TWD: GOTHENBURG 2012-11-10

Xaddam wrote:

Reyda wrote:

it's a card that helps you win more when you are alreday winning.

Indeed. And this is the reason why it's not that good. It's superfluous.

Nope. I don't want to write a long explanation here, but in the long run, securing a position is also very important.
Else you would tell me that Taste of Vitae is not important in combat decks. "I already emptied and torpored this minion, why would I gain blood ?"

Nope. I don't want to write a long explanation here, but in the long run, securing a position is also very important.

Being contrary without logical or empirical support is really annoying. If you want to argue, you should be prepared to support your claims.

Else you would tell me that Taste of Vitae is not important in combat decks.

Not the same thing, since Taste of Vitae is a much-needed part of (at least) potence combat. And hitting your opponent's vampire for lots is an expected part of your strategy. Gaining 3 or more from each Taste is very common, and the deck fails if it can't get that blood.

Votes passes by 1-2 (in my meta) and they function quite well without the extra blood. It's better to have additional stealth, majesties or vote push to make your actual votes pass than to draw lots of v-cap and fail the vote altogether. Of course, if you can get good card flow and everything else playing a v-cap to gain 2 blood is a nice boost, but it should not compromise your ability to do damage to your prey. 1 v-cap in 60 or 2 in 75 seems like a non-obstructive amount to me.

I guess it's a good meta to play leadership vacuum+beast.

Xaddam wrote:

Is that expected at your local tournaments? I would be surprised if there was a single Lilith's Blessing and one more V-cap than the one I had at the tournament. The cards are commonly viewed as "OK" or "bad" in Sweden.

It's more like some people (including me) does (or had in the past) rant about thoses blood creation cards and that they are too powerful and stuff. I am in the process of reevaluating this opinion, and I do take into account decks from better player than me for that, even if I don't entirely trust even the best player to alway do the better decision

Xaddam wrote:

Nope. I don't want to write a long explanation here, but in the long run, securing a position is also very important.

Being contrary without logical or empirical support is really annoying. If you want to argue, you should be prepared to support your claims.

Well my fiend, usually when I read this I think "you can shove this kind of morale up your nearest sphincter" because sometime you don't have time to write long answers to simple problems. At that point, you know, I'm writing stuff to get money, and babbling in forums distracts me from my primary goal which is getting more money and spending it in parties. But ok, let's say I am civilized and give it a try.

Note that it's not a secret, anybody can understand it or figure it out by himself, but since you insist, here is why it is important to secure a good position : You may be winning and gaining the upper hand with your votes but if your vamps blood depletes slowly by plaing key cards which usually are needed to make an action succed (elder impersonation, approximation of loyalty), at some point you will be very low on blood and your vampires, as votey as they are, will be very vulnerable to pokey-combat.
(and before you play smarties, I know that approximation and voter captivation cannot be played on the same action, thank you.)
When your opponents/allies may have no incentive to crosstable rush a inner circle when he is obviously full of blood or able to pay for majesties, it's entirely another affair when said inner circle is down to 1 or 2 blood. Because usually the prospective of spending/making a sacrifice of actions to remove a threat, even a far away threat, will be worth trying. anyone would be inclined to pass a deal with a player who has 3 healthy IC/Justicar, because well, in absence of real combat, they are terrorizing. When said IC/Justicars are one or two blood away from a hunt action, the picture changed : they appear for what they are. Simple crypt cards, like the others, meek in the face of pokey-combat or light intercept, ready to be torporized and ripe for diablerie. Who will make a deal with a colossus whose ankles are made of clay ?
If such dangerous situation can be avoided just by having 3 or 4 extra blood on my vampires, and gain me 2 pool, then It would be folly not to play this card.

Moreover, the fact that my vamps can be filled, eventually allow me to play more villeins to gain pool if needed. Isn't it cool to bloat and gain massive pool amounts ? It allows me to deter my predator to make suicidal attempts that may work when I'm down to 9 pool. I've yet to see a Grinder or a vignes that plays his bleed for 6 + daring the dawn when his prey has 17 pool. But maybe I'm wrong, our experience of the game may vary.
Having a pool cushion is always nice, especially when you play IC/Justicar because you cannot fear parity shift nor suicide bombing. I am voting in favor.

Xaddam wrote:

r wrote:

Else you would tell me that Taste of Vitae is not important in combat decks.

Not the same thing, since Taste of Vitae is a much-needed part of (at least) potence combat. And hitting your opponent's vampire for lots is an expected part of your strategy. Gaining 3 or more from each Taste is very common, and the deck fails if it can't get that blood.

why is it a different thing ? Aren't we talking about blood on vampires ?
Blood on vampires is a good thing. It allows you to do action. It makes them resist better to any attrition tactics and annoying gehennas. " Blood is the Life !"
Hitting your opponents for lots is an expected par of combat strategy, yes, nothing new here. But someone could argue that if you play prevention you may never need the tastes. If your opponent only hit backs for 1, you may never need the tastes. However, almost all combat decks (even the ANI with no hitbacks) play taste of vitae.
They are already winning combat by knockings vamps to torpor.
But they still play Taste of vitae.
The reason is : more blood on the vampires is better. It's exactly what Voter captivation does : Putting blood on your vampires. Oh, and 2 pool to quench the thirst, by the way.

Xaddam wrote:

Votes passes by 1-2 (in my meta) and they function quite well without the extra blood.

So ? And that makes voter cap a just "ok" or "weak card" ? Just because your deckbuilding does not take the fact that everyone in your metagame plays titles in account, automatically makes the card weak ?

It's like saying deflection is stoopid because in your playgroupe everyone plays for/pro/ani claw combat.

There are a lot of things you can do to swing votes, starting from scalpel, to Tele-vote couting, to Demonstration or powerbase madrid. Tons of solutions. I have no time to make a long post to talk about them, as I said, I am writing a very documented articles about the new pokémon game (yes, life is a bitch) but I could try later.

Xaddam wrote:

It's better to have additional stealth, majesties or vote push to make your actual votes pass than to draw lots of v-cap and fail the vote altogether. Of course, if you can get good card flow and everything else playing a v-cap to gain 2 blood is a nice boost, but it should not compromise your ability to do damage to your prey. 1 v-cap in 60 or 2 in 75 seems like a non-obstructive amount to me.

Yes, yes, whatever your metagame is, you may find solutions in deckbuilding.
As you say, it's a nice boost. Please play more voter caps. It adds insult to injury. " Hey, I outvote you, I harm you, and I gain blood. You mad, ventrue Bro ?"

but please don't tell it's a bad card. It makes no sense. That was the whole point of the first post.

Reyda wrote:

Well my fiend, usually when I read this I think "you can shove this kind of morale up your nearest sphincter" because sometime you don't have time to write long answers to simple problems. At that point, you know, I'm writing stuff to get money, and babbling in forums distracts me from my primary goal which is getting more money and spending it in parties. But ok, let's say I am civilized and give it a try.

Thanks for answering. I still feel like you're being quite hostile while doing so. There's no need for that.

Reyda wrote:

anyone would be inclined to pass a deal with a player who has 3 healthy IC/Justicar

This is actually very different from how my games play out. Maybe it's a difference in play group play style? Where I'm playing no one would make a deal with a strong powerhouse, that player would be the last choice for a deal. If a player has a low amount of blood on his vampires, he would have more dealing options. This is a very interesting difference!

Reyda wrote:

why is it a different thing ? Aren't we talking about blood on vampires ?

I think the main difference for combat vs. vote is the point that combat actually really need that blood. Animalism combat and potence combat will take a minimum of 1 damage (if you use the last press from Aid from Bats). Against other combat decks this can go way up. Taste is a required card to make the blood management work, and it only requires a rush card to be playable. In my experience votes requires a lot less blood. Voter captivation requires surviving rushes (majesty), a political card, possibly stealth, possibly vote push and for no one to play delaying. So, it's less needed and harder to play. If I would compare Taste of Vitae to one component of voting I would compare it to stealth.

Reyda wrote:

So ? And that makes voter cap a just "ok" or "weak card" ? Just because your deckbuilding does not take the fact that everyone in your metagame plays titles in account, automatically makes the card weak ?

Well, yes, kinda. Obviously, my answer will be meta-dependent. If you get to v-cap for 6 or more without vote push I think it would be a great card. That never happens to me, though.