Usa Forum - Improving combat strategy - additional rule

Vincent

2/6/2011 11:19:00 PM

"When a vampire is sent to torpor while receiving more damage than his
or her capacity, he or she is burned instead."

The idea is to improve combat decks against weenie decks and decks
using "chump blockers" against combat.

1/ Do you think the importance of combat needs to be increased?
2/ Do you think the rule is useful, or would apply too seldom to be
useful?
3/ Do you think it improves the effectiveness of combat decks?
4/ other comments?

My own answers (but I'm eager to know what you think):

1/ yes. Combat is not a very effective strategy and has never been (to
many cards to play for an effectiveness far worse than Govern
+Conditionning)
2/ yes. Even if it will probably burn most of the time 1 and 2-caps,
it's good to slow down a weenie deck and give a chance to the combat
deck to move forwards if it's its prey, and survive if it's its
predator.
3/ yes, it allows the combat deck to focus on real targets, rather
than to be rendered helpless by chump blockers (no one is willing to
play Decapitate on an Embrace for 2 blood).
4/ a celerity gun is disadvantaged compared to a potence deck.
However, cel combat decks often rely on WWS or .44 guns, so it will
work against 1-cap. And cel combat decks use usually less cards than a
plain potence deck, so being slightly disadvantaged is ok.

25 Answers

Haze

2/7/2011 2:53:00 AM

On Feb 6, 5:19 pm, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "When a vampire is sent to torpor while receiving more damage than his
> or her capacity, he or she is burned instead."
>
> The idea is to improve combat decks against weenie decks and decks
> using "chump blockers" against combat.
>
> 1/ Do you think the importance of combat needs to be increased?
> 2/ Do you think the rule is useful, or would apply too seldom to be
> useful?
> 3/ Do you think it improves the effectiveness of combat decks?
> 4/ other comments?

1/ not really. this is VTES, not Street Fighter 4.
2/ I rarely see weenie vampires getting rescued from torpor anyway, so
what's the point?
3/ not at all. knocking weenies into torpor means lots of pool damage
from Fame and Dragonbound. vaporizing them by accidentally punching
too hard means no pool loss there. combat decks become far worse.
4/ fighting minions shouldn't be the goal of a deck, it should be a
means to an end.

Juggernaut1981

2/7/2011 4:00:00 AM

On Feb 7, 10:19 am, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "When a vampire is sent to torpor while receiving more damage than his
> or her capacity, he or she is burned instead."
>
> The idea is to improve combat decks against weenie decks and decks
> using "chump blockers" against combat.
>
> 1/ Do you think the importance of combat needs to be increased?
> 2/ Do you think the rule is useful, or would apply too seldom to be
> useful?
> 3/ Do you think it improves the effectiveness of combat decks?
> 4/ other comments?

#1 As a viable secondary element, yes. I think decks should have the
option of having stronger deterrants to players blocking actions. I
think that combat should potentially remain a difficult primary-
ousting method. I however think that many of the 'combat' disciplines
should have reactive responses to S&B or Vote rather than
Retaliation. Yawp Court was an interesting addition to reactive-
combat defence to Vote.

#2 I think the rule is unbalanced and penalises current combat-deck
tactics.

#3 No. The way it is currently written favours King-Hit decks and
also potentially removes the point of Fortitude combat cards.

#4 I think that combat, while awesome and very fun, should be a viable
option, I don't know if it should be the primary ousting method.
However, I would like to see cards that facilitated the kind of high-
stakes combat tactics you're thinking of.

echiang777@yahoo.com

2/7/2011 4:56:00 AM

On Feb 6, 5:19 pm, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "When a vampire is sent to torpor while receiving more damage than his
> or her capacity, he or she is burned instead."

So Franciscus essentially no longer has a disadvantage? (Unless you
make him a 4+ cap).

I think the rule is too problematic, especially with all the +
strength that's available. Plenty of vampires with +2 strength
innately (Enkidu, Hardestadt, Qawiyya, Lazverinus, Mateusz). Between
Preternatural Strength (another +2) and Heroic Might (another +2), it
would just be ridiculously easy to burn vampires.

Also abusable are decks that can stack combat cards that give you +
damage. Look at POT flung-junk deck. 3-cap Arriette Sylla plays 5
Increased Strengths and a Thrown Gate. Sorry, your Inner Circle member
burns. Or 3-cap Harika Guljan strikes with a Weighted Walking Stick.
Oh let me cycle 10 Strike at the True Flesh. Sorry Ur-Shulgi, you burn.

Jeff Kuta

2/7/2011 7:04:00 AM

On Feb 6, 3:19 pm, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "When a vampire is sent to torpor while receiving more damage than his
> or her capacity, he or she is burned instead."
>
> The idea is to improve combat decks against weenie decks and decks
> using "chump blockers" against combat.
>
> 1/ Do you think the importance of combat needs to be increased?
> 2/ Do you think the rule is useful, or would apply too seldom to be
> useful?
> 3/ Do you think it improves the effectiveness of combat decks?
> 4/ other comments?
>
> My own answers (but I'm eager to know what you think):
>
> 1/ yes. Combat is not a very effective strategy and has never been (to
> many cards to play for an effectiveness far worse than Govern
> +Conditionning)
> 2/ yes. Even if it will probably burn most of the time 1 and 2-caps,
> it's good to slow down a weenie deck and give a chance to the combat
> deck to move forwards if it's its prey, and survive if it's its
> predator.
> 3/ yes, it allows the combat deck to focus on real targets, rather
> than to be rendered helpless by chump blockers (no one is willing to
> play Decapitate on an Embrace for 2 blood).
> 4/ a celerity gun is disadvantaged compared to a potence deck.
> However, cel combat decks often rely on WWS or .44 guns, so it will
> work against 1-cap. And cel combat decks use usually less cards than a
> plain potence deck, so being slightly disadvantaged is ok.

As a long time combat fan, I don't think the current metagame needs
much tweaking to "improve" combat. There are many viable options. The
latest championship deck had significant elements of combat in it.

The big thing I would like to see is for Quietus to finally get a good
"trump" combat card. Immortal Grapple, Majesty, Psyche! and Theft of
Vitae have been around since Day 1. Carrion Crows gave Animalism all
it needed, though Bats/DotB had been decent too.

I would love to see this:

Spiffy Quietus Combat Card
1 blood
Only playable before range is determined. Only one SQCC may be played
per round.
qui: The opposing minion may not dodge as a strike this round.
QUI: As above and the opposing minion may not end combat as a strike
this round.

That is all combat needs IMO.

Jeff

James Coupe

2/7/2011 7:10:00 AM

Vincent <v.ripoll@gmail.com> wrote:
>"When a vampire is sent to torpor while receiving more damage than his
>or her capacity, he or she is burned instead."
>
>The idea is to improve combat decks against weenie decks and decks
>using "chump blockers" against combat.

You appear to be trying to come up with a solution, without actually
having defined the problem that well.

For certain combat decks, it's not that difficult to do a large hunk of
damage in one go. For example, certain forms of Potence could stack a
few Increased Strength. I'm not sure that Torn Signpost, Increased
Strength and Undead Strength on a weenie with POT killing a 6 cap is
improving the deck against weenie decks and chump blockers.

Additionally, this seems to help decks that do their damage in one go -
say, the Nosferatu deck that throws down Carrion Crows, Torn Signpost
and Undead Strength, or whatever. It doesn't seem really to help:

- a deck that involves additional strikes, each of which is relatively
small (say, Magnum/Beretta blur - each strike is for 2)

- aggro-poke (with or without Carrion Crows).

It's not clear why a seemingly disproportionate benefit is being given
to some sorts of combat decks, but not others.

It's also not clear to me why this affects only vampires. Imbued decks
can be relatively small caps.

>1/ Do you think the importance of combat needs to be increased?

Err, sort of. I fear this isn't a very helpful question, because what
you mean by important and what I mean by importance may be very
different.

In many cases, a well-played, reasonably effective combat deck can lock
down a player quite hard. (Certain styles of lockdown/banish decks do
much the same, obviously.) My predator demolishing my vampires may well
help him win, but it can leave me sitting on my hands - I can't try to
win, I can't try to oust, and I'm probably jamming on my hand.

Conversely, losing pool from a bleed or political action still leaves me
able to act (until ousted) - I can still use my vampires and play my
cards.

This can mean that a highly focused combat deck on the table can be
seriously detrimental to another player's enjoyment. This may not help
the combat player win - indeed, going all out to smack vampires can
distract the combat player from actually ousting.

So, I'd be concerned that:

- the overall enjoyment for players facing the deck would be less fun
- players would become even more distracted by pummelling vampires,
rather than winning.

Poorer players - newbies without much experience, say - already often
get distracted into whacking vampires rather than winning. I fear this
would make that worse.

>2/ Do you think the rule is useful, or would apply too seldom to be
>useful?

A secondary concern is that, if this rule actually is effective, would
it just encourage players to play more damage prevention?

That may just change the issues that combat decks face, rather than
making them easier.

>3/ Do you think it improves the effectiveness of combat decks?
>4/ other comments?

See above, I guess.

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

alek

2/7/2011 10:03:00 AM

On 7 Lut, 00:19, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "When a vampire is sent to torpor while receiving more damage than his
> or her capacity, he or she is burned instead."
>
> The idea is to improve combat decks against weenie decks and decks
> using "chump blockers" against combat.
>
> 1/ Do you think the importance of combat needs to be increased?
> 2/ Do you think the rule is useful, or would apply too seldom to be
> useful?
> 3/ Do you think it improves the effectiveness of combat decks?
> 4/ other comments?
>
> My own answers (but I'm eager to know what you think):
>
> 1/ yes. Combat is not a very effective strategy and has never been (to
> many cards to play for an effectiveness far worse than Govern
> +Conditionning)
> 2/ yes. Even if it will probably burn most of the time 1 and 2-caps,
> it's good to slow down a weenie deck and give a chance to the combat
> deck to move forwards if it's its prey, and survive if it's its
> predator.
> 3/ yes, it allows the combat deck to focus on real targets, rather
> than to be rendered helpless by chump blockers (no one is willing to
> play Decapitate on an Embrace for 2 blood).
> 4/ a celerity gun is disadvantaged compared to a potence deck.
> However, cel combat decks often rely on WWS or .44 guns, so it will
> work against 1-cap. And cel combat decks use usually less cards than a
> plain potence deck, so being slightly disadvantaged is ok.

1) No. It's good where it's. First of all it's game about intrigue and
politics, it's not Rage. Another thing is that combat is no longer
weeker brother comparing to other archetypes, f.e. On final day of
last EC majority of the decks were featuring combat. The EC winner's
deck was combat deck as well.
2) It's not needed. What's the point in complicating actual rules?
3) Maybe, but that should not be done
4) Yes, actual rullings suite the game very well. There no reasons to
change them in any way, ban or errate cards, etc. unless we see some
new cards that can change the equilibrium and this won't probably
happen soon.

Johannes Walch

2/7/2011 12:31:00 PM

Am 07.02.2011 00:19, schrieb Vincent:
> 1/ Do you think the importance of combat needs to be increased?

No. Combat is not the means to oust, it just helps in the process (very
much like stealth). With the right combinations combat cards are already
quite powerful (DBR, CEL-gun, POT, ANI ...)

> 2/ Do you think the rule is useful, or would apply too seldom to be
> useful?

moot.

> 3/ Do you think it improves the effectiveness of combat decks?

Some yes, some not.

> 4/ other comments?

I think they only problem combat has is that some combat disciplines
just are not as good as others.

floppyzedolfin

2/7/2011 1:41:00 PM

On Feb 7, 12:19 am, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "When a vampire is sent to torpor while receiving more damage than his
> or her capacity, he or she is burned instead."

Unclear. "As a strike"? "Before range"? "In a single round"? "From the
opposing minion"?

> The idea is to improve combat decks against weenie decks and decks
> using "chump blockers" against combat.
>
> 1/ Do you think the importance of combat needs to be increased?
No.

> 2/ Do you think the rule is useful, or would apply too seldom to be
> useful?
Moot.

> 3/ Do you think it improves the effectiveness of combat decks?
Perhaps. But it doesn't help ousting weenies. When playing a combat
deck, your ousting cards are Dragonbound, Fame, and some permableed
(if any). I don't get the point in getting rid of the first two.

> 4/ other comments?
Yes, Erosion is terrible.Some cards are bad, that's it. Don't try to
make this one better.

Peter D Bakija

2/7/2011 2:54:00 PM

On Feb 6, 6:19 pm, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1/ Do you think the importance of combat needs to be increased?

Combat is already as good as it needs to be. It is easy to kill
opposing minions at will. The trick is also being able to win games
while doing so. That this is difficult is an intentional design
decision. Making it so that combat decks can burn opposing minions
easier doesn't make it easier for them to win. It just makes it so
other people lose more and the combat decks don't win more.

> 2/ Do you think the rule is useful, or would apply too seldom to be
> useful?

Arbitrarily increasing the ability of combat decks to burn things just
makes games more of a crap shoot. And not in a good way.

> 3/ Do you think it improves the effectiveness of combat decks?

It would improve them in the sense that they could burn minions left
and right if they were so inclined (which doesn't make them win any
more than they do now, it just makes other folks lose more than they
do now). This doesn't make them win any more.

> 4/ other comments?

I'll point out that under the VTES era, post Jyhad reboot rulebook,
aggrivated damage just burned you if you had no blood. And Pulled
Fangs did aggrivated damage. Which meant that any IG/Potence combat
deck could burn vampires left and right with Pulled Fangs. Which I did
all the time. It was still really hard to win with combat decks. It
was just really easy to completely demoralize someone and end their
game.

If combat needs any help at all at this point, it is that the Imbued
are *still* way too immune to combat, due to all those bread and
butter combat cards saying "vampire" on them, and the Imbued's ability
to get better so fast. Tweak that relationship some, and combat is
probably fine.

Combat decks can win. It is difficult. Which is good, as if it were
significantly easier, the only decks that anyone would ever play were
combat decks. As the advantages to being able to kill your opponent's
minions are many. But the trade off is that it is hard to actually win
like that. For a reason.

-Peter

Wookie813

2/7/2011 3:08:00 PM

On Feb 6, 6:19 pm, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "When a vampire is sent to torpor while receiving more damage than his
> or her capacity, he or she is burned instead."
>
> The idea is to improve combat decks against weenie decks and decks
> using "chump blockers" against combat.
>
> 1/ Do you think the importance of combat needs to be increased?
I think the importance of combat defense needs to be increased. 1-card
trumps trivialize the need to dedicate resources to preserving your
vampires.

> 2/ Do you think the rule is useful, or would apply too seldom to be
> useful?
A rule like this would seldom be useful. Combat will either be trumped
or the chump blocker expendable anyway. As others have noted, burning
vampires is less damaging than keeping them in torpor (or yo-yo'ing
them in and out).

> 3/ Do you think it improves the effectiveness of combat decks?
Only very slightly.

> 4/ other comments?
I would like to see First Strike simply resolve first. Before Dodge,
before S:CE - I think that would go further to advance combat
strategies than discouraging chump blocking.

rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

Improving combat strategy - additional rule