file Combat - why is it currently considered weak ?

09 Mar 2012 16:49 #25435 by jamesatzephyr

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 wasn't initially intended to be. From what we know, the 'combat monster' decks during the creation of Jyhad were much closer to what we might now call bruise-and-bleed. Intimidating people into not blocking, and downing vampires who did.

Interstingly, the Gangrel were apparently more successful at this strategy than the Brujah. Until very recently, you'd generally expect the Brujah to be more successful because they have Presence, and so can throw down a few bleed actions. (Jyhad had Legal Manipulations for +2 bleed. Aire of Elation came later.)

Mostly, Garfield's intention was that bleed, politics and combat would feature in differing quantities in decks - but that decks would probably want more than one of them.


It's important to remember, though, that the design of Jyhad missed several problems that were very quickly discovered. Examples include:

- massive stacking of certain cards, which often combined with...
- ...repeat actions (Gangrel infinite loop, horrific amounts of Majesty untap)
- stealth-bleed being incredibly powerful at the time
- S:CE shutting down combat very, very hard, with IG as a rare
- ... and wasting all that tech on Tremere second round combat, which you didn't see, because your opponent just played S:CE
- tedious repetitive Fame decks

And so on.

So it's important to remember that just because something was in the original design doesn't necessarily make it great. Certainly, later designers have apparently attempted to make combat do reasonable pool damage in some circumstances - Fame, Dragonbound, Hell-for-Leather. Perhaps not as a sole ousting strategy, but potentially you don't have to fall montrously behind your opponents while beating people up.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Mar 2012 03:25 #25470 by Wookie813


So it's important to remember that just because something was in the original design doesn't necessarily make it great. Certainly, later designers have apparently attempted to make combat do reasonable pool damage in some circumstances - Fame, Dragonbound, Hell-for-Leather. Perhaps not as a sole ousting strategy, but potentially you don't have to fall montrously behind your opponents while beating people up.


Exactly. Poll-damage-through-combat type cards are, IMO, best considered supplemental pool damage to support the traditional ousting mechanics. This is coming from a guy who played Assamites exclusively for 2+ years.

I suggest a new strategy...let the Wookie win.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 May 2012 00:30 #29218 by cmdrKEEN
I did not read every post in here and I consider myself far from being a expert player. Just two suggestions I would leave here for discussion (and see what others think about it):

- Making Trophycards innate Trifles to give this otherwise dead mechanic a little support. I dont know if such a small change would be enough to make Red-List-Rushing Decks competetive, but it would surely help them free a few master slots.

- What if first strike, another dead mechanic, would resolve before S:CE. Though this might overpower first strike and add yet another must-have mechanic for combat decks.

I really dont know if this would be balanced and add more variety to the game or if it would be used at all.
The following user(s) said Thank You: AaronC

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 May 2012 03:23 #29230 by Azel

I did not read every post in here and I consider myself far from being a expert player. Just two suggestions I would leave here for discussion (and see what others think about it):

- Making Trophycards innate Trifles to give this otherwise dead mechanic a little support. I dont know if such a small change would be enough to make Red-List-Rushing Decks competetive, but it would surely help them free a few master slots.


This would only really help a few Trophies, namely Progeny swarms and Domain walls. The big problem with trophies, besides the already impressive challenge of removing your target, is wasting a Master Phase Action and burning a blood to rush at +1 stealth. And it's the MPA that's one of the larger hurdles.

I'm frustrated that at this point I say get rid of both MPA and blood cost to rush. At least test run it to see if it matters. You'd think getting rid of both MPA or 1 blood would make Red List minions such juicy targets that everyone would rush them all the time. But I seriously doubt that. Combat is still too much of a crap shoot. And we've since learned that Red List is such a nominal vampire penalty that anything that raises its risk is welcome thematically and competitively, in my eyes.

- What if first strike, another dead mechanic, would resolve before S:CE. Though this might overpower first strike and add yet another must-have mechanic for combat decks.

I really dont know if this would be balanced and add more variety to the game or if it would be used at all.


Let 3rd strike stay dead. There's mercifully a dearth of 3rd strike effects, and most of those are weapon-hosers. The rest are dead weight in Assamite in-clan card pool, or anomalies like Forearm Block 2nd rd benny, Meat Hook's destruction, or Haymaker penalty.

Besides, if it was ruled otherwise, what would the game benefit from a preeminent combat trump deck that denies others from playing? Everything would devolve to bleeds for 1 and timed out tables. Combat has far more systemic problems, namely a philosophical crisis as to its real purpose, that it needs to sort out first. Pressing forward in the same design direction isn't going to address that issue.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 May 2012 04:39 #29235 by Jeff Kuta

I'm frustrated that at this point I say get rid of both MPA and blood cost to rush. At least test run it to see if it matters. You'd think getting rid of both MPA or 1 blood would make Red List minions such juicy targets that everyone would rush them all the time. But I seriously doubt that. Combat is still too much of a crap shoot. And we've since learned that Red List is such a nominal vampire penalty that anything that raises its risk is welcome thematically and competitively, in my eyes.


I have suggested several times that the "Red List Mark" should be a Trifle MPA. The main benefit is that Trophies can be played the same turn a minion is marked. I am not so opposed to the actual rush costing 1 blood to be at 1s, however. Red List minions are supposed to be the Samuel L. Jackson's of the World of Darkness. It should cost a bit of your personal resources to hunt one down.

When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
:CEL::DOM::OBF::POT::QUI:
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 May 2012 04:58 #29238 by Ohlmann
Well, also, there is the problem that for non-combat vampire like Mata Hari, red list would be underpriced if it were costing no MPA and no blood cost. (note that trifle is already a cost, especially since villein and all).

And if a main problem with combat should be outlined, I would say it would be the lack of versatility. You need two card to basically do something in combat (a rush, then a combat card), while you need one card for your bleed or political action to be significant. To counter it, your opponent usually need one card (a S:CE, obedience, etc), when to counter a bleed / political action you need an untapped vampire or a wake and a card. I can understand the point that combat have supposedly more effect, but it still mean that basically combat have an absolutely horrible card flow compared to other option.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.082 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum