Combat - why is it currently considered weak ?

Poci wrote:

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.

The thing is that Combat/Rush decks are *sooooo* dependent on what happens to be sitting at the table. They can get GWs. I get GWs all the time with combat decks (weenie Rush, for example), but it is so Rock-Paper-Scissors that these decks crash a burn as often as not. Bleed decks and Vote decks, for example, can do well in most situations, and can usually make the most of a bad situation. Combat can't do that--you are a weenie POT IG rush deck, and you are sitting next to, like, Shambling Hordes or Obedience or ANI combat or PRO aggro poke or anyone with Target Vitals hit back? Yeah, you probably are screwed. But if you are sitting next to some reasonable but soft decks, you get to win. It happens. But is a lot of a coin toss.

You're absolutely right, it can win tables. The rock-paper-scissor game is quite accurate. You theoretically cannot play for the timeout, which is not a bad thing, but the table generally see you as the table threat most of the time and will try to eliminate you, one way or another. The only way you can win with, is to play your own game, be ruthless and never listen to anyone, because they will try to convince you to attack who they want out. Nothing is worse when a bad player, or a player who is inexperienced/easily convincable plays combat at a tournament. Ruins the game for at least his/her prey, or for the whole table.

Poci wrote:

The only way you can win with, is to play your own game, be ruthless and never listen to anyone, because they will try to convince you to attack who they want out.

I can't for the life of me figure out why, when playing a Rush deck, you'd do anything else. Or really, why anyone ever listens to anyone else in this game...

Nothing is worse when a bad player, or a player who is inexperienced/easily convincable plays combat at a tournament. Ruins the game for at least his/her prey, or for the whole table.

Well, sure. But, then, the same thing can happen with any kind of deck. Although combat decks generally have a lot more potential to screw people up cross table due to table shenanagins. But I have also seen plenty of games destroyed by people with vote decks cross table KRC someone to "balance the table" (and as a result, just making someone else win) or someone with a intercept deck cross table Eagle's Sight block someone to "balance the table" (and as a result, just making someone else win) or someone DI some action cross table to "balance the table" (and as a result, just making someone else win). Really, when it comes down to it, wayyyyyyy too many people are willing to (or easily swayed into) try to "balance the table" and do stupid things that just make someone else win. That isn't just combat decks.

"Balance the table" is really overrated. People that believe in this theory should try playing three games in a row where they do all their cross-table actions on their prey, just to see what happens. If they did, and saw the results that they got, I'd bet they'd almost never again act like cross-table dorks.

I find that keeping tally during the game of the damage that is done to me cross-table helps, because when those players lose, you can then show them, "Well, you did 3 to me with your KRC. If you'd have put that on your prey, he couldn't have brought out his 4th minion, etc etc."

Also, the playgroup should keep track of their less-good players' game results, so that misremembering only the victories isn't the norm.

But that's only if you want your bad players to improve, and that they want to, also. I know many playgroups and players that aren't willing to educate or be educated at any level. YMMV.

I am one of those players who, when I new to the game, loved combat for combat's sake. Gimme flamethrowers. Gimme Assault Rifles. Gimme Bum's Rushes and 6-card combat chains. I knocked you to torpor, take that! Never mind I have 2 minions and 3 Pool!

I came from the RPG, and for me, combat was the best part of the game session. Intrigue, schmintrigue, my guy is min/maxed in melee combat, who's head can I lop off?

It took me several YEARS to figure out that in V:tES combat is PRIMARILY a CONSEQUENCE of having an action blocked, who's PURPOSE is minion ATTRITION. That is all.

The game has mechanics for direct combat and lots of flavor cards for giving it's minions that supernatural feel in combat, but I no longer believe it is (or was ever intended to be) a way to oust your opponent. It simply doesn't do that (outside of a few cards which have given players the bright idea that 14x rush actions is totally gonna work). Quite simply, combat as a strategy is too easy too avoid (or trump), and doesn't attack the right target (Pool).

I am of the same mind as Azel and James Coupe. Making combat do more of what it already does would only make the problem that much worse.

If combat were to be pursued (in a design sense) as a viable ousting strategy in it's own right, it would need an influx of cards that reward it in non-combat aspects of the game, much like trophies attempted but failed to do. For example, cards that are playable in combat, stick to the vampire for the rest of the game, and give bleed, intercept, stealth, or vote bonuses. This would enable "combat decks" to gain ousting/defensive momentum as a game progresses provided it's vampires were being successful and staying alive, etc. This would hopefully/eventually meta some combat defense into non-combat decks, just so those damn multi-rush decks don't get to their endgame with a ready region full of cardless 3-bleeders with vote lock.

Cards like say (typing out loud)
Put up or Shut up
Combat
Play before range is determined in the first round of combat.
Put this card on this vampire. If the minion opposing this vampire in combat ends combat as a strike or is not ready at the end of combat, put an Intimidation counter on this card. This vampire gets +1 bleed for each Intimidation counter on this card. A vampire may have only one Put up or Shut up. Burn this card if this vampire goes to torpor.

...and you get a card like this for votes, intercept, whatever else. Maybe the non-disc ones are bleed and votes and that's it, and the ones that require disciplines get a little more specific but provide greater synergy with existing discipline cards.

But ultimately, it would have to be a path that leads to encouraging the already established means of ousting - Pool damage through bleed actions and politics.

Of course, this would probably lead to trophies being absolutely broken or something, and might be impossible to implement given the current card pool. I'm also not sure it's really needed.

TL;DR Combat is a "weak" strategy because ousting isn't what it's meant to do.

I like Wookie's post, there are lots of things that I agree with considering combat in general. Wookie just said/typed it in few enough words for others to understand. I'll quote them here and add my own perspective of things (in more than ehough words, sorry for that). Apologies if the topic goes on side track.

Wookie813 wrote:

It took me several YEARS to figure out that in V:tES combat is PRIMARILY a CONSEQUENCE of having an action blocked, who's PURPOSE is minion ATTRITION. That is all.

Yes, this is exactly what combat is.

I understand it this way: You don't need to knock down every opponent you face - usually draining their resources (blood) is sufficient enough.

Although there are times when you need to knock someone down:
1) Oust (Fame-dunking your prey's vampire followed by two (successful) bleeds of 3 deals total of 10 pool damage.)
2) Some minion must go. This is more difficult - and often you (the combat player) get it wrong. Try deal making, bluff, or anything and as a last resort axe them. If you are not prepared to deal with 20+ pool damage during the whole game, you have already lost (were you playing combat or not).

Wookie813 wrote:

Quite simply, combat as a strategy is too easy too avoid (or trump), and doesn't attack the right target (Pool).

Yes, this is exactly what combat is.

The way I see it, each combat that you (the combat player) initiate, needs to support your ultimate goal: oust your prey/win the game. Unless you are in deep, there is no reason to rumble left and right starting from turn 3. Pay attention to the game, decide if if you can oust your prey and that you can survive your predator's next turn if you fail to oust - and react to situation.


---

Of ideas for enhancing game interaction through combat cards. I failed to see the big picture at first, though this discussion has helped my raisin of brain in there.

I also got thinking, there already are lot of cards that enhance your resources and ousting capabilities in the game. It's just that they are not actual combat cards (and don't need to be either, if they were more easy to use). Last one quote:

Wookie813 wrote:

If combat were to be pursued (in a design sense) as a viable ousting strategy in it's own right, it would need an influx of cards that reward it in non-combat aspects of the game, much like trophies attempted but failed to do.

There are attempts to create mechanisms that enhance players resources through combat - most are Master: Trophy cards. Considering Trophy reliability, it can't be valid ousting or surviving strategy. You could use all those slots for bleed enhancers or pool protection and be fine.

I've come to thinking, that even if combat is weak considering the ultimate goal (pool damage to your prey), it's probably fine as it is. As Wookie wrote, there could be place for some combat cards that support other aspects of the game. But I ain't sure either, anymore.