First Strike vs. Strike: Combat Ends

ReverendRevolver wrote:

(...)but i have been playing vtes for a few, and first strike being as weak as it is never made sense. Earth meld and majesty are obnoxiously strong cards, but i dont see a neex to change them. Even allowing some cards that grant first strike that beats sce would be an improvement, and wuick jab would make hosing sce with first strike slightly powerful, but its still a 2. Card combo in most cases that is still nothing to fortitude unless is becomes paired with a third card(thaum or dead hand) .

Actually, I think a change in the first strike rules might be a good idea.
Time proved that first strike has absolutely no effect in this game (except maybe for canine horde and anesthetic touch) and amounts to nothing.
If First strike would beat S:ce, then suddenly, people will introduce variety in their decks. They would play the more versatile Staredown instead of Majesty, or more Form of mist instead of Earthmeld. Plus, there would be some interesing mindgames -do i play FoM to continue my action, but risk being hit and lose the effect, or should I dodge to be sure ?

I think that would be better for the game, since S:ce has always been the cheesy solution to most fights.

Two years with no new cards, a stagnating metagame... Maybe it's time to be bold and refresh the rules ?
I would be ok to try it out.
I have to convince people from my playgroup though.

Reyda wrote:

If First strike would beat S:ce, then suddenly, people will introduce variety in their decks. They would play the more versatile Staredown instead of Majesty, or more Form of mist instead of Earthmeld.

There is a risk, hard to see without playtesting, that it make non combaty deck disappear. It would renew the game, but not add to it.

I agree that a renewed but not richer environment is better than a stagnant one, something not everyone will agree (especially thoses who don't like combat, obviously).

Another problem is that before this can be introduced, it need some playtesting first, like 6 month. So it may conflict (as in, happen at the same time) with another metagame renewer, the future expansion.

Reyda wrote:

Plus, there would be some interesing mindgames -do i play FoM to continue my action, but risk being hit and lose the effect, or should I dodge to be sure ?

The supposition is that the opponent can strike hard enough to put you to torpor ? Or is there something else ?

And other cards were printed with first strike beating s:ce in mind and priced very high ?

I dunno about you, but in the little 1994 rulebook that came with the first Jyhad starter, the rules specifically mention that First Strike gets foiled by both dodge and combat ends. It would be fair to assume that every card ever designed would have had that rule in mind.

First Strike is somewhat useless, sure, but that's because in the original design of the game combat was envisioned as a much larger, but also more balanced and subtle component of the game. In this context, first strike is actually massively powerful. Of course it turned out to be "smash or get smashed" and with Majesty and Earth Meld setting the bar for combat ends, that never changed. In the world we have First Strike is pretty useless, but I'm not too sure if making it beat Combat Ends would actually help a lot. It would probably phase out Combat Ends as combat defense, which in turn makes for less variety, not more, as people would just flock to fortitude (again, I might add) instead of relying on poor (ie, non-presence) S:CE to survive.

There is a risk, hard to see without playtesting, that it make non combaty deck disappear.

I agree partially. It wouldn't make non-combat disappear, it would just make the number of playable disciplines smaller.

But in general, anything that makes combat/rush stronger basically degenerates the game. The game's not rage; it's not about who can move the most beads from the cards to the pool. It's a game about politics, strategy and control.

If first strike would resolve earlier than S:CE, should First Strike S:CE resolve earlier than first strike?

Well, this would make Backstab playable.

I like the idea of this rule change. It would add some variety to combat decks, and require a little more thought behind combat avoidance. I don't think this would overwhelm non-combat decks, just make them require to put a little more thought in defense.

Pascal wrote:

If first strike would resolve earlier than S:CE, should First Strike S:CE resolve earlier than first strike?

Why not just resolve S:CE as a first strike?