifully) and the quality of VEKN sets in general. Most vast majority very well designed and tested cards that tend to be strong but not overpowered, and usually addressing some kind of problematic spot in the game. ********************* EDIT: Happy now, Kraus? Modedit\\ Moderation approves. Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > I think you have major rose-colored glasses when it comes to the VEKN-produced material. My sense is these cards range from wholly inconsequential to neat cards that could potentially be swapped in and out of an established strategy. > > > Sounds like an overstatement of the year! > > I totally agree with Kraus on Shadow Boxing (and I've seen it work just beautifully) and the quality of VEKN sets in general. Most vast majority very well designed and tested cards that tend to be strong but not overpowered, and usually addressing some kind of problematic spot in the game. > Is it really the overstatement of the year? Shadow Boxing has shown up in 4 tournament winning decks since it was released 4 years ago, with ≤ 2 copies per each of those decks. It's a neat, reasonable card that has been around for a long time now, so let's not talk about it like it's some new, potentially fantastic card for Nos decks that people haven't discovered yet, which is where Kraus was going with that previous post. The VEKN sets are fine design-wise. But power wise, they are mostly filler cards that fit a niche but can easily be swapped for other cards.

Ah, OK. So you wanted (all) the new stuff to be on par with the top cards of the game? Pentex, Govern, Deflection, Majesty etc etc I ain't seeing the possibility much of that happening. so naturally they are more niche cards especially as most were apparently designed to help to rectify problems in the game. Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > Ah, OK. > > So you wanted (all) the new stuff to be on par with the top cards of the game? > Pentex, Govern, Deflection, Majesty etc etc > I'm not sure where you inferred that from, but no, I do not want that. > I ain't seeing the possibility much of that happening. so naturally they are more niche cards especially as most were apparently designed to help to rectify problems in the game. > Perhaps my previous post was not clear. That the VEKN PDF sets are niche cards is perfectly fine. My specific issue was with Kraus suggesting that Shadow Boxing was not a niche card, but rather a key card to Nos decks that hasn't been discovered yet. The card has been around for four years and has had minimal impact. So it's a niche card and nothing more. Which is fine.

> My specific issue was with Kraus suggesting that Shadow Boxing was not a niche card, but rather a key card to Nos decks that hasn't been discovered yet. > Okay, so I had to double check what I've written about Shadow Boxing, since I can't remember ever thinking IRL, let alone writing here, that Shadow Boxing was more than an interesting idea and somewhat powerful in some super specific builds in small quantities. This is what I wrote, for reference. Firstly: > I wrote: > Otherwise there are some good points about stealth/combat comparison as a delivery method here. > > Shadow Boxing was a cool new design, but hasn't seen too much play yet. Maybe because of how non-dominate Nosferatu aren't really that hot. > Then, after being called out for over praising the card: > I wrote: > Okay, yeah, I was kind of thinking that if Nosferatu finally got a decent ousting mechanism for themselves or whatever it could see some play. The design is cute after all, and TRIES to address the combat=//=delivery problem. With the current card pool it's not fantastic (even though I've seen some funny Lucian the Perfect combat decks use it). > I'm having hard time finding where I called it a crucial staple for Nosferatu delivery. My words at the time seem to suggest on the contrary. If I missed some of my posts or the present-me is missing a hidden cue from the past-me, I stand corrected. If not, my meaning has been misinterpreted. I'll rephrase once more, as you mentioned my posts twice now and it seems important to you: At least combat as a delivery method has been explored in Shadow Boxing. Too bad it isn't stronger with the current card pool, but since it's not at all impossible to kill minions, with better ousting mechanisms introduced for Nossies the design has merits. I'm eager to see what's in the future. But anyways, it was originally meant as a sidenote, and I don't care that much either way. It's just, like, my opinion, man. "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

Shadow boxing would go in more of my decks if I didn't have to print it, but... Honestly, its always been cut for upping Swallowed by the Night by 2 copies in my Cock Robin variants. I made finals with the same deck last month and honestly Shadow boxing wouldn't have done much more good in the situations where I took a whole table before finals or when I couldn't put away my prey in finals. Why? Shadow Boxing [Action Modifier] Action Modifier [Combat] Combat [Obfuscate] Obfuscate [Potence] Potence [obf] [pot] [COMBAT] Maneuver, only usable to go to close range, or press, only usable to continue combat. [OBF] [POT] [ACTION MODIFIER] Only usable after a combat resulting from a block. Not usable if the blocking minion is ready. This vampire burns 1 blood to continue the action as if unblocked. My rushes needed to hit the initial targets. freak drive cannot untap ne if I'm blocked, so shadow boxing seems ok, except that only Cock (not Calebros or Nik) can use it to get to my Initial rush target, but both princes can totally use SbtN to get the deep song/ttcb rush to hit the initial (intended) victim. If I were playing something with Zelios and BaronD, shadow boxing would be fine, but I dont, so I'm my decks ot hasnt found its niche yet. I have it listed in untested snake punch decks, because Ghede getting blocked, playing TLF, torping the blocker then boxing into the target sounds hilarious, and fatties+ eternals+villein means my crypt probably has so the manuever on SB is better than running slam, given how typhonic beast is the focal point of combat, it all flows in a more SB friendly way. But pdf "niche" cards do their job, thanks to instantaneous transformation, many things are no longer unplayable, and some dec in s got even better.

> Kraus wrote: > But anyways, it was originally meant as a sidenote, and I don't care that much either way. It's just, like, my opinion, man. > I agree, it doesn't really matter. The only reason why I kept bringing it up was because Lonnka didn't get what I was trying to say (which was in fact a misinterpretation of what you were trying to say [thanks for clarifying]). So there was just a chain of people talking past each other, which is wont to happen on internet forums.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > My outsider opinion is that VTES has some "unwritten rules" that ensure responsible play. I have read about "responsible bleeding," or not just bleeding out your grand prey when bounced. I feel like a similar concept exists for combat, where players are seen as irresponsible if they don't play combat "the right way." These unwritten rules contribute to the social part of VTES that a lot of people find charming. > That's not really an unwritten rule nor a social convention in any meaningful sense. I mean, it's not like when Jyhad was first created and people - understandably - had a hard time dealing with some archetypes, and there was often some social pressure not to play them. Responsible bleeding is one perfectly rational response to the game's incentives. In broad generalities: Winning requires VPs. VPs require ousting your prey. The game includes several potent forms of bleed bounce, most notably Deflection. The game includes the ability to bleed for large amounts at stealth. The combination of bleed bounce and large bleeds at stealth can undermine your ability to oust your prey by accidentally ousting your grand-prey. Not only does that give your prey one of the VPs that you want, it gives your prey six pool, making it harder to oust them. Therefore, one rational response is to find ways that stop you ousting your grand prey. One option is bleeding for small amounts a lot, rather than a few large amounts. Another is to use Spying Mission. Another is to use Tangle Atropos' Hand (if your grand-prey can announce a block attempt, you can cancel the action, even if it is at a bajillion stealth and they have no intercept). Another option is to go for power-bleed rather than stealth, so you rarely go to much stealth but can take out blockers with block-prevention/cancellation cards (Call of the Hungry Dead which also provides negative intercept, Seduction, Elder Impersonation etc.), so if you do go to your grand-prey, they can much more easily block. Tapping that hideously annoying bouncer can help (e.g. Misdirection), and you may have other minion manipulation abilities (Banishment, combat, whatever) that can take them out. That your grand-prey stays in the game a little longer is a side-effect, but not the motive. The motive is hurting your prey and getting the VP, rather than giving them a VP.