Combat - why is it currently considered weak ?

I understand the thematic argument, but I no longer care about thematic issues for VTES much anymore. Eventually the CCG factor should trump RPG factor, and removing those rules might actually "de-wallpaper" quite a few cards (imagine how interesting Trumped-Up Charges would be; probably not all that much, but who knows?). But since 1 blood is easier to recoup, I guess it could stay... Though it still discourages opportunistic table beat downs.

Either way one or the other effect has to go, and I'm more inclined in removing all MPA costs, including trifle. And worries about Mata Hari then being undercosted? Doubtful, she already has enough good juju to do fine (besides with CHI and Illusions of Kindred and the like, she'll be fine). Besides, there's already enough jank vampires out there that most of the native Red Lists would just be pushed from strong/crazy strong to dangerously interesting.

I just feel it's a cleaner result to test out removing both costs and see how much of an issue it really is. Like how Anarchs and Black Hand took a while to get viable, I'm thinking a similar issue is with trifles. Except in this case cleaning up the rules mechanics might be the easiest solution.

Ideally I want the mechanic to be tempting enough to warrant splashing a Trophy + Red List as a means to draw table pressure (which it seems like it was trying to do). But just like how Bounty is stupidly overcosted, Trophies are too. Might as well star with a clean slate and remove all the core rule restrictions first, then add them back in one at a time to see where the cost:benefit ratio tips. Just cleaner design testing.

Azel wrote:

Besides, there's already enough jank vampires out there that most of the native Red Lists would just be pushed from strong/crazy strong to dangerously interesting.

Well, I suppose the point where we disagree is on the power level of the red list. Enkidu and Mata Hari are interesting, and not particulary powerful - especially Mata Hari who have few combat defense option, while often having to be played with non-revnos sidekick. The other one being about average at best, a lot them would be subpar even without being red list.

The main theme of red list tend to have unique and hard to use abilities, and being big. It does not work well with being "easy" to rush.

Also, if some commonly found card were giving red list as a disavantadge, it would already help the trophies. If, say, Villein were giving Red List until the beginning of your next turn, using trophy would make more sense, since you would "only" need trophy and be able to take a vampire out to gain benefits.

Again, some of the vampires are cool, but overall I don't really care about theme anymore. We have a whole mechanic that needs reviving. A few vampires v. a whole crosstable debate mechanic isn't too much of a decision for me. You can print more vampires. Besides, if we can narrow where's the cost problem we don't have to have an either/or situation; we can try to find the sweet spot.

Are you thinking about a card that has an additional Red Lists and you have no MPA req to mark? Might be interesting. But again, without a baseline measurement to figure out how attractive marking and beating down a red list is, it's all going to be theoretical card design. Might as well playtest from scratch the actual mechanic (as in no red list cost for MPA or blood), see if it's "zOMG" way too powerful and then test one, then the other cost, and find out where's the issue. Just a cleaner experimental process.

Granted, I doubt this'll ever get done due to the rather recalcitrant and staid VTES community. There's a habit to let the game calcify and experiment/design ever so slowly. But who knows, maybe a group will run some tests and we'll get some feedback. Certainly better than theoretical card design in the dark.

Edit: For example, just because Haven Uncovered may be out on the table, how often do you see people go out of their way to dogpile the exposed vampire? And that has like no restrictions to use. Sure it's burnable, and sometimes you'll see an ally burn it off. But otherwise, you don't see people go ballistic because there's an open opportunity to rush. It's one of the many reasons I think the fears are unfounded.

i think redlist could use some tweaking, and i personally find it funny when vamps made for combat like Qawiyya el-Ghaduba or enkidu are marked as redlist, just because of the combat cards that generally need to be thrown to overcome them (although enky does only have little fortitude...).

my playgroup (really, my state at some points) has been known to be combat heavy, but Azel is right that you don't see a dogpile on a minion who's haven is uncovered. in fact, unless the minion has contagion and the table is low on beads, its generally only the uncovered minion's predator or prey sending rushes, and even in our combat heavy meta (our catchphrase locally is asking "would you like to press?" in a generous tone after sending an opposing vampire to torpor) only super aggressive combos or stealthbleed get rushed from both sides, even if combat sits on both sides.

redlist should be more rewarding (for card game and fluff reasons) when you torp the vamp. trophies are strong, nominally, but they take master slots, and you have to build the deck around redlist to justify running them. oh, and you have to burn a minion to get them. maybe gaining a pool or having the minions controller lose a pool when they go to torpor would make red list mean more since practically noone uses trophies. (except Norm.... wow, he's even good at using trophies....)
i love combat, and i tihnk redlist should make combat more viable, not more clunky. its something that could totally be enhanced later.