Emerald Legionnaire — First Black Chantry Nerf?

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.

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.

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.