Combat - why is it currently considered weak ?

Suoli wrote:

Actually, pure S&B seems to be doing relatively badly these days. I'm inclined to attribute this shift to Villein, Eyes of Argus, Deep Song and all the recent love towards PRE-vote.

I can't imagine that S+B won't always be the best default fall back strategy for the game, and that it won't always be competitive. I mean, a lot of time, people shy away from it as it is so straight forward, and nothing elicits groans faster that bleeding for 5 at +3 stealth, but I think it is safe to say that S+B is always gonna be worth trying.

I see two (related) reasons for combat being weaker strategies than bleed or vote.

1. It's more complicated to apply:
   Bleeding your prey is obvious, so is distributing damage via votes, but which vampires do you want to burn/torporize. Do you need to go upstream, since rush combat is your only defense? Most of the time you have to pick your targets carefully, and torporizing minions is not ousting anyone directly.


2. It needs more card when trying to do the same pool damage.
   As simplified example, when applying three pool damage you need
   • for combat: 3 to 4 cards, a Fame in play, a rush card, one or two combat cards at least (Claws of the Dead, Disarm+Prevent, etc.)
   • for vote: 1 to 3 cards, the political action, maybe a stealth card and maybe a vote push card.
   • for bleed: 1 to 2 cards, a bleed action (or action modifier) and maybe a stealth card.

In addition there's with that mindset (actual or perceived is discussed here) that Combat decks are harder to play and harder to score gamewins with it. So players shy away from playing combat decks. But combat decks become inherently weaker when they are the only combat at the table, since most of the time players not playing combat will gang up on the combat deck (if possible). This, of course, even further diminishing the chance of scoring VPs or GWs.

EDIT: Come to think on it: Maybe "weaker" strategy is not the right description. It's just considerably harder to play properly. And I must join one of the previous posters here. Making combat stronger (too strong) is not enhancing the game experience at all. The line is very thin there (see Tupdogs as a (bad) example).

Ohlmann wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Combat is not a good strategy to pursue. IMO, and this is coming from someone who loves to build and play combat decks, it is the worst of the six basic tactics you can focus on when building a deck.

But it could. For now, combat does not help at all to any strategy, that's what you are saying. Shouldn't it help, at least a bit ?

?

For bleed, fearsome combat reduces the incentive for other players to block you. You can use it proactively by rushing potential blockers and Deflectors, including reducing their blood (so they can't Deflect) or tapping them out (such as with Deep Song).

For vote, you can threaten your combat capability to get people to vote in favor of your referendums. Oh you can just pre-emptively rush titled vampires (you don't have to rush every vampire and torporize them, just the couple with important titles that might frustrate your votes).

For intercept, there will sometimes be some vampires who you still have trouble catching (ones with or ones playing "block fail" cards). Having some rush combat potential (say through Deep Song or outferior Nose of the Hound) lets you take out the guys you have trouble blocking.

For stealth, it is much more common to have one big intercepter than lots of smaller guys that can intercept equally well. Save your good combat for that one big guy (who is probably going to be blocking you pretty soon).

For animalism combat, it may be card efficient, but I don't believe someone who say it's not weak about any kind of dedicated combat or anti-combat setup. It play two or three card before strike, so you just waste our entire combo to a S:CE ; also, it does not a lot of damage. It work purely because people put next to zero defense, so when you get into combat you don't have much to do.

If you're facing a Ventrue vote deck, then obviously you don't start piling on all the combat cards. Play a single Aid from Bats and see what he does. Figure out how much combat defense he's packing (and what sort of cards). You don't have to worry too much about him killing you. So just play 1 card a combat (instead of 2 or 3).

extrala wrote:

Bleeding your prey is obvious, so is distributing damage via votes, but which vampires do you want to burn/torporize. Do you need to go upstream, since rush combat is your only defense? Most of the time you have to pick your targets carefully, and torporizing minions is not ousting anyone directly.[/li]

Combat benefits tremendously from flexibility in cross-table interaction.

Bleed (unless you are playing Kindred Spirits) is almost always just forward oriented. You can't bargain or threaten your predator much with most bleed decks (occasionally you'll get in an opportune position if you get bounced to him).

Vote has a bit more flexibility in that many damaging vote cards can deal pool damage to anyone. But generally, the variety of political actions you generally see is quite limited. The majority will be damaging votes, with a fair sprinkling of pool gain and minor beneficial effects (extra master phase, extra hand size). You can do more with vote than with bleed, but you still don't have a lot of power to do careful table balancing.

Combat is tough to play and there are many things that can stymie it, but it gives you a lot more options. It is easily the most effective of the three when you come upon a troublesome predator that really needs to be eliminated from the game for you to win. You can make lots of useful deals by offering to take out certain vampires. Well-timed rushes can eliminate threats and/or get other troublesome players ousted (i.e. torporizing their only blocker). So combat gives you A LOT more control over the table than either bleed or vote.

It needs more card when trying to do the same pool damage.
As simplified example, when applying three pool damage you need

• for combat: 3 to 4 cards, a Fame in play, a rush card, one or two combat cards at least (Claws of the Dead, Disarm+Prevent, etc.)
• for vote: 1 to 3 cards, the political action, maybe a stealth card and maybe a vote push card.
• for bleed: 1 to 2 cards, a bleed action (or action modifier) and maybe a stealth card.

[/ol]

There is a reason for this.

Bleed or vote simply results in pool loss. The combat example results in pool loss plus the *significant result* that someone's vampire is in torpor. That's a major difference, and partly explains why you need more combat cards for the same pool damage.

If bleed or vote had an effect that caused pool loss while also torporizing a minion, then the comparison on card count would be more valid.

But combat decks become inherently weaker when they are the only combat at the table, since most of the time players not playing combat will gang up on the combat deck (if possible).

That depends. Oftentimes, if a combat deck is the only combat at the table, they can actually control the table (it's just a matter of allying with one or two players to prevent the whole table from going at you). It also depends on how much cross-tabling and ganging up is possible with the given decks. (Forward-moving decks often can't offer much cross-table, while a vote deck could).

echiang wrote:

So combat gives you A LOT more control over the table than either bleed or vote.

Well, on the converse, given that combat decks tend to be teetering on the edge of losing constantly, I find that doing anything cross table is just going to make you lose that much quicker. You are already spread thin having to hamstring your predator and at the same time trying to oust your prey. If you are also trying conduct cross table terror actions, you'll find yourself getting KRC'ed and your predator and prey's vampires getting rescued a lot. It's bad enough having a predator and a prey. When you bring the wrath of everyone at the table at you, well, it is only going to go worse.

If you're facing a Ventrue vote deck, then obviously you don't start piling on all the combat cards. Play a single Aid from Bats and see what he does. Figure out how much combat defense he's packing (and what sort of cards). You don't have to worry too much about him killing you. So just play 1 card a combat (instead of 2 or 3).

It doesn't work that way. You play the Crows, they play the Majesty. You play just the Bats, they take the 1 and move on. If they're particularly annoying they splahsed Hidden Strength as well and press against your bats. Animalism thrives in an environment where people play next to zero combat defense. In any other environment it's really the weakest of the bunch.

Of all forms of rush and combat in existance, Animalism is *by far* the easiest to deal with. It's just that in a metagame of Villeins, payload and deck efficiency, people cut out the combat defense because it makes them win more.

6-8 Majesties in a deck will keep you safe from animalism all game.