Combat - why is it currently considered weak ?

Jussi wrote:

@There are already lot of decks that can shut down a player more effectively: Mind Rape + Abactor / Mind Rape + Baltimore Purge are archetypes that come to my mind. They don'¨t rely combat and can destroy vampires with ease. So, there is nothing new to decks that shut down players - it's more or less the timing instead of means. (Edit:) In Warzaw LCQ I never got ousted either and scored vp's from all tables.

I'm not saying there's anything new to it - I'm just saying that such cards could exacerbate an existing problem.

I do, however, generally find a difference between (say) Baltimore Purge decks and combat decks. Or generally lockdown decks vs combat decks. In general, I've tended to find that combat attracts a wider range of players because it's fun. Smashing vampires' faces in and making them go to torpor is fun. Seeing your prey with 5 vampires in torpor and 2 Garou in the Ash Heap is fun. Will it make you win? Often not, but it's extremely satisfying.

(It's relatively easy for new players to get caught in this rut. They really enjoy doing this, so they play it a lot - but it can actively harm them getting VPs or TWs. But they're enjoying it so much that that becomes a secondary issue. Smashing vampires in becomes their own personal 'my combat deck is great' criteria.)

Conversely, I've tended to find that moderately effective lockdown decks tend to get played in a somewhat more thoughtful manner. Spirit Marionette's untapped criteria can cause interesting issues, for example. Mind Rape is potentially exceptionally powerful, but it does require some reasonably careful consideration to play it well.

As a result, I'm somewhat more sceptical about putting greater lockdown power into the hands of a naive rush deck, because it can add to the 'ooh shiny, look ma, I just smashed this vampire even further into oblivion'.



Personally, my instincts in this area run more towards encouraging a bit more 'bruise-and-...' styles of play. Smashing this vampire gives me some exciting and effective non-combat bonus, which encourages me to... take a bleed action (or some similar pool-damaging action), call a vote, or whatever else. The smashing vampires can still be fun, but you also incentivize the deck to stray into some other strategies. Potentially, this can both help the combat-y deck win a bit more and also make the 'you lose' aspect a little less un-fun for the opponent.

A couple of years back, I had some random ideas on how to maybe go about this sort of thing. You can read the post for the details, but roughly:

1) combat players hate having action modifiers (e.g. bleed modifiers) they can't cycle in the middle of combat jamming their hand, so the first reaction is to take them all out, making the deck ever more rush-focused - so maybe make it easier for them to cycle them, which means they can still include them

2) make a successful combat (however you choose to implement success - torpor, large damage, not ready, whatever) give a significant out of combat bonus that encourages a non-combat action. The example I gave was of a combat-y deck that might use a successful combat to boost its chance of getting a vote through.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Conversely, I've tended to find that moderately effective lockdown decks tend to get played in a somewhat more thoughtful manner. Spirit Marionette's untapped criteria can cause interesting issues, for example. Mind Rape is potentially exceptionally powerful, but it does require some reasonably careful consideration to play it well.

As a result, I'm somewhat more sceptical about putting greater lockdown power into the hands of a naive rush deck, because it can add to the 'ooh shiny, look ma, I just smashed this vampire even further into oblivion'.

Now, this is a good argument.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Personally, my instincts in this area run more towards encouraging a bit more 'bruise-and-...' styles of play. Smashing this vampire gives me some exciting and effective non-combat bonus, which encourages me to... take a bleed action (or some similar pool-damaging action), call a vote, or whatever else. The smashing vampires can still be fun, but you also incentivize the deck to stray into some other strategies. Potentially, this can both help the combat-y deck win a bit more and also make the 'you lose' aspect a little less un-fun for the opponent.

I agree with this as well. Having an effect like for example Melange in a combat card would be interesting.

Jussi wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Personally, my instincts in this area run more towards encouraging a bit more 'bruise-and-...' styles of play. Smashing this vampire gives me some exciting and effective non-combat bonus, which encourages me to... take a bleed action (or some similar pool-damaging action), call a vote, or whatever else. The smashing vampires can still be fun, but you also incentivize the deck to stray into some other strategies. Potentially, this can both help the combat-y deck win a bit more and also make the 'you lose' aspect a little less un-fun for the opponent.

I agree with this as well. Having an effect like for example Melange in a combat card would be interesting.

There are already couple, Unholy Penance and Creeping Infection at least come to mind right away.

@Klaital: Yeah, and there are other cards that influence game like Pulled Fangs, Street Cred etc.

As of Creeping Infection: it's an exotic discipline, and of Unholy Penance: S:CE. Of these cards, Creeping infection is quite strong, granting semi-permanent bleed modifier. Unholy Penance I've tried, but in a Bruise and Bleed deck it's useless: Rather use Legal Manipulation and/or Public Trust, which both grant significantly better bleed and additional power.

Suoli wrote:

Azel wrote:

The combat game needs to be treated as an opportunity to interact with other player's resources.

Combat should be used as a window to insert other strategic effects.

Let it affect resource management outside of its own milieu.

I don't agree with this. We already have the action/reaction-mechanic which is used by a range of resource management and disruption effects. Moving those effects to the combat-mechanic seems forced. Would it add anything besides novelty value?

You have an action mod v. reaction mechanic that already does similar disruptive effects, true. And you have them interfering with combat as well (not all of them worthwhile, but whatever) such as Hidden Lurker, Fast Reaction, Serenading the Kami, et al. But the most important factor to do this is to change the spectrum of goals for combat.

By making combat not so much about dunking someone, you open up the relevance of combat as a field worthwhile for contesting. And that's what been one of the largest complaints about combat: Why Should I Bother Contesting This Part of the Game. It's the same reason why people don't really bother with vote defense outside of Delaying Tactics. Where's the reason to interact, to contest, what's in it for me? Outside of negative reinforcement, where's the positive reinforcement?

This is where I completely agree with James Coupe about being concerned about power creep helping a game lockdown mechanic getting better, adding powerful effects for hitting harder -- which already furthers its own goal towards minion denial -- you are a) not broadening the spectrum of reasons for non-combat-trump players to care, and b) the rather binary reward of minion denial removes further table interaction and pushes the search for more combat silver bullets.

Now if you are talking about a narrative coherency aesthetics argument, I just don't even see it. VTES CCG is so far off of narrative coherency that I don't even factor that in anymore. So much of the game already has forced interaction, other parts bleeding into others, that I can't even see the argument at all. Really, at this point anything just needs a solid narrative justification and it would fit right in.

Basically in L5R I'm really interested in how new ideas of hiring Followers or Equipping Magic Scrolls in the middle of combat is becoming its own thing. And then throwing how intra-battle Dueling or Politics is becoming its own thing as a method of minion or resource gain/removal, encourages deck types that'd normally not interact in military games to get up and be involved. Dishonor and Honor have both taken to making military as a means towards their ends. Instead of playing their own isolated game, the metagame is shifting towards interaction of various game elements as a means towards their ends.

And that's the point. Politics and Combat are relatively isolated means, with few bothering to positively engage -- even sacrificially -- towards their ultimate ends. There's no reason to contest someone else's game unless you have the trumps to bother. Now if say, pressing more than once in combat, helped you towards your VP goals beyond minion denial, would you risk it? If voting against in a referendum already stacked towards passing would do the same, would you bother interrupting someone else's game?

The point of putting such things in combat and politics is to increase the positive motivations to contest previously uncontested areas from your opponents. It is to increase interaction because now it became a resource to further your own goals.

I think, that combat on its own is not a viable deck-concept option. I love combat, but I have to live with the fact that just playing combat rarely results in a GW. I'd like a few cards that makes combat disciplines besides animalism used more frequently in not combat focused decks. Vic and Pro are the closest thing in my view at the moment (aggro, maneuver, S:CE), but animalism is the current star. Low cost, least cards, common cards, highly effective (annoying in my opinion). Shame that potence is generally overlooked despite tha fact that it should be the best combat discipline, not to even mention quietus, which is a disgrace as a combat discipline at least, if not a discipline as a whole. Thau is a better combat discipline in VTES than most, despite the fact that it is not a combat discipline!

I know, it's quite distant from the strict topic, but in my opinion until the traditional fighting clan's fighting disciplines are weak, we should not consider it equal to vote and bleed.