Emerald Legionnaire — First Black Chantry Nerf?

> Emerald Legionnaire > Wraith with 2 life. 2 strength, 1 bleed. > During your unlock phase, you can remove 7 cards in your ash heap from the game to move an Emerald Legionnaire from your ash heap to the ready region with 2 life. > OK, so it's become pretty obvious this card is broken. Yes, Harbringers needed something — however this card has become the scourge of online play and this likely to filter through to real world games / tournaments. It seems unlikely that the popularity of this card is not due to it's new shininess — it's due to the power level. So it's unlikely to go away anytime so. Nerf seems pretty straight forward; only allow one to come back into play per turn. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

Though I hate to say it, since they are tons of fun, I totally agree that this card needs a nerfing. Recently played against Bill Troxel's Alcoan Legionairre deck that just uses Infernal Pursuits to fill up his ash heap quick. One rush, and a bunch of Infernal Pursuit equals 8+ legionairres on turn 3 or 4. With Anu Diptinatpa giving seven of them +1 bleed, this is clearly broken. I would only limit it to two brought in each turn though. It's gotta happen though.

Legionnaires are powerful. With 2 life and 2 strength, it costs two blocks and 4 blood from vampires to kill them, assuming I play no cards. Even then, in most situations that ally is back in play next turn. I've seen a lot of variants of this deck and they are all very destabilizing and mostly successful. Even if you're prepared for the sudden accumulation of minions in your predator's ready region, it's hard to handle it. The strategies are evolving so quickly that it's now a matter to finding the fastest way to purge your library and get them into play. As mjvtes521 noted, you can see a bunch of them very early. There are two easy nerfs, as I see it: 1. Apply a fixed limit to the number of Emerald Legionnaires that can enter play each turn. Probably 1 or 2. 2. Disallow the ability to put an Emerald Legionnaire into play, the turn they come into play. This still allows for exponential growth of Legionnaires, but 1 will not get you 8 in a single turn.

Personal opinion: legionnaires are strong enough to be a playable deck, but not overpowered. There are many ways to beat them. - bleed them with stealth, they can do largely nothing - vote ancilla empowerment or anarchist uprising to oust them - block/rush/steal the first legionnaire etc. Ive been seeing them a lot both live and online (just tonight I ousted one at the lackey league game) but I've yet to see them dominate the table. They are in my opinion much like any other VTES deck. Its popular, doesn't mean its overpowered. Its a cool new thing. If black chantry wants to introduce a counter card to them, errata gran madre di dio, Italy to NOT have the unlock phase clause. Then legionnaires would be affected by it. Or errata the legionnaires to enter the game at master phase or something. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > Personal opinion: legionnaires are strong enough to be a playable deck, but not overpowered. There are many ways to beat them. > - bleed them with stealth, they can do largely nothing > - vote ancilla empowerment or anarchist uprising to oust them > - block/rush/steal the first legionnaire > etc. Ive been seeing them a lot both live and online (just tonight I ousted one at the lackey league game) but I've yet to see them dominate the table. They are in my opinion much like any other VTES deck. Its popular, doesn't mean its overpowered. Its a cool new thing. > > If black chantry wants to introduce a counter card to them, errata gran madre di dio, Italy to NOT have the unlock phase clause. Then legionnaires would be affected by it. Or errata the legionnaires to enter the game at master phase or something. > I feel the meta on a nigh-global level had stagnated to the point of this archetype being able to roll through tournaments. I've seen War Ghouls and Diary decks get stupid good placement and sweep, this deck is quite strong, but I've yet to see a situation where its impossible to beat it; Bill's deck sounds scary good. But just like 4 months ago I watched Bill using Inceptor to have a Convert burn a 10 cap turn 3. If we didn't erratta MMPA sources to limit one extra a turn, I'm unconvinced Legionnaires need erratta. Maybe if they get broke like imbued or girls where the lack of interactivity is damaging to the game, but I dont see it that bad yet.

Emerald Legionnaires are super strong. But, they are not much stronger than Week of Nightmares breed decks. They do practically the same thing - build up and swarm with Str2 Bld2. I know it isn't a straight forward comparison, nor a fair one at that, but it is 'a' comparison. Both do similar things and require a specific answer to counter them. It still might not be enough. But there is a counter, and a valid strategy to battle them. Walls' first and foremost priority should be blocking the first Legionnaire from hitting the table. Even if people countered them with Goratrix and a dozen different ally hate techs and someone stopped playing Legionnaire because of that, don't leave home without some ally hate. To be fair, if anything needed nerfing (enabling a stall game, and a negative play experience), it STILL would be Ashur Tablets imo. I'm not saying it's not something we shouldn't have. The design is fine.The power level is not super op. But it's a strat that, with MMPA and Liquidation, makes a player almost unkillable PAST MINION INTERACTION. Legionnaires can be battled with any manner of intercept, combat, ally-steal or DI. That's plenty of interaction. Ashur Tablets' only known 'counter' is Trochomancy. I know Legionnaires are frustrating, and they could have their unlock phase trigger restricted to one instance, but they're way more fine than Ashurs. I doubt BCP will touch Ashur Tablets now though, since they already left it unscathed in the Anthology box. If there was a need for a nerf or errata, I'd STILL wager it's Ashur (make it recycle only MINION cards, not masters; or just restrict it not to be able to fetch other Ashurs), not Legionnaire. It takes a year's time to see if they're broken. We're still half way there. Until then, stay strong and remember to deny that first Emerald even from cross table if you know you can't deal with them in heads-up. Krausedit\\ For the record, and before people start shouting that "there's SO MANY cards I want fixed!", I was of a mind that Villein should be 'up to 5' for years. I'm glad they did that change. Not even the fact that everyone has access to Ashurs these days (proxy or Anthology) seem to make them less of a bummer to play against. There are no other cards in the whole game that need adjustment in my opinion. No, nothing in Dominate. Nothing in Votes. Nothing in Masters. Maybe Kpist into 2 but that's not a nerf. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

I maintain the stance if one card should be banned, it should be govern the unaligned. ps. This new legionnaire technology with infernal pursuit seems interesting, let's see if I need to adjust my opinion. As with all turbo-decks though, sometimes they just trip over their own feet, or die to a single well-aimed direct intervention. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > I maintain the stance if one card should be banned, it should be govern the unaligned. > I 95% disagree. It is not a problematic card. It is just one of the best cards in a given discipline. But, ultimately, that is besides the point of this topic. Emerald Legionnaires didn't win the EC, nor did they win any of those main tournaments. They won some, and afterwards were hosed pretty bad by Goratrix and Presence. Once the meta evolves and settles we'll see if Legionnaire decks are actually worth the nerfs or not. It's too soon to say, I'd say. "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

> Ke. wrote: > > > Emerald Legionnaire > > Wraith with 2 life. 2 strength, 1 bleed. > > During your unlock phase, you can remove 7 cards in your ash heap from the game to move an Emerald Legionnaire from your ash heap to the ready region with 2 life. > > > OK, so it's become pretty obvious this card is broken. Yes, Harbringers needed something — however this card has become the scourge of online play and this likely to filter through to real world games / tournaments. > > It seems unlikely that the popularity of this card is not due to it's new shininess — it's due to the power level. So it's unlikely to go away anytime so. > > Nerf seems pretty straight forward; only allow one to come back into play per turn. > Honest question from a non-hardcore VTES player: Would playing Kindred Segregation thwart these decks at all? Has anybody tried? From a distance, I'm trying to discern if claiming this card broken is a knee-jerk initial reaction from people in a stagnant meta or if it is really, truly broken. The intent from the designers may have been to introduce a powerful, metagame-affecting card. I mean...3 other sets were released with a bunch of filler cards that were thoroughly play-tested and mostly did a good job fitting a niche in the game. In other words, those 3 sets hit the mark with what was intended for those sets. Now, all of a sudden, there was a misstep with the fourth set and there's a "clearly broken" card that slipped through the cracks? I doubt it. I think the power level of Emerald Legionnaire was deliberate.

> Honest question from a non-hardcore VTES player: Would playing Kindred Segregation thwart these decks at all? Has anybody tried? > Not really. They cost only 1 pool, so the effect is at best similar to Anarchist Uprising or Ancilla Empowerment. Segregation could work fine against Nephandi, but against any other ally deck prevalent in the meta it is next to useless. It wasn't excellent design to begin with, to be honest. "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: > > > Honest question from a non-hardcore VTES player: Would playing Kindred Segregation thwart these decks at all? Has anybody tried? > > > Not really. They cost only 1 pool, so the effect is at best similar to Anarchist Uprising or Ancilla Empowerment. > Except for the fact that the legionnaire player can CHOOSE the best option for them (burn pool or the ally), making segregation immediately inferior to ancilla empowerment. Not to mention that empowerment actually works against all decks to an extent. Its never entirely useless, unlike segregation. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

So what I'm trying to get at is has anybody actively tried to thwart an Emerald Legionnaire deck (either using Ancilla Empowerment or whatever else works against allies) and failed, or is this thread just a knee-jerk reaction to a powerful card being introduced? In other words, is the card really "broken," or do people just not want to have something new affecting their metagame (for whatever reason)? I'm trying to understand the thinking behind why one would ask for a "nerf" instead of dealing with Emerald Legionnaire actively in-game.

Emerald legionnairre is not a fun card. What makes vtes a game worth playing is player interaction. I have little interest in playing solitaire style games of vtes (old anson anarch revolt for example). The power level is really a secondary concern, in as much as a poorly designed card that is weak wouldn't matter. Why should 1 successful action allow you to put 12 minions in play? I understand what black chantry was trying to do (make a splash for harbingers) but they made a mistake. Best thing to do is admit it and move on.

> Kraus wrote: > Emerald Legionnaires are super strong. But, they are not much stronger than Week of Nightmares breed decks. They do practically the same thing - build up and swarm with Str2 Bld2. > > I know it isn't a straight forward comparison, nor a fair one at that, but it is 'a' comparison. Both do similar things and require a specific answer to counter them. It still might not be enough. > It's not a comparison at all. The only similarity is a high number of minions. Legionnaires happen much more quickly, don't require drawing a master, and only requires one successful action. Apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned. For me there are a couple reasons why the card is so good. Liquidation is #1. Seriously that card has no reason to exist. It facilitates degenerate decks and has absolutely zero downside. At least infernal pursuit requires you to play combat cards to start to fill your graveyard. Liquidation is not a well designed card and should be examined for a ban. #2 The Legionnaire is overtuned, it breeds itself and is a "put into play" effect. As if flooding your board with overtuned allies wasn't enough, they can act the turn they come out (2 life, 2 strength, 1 bleed for 1 pool? Show me anything comparable printed at any time ever). The legionnaire is generally overtuned and addressing any part of that would make it more manageable. #3 Harbingers got better stuff overall. They got other support through cards and vampires that makes them more viable as a clan, which means the whole package can hit harder. I would consider a nerf for Legionnaires based on the stat line and cost alone. Looking at the whole picture I can't imagine it's not at the very top of the power curve.

@hog I agree that liquidation is also a problem card, and is certainly one of the primary enablers for solitaire style legionnaire decks. It is hard for me to understand the thought process on design of liquidation. Burn 7 cards in a game where you rarely see the last 30 cards of deck? How is this a disadvantage? It just pushes the game toward heavy pool damage/bloat and away from other strategies. You were at a disadvantage not playing presence or dominate 10 years ago and the gulf has only grown.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > So what I'm trying to get at is has anybody actively tried to thwart an Emerald Legionnaire deck (either using Ancilla Empowerment or whatever else works against allies) and failed, or is this thread just a knee-jerk reaction to a powerful card being introduced? In other words, is the card really "broken," or do people just not want to have something new affecting their metagame (for whatever reason)? I'm trying to understand the thinking behind why one would ask for a "nerf" instead of dealing with Emerald Legionnaire actively in-game. > From what I have seen, is basically people refusing to metagame against them, adapt, or adjust their decks. Have vote decks put extra ancilla emp or two in their decks? The answer so far has been no. > DJHedgehog wrote: > It's not a comparison at all. The only similarity is a high number of minions. Legionnaires happen much more quickly, don't require drawing a master, and only requires one successful action. Apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned. > Lolwut You are free to showcase us how are you going to cycle your deck sufficiently for legionnaires without actions or masters.. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > From what I have seen, is basically people refusing to metagame against them, adapt, or adjust their decks. Have vote decks put extra ancilla emp or two in their decks? The answer so far has been no. > I am not certain what information you are using to make this assessment. The amount of counter cards selected for this strategy is staggering. As always, 'it doesn't always work' is a terrible answer. You can do this or that or have some other card is really weak reasoning. All these rhetorical questions do not scratch the surface of the real question. Is what this strategy does in line with the rest of the game (i.e. does taking one action allow a massive board build up) and does this promote an enjoyable play experience for all 5 players?

What I am not certain of how do you guys make this assumption, sraight out blaming BCP for this fiasko of a card, pounding chest and state, that this card is badly designed and needs nerf? Are you sure enough time has passed to sit in judgement on this? I'm not seeing TWDs with this archytpye left and right, only a Lackey picture. Here we haven't met with such imbalance you described. Anytime I saw EL decks, in most cases the table was able to deal with it. I'm not saying its weak, and I'm pretty sure, if EL slips out of control, the nerf will come (like restriction to one per turn, or they can't act the turn they were put in play), but I find this witch hunt and adjudication a wee bit early. NC of Hungary ///

Did you just call it a witch hunt? #fakenews

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > It's not a comparison at all. The only similarity is a high number of minions. Legionnaires happen much more quickly, don't require drawing a master, and only requires one successful action. Apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned. > > > Lolwut > > You are free to showcase us how are you going to cycle your deck sufficiently for legionnaires without actions or masters.. > Maybe I should have expanded upon that. Week of nightmares needs to be drawn and played *after* you set up your minions. It's once per game and has drawbacks. Liquidation costs nothing and gains you 3 pool while furthering your overall strategy. You can safely pack 5-7 liquidation in your deck and that's that. If you play 5-7 week of nightmares you're going to have a bad time. I stand by my action comment. Tuminos have to be drawn and then played as a successful action *each time*. EL require 1 to be drawn and 1 action to be successful. That isn't to say that Week of Nightmares is weak. I think it's a strong effect, but it lends itself to one line of play which is "clown car". And there are lots of game designed ways to interact with the deck that don't require specific "deck tech". You can block the breeding, fight their minions, bleed at stealth. All three basic strategies have a chance against Week of Nightmares.

> Malachy wrote: > I'm not seeing TWDs with this archytpye left and right, only a Lackey picture. Here we haven't met with such imbalance you described. Anytime I saw EL decks, in most cases the table was able to deal with it. > There have been 3 decks on the TWD as tournament winners and at least 1 more that hasn't been added from Martin. 4 wins in 4 months sounds solid to me. The comparison to Week of Nightmares was made, so I checked and there have been 5 week of nightmare deck wins in the last 5 years. To me that seems like it's worth looking at.

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > So what I'm trying to get at is has anybody actively tried to thwart an Emerald Legionnaire deck (either using Ancilla Empowerment or whatever else works against allies) and failed, or is this thread just a knee-jerk reaction to a powerful card being introduced? In other words, is the card really "broken," or do people just not want to have something new affecting their metagame (for whatever reason)? I'm trying to understand the thinking behind why one would ask for a "nerf" instead of dealing with Emerald Legionnaire actively in-game. > > > From what I have seen, is basically people refusing to metagame against them, adapt, or adjust their decks. Have vote decks put extra ancilla emp or two in their decks? The answer so far has been no. > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > It's not a comparison at all. The only similarity is a high number of minions. Legionnaires happen much more quickly, don't require drawing a master, and only requires one successful action. Apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned. > > > Lolwut > > You are free to showcase us how are you going to cycle your deck sufficiently for legionnaires without actions or masters.. > First off, let me say that I never want to see cards banned. I don't think any of these other cards mentioned should be banned, or even nerfed. I don't think Liquidation should be banned or nerfed, since in normal circumstances it has a significant enough drawback that I don't normally put it in my decks. It is a full master, reduces your hand size for your whole turn, and makes you lose some good cards from the top of your deck. It is Legionairres that make Liquidation unfairly strong. They should be nerfed because there are deck builds possible that allow you to get 8 or more of them on turn 3 or 4 for the cost of 1 pool and only 1 action. Bill's deck proved that the card needs modification in my opinion. I don't have the decklist, but spoke with him about it. All it needs is one rush in hand and then it is impossible to stop. Alcoan has CEL and fortitude. So the deck has rushes, Legionairres, a ton of Infernal Pursuit, a couple Forced March and Zephyr for 100% unlock after the rush, and then one or two copies of all the cards that keep other decks from stopping it. He rushes, and whether he is blocked or not, gets to fill his ash heap with a ton of cards as well as getting the the perfect hand for preventing anybody from stopping the swarm of Legionairres. He has Call of the Hungry Dead and Spectral Div to ensure he gets the one recruit action through. He has Dark Influences, Delaying, and Poison Pill to counter Ally steal, Ancilla Empowerment, Kindred Seg, Anarchist Uprising, etc. And he only has to DI the ally steal once since he only needs the one to last until his next turn when he automatically brings in 8+ more Legionairres that cost nothing, can't be stopped from coming into play, and can all act right away. Once there are tons of Legionairres out, ally steal makes no difference, since it is just 1 of many, and when it dies, it goes back to owner's ash heap to then come out again for free. Then he has Anu Diptinatpa to make 7 of the legionairres bleed for 2 each. And Jake Washington to fill Anu back up to 4 more bleed boost for the next turn. I love Legionairres, they are a fun card that Harbingers needed. I have won two tournaments with Legionairre decks and think it is a really fun card. But IMO, Bill's deck proves that the design is a little off (broken, but fixable). Bill's deck abuses this new mechanic in a way that makes it almost always unstoppable no matter what counter you have to normal swarm ally decks, and costs only 1 pool. DJ, Mewcat, and I play on Lackey a lot, so we have all seen several Legionairre decks, many many times. So this is no knee jerk reaction. I've seen plenty of people trying to meta against Legionairres. I didn't think they needed nerfing until I saw Bill's deck. This is a new mechanic, unlike anything else that exists in VTES, and Bill's deck shows that it is unfairly strong and broken. I only suggest that it be limited in the amount of Legionairres that can use their ability per turn. I suggest it be limited to "no more than two Legionairres can enter play during your unlock phase." I think DJ Hedgehog said it that Lackey is an accelerated way to test cards, meta, etc. It hasn't flooded the TWDA yet (well it kind of has) because it is still a new card, but it will. When you play almost daily on Lackey, you see the card in action many times, and you can see that this is an easy fix that needs to happen. Not a knee jerk reaction.

Out of curiosity, has any of you ever used Nightmares upon Nightmares against Emerald Legionnaire decks? I am considering making room for it in some of my decks. Name: Nightmares upon Nightmares [Gehenna:R] Cardtype: Event Gehenna. Do not replace until your next discard phase. For each minion a Methuselah controls during his or her unlock phase, the Methuselah must burn a card from his or her hand or lock that minion. Cards burned in this way are not replaced until the master phase. Vampires with capacity greater than the number of Gehenna cards in play and mortal allies are not affected by this card. Artist: Mark Nelson V:EKN Website Coordinator

> DJHedgehog wrote: > There have been 3 decks on the TWD as tournament winners and at least 1 more that hasn't been added from Martin. 4 wins in 4 months sounds solid to me. > > The comparison to Week of Nightmares was made, so I checked and there have been 5 week of nightmare deck wins in the last 5 years. > > To me that seems like it's worth looking at. > WoN is a poor comparison for TWDA statistics - it was missing the 'breed' component when it first showed up in FN, the first winning deck using WoN is from 2002 (one year after release). Try these for comparison: Zillah's Valley also got its first 4 wins in 4 months. Deep Song got 13 wins in 10 months. Ashur Tablets had 8 wins at 4 months. None of these have been nerfed.

To say people aren't metagaming against them is, at least on Lackey, a mostly invalid statement. We've had post-game chats about how to handle them. Almost any Presence deck I run includes 6+ Entrancement instead of 2+ by default. All my vote decks now have extra copies of Anarchist Uprising and Ancilla Empowerment (and possibly Domain Challenge). All of these changes mess with the flow of decks. Now my own votes are damaging me, etc, which cascade into other changes, so formerly solid decks are less so because they need to be able to handle this new meta. > Damnans wrote: > Out of curiosity, has any of you ever used Nightmares upon Nightmares against Emerald Legionnaire decks? > I have looked at this for another tool in the anti-ally toolkit (mostly for Nephandi and Diary wraiths). I haven't gotten around to trying it for or against Legionnaires yet. It'll be borne out in practice, but at least early on it helps Legionnaire decks. I was actually thinking of playing it with a couple of other events to hose weenie decks as I tune my deck, bringing out Legionnaires and whatever else as necessary.

> skimflux wrote: > Try these for comparison: Zillah's Valley also got its first 4 wins in 4 months. Deep Song got 13 wins in 10 months. Ashur Tablets had 8 wins at 4 months. None of these have been nerfed. > Ashur Tablets came out during what was probably the height of VtES popularity and activity. What's the ratio of wins/all tournaments, for each of those deck types in the first four month period? And for WoN, I'd run the stats again against Tumnimos and see what effect that had.

> Damnans wrote: > Out of curiosity, has any of you ever used Nightmares upon Nightmares against Emerald Legionnaire decks? > > I am considering making room for it in some of my decks. > > Name: Nightmares upon Nightmares > [Gehenna:R] > Cardtype: Event > Gehenna. Do not replace until your next discard phase. > For each minion a Methuselah controls during his or her unlock phase, the Methuselah must burn a card from his or her hand or lock that minion. Cards burned in this way are not replaced until the master phase. Vampires with capacity greater than the number of Gehenna cards in play and mortal allies are not affected by this card. > Artist: Mark Nelson > Bill also pointed out that that card would ruin his deck. It definitely would. But nobody uses that card normally. It would have no good reason to be in a deck other than to destroy Legionairre swarms. The other ally killers like Entrancement, Ancilla Empowerment, and Uncoiling (to burn Unmasking) have other uses. So if somebody needs to have that cornercase card to beat Bill's deck, it only further supports my argument that the Legionairres need modification.

> mjvtes521 wrote: > Alcoan has CEL and fortitude. So the deck has rushes, Legionairres, a ton of Infernal Pursuit, a couple Forced March and Zephyr for 100% unlock after the rush, and then one or two copies of all the cards that keep other decks from stopping it. He rushes, and whether he is blocked or not, gets to fill his ash heap with a ton of cards... > I have some questions. Again, very casual VTES player here. What if the target plays Obedience? Wouldn't that card completely foil this plan? Or Secure Haven? > as well as getting the the perfect hand for preventing anybody from stopping the swarm of Legionairres.... > Everything you go on to list after this part is basically every card included in every deck ever. I mean, people don't really have an answer for Poison Pill or Delaying Tactics? > DJ, Mewcat, and I play on Lackey a lot, so we have all seen several Legionairre decks, many many times. So this is no knee jerk reaction. I've seen plenty of people trying to meta against Legionairres. > How exactly did they try to "meta" against it and fail? > I didn't think they needed nerfing until I saw Bill's deck. This is a new mechanic, unlike anything else that exists in VTES, and Bill's deck shows that it is unfairly strong and broken. > Again, what attempts have you made to meta against this particular deck that failed?

> kschaefer wrote: > To say people aren't metagaming against them is, at least on Lackey, a mostly invalid statement. We've had post-game chats about how to handle them. Almost any Presence deck I run includes 6+ Entrancement instead of 2+ by default. > > All my vote decks now have extra copies of Anarchist Uprising and Ancilla Empowerment (and possibly Domain Challenge). All of these changes mess with the flow of decks. Now my own votes are damaging me, etc, which cascade into other changes, so formerly solid decks are less so because they need to be able to handle this new meta. > So the argument you'd make is that Emerald Legionnaire can be meta gamed against, it's just that doing so warps the meta game in a direction that is problematic in terms of deck building?

> skimflux wrote: > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > There have been 3 decks on the TWD as tournament winners and at least 1 more that hasn't been added from Martin. 4 wins in 4 months sounds solid to me. > > > > The comparison to Week of Nightmares was made, so I checked and there have been 5 week of nightmare deck wins in the last 5 years. > > > > To me that seems like it's worth looking at. > > > WoN is a poor comparison for TWDA statistics - it was missing the 'breed' component when it first showed up in FN, the first winning deck using WoN is from 2002 (one year after release). > > Try these for comparison: Zillah's Valley also got its first 4 wins in 4 months. Deep Song got 13 wins in 10 months. Ashur Tablets had 8 wins at 4 months. None of these have been nerfed. > It's funny that you say that because literally those are all cards I speak out against pretty regularly, with the exception of Zillah's Valley. Ashur is silly for this game and Deep Song is overtuned, I was looking at WoN wins in the *last 5 years*, not the first 5 after it came out.

> mjvtes521 wrote: > First off, let me say that I never want to see cards banned. I don't think any of these other cards mentioned should be banned, or even nerfed. I don't think Liquidation should be banned or nerfed, since in normal circumstances it has a significant enough drawback that I don't normally put it in my decks. It is a full master, reduces your hand size for your whole turn, and makes you lose some good cards from the top of your deck. It is Legionairres that make Liquidation unfairly strong. > The whole liquidation + Ashur Tablet interaction is beyond silly for a game like this. Liquidation just becomes a master that says "Gain 3 pool", and then it has the side effect of letting you later fix your deck. If it said "Gain 2 pool" instead do you think you would still play it? I think so, and that's a pretty good gauge on if cards are overtuned. My argument is that not only is it overtuned, but it has consequences that limit the creation of new cards. Case in point: without liquidation EL wouldn't be nearly as oppressive unless your name is Bill Troxel and do some dumb shit with infernal pursuit

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > So the argument you'd make is that Emerald Legionnaire can be meta gamed against, it's just that doing so warps the meta game in a direction that is problematic in terms of deck building? > It does create meta decisions, and that much I do like. Knowing that at least one person in a tournament will probably play that deck, and because it's good you'll have to face it in the finals is the one good thing it has going for it IMO. I came from 1 v 1 games, so you would prepare for certain decks. That doesn't bother me. The answers to allies in this game are mostly half measures. Nothing outright hoses them, nothing can deal with swarms. Allies weren't supposed to be good: they all historically cost a lot and were not as good as a vampire could be. Renegade Garou costs 5. Nephandus is the closest comparable thing and they didn't get off the ground until that 5 cap who can fish them out of your deck was printed. So, I have to tech against a really great deck with crappy cards that will be less than useful in the games I don't face EL.

As soon as I saw how fast you can bring out a swarm of free 2 bleed 2 strength allies in a tournament it was clear this card needs to be nerfed. There are many options for doing this (some have been previously mentioned): 1) blank their text box (other than Wraith). For one pool they are still great allies. I a most in favor of this. Consider other strong allies: Nocturn War Ghoul Carlton Imbued Legionnaires are immune to your tastes and other vampire affecting cards like all these are, but recruit each other and have a better strength/life/cost/bleed balance than all but imbued. Don't forget how stupid they are with Unmasking. FBI, Special Affairs Division? Icing on the cake. One combat card (Target Vitals) can lead to a vampire losing six blood (2 str, TV, FBI) and then they just come back on the next untap. Get real. 2) reduce the number you can get to one per turn (two is still silly, considering how OP the ability is in general) 3) Change text to say that Legionnaires cost one less to recruit so that the first makes the later ones easier to get, but still require actions (outside of piper). 4) Make Legionnaires unique and free, "wraith" as text. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

> DJHedgehog wrote: > I was looking at WoN wins in the *last 5 years*, not the first 5 after it came out. > I realize that, but you must account for the 'new toy' effect in the meta to make a fair comparison: people will tend to try new strategies more often when they first become known/available. It's also at that time that effective counters are probably less known and less common.

> kschaefer wrote: > > > skimflux wrote: > > Try these for comparison: Zillah's Valley also got its first 4 wins in 4 months. Deep Song got 13 wins in 10 months. Ashur Tablets had 8 wins at 4 months. None of these have been nerfed. > > > Ashur Tablets came out during what was probably the height of VtES popularity and activity. What's the ratio of wins/all tournaments, for each of those deck types in the first four month period? And for WoN, I'd run the stats again against Tumnimos and see what effect that had. > 2017 has 89 TWD registered, 2018 will probably finish in the same ballpark (58 by the end of August). Zillah's Valley from 2001 - there were 75 TWD in that year and 93 in 2002, so it looks like a slightly higher rate than EL. Deep Song and Ashur both came out at the end of 2008 - there were 221 TWD in 2008 and 240 in 2009, so roughly 2.5x as many as in 2018. That puts EL clearly above Deep Song, and slightly better than Ashur too. OTOH EL is part of the first printed expansion in 8 years, and it's a mini-expansion with a very limited scope - so there is a significant anticipation buildup and not that many archetypes to try out with these cards. In other words: it's too close to call without further data, check again in 6 months.

Count me in with the folks who think the card is a bit OP and that its annoyingly non-interactive special text could stand a slight nerfing. But I admit that it is early to tell for sure. That said, rumors of the Alcoan deck are getting out of proportion, so allow me to set the record straight on that. It is a fragile novelty deck, as most turbo decks are. The whole thing centers around a single trick, which lands you with 7 or 8 Legionnaires on turn 4 or 5 that I am guessing will typically be mostly dead by the time you have ousted your first prey. It’s NOT the sort of deck I can imagine sweeping through a 5-player table. I have played the Alcoan deck three times, all of which were 4 player games: The first was a casual Lackey game in which I had good seating and swept the table. That gave me the confidence to try it in league. The second was the league game (Lackey again) where for a while it looked like it was going to lose with 0VP, but eventually things turned around for a 3-1 GW. I did have an army of ELs on turn 4 or 5, but Mark J came at me cross-table w/Mambo Jean, stomping Alcoan into torpor and then bringing down a couple ELs for good measure. My prey had 4 weenies to block with, all sporting Protean and heavy use of Combat Ends. I was low on pool with 5 or 6 ELs, Carlton and a 1-cap, and I had to leave 3 allies untapped (w/Unmasking) for fear of being ousted by bleed/vote. This left me, for no fewer than 3 turns, in the position of contemplating whether I should go forward with a bunch of Legionnaires, probably injuring some of them, just so I could get a single bleed of 1 through. So I sat there, pretty much useless. Eventually I recouped some minions and got Anu, my prey lunged unsuccessfully, I bled him out, then Mark lunged forward (gaining a VP) rather than rushing back at me, and so I was able to oust him right afterward. In short, things played out well for me; it was not a story of total table domination. The third game was in-person at my local playgroup, where I scored 0VP. My predator was Kelly playing Inner Circle. Darby was my cross-table “ally” who was playing Xipe Totec (who can steal allies as a +1 stealth action). On turn 3, I dumped my library, brought out a Legionnaire and Carlton, and dropped the Unmasking. My prey still didn’t have a vamp out, and I was holding D.I. in my hand (as engineered), so I was feeling pretty good about protecting the wraith. Darby comes to steal the Legionnaire, and since it’s not a carded action, I can’t D.I. it, so I try blocking with Carlton at 2 intercept. Darby plays 2 different +stealth cards, and I have to D.I. the second one. Carlton blocks successfully, but then Xipe Totec plays superior Form of Mist FTW. My wraith is gone. I only get to play one more turn after that; Kelly pummels me with pool damage over the course of his next two turns and I die —— no time to trigger another EL army and recover. Moral of the story: fragility is the cost for speed, as it goes with turbo decks, and that is no less true for a turbo Emerald Legionnaire deck. Alcoan alone does not prove that EL is broken; it’s just one stitch in the tapestry. Now I do have a Babalawo + Specialization + Liquidation EL deck, on the other hand, that has a similarly high win ratio, and I consider it much more robust... Thanks for reading. Cheers! -Killiam (Bill Troxel) "I look back from where I'm from Look at the woman I've become And the strangest things seem Suddenly routine" -Hedwig Robinson

> mjvtes521 wrote: > I think DJ Hedgehog said it that Lackey is an accelerated way to test cards, meta, etc. It hasn't flooded the TWDA yet (well it kind of has) because it is still a new card, but it will. When you play almost daily on Lackey, you see the card in action many times, and you can see that this is an easy fix that needs to happen. Not a knee jerk reaction. > Lackey really is vtes on crack. The fact that every player has infinite copies of every card and there is no need to spend time rifling through cards speeds evolution up, not to mention the cultural exchange program. I am playing with people from all around the world. You can play a deck and make changes to the list for future games while you play. Casual games on lackey are more challenging than local tournaments. This may be hard to believe, but it is true.

> Mewcat wrote: > This may be hard to believe, but it is true. > With the introduction of the leagues this is only accelerating. Lackey is the the Canary of V:TES, often ground breaking decks / broken ideas are seen and tested there long before they make the TWDA / tournament. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Mewcat wrote: > > > mjvtes521 wrote: > > Casual games on lackey are more challenging than local tournaments. > > > > This may be hard to believe, but it is true. > > > I do find that hard to believe, so I'm installing Lackey as we speak (I mean as I type). I'd been playing on Lackey regularly couple of years ago, but then I stopped due to lack of flavour of face-to-face play. It's about taste, so I'm not arguing on that, but as I've gathered from my old playing experience on Lackey, I don't consider it AS relevant to realtime VtES as you guys do. I think behind a pc, even with mics and cams on, the game loses crucial elements, especially in comparison to a tournament (including like cheating methods I'm not aware of). But I'm ready to test my beliefs > > But we are a bit drifted from topic. Reacting to mjvtes521's depiction, I don't find this such an irresistible combo. I totally agree that if it sits in the right place, can and will abuse EL usage, but > 1, If you sit next to a combat deck, you have to chance to get pounded (although I've not seen his combat package). > 2, I'm really surprised if you ensure EL-s by one block denial and +1 stealth. Even a toolbox can deal with this, but a dedicated blocker surely will. > 3, A rush deck, if it is able, could easily target both Alcoan or the first EL. If you totally empty your deck and the first EL gets hit, it is all over as I see. > 4, Not to mention cross table deals to do the same, or such actions or blocks against your deck, espeically if the table agrees on wanting to remove the possibility of a billion EL. > > These things could easily happen, and not even metachanging or counterdecking factors. But I'm just being theoretical here, I have to go up against these Turbo ELs with my casual decks be certain. > NC of Hungary ///

> Malachy wrote: > I do find that hard to believe, so I'm installing Lackey as we speak (I mean as I type). > It makes sense though, since these are the same experienced players as offline, having played decades, but now can play together over huge distances with infinite card inventory. Lackey is perfect testing ground for ideas and finding out whats broken. In real life metagame progress is much slower where people can be affected by card availability or refusal to play proxies. Lackey doesn't have all good players though, but recently theres been more and more Finnish players finding it at least. Myself included. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

Legionnaires are fine. People play bad decks and think stuff that worked in the 90’s still work... for some random reason. Newsflash it wont. There is plenty of stuff that counter legionnaires: guns, walls, entrancement on the first legionnaire, even any goddamn stealth bleed that is fast enough as a predator(read: any deck with presence/dominate/dementation) Remember the times when you couldn’t dodge Anarch Revolts and there was Anthelios... that stuff was op! Maybe, just maybe if you play the worst clan that has no interraction against allies you shouldn’t whine about losing to allies... Baron of Riihimäki

All card games degenerate into contest of broken strategies. VtES is just doing it slower then others. EL's "calling of comrades" should be a recruit action, then it still will be quite powerful card. There were 10 years passed until Villein got kind of "fixed", so we may start new counter for EL... NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > EL's "calling of comrades" should be a recruit action, then it still will be quite powerful card. > That would be nerfing it it into the ground. The best ally decks have been Nephandus and Piper Warghoul precisely because they do not risk getting blocked, and it is fine for the EL to aim for the same power level. However, with both of those effects: -one must still pay the pool cost of the ally, -the effect taps into another restricted resource (transfers or MPA). One can argue that cards in the ash heap are a limit on the number of EL, but at the very least, the player should pay their pool cost. There is a precedent for that: > Antonio wrote: > Sabbat: While Antonio is ready, you may spend four transfers to search your hand or library (shuffle afterward) for a mage ally Antonio could play. Put that ally in play with life equal to his starting amount (pay cost as normal). >

EL's are strong and it is fun. Finally new way for a game. They seems to be equaly strong like for exmple nephandus tech. compering these two techs both have advantages and disadvantages VEKN Marketing CoDirector

I like the solution from Boris the best. Rather than limiting the number of Legionnaires you can get per turn, just make the Methuselah pay their pool cost as normal. This would certainly force a major course-correction for turbo-legionnaire (with Infernal Pursuit), which already suffers from pool management issues. I also really like that it better fits the model established by Antonio-Nephandus and Piper-War Ghoul; they can't get blocked, but their pool cost still applies, in addition to a depletable resource (here, cards in ash heap). Best of all, it is a super-simple, 4-word errata: "(pay cost as normal)". I love it. Cheers! -Killiam (Bill Troxel) "I look back from where I'm from Look at the woman I've become And the strangest things seem Suddenly routine" -Hedwig Robinson

I'm still not on the nerf wagon yet, but do we feel Alcoan deck dump is the most broken application of the card? Plainly, having the entire deck go into the ash heap will give a finite amount of times to recur legionnaires, but an army of 2 life 2 strength 1 bleed wraiths isn't as daunting as the mountain of pool MMPA decks get. Also, liquidation is more dangerous than EL.

You cant apply the same rule like Nephandus tech, becase in case of Nephandus no one can block it. First ELs CAN be blocked and this is BIG disadvantege of this tech. Later it has great advantage, that it has no cost... For me it is ok, but I must admit i havent seen this turbo pursuit combo. VEKN Marketing CoDirector

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > I'm still not on the nerf wagon yet, but do we feel Alcoan deck dump is the most broken application of the card? > I wouldn't say that. It's just one of many. The deck featured in the screenshot (30+ pool) pretty much just uses Liquidation and La Viuda Blanca. I'm not suggesting that this is a beat everything deck (nothing is in VTES). However the proportion of decks that will struggle against this card is unbalanced and heavily weighted towards the Legionnaires. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Also, liquidation is more dangerous than EL. > Liquidation needs to go. It almost always forwards your strategy in discarding cards. It doesn't matter if you're EL or doing deck fixing with Ashur. Do that and gain 3? Too many unforeseen consequences. Does anyone think EL would be as busted if Liquidation didn't exist?

"One can argue that cards in the ash heap are a limit on the number of EL." That's not just something one can argue, it's a fact. One can remove seven cards at most 12 times in a game. EL can't *do* all that much: bleed for 1, or 2 if you devote resources to it; block 0 stealth actions, or 1 stealth actions if you devote resources to it. Sabbat. Animals, Wraiths and Zombies Molloy recruits or employs get an additional life.

So the game plan is to deck yourseft? Check, where did I put those Brinksmanships?

> Whisker wrote: > So the game plan is to deck yourseft? Check, where did I put those Brinksmanships? > Hey man, take note of the link in our local league report for this week xD ps. obviously legionnaire decks have plenty of delaying tactics cause otherwise ancilla empowerment is auto-loss. > DJHedgehog wrote: > Does anyone think EL would be as busted if Liquidation didn't exist? > It would be far less strong thats for sure. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

Ive played vs EL decks a handful of times. Both more normal (non-turbo) and some semiturbo (gotchas obf-version with burn option). Not the alcoan version tho. My impression is that liquidation and unmasking are bigger problems, which just happen to act as catalysts/enablers for the EL strat. Lackeyname: Kris

> Khaan wrote: > Ive played vs EL decks a handful of times. Both more normal (non-turbo) and some semiturbo (gotchas obf-version with burn option). Not the alcoan version tho. > > My impression is that liquidation and unmasking are bigger problems, which just happen to act as catalysts/enablers for the EL strat. > Unmasking hasn't been a problem on the scale of real magnitude since Edge Explosion went to the ban list. It enables Ally strategies. All of them. No Unmasking, theres like 3 ally archetypes that remain playable at sll. Liquidation..... I've complained about it since Liliths Blessing was still legal. The "cleanest"(least broken and cheesy) deck to run more than a single copy of Liquidation is turbo Shambler decks. Those play similar to the most efficient war ghoul decks I've ever been beaten on by, but have WAY higher likelihood of getting setup for crazy by turn 3/4. Everything else with more than a single liquidation that has pretty much ever won since its printing in 10AE is MMPA of various flavors. Primary Girls (Aksynia, Cybele, Nana,etc) AAA MMPA/Anson 9+tablets variants, or Nana stuff(still popular) . Villein needed the nerf, but if Liquidation ever hit the chopping block, Anthelios wouldn't have been as broken and the MMPA deck fixing combo wouldn't have been as strong, so LB could've stayed around (because Lutz and Toy decks used it less cheatingly than MMPA decks). I have enough liquidation and tablets to run it, but on principle wont. Its uninteractive solitaire and not fun VTES. Liquidation makes too many decks feel like an Una deck. If it dumped 7, then removed 7 at random from Ash heap, it would be less broke. It's so broke I'd bump the DNR to next unlock phase. Liquidation ONLY enables decks that discourage player resources interacting. Unmasking forces said resources to interact, and Tablets can make key parts of a game keep happening once they would otherwise be exhausted. Erlik is stupid good, EL are quite good, it's Viable HoS, which was a joke a year ago. This statement remains true in the absence on Liquidation. (EDIT: oh, also, if we change or ban it fast enough, BC can modify the Anthology sets heading to print accordingly. )

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > > Unmasking hasn't been a problem on the scale of real magnitude since Edge Explosion went to the ban list. It enables Ally strategies. All of them. No Unmasking, theres like 3 ally archetypes that remain playable at sll. > Getting a little off topic here, but I take issue with this. Unmasking enables ally decks to block vampires, not to bleed or do other cool stuff. Really annoying when you consider how many actions are at 1 stealth that often get through that can get blocked any time Unmasking is in play. Also, you need twice as much stealth to bleed vs a blocking minion, by default. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

Easy fix for Liquidation would be to make it remove the cards from the game instead of putting them in your ashheap.

> Klaital wrote: > Easy fix for Liquidation would be to make it remove the cards from the game instead of putting them in your ashheap. > I would be more inclined to ban liquidation, since no normal deck uses it; and the decks that DO use it, try to break it (ashur tablets, legionnaires). I kind of like the combo aspect though. However, I still don't think we need any knee-jerk reactions regarding legionnaires. People just have to start adapting to the metagame. Regards: guy who played legionnaires in our last local tournament (when 3 out of 5 people want you ousted, can't do much) Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Unmasking hasn't been a problem on the scale of real magnitude since Edge Explosion went to the ban list. It enables Ally strategies. All of them. No Unmasking, theres like 3 ally archetypes that remain playable at sll. > I'm going to differ with your opinion here (I think). Unmasking MAKES ally decks. It's not enabling.....it's creating highly powered constructions. Look at the records.....all of the good ally-focused decks you'll see run 2-5 copies of the card. It's a linchpin that becomes a problem on Pentex-like scales. There's no reason for a non-interactive, nigh-unburnable card to provide 6-8 points of intercept, regardless of how it gets distributed across the receiving minions. And that doens't even count the spurious table-wide "Blockturn" kind of BS that I see every tournament. The Unmasking is a bad card that promotes wallish play (if not wallish designs) and that is apparent when you see War Ghouls, Nephandi and Cry Wolves choosing to block over all other courses of action. Unmasking is probably #2 on my "ban the thing now" list. With respect to the rest of the conversation......really the issue seems to be recursion as a mechanic. Tablets. Sargon. Legionnaire. Sudario. All bad. Anything that rewards a player for putting a primary, pre-constructed resource in the trash and rebuilding that resource at the point of play quite simply violates a core underpinning of deckbuilding games. IMO, these things should go.....every frigging one of them. But starting with the less interactive ones is a great place to start. All that said, I'm still not sure that EL was the best card printed for Harbingers in that set.....

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > The Unmasking is a bad card that promotes wallish play > Am I correct in assuming you consider wallish decks inappropriate for the game? Not proper decks at all? I think that is strange thought as wall decks are an entirely viable for winning the game. How they do it is just a bit different than, say bleedy or political decks. Removing or downplaying such a way to win would lessen the game, especially as walldeck is one of the original/ early archetypes. Finnish Politics!

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > Unmasking MAKES ally decks. It's not enabling..... > You think these two words have different meaning? > There's no reason for a non-interactive, nigh-unburnable card > A wall is the DEFINITION of interactive. Unmasking lets you interact with the cards of your predator/prey. Thats what interaction means. Loads of cards (stealth/intercept/combat) are going to be flying back and forth. Combat is way more interactive than bouncing bleeds. You have a very interesting mind. ps. Increase in wallish elements is a natural direction if we are to increase the effectiveness and importance of combat. Something which as far as I know, has been requested/talked about when discussing future cards. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

@BloodArtist: There is a slight difference in meaning, the way he's using the words and the emphasis on the word 'makes'. He means to say that Ally decks, as a high-tier tournament level archetype, could not exist without Unmasking. Ally-based decks are not just less potent without Unmasking, but what makes them viable is Unmasking. To use a (probably poor) comparison: !Malks would still be able to stealth-bleed, but what makes them an archetype is Kindred Spirits. Confusion + Lost In Crowds enables stealth-bleed for !Malks, but Kindred Spirits makes the archetype. As an aside, I've been wondering how potent !Gangrel would be if Cat Burglary read: +1 Stealth Action. Bleed. If more than one pool is bled this way, ignore the excess. If the bleed is successful, gain 1 pool. As above, and this vampire gains 1 blood. It would absolutely make an !Gangrel archetype as powerful as !Malks. Now, I do think you and Lonkka are right to an extent about how +intercept is interactive. The unfun thing about Wall decks is how they stop you from playing your game unless you have a serious stealth or combat package. A comparison might be counterspells or land-destruction in MTG. They offer the possibility of interaction, but unless your opponent has the appropriate cards - counterspells of their own, in this case - the interaction is minimal and often in a way that takes the fun away from your opponent. Also, VTES' lack of card limits combined with the mini-game nature of its rules, make decks hyper-focused in a way that minimizes interaction. Why play intercept when you can bounce? What use is stealth when you want to rush / get blocked so you can torpor the opposing vampire in combat? With a political deck, why fight when you can play 1 card to S:CE and untap? Relevant to this discussion: why bother with politics when you can swarm with 4-6 minions each with 2 bleed? (Yes, I know the Harbingers lack political titles and disciplines, but it is the principle of the matter.) I will also add: I like Boris The Blade's suggestion the best, and it isn't recursion itself that is deterimental to deck-building games, but that unlimited or unbounded recursion is problematic. Emerald Legionnaire is fairly well constrained, and IMO, at a power-level that the rest of VTES needs to be increased to. (Let us get some love for the Nos/!Nos and Gang/!Gang please.) 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.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > The unfun thing about Wall decks is how they stop you from playing your game unless you have a serious stealth or combat package. A comparison might be counterspells or land-destruction in MTG. They offer the possibility of interaction, but unless your opponent has the appropriate cards - counterspells of their own, in this case - the interaction is minimal and often in a way that takes the fun away from your opponent. > No, not really. A proper wall deck will pack a combat package of their own, but there is really no need for a dedicated combat engine to deal with Legionnaires. Any offensive number above standard hand strike will deal with a single legionnaire. Granted, there are X+10 or so Legionnaires in there (X being the number you slot into your deck, the 10 being roughly 70 other cards in the deck) to deal with, but any permanent or pseudo-permanent damage output will do. For instance, pick a vampire with +1 Strength, or slot a few Weighted Walking Stick. You'll kill some wraiths, no problem. Surviving the 2 hands of theirs is trickier, but has nothing to do with damage output. In reality I call if far-fetched to compare that situation with counter spells or land destruction. Or, much anything that has to do with MtG, unless you play multiplayer MtG. Maybe then. The duel game analogies aren't that useful here, I'd say. (Anyways, counter spells and land destruction are specific things that not every deck plays, I understand. Legionnaires just do numbers. Very efficient numbers in large quantities, granted, but it's just numbers - the same thing other decks do.) Walls are, actually, very interactive, and can be dealt with in plenty of ways. If you don't come prepared, you'll have a bad time. That stands true in every game (not only VTES), every interaction and every deck type. At the moment, if you don't have an answer to slightly grindy combat, +1 'cept (was always doable with media locations and equipment btw) or allies, you're not paying attention. Stealth, 'cept and combat are, after all, the foundation of VtES since '94. Pack one or some of those things to even play the game. That has been true from the beginning. > Also, VTES' lack of card limits combined with the mini-game nature of its rules, make decks hyper-focused in a way that minimizes interaction. Why play intercept when you can bounce? What use is stealth when you want to rush / get blocked so you can torpor the opposing vampire in combat? With a political deck, why fight when you can play 1 card to S:CE and untap? Relevant to this discussion: why bother with politics when you can swarm with 4-6 minions each with 2 bleed? (Yes, I know the Harbingers lack political titles and disciplines, but it is the principle of the matter.) > Plenty of reasons. Bounce only affects bleed; intercept slows down enemy tool-up actions and defends against votes. 'cept also helps against bleed, but doesn't neuter it. Stealth rushes are so much more effective than non-stealth rushes when you need to get into combat with a specific opponent; namely, stealth through to get that Famed guy, or past Carlton to reach Stanislava. Political decks need to survive, and block/combat political or bruise/rush political are as valid as stealth variants. It's easy to assume that every 10+ player tournament has a good chance of having at least 1 Legionnaire deck present, as they're so good. For the past half a year, they haven't won all tournaments (check TWDA). Not even most. People play other decks as well because they're good and have a fighting chance against EL. They're super strong. No one is denying that. They're not stupid strong because they play a different game than others. They, actually, play a lot like other decks. Just really efficiently. I'm not saying it's absolutely wrong to say they'd need a nerf, but now doesn't seem like the time to state that as a fact. I'd like to see what's the situation come January or February. "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

> Lönkka wrote: > Am I correct in assuming you consider wallish decks inappropriate for the game? > Not proper decks at all? > Walls are proper decks - as long as there is an ousting plan outside Smiling Jack. Wallish play encouraged by a single card with inappropriate scale, in decks which are designed to be intrinsically active (e.g., War Ghouls), is not something I appreciate.

> Bloodartist wrote: > A wall is the DEFINITION of interactive. Unmasking lets you interact with the cards of your predator/prey. Thats what interaction means. > You miss the point, perhaps through communication on my part. Please describe the myriad ways in which Unmasking can be stopped when played. Then please describe the myriad ways in which Unmasking can be burned after being put into play. I suspect you'll end with lists involving cornercase cards, only one of which is typically seen in the tournament meta, because it's not as time-sensitive as other options. This was the intended gist - its VERY hard to prevent the Unmasking from hitting the table, because stopping a DPA is pretty tough. It's almost as hard to get rid of it as it is to prevent it's successful play - and the best method is equally bad in terms of being stoppable. Isn't that the definition of a non-interactive CARD, even though it's in-play EFFECT encourages blocks and combat? For something with the potential for generating a powerful and persistent effect, the Unmasking ITSELF in too difficult to interact with. I dislike permanent effects that scale horizontally (i.e., with growth of the controlled region) to begin with - and I suspect there's a reason there are so few of them. I very certainly hammer the crap out of them in playtesting because of my concerns. When the removal effect requires a silver bullet card, it's even worse. Honestly, I believe Unmasking was less of a problem before Anthelios was banned - more people ran the Uncoiling then. Now, it just squats on the table forever.

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > For something with the potential for generating a powerful and persistent effect, the Unmasking ITSELF in too difficult to interact with. I dislike permanent effects that scale horizontally (i.e., with growth of the controlled region) to begin with - and I suspect there's a reason there are so few of them. When the removal effect requires a silver bullet card, it's even worse. > > Honestly, I believe Unmasking was less of a problem before Anthelios was banned - more people ran the Uncoiling then. Now, it just squats on the table forever. > The cost is basically nothing, it has the potential to be a massive benefit for the person who played it and there is little counterplay outside of slotting in a card to deal with it. Unmasking is on my list of cards that shouldn't exist. Events are largely unwelcome in my opinion. Tacked on pretty lazily and the effects range from unplayable to insanely powerful.

I think it's useful to remember that Unmasking was first printed back when most allies were overcosted. I remember when it was first printed, nobody seemed to understand how good it was, and I was able to trade for a pile of them for almost nothing - all because back then, there were almost no viable ally-based decks. (A list made even shorter by the extreme difficulty of acquiring enough Nephandi to make a deck at that time.) Now that there are so many more good allies in the game, ones that would be viable even without Unmasking, Unmasking seems to be more of a sore point. But at the time it was printed, it absolutely enabled a lot of decks that were otherwise unplayable.

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > Please describe the myriad ways in which Unmasking can be stopped when played. Then please describe the myriad ways in which Unmasking can be burned after being put into play. > ... > > This was the intended gist - its VERY hard to prevent the Unmasking from hitting the table, > ... > For something with the potential for generating a powerful and persistent effect, the Unmasking ITSELF in too difficult to interact with. > You seem very focused on the card itself, but I have yet to see a game where unmasking was played and it somehow made the game unwinnable for the other parties. I would like to hear what kind of decks do you play and why can't they deal with 1 permanent intercept? You don't mention anything about the effects of the card on the table, just the difficulty of removing it, which is kind of by design. If your deck can't deal with 1 permanent intercept (maybe 2 with carlton) then its, no offense, not a very good deck. There are in my opinion enough solutions, One is universal: oust the player. Second is running uncoiling, which my vote decks will pretty much always do. You can play Ossian and rush the vampires that are responsible for the allies (except in case of legionnaires) thru unmasking. You can play tension in the ranks and smash allies for pool damage. You can run cards that provide permanent stealth (blithe acceptance etc) to counter permanent intercept. etc etc. If your deck has trouble against unmasking, then it will have even bigger trouble against a dedicated combat wall. I just don't see unmasking as oppressive, but for some reason some people do, and I'd like to hear more about their meta to understand why. As others have mentioned, unmasking makes ally decks somewhat playable. This doesn't immediately swing fully into the "so good its broken" territory. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

Unmasking has the big problem to be "once per game" as any other event in the game. That is, in a game with more than 1 ally deck (and it happens),, you have to choose if you want to play against the intercept you are granting to another player or not. Anyway, if your deck is screwed by a single +1 intercept, run uncoiling... Lurking in the underground of Bologna, Italy

> thelonius wrote: > Anyway, if your deck is screwed by a single +1 intercept, run uncoiling... > It's not just +1 intercept. It's +1 intercept against every action with every ally. Ally decks typically run a wide or horizontal board. Good luck finding enough stealth even with the most dedicated stealth decks to consistently get through. Running uncoiling shouldn't be the only answer. Non-interactive cards are the opposite of what VTES is in my opinion. The game should be about inviting actions and fun counterplay. Instead you pack in an uncoiling because you might see an unmasking? Silver bullets aren't fun or interactive.

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > > Please describe the myriad ways in which Unmasking can be stopped when played. Then please describe the myriad ways in which Unmasking can be burned after being put into play. > > ... > > > > This was the intended gist - its VERY hard to prevent the Unmasking from hitting the table, > > ... > > For something with the potential for generating a powerful and persistent effect, the Unmasking ITSELF in too difficult to interact with. > > > You seem very focused on the card itself, but I have yet to see a game where unmasking was played and it somehow made the game unwinnable for the other parties. I would like to hear what kind of decks do you play and why can't they deal with 1 permanent intercept? You don't mention anything about the effects of the card on the table, just the difficulty of removing it, which is kind of by design. > > If your deck can't deal with 1 permanent intercept (maybe 2 with carlton) then its, no offense, not a very good deck. There are in my opinion enough solutions, One is universal: oust the player. Second is running uncoiling, which my vote decks will pretty much always do. You can play Ossian and rush the vampires that are responsible for the allies (except in case of legionnaires) thru unmasking. You can play tension in the ranks and smash allies for pool damage. You can run cards that provide permanent stealth (blithe acceptance etc) to counter permanent intercept. etc etc. > > If your deck has trouble against unmasking, then it will have even bigger trouble against a dedicated combat wall. .... > . > I'm CERTAIN Darby has built and faced plenty of decks that fall into both categories of "dies like a bitch to 1 standing intercept " and "kills things dead that die like a bitch to one intercept.". He typically takes issue with non-interactive cards, and while I strongly disagree on Ashurs and Unmasking, its because unlike other cards, I see the problem rooted elsewhere than the card because it allows otherwise unplayable things to stand a chance (which could be preserved by Ashurs and fix problems if it only scooped back minion cards...) while Also giving too much gas to things that work well anyway and elevate to too well status in some games.(imbued unmasking, the best War ghouls decks in 8% of games, tunnel runner decks the 18% of the time they get a great seat in front of a slow wall and behind non bouncing bleeder ...) Legionnaire decks aren't as good without Unmasking, but what gets hurt by its absence is other decks . Its place in the global meta ecosystem keeps other cheese decks in thier place (to be honest, half of those decks, like weenie voters roll over to Neighbor John with Atonement) . But Unmasking isn't alone in it's only truly despicable property: It's an event. Events need rebalancing. Too many are wall paper but cant be better because they show up and stay. (Its way easier to burn Sense Dep, TBH) . Unmasking should be viewed as proof that the card type is like an extra master. And we know those get out of hand (to the point we should reword Anson, Cebele, Parthenon, etc to grant "two master phases this turn ") . Unmasking, if it could be proven worse than several other things that haven't changed, could warrant something hurting events that's playable popping up, or additional proliferation of Allies to essentially make it a liability, Similar to Nocturn decks as prey of Dead Hookers Samedi (Reanimated Corpses totally get the better here, between Samedi stealthing and Hookers blocking nocturne recruits) . Until the broken nonsense that I can achieve EASILY running Cybele, Nana, Aksynia and Parthenon is mitigated by liquidation getting hurt or MMPA generating sources being Erratad, I maintain Legionnaires are solid but not unmanageable(and could survive tiny but unnecessary errata as such) and Unmasking is good to the level of villein, pentex, Jack, PBMonty, and other master cards, as well as weaker than the fact that effects that grant extra MPAs are STACKABLE. The simplest fix for the game is not on ANY card I've mentioned, but instead on 2 OOT masters we can erratta: Sudden Reversal Master Master: out-of-turn. Cancel a master or Event card played by another Methuselah as it is played (no cost is paid) Wash Master Master: out-of-turn. Trifle. Do not replace until your next untap phase. Cancel a master or Event card played by your predator or prey as it is played (no cost is paid). That Methuselah gains a master or Discard phase action (if the canceled card is an out-of-turn master, the master phase action is gained during that Methuselah's next master phase). (Also this guy) Santaleous Camarilla: Santaleous gets +1 bleed for each unique hunting ground in play. He may burn 3 blood to cancel a master or event card as it is played. I wont concede Unmasking is too much. But I 100% agree that the non-interactivity of Events is too much, that they are like extra masters, and there should be better ways to stop them since they are on the table to stay once played 91% of the time.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > It's not just +1 intercept. It's +1 intercept against every action with every ally. Ally decks typically run a wide or horizontal board. Good luck finding enough stealth even with the most dedicated stealth decks to consistently get through. > a.) Its not every action. The intercept is only against vampires, thus Ossian can rush straight through with 1 stealth. b.) Wide or horizontal board means nothing if +2 stealth goes past all of them at the same time. I actually have started using obfuscate more since my starting days and don't consider unmasking a problem (unless Im drawing really badly). Getting to cycle your stealth cards is almost a good thing. I've said elsewhere that if legionnaires are in front of you, bog-standard stealth bleed deck is perfect against them. Few bleeds of 5 with 2+ stealth and there are no more legionnaires. Same for vote decks. Its when legion is behind you, do they feel difficult to stop (Malks can also bleed backwards though). Like I said earlier, if you are stumped by +1 permanent intercept your deck isn't very good. Stop playing all those weenies and start playing vampires that can actually play cards (this from watching lackey games, there seems to be a lot of weenies around). We had a talk about this thread last night in our local weekly game night, and got a number of laughs out of it. The consensus was that the saying unmasking is broken or a problem is "ridiculous". There may be discussion about how good legionnaires are, or whether liquidation is healthy for the game, but saying that unmasking is the problem is silly. (Currently I don't even run unmasking in my own legionnaire deck) Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > > Please describe the myriad ways in which Unmasking can be stopped when played. Then please describe the myriad ways in which Unmasking can be burned after being put into play. > > ... > > > > This was the intended gist - its VERY hard to prevent the Unmasking from hitting the table, > > ... > > For something with the potential for generating a powerful and persistent effect, the Unmasking ITSELF in too difficult to interact with. > > > You seem very focused on the card itself...... > I didn't catch your answer to Darby's question, can you please clarify? Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

> Bloodartist wrote: > We had a talk about this thread last night in our local weekly game night, and got a number of laughs out of it. The consensus was that the saying unmasking is broken or a problem is "ridiculous". > > There may be discussion about how good legionnaires are, or whether liquidation is healthy for the game, but saying that unmasking is the problem is silly. > (Currently I don't even run unmasking in my own legionnaire deck) > It became quite a trend to revisit old stuff and lobby to change them, party due to the BCP opportunities printing them anew, and obviously due to new cards. Although critical thinking is ok, mostly these complaints have no real ground, and deriving from the narrowness of local playgroups. As I've said, for me it's a bit early for an EL nerf, but I'm sure Unmasking is totally fine. NC of Hungary ///

> brandonsantacruz wrote: > > I didn't catch your answer to Darby's question, can you please clarify? > I didn't answer it, because the question is irrelevant and misleading. But: Uncoiling, Fourth cycle, Shattering, Black hand ritual, Not to be, Emergency preparations, Power of all Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Malachy wrote: > It became quite a trend to revisit old stuff and lobby to change them, party due to the BCP opportunities printing them anew, and obviously due to new cards. Although critical thinking is ok, mostly these complaints have no real ground, and deriving from the narrowness of local playgroups. As I've said, for me it's a bit early for an EL nerf, but I'm sure Unmasking is totally fine. > I don't think it has anything to do with narrowness of playgroups. If that were the case, the discussion in this thread would have stayed on Emerald Legionnaire. The discussion some how landed on Liquidation, then The Unmasking. In this thread, people argued that The Unmasking is a problem because there are few ways to counter it, and thus the +1 intercept it grants to allies is something to potentially always account for. Why is accounting for the +1 intercept bad? Because the subtext of the argument that people are making is that intercept, in general, is bad. They then go on to describe why it's bad using their personal preferences rather than objectivity; for example, one has to build decks that account for increased intercept among allies and can't really build the decks that they want to build. I find it amusing that people are prompted to blame all their issues with the game on one or two cards, without realizing that what they are arguing is that the game is fundamentally flawed. In the case of The Unmasking, arguing that the intercept it grants to allies is basically the same as arguing that intercept and allies are fundamental problems with the game. I see no difference. If the Unmasking didn't exist, people would find other ways to involve allies and intercept. I also find it amusing that people will argue this way while at the same time continuing to play the game. I mean, if you don't like the concept of intercept and/or allies in VTES, banning/changing the Unmasking is really not going to fix anything for you. You would still have to deal with allies and intercept because these things are major parts of the game.

Unmasking is fine, if anyhting, just make more events that are impactful enough that people actually start playing the anti-event tech that exists.

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > brandonsantacruz wrote: > > > > I didn't catch your answer to Darby's question, can you please clarify? > > > I didn't answer it, because the question is irrelevant and misleading. > > But: > Uncoiling- Relatively big downside for a situational card, still probably best option. > > Fourth cycle- Requires 2 Gehenna Cards. FBI, Narrow Minds, Scourge of the Ennocians are most commonly played and aren't gehenna cards. So not really an option. > > Shattering- Anarch specific, dementation. If you happen to be doing these things maybe you slot this. Clearly not a real answer for general deckbuilding. > > Black hand ritual- Again, if you're playing black hand you're probably slotting this. Not useful generally speaking. > > Not to be- I personally don't like this card but I can see it being a useful counter if you're really struggling. > > Emergency preparations- Requires a seraph, so more limiting than Ritual above. > > Power of all- Anarch, requires 2 untapped anarchs, costs 2 blood. Narrow as hell and just a bad card. > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Malachy wrote: > > It became quite a trend to revisit old stuff and lobby to change them, party due to the BCP opportunities printing them anew, and obviously due to new cards. Although critical thinking is ok, mostly these complaints have no real ground, and deriving from the narrowness of local playgroups. As I've said, for me it's a bit early for an EL nerf, but I'm sure Unmasking is totally fine. > > > I don't think it has anything to do with narrowness of playgroups. If that were the case, the discussion in this thread would have stayed on Emerald Legionnaire. The discussion some how landed on Liquidation, then The Unmasking. > > In this thread, people argued that The Unmasking is a problem because there are few ways to counter it, and thus the +1 intercept it grants to allies is something to potentially always account for. Why is accounting for the +1 intercept bad? Because the subtext of the argument that people are making is that intercept, in general, is bad. They then go on to describe why it's bad using their personal preferences rather than objectivity; for example, one has to build decks that account for increased intercept among allies and can't really build the decks that they want to build. > > I find it amusing that people are prompted to blame all their issues with the game on one or two cards, without realizing that what they are arguing is that the game is fundamentally flawed. In the case of The Unmasking, arguing that the intercept it grants to allies is basically the same as arguing that intercept and allies are fundamental problems with the game. I see no difference. If the Unmasking didn't exist, people would find other ways to involve allies and intercept. I also find it amusing that people will argue this way while at the same time continuing to play the game. I mean, if you don't like the concept of intercept and/or allies in VTES, banning/changing the Unmasking is really not going to fix anything for you. You would still have to deal with allies and intercept because these things are major parts of the game. > I would say that there are fundamental problems with the game. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, I'm just accepting the flaws to enjoy the positives. That being said, events in general aren't fun. Imbued aren't fun. Mulitple master phases aren't fun. Some of the cards are poorly costed, clearly imbalanced or just outright busted. It's because we enjoy the game that we are able to determine it's flaws and then come here to discuss them. To dismiss what people say out of hand because you think an effect is "in the spirit of the game" shows no interest in discussion, just some superiority in that you love the game and we must hate it to pick it apart. We pick it apart because we want the game to be the best it can be. Let's circle back around to unmasking. You say this is an effect you should anticipate, in that a lot of things can generate +1 intercept. I don't disagree with that concept. What you are missing, however, is that there is no other effect that would give all allies +1 intercept for no cost and forever. Beyond that, the best way to saturate a board is with allies. Now you're looking at being painfully outnumbered and you have to be at 2 stealth on every action you perform. That pushes some decks right out of the game, unable to act. The decks that can act need to consistently get to +2 stealth and that will eventually be not possible. Vtes is a game about viewing the entirety. It's a marathon, not a sprint. Resource management (cards and beads) is what it's all about. Having a consistent effect that has zero opportunity cost is against the design of the game. Having limited interactivity with that effect is against the design of the game.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > Power of all- Anarch, requires 2 untapped anarchs, costs 2 blood. Narrow as hell and just a bad card. > Being able to cancel any library card from parity shifts to villeins to pentexes to conditionings to unmaskings is not "narrow" in my vocabulary. It has a high cost because the effect is downright insane. > DJHedgehog wrote: > stuff > You still haven't answered our question: Yes, unmasking has an unique effect. Why is the effect bad? Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > Power of all- Anarch, requires 2 untapped anarchs, costs 2 blood. Narrow as hell and just a bad card. > > > Being able to cancel any library card from parity shifts to villeins to pentexes to conditionings to unmaskings is not "narrow" in my vocabulary. It has a high cost because the effect is downright insane. > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > stuff > > > You still haven't answered our question: > Yes, unmasking has an unique effect. Why is the effect bad? > It's narrow in it's ability to be played. Only by an untapped anarch, with 2 blood, when there is another untapped anarch. Have you seen a lot of Power of All in any type of play? Casually or competitively? I play pretty often and I have never seen this card hit the table. If the effect was worth the cost you'd see the card played. If you don't think I've answered your question, you aren't reading. It provides an incredibly powerful effect at no cost that has global implications and allows little counter-play. How many vampires have standing intercept? Do you consider those vampires good? I know I do. And the counter play is to stealth by them or make them block actions. Now, pretend that instead of 1 vampire with +1 intercept you have 3+ disposable allies that all have +1 intercept. All of a sudden your option to make them block actions is gone and you have to consistently make at least 2 stealth to make any successful actions. The card requires no thought to put in a deck. Like "how do I make this card work" isn't even a question. Sure Govern is good, but you can't use the superior unless you build a crypt that is stair stepped. If you're playing allies there is no reason to not play Unmasking. It also has the side effect of being really great with Imbued which are also dumb.

The only reason I wouldn't include Unmasking in an ally deck is that my minions don't generate more than 1 stealth. Even so, one of your opponents will play it in 1/4-1/2 of your games IME. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

What about text along the lines of: "If Emerald Legionaire is ready at start of your turn, it can remove 7 cards in your ash heap from the game during the unlock phase to move an Emerald Legionnaire from your ash heap to the ready region with 2 life." That way it still has the cool snowball effect, but slows it down a bit.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > Running uncoiling shouldn't be the only answer. Non-interactive cards are the opposite of what VTES is in my opinion. The game should be about inviting actions and fun counterplay. Instead you pack in an uncoiling because you might see an unmasking? Silver bullets aren't fun or interactive. > To me think kinda screams that you aren't interested in changing with possible meta changes and adapt but instead want the game to be errataed to the direction of your choosing. "My deck/I have a problem with this card so I want it to be banned/changed". Like said before, Uncoiling is just fine. It enables many new decks thus providing variety and you can either go past it with little more stealth. Or remove it, meaning you need to sacrifice some card slot(s) losing a bit of a focus. Too bad! Finnish Politics!

The only question is if unmasking falls in line with other effects in the game. Seems like dj has made a pretty solid case that it does not.

> Lönkka wrote: > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > Running uncoiling shouldn't be the only answer. Non-interactive cards are the opposite of what VTES is in my opinion. The game should be about inviting actions and fun counterplay. Instead you pack in an uncoiling because you might see an unmasking? Silver bullets aren't fun or interactive. > > > To me think kinda screams that you aren't interested in changing with possible meta changes and adapt but instead want the game to be errataed to the direction of your choosing. > > "My deck/I have a problem with this card so I want it to be banned/changed". > > Like said before, Uncoiling is just fine. It enables many new decks thus providing variety and you can either go past it with little more stealth. Or remove it, meaning you need to sacrifice some card slot(s) losing a bit of a focus. Too bad! > Yes: there couldn’t possibly be a problem with any of the cards that I’ve pointed out. This is clearly just a case of me not wanting to “change with possible meta changes” and has nothing to do with poorly designed cards. I’ve laid out points for every single claim I’ve made. Every time someone says something negative you jump to “you just don’t like it”. Take some time to read what people have said and create arguments that support your case.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > To dismiss what people say out of hand because you think an effect is "in the spirit of the game" shows no interest in discussion, just some superiority in that you love the game and we must hate it to pick it apart. We pick it apart because we want the game to be the best it can be. > I'm not dismissing anything, I just find this viewpoint amusing. You have to understand the "picking it apart because we want the game to be the best it can be" can also come across (at least to me) as "I wish to control what happens to this game so that I can personally enjoy it." I mean, other people obviously like playing Unmasking and see no problem with it. The makers of the card obviously felt this way or they wouldn't have released it. When you say things like "it takes no thought to put it into a deck," I have a hard time understanding that your goal is to "make game to be the best it can be." It comes across instead as snobbery: "Oh what a poorly designed card; I do not wish to play with this card, and nobody else should have to either." I'm not saying that is your true motive, as you've already described your intention is to make the game better. I'm just telling you the perception I initially had of your posts. > Let's circle back around to unmasking. You say this is an effect you should anticipate, in that a lot of things can generate +1 intercept. I don't disagree with that concept. What you are missing, however, is that there is no other effect that would give all allies +1 intercept for no cost and forever. Beyond that, the best way to saturate a board is with allies. Now you're looking at being painfully outnumbered and you have to be at 2 stealth on every action you perform. That pushes some decks right out of the game, unable to act. The decks that can act need to consistently get to +2 stealth and that will eventually be not possible. > I don't think I missed that part. Lots of decks generate +1 intercept easily and force other decks to generate +2 stealth. I mean, this was the stuff of Auspex in Jyhad. You're discussing this like it's a flaw with the game, without the willingness to concede that the "flaw" has existed forever and was actually intended as a feature, and the existence of The Unmasking has zero to minimal effect on this "flaw." > Yes: there couldn’t possibly be a problem with any of the cards that I’ve pointed out. This is clearly just a case of me not wanting to “change with possible meta changes” and has nothing to do with poorly designed cards. > > I’ve laid out points for every single claim I’ve made. Every time someone says something negative you jump to “you just don’t like it”. Take some time to read what people have said and create arguments that support your case. > And now you're getting defensive about a dumb game about vampires. Again, this is all very amusing to me...

This isn't just a dumb game about vampires. It's our dumb game about vampires. Also, I think DJ Hedgehog has a point. There is a significant difference between +1 intercept from a transient source, or a once-per-round location like KRCG, or something that only effects one vampire or only works on a particular type of action like Abbot. Having a passive source of +1 intercept that is practically permanent once it hits the table (having little-to-no inherent counter-play, and one or two silver bullets as hard-counters) and applies to some or even all of your dudes seems pretty strong. A strong effect isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when your opponent is unable to interact or reasonably counter it in some way, it makes for unfun games. Edit: Anyone who has ever played or watched Magic Legacy or Vintage tournaments (where players get access to some of the most powerful cards in the game) will have noticed that the game tends to devolve into two guys playing solitaire against each other. Very little interaction, very little you can do to stop your opponent unless you're playing the MTG equivalent of 4xSudden Reversal, 4xDirect Intervention, 4xWash. 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.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > This isn't just a dumb game about vampires. It's our dumb game about vampires > This. The game has survived multiple deaths because of the players. White wolf was flat out bad at every aspect of managing the game and some of us hope that black chantry will do a better job.

I don't want to be condescending or anything, but has anyone here ever entertained the thought that allies fundamentally a LOT weaker than vampires? Maybe that is why they released a card in Gehenna, to enable ally deck to an extent, because not even this "perma-intercept" effect makes them imbalanced, not even close? Yes, it can be frustrating, like Shadow Court Satyrs with Earth Meld, and Unmasking, but hey... a good thing you are not playing a 1v1 game right? Gosh... In my experience, these kind of complaints come from the kind of people, who never stops beating the table that Imbued are imbalanced, and bad for the game, but had never entertained the possibilities, how weak they are in fact, not to mention, some of them don't even READ them... they just see the opponent playing Solitaire. Imbued, allies and even Unmasking is a concept in the game, thus can be circumvented. A LOT easier I might add, then most archetypes of decks. NC of Hungary ///

> DJHedgehog wrote: > > I’ve laid out points for every single claim I’ve made. > You have merely repeated the same thing over and over: your fixation that unmasking is difficult to remove and thus bad. This along with the seemingly narrow point of view (you refuse to consider non-legionnaire ally decks position in meta in general) tells me that this is an issue of you not accepting different playstyles apart from what you currently play. You don't want to adapt your decks to the meta, I think you want the world to adapt to your style of play. I don't see this as something that I could support. Especially since my personal game experience tells the exact opposite story: any attempt to make an ally wall or use allies as main line of defense fails hilariously. In my local meta 5 stealth has sometimes not been enough to get actions through. Allies with their 1 intercept or 2 in case of Carlton is woefully inept. Consider also this: Unmasking and the costly intercept locations are the ONLY practical way for allies to gain intercept. They are not sabbat that can gain cept from under siege, they are not setites that can gain intercept from Saatet-ta. Putting a sport bike on an ally is silly, since any combat vampire worth their salt will likely destroy the ally in question easily (except maybe those immune to non-aggro and probably even them). Unmasking is what makes ally decks playable in the first place. They NEED something like that. Even as is, ally intercept tends to top at 2 and that is merely annoying, not oppressive. Stealth vs intercept is a core mechanic of the game. Unmasking allows ally decks to actually be players in this game. I think the discussion is done, you aren't giving any new reasons or making further convincing arguments. ps. Having this sort of staunch traditionalism is to be expected in a game where the meta has not made sudden shifts in over a decade, but its not something that should be supported. A changing game is a healthy game. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> LivesByProxy wrote: > This isn't just a dumb game about vampires. It's our dumb game about vampires > Again, I just find the this level of ownership of the game among the player base really amusing. It is a game after all... > Mewcat wrote: > This. The game has survived multiple deaths because of the players. White wolf was flat out bad at every aspect of managing the game and some of us hope that black chantry will do a better job. > And here is the level of ownership I am talking about. "If it wasn't for me and other players, the game would have been so much worse off because of product mismanagement." There is so much unintentional hubris here that it's amusing.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > > This isn't just a dumb game about vampires. It's our dumb game about vampires > > > > > > > > Again, I just find the this level of ownership of the game among the player base really amusing. It is a game after all... > > > > > Mewcat wrote: > > > This. The game has survived multiple deaths because of the players. White wolf was flat out bad at every aspect of managing the game and some of us hope that black chantry will do a better job. > > > > > > > > And here is the level of ownership I am talking about. "If it wasn't for me and other players, the game would have been so much worse off because of company mismanagement." There is so much unintentional hubris in this statement that it's amusing. > > Allow me to further your amusement. Let us consider reasons why vtes has crawled out of the dirt multiple times. 1) a unique game experience - the multiplayer nature is highly novel 2) a social experience - this is notably distinct from 1) as it focuses on just spending time with friends and making dumb jokes and not the competitive challenges of a multiplayer game 3) few restrictions on deck construction Let us also consider the reasons why it has failed multiple times. 1) atrocious card balance - the subset of competitive playable cards is extremely narrow and heavily tiled to cards from 1994 2) non-existent marketing 3) barriers to entry - hard for new players to learn all the cards, get the cards, and put up with long games of losing badly 4) cards seem like they were made by a computer algorithm - random costing of crypt and library cards, random effects focused on 'lore flavor' and nothing else 4.1) poorly thought out groups - sound idea but some discipline groupings get optimized crypts and you are needlessly prevented from building low power decks 5) poorly written rulebook - in English by native English speakers 6) poor rulings - no consistency and no direction toward a small set of simple ideas one can use to understand the game easily These are the things black chantry has to deal with if they don't want the game to wither again.

I don't really agree with most of those points... 1) V:tES has great card balance, even cards from the oldest sets are still playable, and there are not all that much objectively useless cards, yes there is some, but it is pretty much impossible for that to not happen unless you want every discpline having identical cards. 2) That one might be true, though ccgs in general have not exactly been super good in that, so it isn't really an exception. 3) You mean like every ccg? At least unlike in something like magic, your cards don't become unplayable after two years because of rotations. 4) So again, you want everything to have exact same options with just different names? 4,1) Again, unless you make every group identical, it is pretty much impossible to NOT make some groups better at some discpline combo than others. 5) Eh I never had problems with it. 6) Again, not really had much problems with that, barring some notable notoriously complicated cards, but again, every card game has those (like hello Chaos Orb and Illusionary mask from mtg)

For all of you guys whining about Unmasking i have two words. Learn potence! Seriously if u can't get past or rid off some pesky ally, maybe it's your deck that is malfunctioning.

Finally somebody who holds sensible words ! B)

Sometimes, you peek back into a conversation and just know it's become time to close your browser.

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > Sometimes, you peek back into a conversation and just know it's become time to close your browser. > Just had a hilarious visual of you opening up this thread on a laptop then slamming said laptop shut in horror.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > This isn't just a dumb game about vampires. It's our dumb game about vampires. > That is the best way to put it. While arguments can become heated, and it is fine, and while disagreements are natural, and it is fine, it is NOT fine to ridicule or belittle other players' enthusiasm and dedication to a hobby or passion they have. This forum is dedicated to VtES. This forum is THE place to feel strongly about that game about vampires. This thread will now return to the topic of Emerald Legionnaire, if there is anything to add. "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

Sure, I'll start bringing the topic back into focus. From my viewpoint, Emerald Legionnaire, while a powerful card that certainly has metagame implications, seems to be a nice and fun new addition to the game. I do not think it is overpowered and needs changing. I do think the new owners of the game did a good job with this card and I like to see something released that's affecting metagames. For Liquidation and Unmasking, I do not think these cards add anything negative to the game, whether comboed Emerald Legionnaire or otherwise, and do not need changing or banning. If anybody disagrees with any of this, that is awesome and hope it will lead to fun discussion. There is no need to get defensive however, as VTES is really just a game to some of us...

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > > > I’ve laid out points for every single claim I’ve made. > > > You have merely repeated the same thing over and over: your fixation that unmasking is difficult to remove and thus bad. This along with the seemingly narrow point of view (you refuse to consider non-legionnaire ally decks position in meta in general) tells me that this is an issue of you not accepting different playstyles apart from what you currently play. > I'm talking about all ally decks, but this thread is about EL. Warghouls are another deck that benefit greatly from unmasking and ally support in general. Here is what I've said that are clearly not repetitions. 1. It has no cost. 2. It has "global" implications (potentially benefiting other players in unintended ways. 3. The counter-play is limited and generally not good. 4. It provides an effect that is far beyond any intercept card printed. My favorite test is the "would you still play it" test. If unmasking tapped to give an ally +1 intercept with no other changes, would you still play it? If you aren't saying yes you're simply looking to be contradictory. KRCG gives +1 intercept once per round for 2 pool and a master phase action. How could you possibly compare these two cards and say that one isn't significantly more powerful than the other? To address Tworazorreign: There is no other effect in the game that gives permanent intercept to a group of minions. Sure a lot of things make permanent intercept or transient intercept, but only for one minion. If you can't tell the difference I'm not sure how better I can explain this to you. To whoever said Carlton's +2 intercept is "barely enough" is just wrong. Carlton is a glowing example of a card that is waaaaaaaay overtuned. Show me an ally that does half of what he does for 2 pool. He's a chump blocker who excels in the role and then has a dodge on top of it. Oh he can also strike 1r and has a whole other ability to burn vampires who diablarize. This is what I see: people who I see on lackey playing 3-5+ games a week, people playing regularly with local groups, and people championing the game who all have a viewpoint that certain cards need work (Emerald legion, Liquidation, Unmasking). I see those people making arguments that aren't based on bad experiences and are willing to discuss options. Then I see the other group of people who immediately tell those people they "just don't want to change with the times". This happens every time a discussion comes up about card balance. These people refuse to have a discussion and condescend anyone who would propose any changes to the game. "Pentex needs work." "You just need to change with the meta and stop playing big vampires." "Govern is too strong." "This has been around since 94 and you haven't learned to play around it?" "Emerald Legionnaire is overtuned." "It's only been out for 6 months/My group doesn't have a problem with allies/you just don't like this new card." When was the last time you guys played the game? Do you really think the people speaking out are all entitled brats? Do you honestly think that every card is well made and intentional?

What you don't seem to realize is that Unmasking is very limited. For one, it only gives intercept to allies, second, the intercept is only against vampires, third, it affects everyone, so if the dude next to you is also playing allies you might just screw yourself over by playing it, fourth, it can only be played once per game, so once you uncoil it, it's gone for good. And yes, Uncoiling is very good card that can take out Unmasking, as well as a number of other really strong events, if people don't put it in their decks that's their choice, not an excuse to say Unmasking has no counter play. Also Carlton isn't really the best one to point saying that Unmasking is too good, as he already has +1 int, difference between 1 and 2 int is WAY less than 0 and 1. Since usually, if 1 int isn't enough to catch something, 2 isn't going to do it either.

> Klaital wrote: > ...difference between 1 and 2 int is WAY less than 0 and 1. Since usually, if 1 int isn't enough to catch something, 2 isn't going to do it either. > Here I would slightly disagree. While yes, difference between +1 intercept and zero intercept is bigger than +1 vs +2, there are a *lot* of situations where that +2 is the critical factor. 2nd Tradition catches a lot of things that plain +1 intercept doesn't; there are lots of decks that can push actions to +2 stealth but have a very hard time reliably getting more. Unmasking is a pretty big deal even for Carlton, imho. As for my 2 cents: I think Unmasking is fine, for reasons many have iterated: it's only vs vampires, it can bite you on the ass (if your prey/pred also has allies), and Uncoiling kills it dead. It's powerful, yes, but it also enables a lot of cool ally decks which would otherwise be mostly unviable due to poor defense. As for EL: I'm undecided, frankly. It's clearly at the high end of the power curve, but it could be the meta will adapt to it. Or not. I think it's a bit too early to tell yet, or to nerf it. But I'm open to the possibility that it might be overpowered enough to warrant a nerf at some point.

> Klaital wrote: > ... second, the intercept is only against vampires... > That's literally the name of the game, and it is likely that every game will have several vampires in it. So you're arguing that allies can't block other allies and that makes it balanced? Look, uncoiling is an "ok" response. And if you think it should be a binary choice then there isn't much I can do to change your mind. Uncoiling has a much steeper downside than unmasking (-1 hand as long as it's in play) and if there are multiple Gehenna cards then it might not even hit the right target and then someone can remove it with a discard phase action. So my only realistic option to interact with unmasking has some significant problems that the person playing unmasking won't have to deal with, and there is a (small) chance it wouldn't even do what you want. Again, if you can't see why Carlton with +1 intercept isn't a problem, I won't be able to explain why +2 is far more significant than you're letting on. Please post a decklist that gets to 3 intercept more than once per turn that can win a table. Even the most stealthy bleed decks will get hand jammed and stall out, and being blocked by Carlton doesn't mean you can wear him down since he can just dodge.

Djhedgehog said ... To address Tworazorreign: There is no other effect in the game that gives permanent intercept to a group of minions. Sure a lot of things make permanent intercept or transient intercept, but only for one minion. If you can't tell the difference I'm not sure how better I can explain this to you. ……………. Additionally, those things require actions and blood (retainers), actions and are unique, actions and pool, master phase actions and pool, pool and xfers (vampires with intercept), or actions and extra pool (for allies not named carlton). Those cards are subject to different levels or counterplay (mostly blocking but effects that target retainers and equipment happen from time to time) so far in excess of the options available to unmasking as to not be comparable. Unmasking is the cheese that stands alone. Nothing else is like it, or even close to it.

I was recently murdered by ELs while also being milled by three Slaughterhouses, while my predator was able to keep up Erebus and Erlik for blocking but the strange thing was... I didn't feel bad about getting run over. I felt bad because my own vampires (Nosferatu) were so slow to get up and going by comparison. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: In My Opinion, the power level of EL is the power-level other clans need to be raised up to. ELs are on par with Govern, Deflection, Freak Drive, Eyes of Argus, etc. I look at Allies like the Slashers, the Bruisers, and the Knights, and a deep sense of sadness overwhelms me. 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.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > I've said it before, but I'll say it again: In My Opinion, the power level of EL is the power-level other clans need to be raised up to. ELs are on par with Govern, Deflection, Freak Drive, Eyes of Argus, etc. > This is something I agree with absolutely. If we agree that the power level of the cards mentioned is where the game should be, then a lot of cards/clans/strategies need to be elevated. If it's too high, then we need to address the outliers.

I disagree. First off the difference between asking for a downward adjustment of a card or the upward adjustment or all other cards is largely semantic. We have already agreed that a card is much more potent than others. It is just a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down and I have no interest in that. The amount of work required to change many cards is much greater than required to change one and is therefore an inelegant solution. Secondly, my complaint with EL is not strictly power based. It is non interactive and this is what needs addressed.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > I've said it before, but I'll say it again: In My Opinion, the power level of EL is the power-level other clans need to be raised up to. ELs are on par with Govern, Deflection, Freak Drive, Eyes of Argus, etc. > > > This is something I agree with absolutely. If we agree that the power level of the cards mentioned is where the game should be, then a lot of cards/clans/strategies need to be elevated. If it's too high, then we need to address the outliers. > Agree times 4 billion. Imagine if the cardpool of playable cards was increased by changing less playable ones. Not even saying it needs done that way, but just imagine the diversity of strong or even solid decks that could crop up because of such an increase. Other cards being up there with govern and deep song would increase the enjoyability of the game through increased interaction options. What if Hellhounds were playable? All the allies Brujah get? Anyway, on topic: I'll be posting analysis on TWD numbers for legionnaires shortly.

> Mewcat wrote: > We have already agreed that a card is much more potent than others. > No we haven't. Please don't assume to speak for everyone. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Mewcat wrote: > > We have already agreed that a card is much more potent than others. > > > No we haven't. Please don't assume to speak for everyone. > How about instead of being a contrarian you contribute to a discussion? Name a card that provides the benefit at the level that unmasking does at the cost. I can't name a single card that gives +1 intercept to more than one minion. I can name several cards that give intercept outside of disciplines that provide it to one minion, once per round and after spending pool and a master phase action. As a non-sequitur, I saw "Bloodartist" got added to the lackey group. I'll see you "in the paint" and you can show me just how your skills account for your flippant attitude.

> DJHedgehog wrote: > I can't name a single card that gives +1 intercept to more than one minion. > Psychic Veil. Blessing of the Name. Note: Neither of them are the Unmasking. But they exists transient effects. I can't think of a persistent effect like that other than the Unmasking though.

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Mewcat wrote: > > We have already agreed that a card is much more potent than others. > > > No we haven't. Please don't assume to speak for everyone. > Please reread my post with attention to logical structure again. Is a if A, then B leads to C thing.

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > > > DJHedgehog wrote: > > I can't name a single card that gives +1 intercept to more than one minion. > > > Psychic Veil. Blessing of the Name. > Under Siege. Illuminate, though I strongly suspect that was only created for people who didn't own copies of Unmasking.

And pulling this all back to EL, since that was the initial topic and I feel intense remorse over the track the thread took after my first post. I think a lot of people are on the bandwagon, so we're seeing it more than we will in a few months when the shininess tarnishes. It's a very good card that caused HoS to burst into competitive stature. In all reality worth, a pool even before the recursive effect (a mechanic which, in general, I despise). Even after all the recent deck evolution and success, I don't think it's broken in isolation. Perhaps is a problem actor, taking the aggregate in consideration - but I am will to let this specific card ride and see where the environment goes.

Psychic Veil: This is stealth and only lasts for the turn. It costs a blood and an action. Blessing of the Name: You have to be playing Salubri-anti so that's a bad enough downside. Otherwise it's solid. It taps you during the next untap phase so there is a cost. *As an aside, I love clan specific cards that are powerful or that bend the rules when it comes to card design. Compare Blessing in the Name to Emerald Legionnaires and you may start to wonder why Salubri-anti got the short end of the clan specific stick. Under Siege: Action and a pool, requires a titled Sabbat vampire, only has 3 charges. Illuminate: Requires an imbued, has specific caveats to how it works, people can enter combat with you. Probably the closest comparison, still would only apply to your imbued and not all your allies.

So, let's look at numbers on Legionnaires: Warning: Spoiler! Boston, MA (actually Billerica, MA) October 13, 2018 13 players 3R+F 4vp finals Angelique. No liquidation 10 legionnaires. 2 unmasking Santiago, Chile July 28, 2018 14 players 3+F 3vp finals Erlik. 3 liquidation. 8 legionnaires. 2 unmasking. Jihlava, Czech Republic September 8th, 2018 3R+F 22 players 5vp finals Eribus. No liquidation. 14 legionnaires. 2 unmasking. Victory Point Cafe, Berkeley, California USA 10 players 2r + Final 1.5vp final Anu/Hectate. 4 liquidation. 8 legionnaires (+Ossian and Carlton) 3 unmasking + special affairs. Riihimäki, Finland July 7th, 2018 2R+F 15 players 4vp final Babalawo/erebus. 6 liquidation 10 legionnaires. 2 unmasking. 1 FBI. La Crypte Du Jeu, Marseille France June ??th 2018 3r+f 22 players 5vp in finals Erlik. 3 liquidation. 8 legionnaires. 1 unmasking 1 fbi. Berkeley, California USA June 23(?) 2018 10 players 2r + Final 3vp finals Erlik. 4 liquidation. 8 legionnaires. 3 unmasking. 2 fbi. Reported lackey tables: Bill Troxel 4vp Michal Kazmierczak 3vp Bill 3vp Martin Schumacher 4vp Now, it's new and let's HoS win, which is damn exciting, especially since the last physical new set before LK was HttB. So, let's compare the record of this "too good" archetype since it went legal to an actual top good archetype that people are largely bored with, in the same window of time. June 10 2018 until now. Warning: Spoiler! I chose MMPA in case nobody saw that coming. Palma de Mallorca, Spain September 23rd 2018 3R+F 19 players 3vp final 4 nana, 1Aksinya. 3 liquidation. 9 ashur. 3 parthenon. 1 unmasking. (War ghouls plus anarch tech) Outokumpu, Finland September 22nd 2018 3R+F 10 players 3vp final 4 Nana. 3 liquidation. 9 ashur. 1 parthenon Warsaw, Poland August 25th 2018 3R+F 125 players 1.5vp finals 4cybele, 3 Aksynia, 2 nana. 6 liquidation, 21 ashurs 3 parthenon. Lost Kindred Paris, France June 24th 2018 3R+F 13 players 1.5 VP finals 4 nana. 4 liquidation. 9 ashurs. Columbus, Ohio June 11th 2018 2R+F 22 players 4vp final 3 nana, 2 Aksynia 7 ashurs 1 parthenon. Moss ?? October ?players ?vps 3 nana. 4 liquidation 9 ashurs I didn't bother with Lackey on this Now that particular sample took of In 2010/2011 after a big win in December 2009. Warning: Spoiler! 2010 Australia, Melbourne December 4th 2010 3R+F 18 players AAA crypt, 29 masters Minsk, Belarus November 14th 2010 3R+F 11 players 4vp final AAA no liquidation or ashurs Paris, France October 30th 2010 3R+F 155 players 4 cybele 4 Aksynia 8 liquidation 9 ashurs 1 parthenon Paris, France October 29th 2010 3R+F 25 players 4 cybele 4 Aksynia 8 liquidation 9 ashurs 1 parthenon Örebro, Sweden September 11th 2010 3R+F 44 players Same mix as above Utrecht, Netherlands June 26th 2010 26 players 3vp finals AAA 4 liquidation 15 ashurs 1 parthenon Nundah, Brisbane, Australia June 13th 2010 3R+F 16 players AAA 6 tablets 1 parthenon no liquidation Budapest, Hungary May 29th 2010 3R+F 55 players 4 nana 3 liquidation 9 tablets Melbourne, Australia May 22nd 2010 3R+F 20 players 5 cybele 2 liquidation 4 parthenon 12 tablets Copenhagen, Denmark April 27th 2010 15 players AAA 6 liquidation 9 tablets 1 parthenon Vielvic, France April 4th 2010 10 players 3 cybele and 11caps. 4 liquidation 6 tablets 2 parthenon. Gothenburg, Sweden April 3rd 2010 37 players 4 cybele 4 Aksynia 7 liquidation 9 tablets 1 parthenon North Adelaide, Australia April 3rd 2010 3R+F 14 players 4vp final AAA 6 tablets 1 parthenon no liquidation Gelsenkirchen, Germany February 21st 2010 3R+F 12 players 3vp finals 4 nana 7 liquidation 18 tablets Gothenburg, Sweden February 13th 2010 11 players 3 Aksynia 2 nana 2 cybele 4 liquidation 9 tablets 1 parthenon Paris, France January 10th 2010 21 players 4 cybele 4 Aksynia 4 liquidation 6 tablets 2 parthenon 2011 (the year LB spread) Warwick, Rhode Island February 5th 2011 3R+F 27 players 4vp finals 4 cybele 4 Aksynia 6 liquidation 9 tablets 1 parthenon Gothenburg, Sweden April 23rd 2011 37 players 4 Aksynia 2 nana 2 cybele 5 liquidation 9 tablets Oslo, Norway May 7th 2011 3R+F 23 players 1.5vp finals 5 cybele 4 Aksynia 1 nana. 5 liquidation 9 tablets Copenhagen, Denmark May 14th 2011 3R+F 15 players 1.5 VP finals 4 cybele 2 Aksynia 1 nana 2 liquidation 6 tablets Pordenone, Italy May 15th 2011 2R+F 29 players 4 cybele 8 liquidation 9 tablets 3 parthenon Los Angeles, California May 28th 2011 14 players 4 Aksynia 3 cybele 1 nana 5 liquidation 9 tablets 1 parthenon Origins 2011, Columbus, Ohio June 26th 2011 43 players 3 Aksynia 2 cybele 1 nana 5 liquidation 9 tablets 1 parthenon Loviisa, Finland July 8th 2011 10 players AAA 6 liquidation 9tablets 2 parthenon Mainz, Germany July 30th 2011 2R+F 12 players Huitzilopochtli Anson 5 liquidation 9 tablets 3 parthenon Darmstadt, Germany October 8th 2011 2R+F 16 players 3vp final 4 nana, 6 liquidation 9tablets 1 parthenon Newark, Ohio November 1st 2011 2R+F 13 players AAA 6 liquidation 9 tablets 1 parthenon Victoria, London, England November 19th 2011 3R+F 24 players AAA 6 liquidation 9 tablets 1 parthenon Juiz de Fora, Brazil December 16th 2011 2R+F 12 players 3vp finals Anson huitzilopochtli. 3 liquidation 9 ashurs 4 parthenon Örebro, Sweden December 27th 2011 3R+F 22 players AAA. 9 tablets 1 parthenon 0 liquidation Which is still basically a JOKE compared to the poster child of overpowered: Warning: Spoiler! Imbued 2006: Salt Lake City, Utah May 20th 2006 3R+F 12 players 6 MoM 2 EE Columbus, Ohio June 29th 2006 2R+F 28 players 2mom 2 EE Indianapolis, Indiana August 13th 2006 3R+F 27 players 2mom 2EE (2 parthenon) Sydney, Australia August 27th 2006 3R+F 18 players 3mom 2EE Turku, Finland December 17th 2006 3R+F 12 players 1EE Atlanta, Georgia December 17th 2006 2R+F 13 players 2mom 2EE 2007 Rome, Italy March 4th 2007 12 players 6mom 2EE Lafayette, Louisiana March 24th 2007 3R+F 15 players 1EE Gothenburg, Sweden April 14th 2007 12 players 4mom 2 EE Turku, Finland May 6th 2007 3R+F 11 players 2mom 2EE May 25th 2007 2R+F 17 players 5mom 1EE Turku, Finland May 26th 2007 3R+F 56 players 5mom 2EE Paris, France May 26th 2007 23 players 4mom 3EE Newark, Ohio June 15th 2007 12 players 5mom 1EE Boston, Massachusetts June 24th 2007 3R+F 10 players 4vp finals 2mom 2EE Helsinki, Finland July 7th 2007 13 players 4mom 2EE Vitória, Brazil July 21st 2007 2R+F 10 players 1mom 1ee Marietta, Georgia July 29th 2007 3R+F 10 players 6 liquidation 1EE Rome, Italy July 29th 2007 10 players 1mom 2EE Gothenburg, Sweden August 3rd 2007 3R+F 109 players 6mom 2EE Cape Town, South Africa August 11th 2007 14 players 2mom 1EE Kismaros, Hungary August 18th 2007 3R+F 30 players 6mom 1EE St. Albert, Alberta August 25th 2007 21 players 3vp finals 2mom 1EE Genève, Switzerland September 2nd 2007 17 players 6mom 2EE Caves Saint-Sabin, Paris, France September 29th 2007 3R+F 110 players 6mom 2EE Sydney, Australia September 30th 2007 3R+F 35 players 4mom 2EE Atlanta, Georgia November 17th 2007 3R+F 10 players 2EE Warsaw, Poland November 17th 2007 3R+F 43 players 4mom 2EE Atlanta, Georgia December 15th 2007 2R+F 10 players 4vp final 2EE Santiago, Chile December 15th 2007 3R+F 10 players 5mom 2EE Juiz de Fora, Brazil December 16th 2007 23 players 6mom 1EE /spoiler] So, like many things, its popularity ramps up with newness. Like good things, it will stay viable once that fades. It's a new archetype for Ally decks. They're less crazy than Tupdogs. Probably as good as No Secrets. Surely, no Edge Explosion Memories of Mortality imbued or MMPA level of stupid good. Liquidation still problematic IMO, and I maintain that BC should let Wash and Sudden target Events. But that's my math and logic on the supposed overpowered legionnaires.

If you want to Sudden events there is a card for it already, it's called Not To Be.

> Klaital wrote: > If you want to Sudden events there is a card for it already, it's called Not To Be. > Yea, its something I use all the time- to slide pdf cards in front of. But addressing the lack of being able to actively counter events is only approachable by making it not the only thing a card does. I've ran Not To Be, and it turned out that if you compare it to Uncoiling, Black hand ritual, or 4th cycle it was like Not to Be was Gift of Experience and the other cards were Epiphany or Legacy. Events being cancelled by what's already used to cancel masters flows better. I'm not saying the games hurt by events, but if the lack of dealing with them is an issue then practical means trump other things.

I don't think Sudden Reversal needs to be any more powerful as it is already a very strong card. And if you like those other anti-event cards more you listed, then use those instead? Like I put Uncoiling in most of my tournament decks that don't rely on any events themselves. Sometimes I even have it in decks that have another event (usually Scourge).

> DJHedgehog wrote: > > I can't name a single card that gives +1 intercept to more than one minion. > Under siege ps. Reminder to Black chantry: put uncoiling into next bundle products. > ReverendRevolver wrote: > But addressing the lack of being able to actively counter events is only approachable by making it not the only thing a card does. > I've ran Not To Be, and it turned out that if you compare it to Uncoiling, Black hand ritual, or 4th cycle it was like Not to Be was Gift of Experience and the other cards were Epiphany or Legacy. > > Events being cancelled by what's already used to cancel masters flows better. I'm not saying the games hurt by events, but if the lack of dealing with them is an issue then practical means trump other things. > I agree, cards should have multiple uses to avoid being too narrow to put in your decks. Also: canceling events is inferior to burning them, since you have to have the cancel in hand already when someone plays an event. Uncoiling you can draw afterwards and its still good. This is just math. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Mewcat wrote: > Djhedgehog said ... > > To address Tworazorreign: There is no other effect in the game that gives permanent intercept to a group of minions. Sure a lot of things make permanent intercept or transient intercept, but only for one minion. If you can't tell the difference I'm not sure how better I can explain this to you. > I understand that Unmasking gives +1 intercept to all allies, which is different than +1 intercept to one minon. I’m just not convinced this is problematic. If all allies have +1 intercept, but you can reliably get +2 stealth, none of the allies can block. I don’t think you need to explain things better. To me, lots of allies getting +1 intercept is a feature and a welcome challenge, not a problem or chore to overcome.

> Klaital wrote: > If you want to Sudden events there is a card for it already, it's called Not To Be. > Which is a really, really bad card. Why? Opportunity cost. Sudden Reversal makes sense, because master cards get played all the time (and are very powerful). You can pretty much always find a slot in which to play it, and it won't end up clogging your hand. Not To Be, on the other hand, is only usable when an event is played. How often does that happen in a normal game? Rarely, and in many games never. And of course, you'll have to have that Not To Be in your hand in order to cancel that event even if it does happen. And you don't want to have it clogging up your hand for the whole game. Bad card. If it had some secondary function (cancel a limited set of master cards, for instance) it would be playable. As is, it's wallpaper.

> Kushiel wrote: > > > TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > > though I strongly suspect that was only created for people who didn't own copies of Unmasking. > > > Both of them? > Finnish Politics!

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > I think a lot of people are on the bandwagon, so we're seeing it more than we will in a few months when the shininess tarnishes. > Girls deck used to be like this (all over the meta) as well. It has quieted down considerably and one rarely encounters one nowadays. Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > > I think a lot of people are on the bandwagon, so we're seeing it more than we will in a few months when the shininess tarnishes. > > > Girls deck used to be like this (all over the meta) as well. > It has quieted down considerably and one rarely encounters one nowadays. > On the other hand: they banned Anthelios pretty much as a direct result of "girls" decks. So it's maybe not the best comparison here, if you're advocating "don't ban or nerf anything"

I'm ressurecting this thread to present some updated stats into the discussion. With the TWDA updated through the beggining of January, we can better see the effect of LK on the meta: Card - Top 20Total decks (06/2018 - 01/2019) On the Qui Vive59 Pentex(TM) Subversion57 Vessel50 Dreams of the Sphinx48 Giant's Blood47 Villein40 Delaying Tactics36 Telepathic Misdirection33 Direct Intervention33 Eyes of Argus31 Deflection30 Carlton Van Wyk29 Wider View27 Heart of Nizchetus25 Powerbase: Montreal24 My Enemy's Enemy23 Jake Washington23 Ivory Bow22 Taste of Vitae21 Unmasking, The21 So... where are the Legionnaires? Still a bit off from the game's staples: ELs have 11 wins in the same timeframe, putting them outside of the top 50 cards. In fact, for comparison, Ashurs and Liquidations both have more wins in the same period (13 and 14, respectively), and have seen increased use for the past couple of years (clearly a result of the Anthology set). EL does rank the highest among clan-specific cards, but Unleash Hell's Fury is not far behind with 9 wins and Veneficti Mage has 7 - I'd say they're just about balanced once you factor in the 'novelty' effect for ELs. So, instead of nerfing EL maybe we should be discussing how to bring On the Qui Vive under control.

What was you data analysis paradigm? I mean you find that it is the most featured clan card and then discard that. What would have been convincing? Additionally you make a joke about ignoring the most featured card. Seems disingenuous.

My personal opinion is that drawing any conclusions about meta is not possible without including data from the entire finals table rather than just the winner..(data from entire tournament preferred..) Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Mewcat wrote: > What was you data analysis paradigm? > > I mean you find that it is the most featured clan card and then discard that. What would have been convincing? Additionally you make a joke about ignoring the most featured card. Seems disingenuous. > I'm trying to check if EL is a clear outlier - if yes, there are grounds for a nerf/ban. But there are many contributing variables to consider, so it is not enough to show that EL has a high win rate. Many sets see a surge in usage & win rate in the year after release - LK's win rate is at 10.7%* for 2018, but Gehenna had 40%, Anarchs 20%, SoC 14%, 10th had 26,5% (with only 10 new cards!), LoB peaked at 36,5% in 2006, and many of the larger sets were up to 60-70% usage one year after release. So LK doesn't seem unusual in that regard. Besides, in the past most new cards were released in boosters, so players looking to build a specific new deck would have to chase and collect those cards over months/years (the surge in Ashur usage after the Anthology release is a nice demonstration of this effect). With LK everyone who wants to build an EL deck can do so right away, so I expect it to ramp up faster and the novelty effect to wear off sooner. Comparing to other clan cards EL gets the top spot for the past 10 years with 11,8% of all decks using clan-specific cards in 2018, but then again, Nephandus was in 10,5% of decks in 2017, Ventrue Headquarters had 10.8% in 2009, and Sudario Refraction got 10% in 2008. If we go back to 2000-2001 then Ventrue Headquarters, Muddled Vampire Hunter, and Asylum Hunting Ground each got more than 11% of wins. Comparing to actually banned cards: - Lillith's Blessing was in 32% of winning decks in 2012 - Anthelios got 13.5% in 2013 and 11.5% in 2014 - Memories of Mortality was in 17% in 2007, and Edge Explosion in 13% - Imbued decks got 23.5% of the wins that year. All of these cards also had rarity/availability issues contributing to the ban. So IMO EL doesn't reach the criteria for a ban, but if its win rate increases going into 2020 then a nerf should be considered. I don't expect that though - I think the novelty will wear off and many players are now packing anti-ally tech, so the win rate for EL should come down. * LK is not only about EL - there are now 3 !Sal decks using LK cards in the TWDA

> skimflux wrote: > I'm trying to check if EL is a clear outlier - if yes, there are grounds for a nerf/ban. But there are many contributing variables to consider, so it is not enough to show that EL has a high win rate. > Many sets see a surge in usage & win rate in the year after release - LK's win rate is at 10.7%* for 2018, but Gehenna had 40%, Anarchs 20%, SoC 14%, 10th had 26,5% (with only 10 new cards!), LoB peaked at 36,5% in 2006, and many of the larger sets were up to 60-70% usage one year after release. So LK doesn't seem unusual in that regard. > Besides, in the past most new cards were released in boosters, so players looking to build a specific new deck would have to chase and collect those cards over months/years (the surge in Ashur usage after the Anthology release is a nice demonstration of this effect). With LK everyone who wants to build an EL deck can do so right away, so I expect it to ramp up faster and the novelty effect to wear off sooner. > > Comparing to other clan cards EL gets the top spot for the past 10 years with 11,8% of all decks using clan-specific cards in 2018, but then again, Nephandus was in 10,5% of decks in 2017, Ventrue Headquarters had 10.8% in 2009, and Sudario Refraction got 10% in 2008. > If we go back to 2000-2001 then Ventrue Headquarters, Muddled Vampire Hunter, and Asylum Hunting Ground each got more than 11% of wins. > > Comparing to actually banned cards: > - Lillith's Blessing was in 32% of winning decks in 2012 > - Anthelios got 13.5% in 2013 and 11.5% in 2014 > - Memories of Mortality was in 17% in 2007, and Edge Explosion in 13% - Imbued decks got 23.5% of the wins that year. > > All of these cards also had rarity/availability issues contributing to the ban. > > So IMO EL doesn't reach the criteria for a ban, but if its win rate increases going into 2020 then a nerf should be considered. I don't expect that though - I think the novelty will wear off and many players are now packing anti-ally tech, so the win rate for EL should come down. > > * LK is not only about EL - there are now 3 !Sal decks using LK cards in the TWDA > You are very convincing in making it look like you know what you are talking about. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> [P]rovide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation. > From the Forum guidelines. Relevant part is bolded. "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

> Bloodartist wrote: > You are very convincing in making it look like you know what you are talking about. > 'Lies, damned lies, and statistics'... But really, I'm just an amateur with delusions of knowing how to work an Excel file I would rather present the full data so everyone can make their own analysis and conclusions, but this forum is far from ideal for that (do you know how hard it is to post a large matrix here? You have to hand craft the BBCode, it's almost like going back to the 90's... if anyone has any suggestions for an easy way to convert Excel tables to bbcode, I'd be happy to hear them. Then again, they get all mangled up by the fixed page width anyway...). So, I will post a link to the full updated TWDA report as soon as I can. I do agree that having data on all tournament participating decks would be ideal, but we must do with what we have.

There's no easy to paste tables. Maybe you should just take a screenshot of your table and post the image here. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > There's no easy to paste tables. Maybe you should just take a screenshot of your table and post the image here. > Would Google sheets or docs work? They have online excel-like tools that can be shared through links. "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

> Ankha wrote: > There's no easy to paste tables. > Paste via something like: theenemy.dk/table/ Methuselah WinsCorpses Avery4Over 9,000 Bailey3150 Courtney19 Dakota075

@skimflux. 1) the unstated assumption seems to be that no other cards are a problem. The result might be more accurately stated as "slightly more common than other cards" assuming the whole data set looks like that. 2) I think just showing number of decks ith csrd that won tournament isn't the greatest way to get information. Need to know how often it is played and how often counterplayed and so on. If 11 guys played it and it won 11 tournaments that is telling. 3) why not look at on the qui vive? If the data points it out maybe we should consider why.

> Mewcat wrote: > @skimflux. > > 1) the unstated assumption seems to be that no other cards are a problem. The result might be more accurately stated as "slightly more common than other cards" assuming the whole data set looks like that. > Fair enough, but since nobody has ever called for nerfing Ventrue Headquarters, and other very popular cards are seen as fine*, I think "slightly more common than other popular cards" is not a solid argument for nerfing EL. > 2) I think just showing number of decks ith csrd that won tournament isn't the greatest way to get information. Need to know how often it is played and how often counterplayed and so on. If 11 guys played it and it won 11 tournaments that is telling. > Agreed, but it is what we have - until we can get full information on all tournament playing decks, the TWDA is the next best thing. Besides, we do have anedotal information from the tournaments we have played in - for example, there were at least a couple of EL decks in Warsaw but none of those got a tournament win, so we do know it's not winning everytime it is played. > 3) why not look at on the qui vive? If the data points it out maybe we should consider why. > Because we've been down that road before - in 1998, when WWEF was nerfed. Note that WWEF got up to 78% in the TWDA in 1999, after being nerfed**. 'Wake' is a fundamental effect for the game, and therefore it in accepted that nearly every deck will use some wake effects. OTQV is the one that better fits most decks, but that does not really make it unbalanced - WWEF and FA still see significant play. Anyway, you can get the full file here: 1drv.ms/x/s!Arz0OfxudeZ7lswskkHDwcPaM5bHsg *personally I think the combo of Nephandus and Antonio d'Erlette is too strong and lacks effective counters, but it seems this is not a common opinion ** I'll admit the stats for 1999 are a bit sketchy (only 23 decks), but it remained around 50% until 2007, when OTQV came along.

I wouldn't say that otqv needs to be nerfed or banned but the game may benefit from doing so. I question what game need it addressed and why it was made in the first place. A wake for allies that is a boost to bounce strategies seems like a niche not needed. Antonio nephandus is on my shit list. I hate things that take away from the minion phase like his ability. And on a 5 cap seems just dumb, with 5 cap disciplines to boot.

> skimflux wrote: > > 'Lies, damned lies, and statistics'... But really, I'm just an amateur with delusions of knowing how to work an Excel file > > I would rather present the full data so everyone can make their own analysis and conclusions, but this forum is far from ideal for that (do you know how hard it is to post a large matrix here? You have to hand craft the BBCode, it's almost like going back to the 90's... if anyone has any suggestions for an easy way to convert Excel tables to bbcode, I'd be happy to hear them. Then again, they get all mangled up by the fixed page width anyway...). > > So, I will post a link to the full updated TWDA report as soon as I can. > The point I have been making (repeatedly) is that regardless of the methods you use (which may or may not be valid, its irrelevant), using them to analyze TWDA results in entirely useless, and worse: misleading data. In order to get meaningful data you must use data from ENTIRE tournaments. Hypothetical situation A: Tournament has 5 EL decks. Only one of them has positive winrate, but proceeds to the final and wins it. Looking only at winner makes it look like a big winner. Reality: on average this reflects poorly on EL decks winrate. Hypothetical situation B: Tournament is not won by an EL deck. Oh, this must lower the winrate of an EL deck in the grand scheme of things according to you. Reality: no EL deck participated in the tournament = the tournament doesn't affect EL decks winrate in any way. And so on and so forth. All of this is information that study on exclusively TWDA pointedly IGNORES. If we had data from entire tournaments, which would show that an EL deck almost always proceeds to the final (amount of EL decks participating vs amount of EL decks in the final) then that WOULD be sufficient grounds to discuss nerf/ban on EL. But that is not the data that is being gathered here. Knowing that most people don't understand mathematics, I know how easy it is to mislead people by presenting mathematical formulas and big words. This is what is happening here and I am vehemently against it. This is why I fucking HATE statistical analysis. Its only as good as the person interpreting it, and its unbelievably easy to fall into the pit of believing false results are true, because you are using valid methods on invalid premises. The main achievement of statistical analysis is misleading politicians into making decisions they wouldn't have made if they actually knew what they were doing (see brexit). I don't want black chantry to make any decisions on nerfs/bans/errata on false information. Start collecting ACTUALLY VALID data and then continue with this analysis. Start collecting decklists from all tournament participants so this analysis actually has some value. ps. I know you don't know what you are doing, because you wouldn't have gone this far had you realized the data is erroneous. If you want to practice your toolbox and collect course credit or whatever, you can do so, just try not to mislead readers of this site while doing it. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

Does the Archon allow for recording decks? It was mandatory to provide deck lists in Netrunner events. Then again, the only thing that was recorded was the Corp/Runner for each player. Vtes has a lot more subjective decisions when you talk about a deck and it's goals in game. For example, I got in an argument with a guy on facebook where he said a Mata Hari deck was a ravnos deck. The deck only contained 5 ravnos in the crypt (all mata hari). Would you say that's a ravnos deck? I wouldn't, and I don't know that everyone would agree. That's one of a million possibilities which can include the type of deck (Stealth bleed/wall/combat/etc). I think, as far as good data goes, this game is kind of borked. Seeing decks that win is interesting but (as we've seen in american league) seed in the finals is a huge factor too that is not being taken into consideration. If we can say at a normal table everyone has a 20% chance of winning, the finals seeding has to skew that number significantly. Lots of factors and as Bloodartist stated, the data is far from complete and it gives only a key-hole view to what is being played at tournaments without any context so it would be far from statistically relevant.

> Bloodartist wrote: > Knowing that most people don't understand mathematics, I know how easy it is to mislead people by presenting mathematical formulas and big words. This is what is happening here and I am vehemently against it. > I understand you believe people are being mislead. This is unlikely. Most people reading this thread understand that the data presented by skimflux is just one of many interpretations of the effect Emerald Legionnaire on the tournament meta. A different interpretation was provided by the original poster, and they used personal experience instead of using topline descriptive data. It is true that the reader must discern for themselves if what's being stated in this thread is hard evidence or just speculation. But, I believe everybody reading understands it's all speculation, leading to a fun discussion. I do not think people are seeing all the data presented by skimflux and saying, "Gee whiz, look at all those numbers! I can't understand what's being shown, so I'm just going to trust it's true." > I don't want black chantry to make any decisions on nerfs/bans/errata on false information. > Again, I don't think the people making decisions about this game are going to be convinced by anything in this thread, whether valid/invalid statistical analysis is included or not. > Start collecting ACTUALLY VALID data and then continue with this analysis. Start collecting decklists from all tournament participants so this analysis actually has some value. > Sure, but even if one were to do this, it's still a limited analysis of data (small sample size due to Emerald Legionnaire being relatively new). There's also no adjustment for player behavior (ie, whether the prevalence of Emerald Legionnaire is related it being a new card players want to try). In other words, what you are asking for would also still mislead people. > ps. I know you don't know what you are doing, because you wouldn't have gone this far had you realized the data is erroneous. If you want to practice your toolbox and collect course credit or whatever, you can do so, just try not to mislead readers of this site while doing it. > I think skimflux can post whatever he wants. This entire forum is all opinion and speculation. People just have to not believe everything that they read.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Sure, but even if one were to do this, it's still a limited analysis of data (small sample size due to Emerald Legionnaire being relatively new). There's also no adjustment for player behavior (ie, whether the prevalence of Emerald Legionnaire is related it being a new card players want to try). In other words, what you are asking for would also still mislead people. > Here are the data points I would consider for a more statistically valid approach to analyzing the data. -Every deck for the event (This is the largest and heaviest lift. I would require deck lists from players- but who wants to enter that data? Nobody. There is no real way to summarize a deck in a way that all organizers would understand, so anything other than full lists allow discretionary decisions and are questionable from a data standardization perspective). -The corresponding GW/VP/Place of each deck, including finals seeding. -Size of the event. -Length of the event in rounds. -The Final table seating, including special tie breakers to decide (we use die rolls, which doesn't really show if a "better" deck makes it to the finals and even have a chance to win). I'm sure there is something I'm not thinking of but a lot of the questions I find myself asking when it comes to winning decks are answered above. Does 'x' deck win smaller events? Does it win shorter events? Did the winner benefit from finals seeding? How do the cards distribute from the lowest performers to the highest? What are the least used cards in the game, what are the most?

You also need to obtain the FUN RATE and if it falls outside standard deviation needs nerfing. People obsess with win rates and so on but there are plenty of other things to consider. 1) is it fun when some guy takes 1 action and gets 12 minions in play? does putting all this activity in the untap phase take away from the minion phase 2) EL or any minion spam (and multiact) leads to long turns and monopolizing of turn timer. when 1 guy takes 20 minute turns and the other 4 have 1 or 2 actions a turn this is snooze fest. similar for anything that shuffles deck. 3) is the card in itself ok but is it overly constraining the play space (limited viable deck choices) win rates are ok but this shit isn't a job. Rock/paper/scissors may be perfectly balanced by win rates but the FUN RATE is lacking.

> Bloodartist wrote: > The point I have been making (repeatedly) is that regardless of the methods you use (which may or may not be valid, its irrelevant), using them to analyze TWDA results in entirely useless, and worse: misleading data. In order to get meaningful data you must use data from ENTIRE tournaments. > > <ranting over the same basic point> > I am quite aware of the limitations of the TWDA data. OTOH, it is what we have - it is pratically impossible to have full information on all tournament participating decks. Even if you had that, you'd find the need to factor in the seatings for each round. And if you had that, you'd have to factor in the playing style of each player. And then maybe the current weather, and the phase of the moon , or whatever... My point is that statistics can be misleading, but the alternative is not to do any analysis at all, and that just leads to people calling for bans on their pet hate du jour because "my friend won a bunch of games we played in the kitchen". Which we get too much of already... > The main achievement of statistical analysis is misleading politicians into making decisions they wouldn't have made if they actually knew what they were doing > Despite the popularity of vote decks in VTES I have no knowledge of any actual politician playing VTES or browsing this forum, so I think we're safe > Knowing that most people don't understand mathematics, I know how easy it is to mislead people by presenting mathematical formulas and big words. > My impression is that players of VTES are often math-inclined, some even proeficient professionals, and they mostly understand the limitations of statistics and the underlying assumptions of working with the TWDA data. > ps. I know you don't know what you are doing, because you wouldn't have gone this far had you realized the data is erroneous (....) just try not to mislead readers of this site while doing it. > AFAICT the TWDA data is not erroneous (those are real tournament winning decks), but it is incomplete and some assumptions must be made to extract useful information. Because I do understand the limitations of the TWDA I take care not to jump to conclusions, and I took that stance in my posts - my assumptions and opinions are usually marked as such, feel free to ignore them.

> Mewcat wrote: > You also need to obtain the FUN RATE and if it falls outside standard deviation needs nerfing. People obsess with win rates and so on but there are plenty of other things to consider. > > 1) is it fun when some guy takes 1 action and gets 12 minions in play? does putting all this activity in the untap phase take away from the minion phase > > 2) EL or any minion spam (and multiact) leads to long turns and monopolizing of turn timer. when 1 guy takes 20 minute turns and the other 4 have 1 or 2 actions a turn this is snooze fest. similar for anything that shuffles deck. > > 3) is the card in itself ok but is it overly constraining the play space (limited viable deck choices) > > win rates are ok but this shit isn't a job. Rock/paper/scissors may be perfectly balanced by win rates but the FUN RATE is lacking. > That's a good point. Still, VTES is a competitive game, it's only natural that game balance is a top priority. Anyone not playing in a VEKN tournament can adopt whatever rules change their playgroup sees fit for their purpose, regardless of what WW, BCP, or anyone else says. Social pressure on casual play is often enough to remove the most offensive cards and playstyles (which is also one reason why casual play experiences are generally not a good indication of play balance). If we really want to maximize FUN RATE for VTES, well... we may have a long way to go!

@skimflux I would argue that vtes is neither competitive or balanced. The majority of people that go to a vtes event are not trying to break the game but rather to have dome fun with friends and you can see it in their deck choices. If we were trying to win above all other considerations it would just be dominate obfuscate stealth bleed forever.

> Mewcat wrote: > > 1) is it fun when some guy takes 1 action and gets 12 minions in play? > Yes. --That guy playing the deck where 1 action puts 12 minions in play > win rates are ok but this shit isn't a job. Rock/paper/scissors may be perfectly balanced by win rates but the FUN RATE is lacking. > I hear this all the time, that VTES is too random and therefore not fun. I have a very hard time understanding this point. It's, like, a card game. Card games are random. And that's why VTES involves a lot of rock/paper/scissors elements. Randomness, like all card games, is the core feature of VTES. If randomness is really a problem, should shuffling be banned? > skimflux wrote: > If we really want to maximize FUN RATE for VTES, well... we may have a long way to go! > Not really. Maximizing fun rate is all about a willingness to not be completely negative with all things VTES. > Mewcat wrote: > @skimflux > > I would argue that vtes is neither competitive or balanced. The majority of people that go to a vtes event are not trying to break the game but rather to have dome fun with friends and you can see it in their deck choices. If we were trying to win above all other considerations it would just be dominate obfuscate stealth bleed forever. > If it's not competitive, then why would people play a supposedly not fun archetype where 1 action puts 12 minions in play? The reason why this archetype is so prevalent is because it's both fun and competitive.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > Randomness, like all card games, is the core feature of VTES. > ! C I T A T I O N N E E D E D ¡ 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.

To add to the discussion: Having a goal, encountering resistance, and overcoming that resistance, in my opinion, is the recipe for fun. If a game is too hard (too much resistance) or too easy (too little resistance) then the game becomes frustrating or boring, respectively. I think it is too easy in VTES to adopt a strategy that leads to too little resistance (stealth-bleed / power-bleed for offense, 9+ bounces for defense). Playing less optimal strategies would be voluntarily increasing the difficulty of the game. Randomness adds an element of surprise, which adds to fun. A linear single-player adventure video game tends to become less fun over time because there are no surprises anymore. Randomness in VTES that contributes to players NOT having fun would be seating order, because of the prior reason. The setting / world of a game contributes to the fun of many players. The feeling that they are participating in and telling the unfolding story invokes a sense of fun. I think as a game of VTES plays out, it has the potential to tell an interesting story, but so many of the actions are abstract or vague - bleed modifiers in particular. 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.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > > > TwoRazorReign wrote: > > Randomness, like all card games, is the core feature of VTES. > > > ! C I T A T I O N > N E E D E D ¡ > 2.3. Play Area To begin, separate your crypt cards from your library cards. Shuffle both decks

> Mewcat wrote: > @skimflux > > I would argue that vtes is neither competitive or balanced. The majority of people that go to a vtes event are not trying to break the game but rather to have dome fun with friends and you can see it in their deck choices. If we were trying to win above all other considerations it would just be dominate obfuscate stealth bleed forever. > Try it! Be that guy, see how many VPs it'll get for you, playing brick-cube decks all the time! The game has its own property to "balanca out" these things. Of course, on paper, having drawn 2 condi 2 govern 3 stealth in your starting hand indicates a higher possiblility of getting a VP, then 2 carrion 2 aid 1 terror f 2 deep song... or is it? Let me recite an example. In my early days of VtES (when i was inexperienced, didnt know all the cards by heart, didnt know most archetypes and their mechanics, etc...) we had a guy playing big cap lasombra all the time. He won most of our matches, because of powerful bleed and stealth cards. Back then, I'd agree with you totally. But after a while we realized stuff, get hold of cards (like archon, bounce cards, intercept cards, potent combat cards, etc...) and his rule was ended. I agree that DOM-OBF seems strong, and it IS strong, but lowering this game to a level where one concept absolutely beats the other without any fun factor, is ill-advised in my opinion. Thus arrving to the topic theme, nerfing EL-too stroink. I've seen more gangrel/!ganrel twd-s than ELs this year... This nerfing urge eludes me still. NC of Hungary ///

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > If it's not competitive, then why would people play a supposedly not fun archetype where 1 action puts 12 minions in play? The reason why this archetype is so prevalent is because it's both fun and competitive. > I'm going to back up mewcat here from a competitive perspective. If we look at 2 player games like netrunner or magic, you have some definitive data to point at. In a highly competitive field, you have 2 decks that will be played by about 50% of the field with some variations. There is another 15ish% that play counter-meta decks with the hope that they can win the matchups with the high winrate decks, and then you have about 35% of people who are looking to combo out or are playing what they enjoy. In VTES, the decks mentioned aren't prevalent from a competitive in a sense that we have similar deck distributions. At the tournament I was at most recently, of 20 people 0 people played emerald legionnaires. There were two people playing a variation of stealth bleed, but nothing as abusive weenie '94 dom-obf. Nobody played a turbo deck, a nephandus deck. In fact, I probably played the most abusive deck (MMPA) and ended up winning (take that with a grain of salt really). If 10 of those 20 people showed up with MMPA, EL, good/focused stealth bleed, a turbo deck, nephandus, the whole tournament would have been different. Instead, the vast majority of people played the decks that interested them. Most people don't come to a run-of-the-mill tournament to play "boring" decks, thought that would be the mainstay of a 2-player CCG player's game. The lack of balance is apparent there as well. These people playing less-than-optimized decks should still be able to be around the 20% win rate. The reality is that these overtuned cards out perform most other cards in a higher than marginal rate. It makes sense to me that playing the best bleed discipline and the best stealth discipline would probably lead to the best stealth bleed deck. Playing anything else seems silly but people do it all the freaking time. My biggest gripe are the non-interactive cards and those are what I call abusive. Nephandus, EL, Ashur/MMPA all just do their thing and have little counterplay.

> Mewcat wrote: > win rates are ok but this shit isn't a job. Rock/paper/scissors may be perfectly balanced by win rates but the FUN RATE is lacking. > I was not trying to say that vtes is too random but rather that paper/rock/scissors is perfectly balanced from win rates but is a stupid game. Looking at just win rate can not give us a full picture.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Having a goal, encountering resistance, and overcoming that resistance, in my opinion, is the recipe for fun. If a game is too hard (too much resistance) or too easy (too little resistance) then the game becomes frustrating or boring, respectively. I think it is too easy in VTES to adopt a strategy that leads to too little resistance (stealth-bleed / power-bleed for offense, 9+ bounces for defense). Playing less optimal strategies would be voluntarily increasing the difficulty of the game. > That is a more developed version of my position. Does obfuscate dominate stealth bleed guarantee game wins? No, but everything else is voluntarily making it harder. Sure you can directly counter my strategy (and need to unless you want to be ousted in 15 minutes) but a lot of other strategies counter themselves.

There many decks far more powerful than Malk94. It is generally perceived as a huge threat and has weak bargaining ability. If your goal is to get 1VP (which is not what you should aim for, barring exceptionally unfavorable circumstances), it's a good deck. But that's all. Also, your tongue > cards. There are very few situations that do not offer any opportunity for trying to talk yourself out of difficulties. Many players don't talk, so they deny themselves a lot of fun and a very powerful weapon. I think a good way to learn more about table talk and table dynamics is to be that guy playing combat on a table of stealth-bleeders, or the one playing Ventrue law-firm with only 4 Majesty as combat defense in a table of intercept-fighters, etc... You will probably not win that many games, but you will build very useful experience. It will be helpful when you play on less extremely polarized tables. And maybe, it will also help you understand that almost no cards deserve ban or errata in the tournament-legal card pool.

> jonathan wrote: > Also, your tongue > cards. There are very few situations that do not offer any opportunity for trying to talk yourself out of difficulties. Many players don't talk, so they deny themselves a lot of fun and a very powerful weapon. I think a good way to learn more about table talk and table dynamics is to be that guy playing combat on a table of stealth-bleeders, > Combat guy - Don't bleed me or I will rush you Stealth bleed predator - How am I supposed to oust you then? Combat guy - uhm? Mileage will vary. Back to topic. @skimflux I looked through a couple years before they banned kindred restructure and you see about 10 instances of the cards each year, contrasted with 11 EL instances in 6 months. Clearly a card need not be an outlier to be banned.

> Mewcat wrote: > > Combat guy - Don't bleed me or I will rush you > Stealth bleed predator - How am I supposed to oust you then? > Combat guy - uhm? > > Mileage will vary. > It is what a brainless Malk94 player could say, and that is why I believe it is not such a great deck. It is very simplistic and far from the only option. Also, besides you and your prey, there are 3 other players at the table. I think this conversation is very much on-topic because cards and decks can seem very overpowered if you see the game as a succession of duels. V:tes is first and foremost a game of social interaction. If you approach it like any other card game, where success is a mix of player's technique, access to powerful cards and strong deck building, I guess you kinda miss the point.

I think you will find table talk to be mid tier if you play more. High level play is a table of people that know what is going on and not a lot of Jedi mind tricks.

> Mewcat wrote: > I think you will find table talk to be mid tier if you play more. High level play is a table of people that know what is going on and not a lot of Jedi mind tricks. > Sort of. Still, I find that table talk and deal making is a corner stone of good play even in EC day 2, which is arguably the highest level of competitive play we have at the moment. No jedi mind tricks though - the art of civil persuasion is still important. Good play and understanding of deck capabilities are of course always key. That being said, it's a skill to identify the highest threat to you personally on the table and act accordingly. Legionnaire and Girls style MMPA seem to be almost on a level where even tag-teaming against them will not net results you're looking for. Table talks can do only so much. I'm guessing people have played enough that they're taking this into account while debating. Also, going down to compare Dramatic Upheaval and contemporary cards is not ideal because half of the reason why those cards were banned was because it was so unwieldy to do in game. Not only do you VP snipe, you also have to physically pick up your stuff, wait for others to do the same, rearrange everything-- it's such a hassle. There are other cards that have been banned for practical reasons as well as balance reasons as well. Decks that have to shuffle all the time are problematic (kind of) for the same reason: it's so unwieldy and takes so much time. Lilith's Blessing could be another card to look out for in TWDA and compare numbers. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

I would argue that the purpose of table talk is to direct the crap players. No crap players, highly devalued. I have talked about various reasons to be concerned about cards other than just winning (long turns, boring turns, long boring turns), probably in this thread. These are valid. I doubt that the reason for banning dramtic upheaval is players cant stand up and sit back down in a timely manner. We manage to do it in America (while double fisting bacon double cheeseburgers) so everyone should be fine.

Table talk is not Jedi mind trick. It is about mutual interest. Manipulating the weakest link is an option, but it's level-0 of powerful social interaction. The best players know what is going on and understand table dynamics. They know when a losing deal is called for, they know that winning a table of five good players all by yourself is very very difficult, they are OK with cross-table ousting someone if it's called for (but won't do it for free). They understand that destroying their predator is a waste of resources, a VP for their grand-predator who might soon be a more dangerous predator than their current one, a risk of letting their prey become too strong. So yes, they will try to talk, because it's good for both players. It will probably end-up being some kind of peace treaty, which both players will then try to break at the best moment. Or it might be a trade of VPs... They also know that Pentex, The Unmasking, Emerald Legionnaires and basically everything can be dealt with, even if you don't have the right cards for that in your deck. And the usual way to do that is to offer the right thing to the right person. I don't like Pentex nor MMPA stuff because they are ubiquitous and make almost any deck instantly better, but I do not think they break the game. I also hate tupdogs decks, which are the worse thing ever when played by bad players, but I would not petition to ban them. Also, what is or is not boring is very subjective. I'm actually very bored with players who do not play for a game win (eg. Those who play for one VP while not being forced to, or those who play to burn vampires, or those who do not even try to understand the global flow of the game).

Is your position that the cards don't matter and the multi player aspect will just fix everything?

It is a bit strong. My position is that the multiplayer aspect creates some strange kind of balance. It's not perfect, and is not true in each and every game, but it's real, at least to me. I have played against Madness/Reversal, Tupdogs, Weenie DBR, all kind of deadly S/B, weenie ANI, Legacy of Pander, Vignes or Giovanni power leed, all kind of allies (Nephandi, War Ghoul, Khazar's Diary, Nocturn...), Inner Circle vote, weenie vote, Palla grande, AAA, Ventrue Obf, Unnamed, Una freakshow, Weenie auspex, Enkidu, Gangrel votes, Baltimore Purge, Girlz... I think Legionnaires are strong, but not stronger than all the things I mentioned. I usually play almost no stealth nor combat, and I still ousted Nephandus decks with the unmasking in play many times. Though my decks usually handle them very badly, I did so through using table dynamics, deals, and the fact that they are seen as a huge threat. And I'm not even a good player (my Vekn ID is 3490023, if you want to take a look at my track records, though my biggest accomplishment is not recorded, for some reason). I felt overwhelmed by good decks many times, it was very frustrating, I had more than my share of blaming the overpowered cards. I would have called for bans many times, but great players helped me think of solutions with cards, but also psychology and flux knowledge.

If you play almost no stealth or combat you must have a sore jaw after every game.

I'm thinking that EL is strong, as it was intended to be, but not overtly strong or broken. Nephandi are all the rage because of Antonio d'Erlette and I do think his ability is way overpowered. No one is advocating in nerfing him. I think he would be much more balanced if the Nephandi his recruits should come only from the hand. Finnish Politics!

i once played vs emerald deck with a deck with 6 entrancement; they guy said entrancement should be banned. good day and good night

Problematic card in VtES is not the same as a problematic card in other two player CCGs - we got contest, table dynamics and silver bullets to fix spikes in power, so we will never see real dominance in statistics from any "narrow" (not available to everybody, like pentex) card. Key problem is mentioned earlier fun factor - cards should be banned/changed/or something on the basis of making the play less fun. Obviously fun is subjective, so there must be some authority (Lead Game Designer) who will decide, what is fun in this game and what is not. Still haven't heard anything in this regard from current "powers". I can still speculate, that there are two problems in EL - that others can't interact with their put into play ability (it should be 1 stealth action) and Unmasking, which together with ally swarm makes small stealth pointless, by which half of actions in the game became pointless, because if you should invest into delivery mechanism for each action than you can't allow to have small effects, but it's just my opinion. NC Russia

Part of the illusion of EL being overpowered comes from Unmasking. Unmasking is certainly not overpowered, however, there is no efficient way to get rid of it. The popularity of unmasking increased with EL and the boost of Nephandi (the vampire whose name shall not be spoken). Maybe it is time for a new unique card that says "-1 intercept to allies" or even "-1 bleed to predator's allies".

> elotar wrote: > Problematic card in VtES is not the same as a problematic card in other two player CCGs - we got contest, table dynamics and silver bullets to fix spikes in power, so we will never see real dominance in statistics from any "narrow" (not available to everybody, like pentex) card. Key problem is mentioned earlier fun factor - cards should be banned/changed/or something on the basis of making the play less fun. > I would argue that the data points can be less obvious but would still exist. The way to find them is most assuredly not provide a list of cards found in winning decks nearly all the time and then ignore that because they are 'fine'. > elotar wrote: > Obviously fun is subjective, so there must be some authority (Lead Game Designer) who will decide, what is fun in this game and what is not. Still haven't heard anything in this regard from current "powers". > Yes. All I am really doing is making it clear that this is not fun and is just a poorly designed card, imo. > elotar wrote: > > I can still speculate, that there are two problems in EL - that others can't interact with their put into play ability (it should be 1 stealth action) and Unmasking, which together with ally swarm makes small stealth pointless, by which half of actions in the game became pointless, because if you should invest into delivery mechanism for each action than you can't allow to have small effects, but it's just my opinion. > Well both of those cards are good examples of a disconnect between cost and effect as well as a terrible example of interaction (just putting cards into play).

> Mewcat wrote: > I would argue that vtes is neither competitive or balanced. The majority of people that go to a vtes event are not trying to break the game but rather to have dome fun with friends and you can see it in their deck choices. If we were trying to win above all other considerations it would just be dominate obfuscate stealth bleed forever. > VtES is competitive by definition: players compete to atain an objective, and at the end of each game there is a single winner (or a draw). This is in contrast (for example) to a cooperative game, where players cooperate to atain an objective and at the end they win or lose collectivelly. Discussing balance is far more complex. It is obvious that some decks in VtES are far more effective at winning than others, so 'balance' cannot not be discussed in absolute - it has to be discussed under a certain set of assumptions, such as: comparing decks which are capable of winning a game against an 'average' tournament deck. > Mewcat wrote: > I looked through a couple years before they banned kindred restructure and you see about 10 instances of the cards each year, contrasted with 11 EL instances in 6 months. Clearly a card need not be an outlier to be banned. > Quite right - in fact most banned card were not outliers in the TWDA when the banning occurred - Seeds of Corruption, Temptation of Greater Power, all the Ante cards, Madness of the Bard, Succubus Club, etc. However, all of these cards were banned for reasons other (or in addition to) being 'too powerful' (with possible exception for ToGP). If one believes a card should be banned, they should rely on arguments other than just 'it's overpowered', because the only evidence (by proxy) we have of a cards effectiveness is the TWDA, and that is not conclusive for many cards where this argument is being made.

I should say it's not a good competitive game. There is a paper rock scissors championship. I leave that as my entire argument. I have argued numerous times how it ruins the flow of a game, obliterates it's prey, hogs the time clock, has crappy art, no flavor ( like what are they some wraith. how do they make more, just wait for people to die, are they ever even a part of vampire?), kittens were harmed during it's making, etc

> Mewcat wrote: > has crappy art, > I disagree, but it is...odd art, as the Emerald Legion are wraiths who died due to accidents, not violence. > Mewcat wrote: > like what are they some wraith > Yes. whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/Emerald_Legion > Mewcat wrote: > how do they make more, just wait for people to die > "Accidental" deaths, presumably. > Mewcat wrote: > , are they ever even a part of vampire? > As much as Amam the Devourer, Dauntain Black Magician, Walks-With-Might, Maman Boumba, or Nephandus are.

> BlueSadDoll wrote: > Part of the illusion of EL being overpowered comes from Unmasking. Unmasking is certainly not overpowered, however, there is no efficient way to get rid of it. The popularity of unmasking increased with EL and the boost of Nephandi (the vampire whose name shall not be spoken). Maybe it is time for a new unique card that says "-1 intercept to allies" or even "-1 bleed to predator's allies". > Or maybe people start packing Uncoiling. Works on other annoying events too... Finnish Politics!