First Strike vs. Strike: Combat Ends

Some decks might get bumped from terrible to not very good, if that. I mean, Quick Jab + Claws/Marauder? A rush, two cards and a blood to make someone lose two blood and a rescue action? That just doesn't begin to cut it.

No, of course not . That's because beating things up just for the sake of beating things up is bad. That's why combat is generally bad without a proper gameplan.

Making the beating things up part easier, won't make the decks better. I'm not quite waiting for more people to try and play the new and improved first strike and ruin some tables with it.

Izaak wrote:

Some decks might get bumped from terrible to not very good, if that. I mean, Quick Jab + Claws/Marauder? A rush, two cards and a blood to make someone lose two blood and a rescue action? That just doesn't begin to cut it.

No, of course not . That's because beating things up just for the sake of beating things up is bad. That's why combat is generally bad without a proper gameplan.

Making the beating things up part easier, won't make the decks better. I'm not quite waiting for more people to try and play the new and improved first strike and ruin some tables with it.

Combat still wouldnt be any different. Meta wise i mean, obviously changing a keyword to suck less makes it different mechanically. But honestly, are tupdogs rushing all your guys, setting range as a pre, grappling, and agg poking or punching for 3+ going to make you any less metagamed by doin it with first strike? Did knocking one bead off of a tupdog who didnt prevent make ghatuch differnce?
Combat is like stealthbleed, in that it hands out unearned vps if played poorly. But ive been ousted by both proper and terribly stupid decks of both kinds, and i can normally say im just as ousted with both, and i only stay salty about it if the players has the idiocy to blame someone else for them not getting the table after playing like a head-in-ass crackhead. ( to date i think thats happened twice, one local player and one guy that mercifully stopped showing up, truzt me, we r never hurting for players that badly) .

Anyway, it doesnt matter if your vamps get torped, banished, mind raped, pentexed, sense depped, diablerized, or burned outright, minion removal is what it is and can go either direction for players using it, and im more ocncerned with nahkthorheb chameleon banishing my lodin than i ever am with muaziz eating my jimmy dunn or tupdogs turning my muddled vamp hunter into goo.

Combat is very hard to win with, but dedicated combat can metagame most of what everyone hates in a mwtagame. Tupdogs included can be squashed with good old akunanse walls or count germaine grapple.

First strike still wouldnt matter in the scheme of things, save maybe canine hoarding a flash grenade or jack dawson withering with first strike.

ReverendRevolver wrote:

Combat still wouldnt be any different.

You may be right, but that has little to do with the discussion at hand. The discussion is about adjusting a part of the rules to make a few more cards more playable and to balance a bit another part of the game that is rather powerful.

Your point seems to be: Since powerful combat exists and does not regularly win games or tournaments, there is no reason to make any change to make non-powerful combat options only mediocre, since that too won't win games or tournaments easily. Additionally combat already disrupts the real game of VTES, in which it should not be necessary to put any answer to combat in your deck.

The discussion is not about winning games or winning tournaments. It's about optimal game design and about creating more deck options and value for our existing cards, even if for non-tournament-worthy decks.

This discussion also assumes that combat is a basic part of the game, which is certainly a debatable point, but is a point we have to accept here, I think. (And I should point out that combat decks do regularly do well. EC 2012 final featured two combat decks. I can think of two combat decks that have won tournaments in the last six months in California.)

Anyway: I too think that First Strike should resolve before Strike: Combat Ends. Even if it is a small detail, I think it's a worthy detail to be considered by Pascal and the community.

AaronC wrote:

. Additionally combat already disrupts the real game of VTES, in which it should not be necessary to put any answer to combat in your deck.
(...)
Anyway: I too think that First Strike should resolve before Strike: Combat Ends. Even if it is a small detail, I think it's a worthy detail to considered by Pascal and the community.

I really like the way you put it.
It' true that most tournament player I know really think that combat is hopeless and to be crude, a little for " stupid" and almost don't include it in their deckbuilding - preferring to deal " verbally" with it.
The words I've heard a lot : " why do you rush me ?" "-well, because I'm your predator and I'll get pool and VP out of you"
Nowadays a deck with 15-20 combat cards is already considered a combat deck !

This simple change can go a long way and offer tools for weaker clans. I'd vote for

Just to be clear, i think that combat is a precision instrument that requires finess, negotiation, and alot of forethought/ chess skills to play. I see votes and stealthbleed as bludgeoning tools any moron with some obfuscate, bleed pump, or titles can win with.

I never suggested a change, because i only do that if im really behind something game affectimg ( see lilliths should have to fetch skill card, because there should be a card that does that) .

However, i do not oppose anything reyda or aaron are saying, and think it would be ok if not good/healthy for the game to change this rule. Opposition seems to be the valid point of danse about to come out, the valid point of it wont matter much, why tamper with rules, and the invalid point of some people dont like combat. Sce is why combat has always struggled. Not only do you typically sacrifice bleed defense, pool damage pressure that is direct, and bloat slots to fighty or prevention cards, but some tool with presence kills your whole deck if you dont draw grapple, thoughts betrayed, pzyche, tele tracking, lapse, or a dog pack. Lame. So if muddled vaml hunter daggers you, build a deck with fortitude. If eleimelech pops claws, run glancing blows. Sce works more than fine, but too good. Its stupid efficient, and "efficient combat" means you run 36 red cards and play them fluidly without clumping, while combat ends being efficient means less than ten majesties. If a non earth meld deck has more than a dowzen total combat cards ina sce strategy, your either playing in my meta from 4 years ago, or building badly.

Combats great. Attrition makes vtes games what they are, it spotlights strategy, and many twda entries have strengths mid to late game to prove it( Hughs stickmen, Loughmans Carna, the numerous Omaya decks, even table poison imbued) . Combat adds to that. Why keep it nerfed? Build better decks.

Id love to see fs get some love and sce nerfed. Still dont think the world will end if it doesnt, but it would be cool. I could play my quick draw McGinley deck against weenie presence and only worry about staredown @ inferior making me waste a dragonsbreath 38.

ReverendRevolver wrote:

I could play my quick draw McGinley deck against weenie presence and only worry about staredown @ inferior making me waste a dragonsbreath 38.

So you would feel compelled to waste your gun and a DBR even after you saw them dodge?