Combat - why is it currently considered weak ?

Jeff wrote:

Yes. And that is why I believe that giving combat disciplines better things to do than just fight is great. If Potence, in and of itself, could do some kickass, different things, then "big fist stealth" will actually mean more.

Ah, sure. But then, I don't think that would really make *combat* better. It would just make, like, *potence* better. But only by making it not that invested in combat.

If there were more cards like Brutal Influence (that also weren't deeply hindered by the need to be Laibon. And pack your deck with a dozen otherwise useless cards), potence would have a lot more to recommend it. But then it would make combat even less something that folks would feel the need to mess with; a lot of making combat good came out of wanting to make clans that had combat disciplines good--all that combat/rush theory that I put all that effort into in the late 90's/early 00's was directly the result of trying to make the Nosferatu good at something

Those two cards still will be explored a lot in the future. I think they have lots of promise, but I do completely agree that inflicting damage outside of combat is problematic. Shadow Twin was never reprinted, probably for this very reason.

I made a good Horseshoes deck during playtest, and then built it when the set came out--POT/obf 4-6 cap Nosferatu Horseshoes. It was reasonably effective. Won some games. Everyone *hated* seeing it in play, as it generally just circumvented all reasonable defenses and just sank folks and there wasn't anything they could do about it (unless they were playing dedicated intercept). It wasn't a total game sweeper or anything, but it was effective enough that it was worth playing, but obnoxious enough that it made everyone really mad. So I took it apart.

If the assumption is that combat is weak (which I maintain that it is NOT), then the fix is not to give it more ousting power. Instead, I would look at other card mechanics possessed by the "strong" strategies. For example, I would consider changing Taste of Vitae to mimic Voter Captivation (or create a new card like it) - where the vampire gains blood equal to the damage inflicted, not blood lost by the opposing *minion* - hence not only usable against vampires.

Do I think this would be too powerful? Perhaps, but it would reward combat for doing what it was going to do anyway without unhinging the current and often accepted drawback of combat (ousting power). It would still not work against combat ends or if the damage were prevented.

I think something this would go a long way to making combat a more viable option to play, but as others have pointed out - if you aren't playing combat, it's usually no fun to play against. I personally love playing combat and have won a few tournaments with combat decks, but would I enjoy sitting down at each table knowing that I was likely to see combat every time I play...probably not.

KevinM wrote:

It is this belief that "it would put Potence over the top" and "make combat too strong" that is the reason that Combat-forward strategies are the weakest, by far, of any of the mainstream strategies.

KevinM, I think you and I just disagree with the degree to which your proposed card would be balanced. I think a 1 pool at and 2 pool at would probably be the sweet spot. A round or two of play test would inform any final decision.

I'd even go so far as to say that I disagree with you almost 100% and that this card wouldn't move Potence-based Combat-forward strategies up even one level in your strategy chart. They need THAT much help.

Well, see here's the thing with my chart. The six tactics in the game aren't necessarily strategies toward victory. They are what I think are the six most important fundamental aspects of the game which contribute to victory. Combat happens so it's important to mention, but that's it. In my mind, your Kuta Face Smash card would bump Potence almost into the realm of a third tier bleed discipline, where bleed is more broadly defined as direct pool damage (like Enticement).

Want to play a JOL game with it and see what happens? I'll call Bakija in to help us test it.

I'm always down for a variant on JOL. We can just proxy the political action "Kuta" as KFS.

bakija wrote:

Ah, sure. But then, I don't think that would really make *combat* better. It would just make, like, *potence* better. But only by making it not that invested in combat.

Yes, indeed. I would contend that if Potence could do better things, then clans with Potence would be more effective and actually see more play. If you're packing Potence action cards, then you're also more likely to be packing Potence combat since the discipline is already crucial to your game plan. Potence would still be a top tier combat discipline for sure.

But then it would make combat even less something that folks would feel the need to mess with; a lot of making combat good came out of wanting to make clans that had combat disciplines good--all that combat/rush theory that I put all that effort into in the late 90's/early 00's was directly the result of trying to make the Nosferatu good at something

I hear ya. Unfortunately, Bleed and Politics were so far ahead, it was impossible for combat to catch up. In fact, bleed and politics STILL got more cards that were incredible and the gap above combat strategies widened even further.

I made a good Horseshoes deck during playtest, and then built it when the set came out--POT/obf 4-6 cap Nosferatu Horseshoes. It was reasonably effective. Won some games. Everyone *hated* seeing it in play, as it generally just circumvented all reasonable defenses and just sank folks and there wasn't anything they could do about it (unless they were playing dedicated intercept). It wasn't a total game sweeper or anything, but it was effective enough that it was worth playing, but obnoxious enough that it made everyone really mad. So I took it apart.

Yeah, Mictantechuli doesn't like Horseshoes. I just wish more people had 8-10 Horseshoes so we could actually see what that card truly does in the wild. Stupid small print runs of giant exciting sets.

Jeff wrote:

Yes, indeed. I would contend that if Potence could do better things, then clans with Potence would be more effective and actually see more play. If you're packing Potence action cards, then you're also more likely to be packing Potence combat since the discipline is already crucial to your game plan. Potence would still be a top tier combat discipline for sure.

Yeah, I suppose there is a logic there, but to be fair, when ever I decide to do something kooky with a combat discipline that has a good non combat angle available to it (see: Quietus and Loss; Thaumaturgy and Cryptic Mission), I just generally ignore the combat angle of that discipline except for a fringey sideline. But maybe that is just me.

Yeah, Mictantechuli doesn't like Horseshoes. I just wish more people had 8-10 Horseshoes so we could actually see what that card truly does in the wild. Stupid small print runs of giant exciting sets.

Heh. I have, like, 20 of them. I was a market speculator and bought up all the singles before anyone knew what they were good for. It was kind of like inside trading...

bakija wrote:

But to be fair, when ever I decide to do something kooky with a combat discipline that has a good non combat angle available to it (see: Quietus and Loss; Thaumaturgy and Cryptic Mission), I just generally ignore the combat angle of that discipline except for a fringey sideline. But maybe that is just me.

I believe it is not just you. If your main plan does not heavily involve combat (like intercept do) and you have not built-in rush, adding fringe combat tend to seem counter-productive. After all, if you can horseshoe people to death, why taking the extra risk of putting combat card instead of stealth or other block denying system, since for less card you will do your effective action ?