[Card ban idea] List

ReverendRevolver wrote:

stuff stuff stuff

So much this.

New cards please. No bans.

I disagree with "just print more cards" mentality. It's way easier and healthier to tone down overtuned cards than print basically entire new card set invalidating most former cards. I'll do it on example:

Superfuckin speed
Celerity Combat
manouver or press or additional strike
This round of combat enemy can't strike.

Happy with such balanced cards ? Because it's what Govern is, optimal card in most situations.

Kraus wrote:

ReverendRevolver wrote:

stuff stuff stuff

So much this.

New cards please. No bans.

+1

I'm not massively in favour of bans or errata, if it can be avoided. But I am totally on board with the idea that some cards are very, very good and it would be worth having options to shake things up a bit.

What I would like where possible is to have cards that are worth playing for their own sake, but also have potential friction points with cards that are very good. My thinking is several fold:

- If the card is just a targeted anti-Deflection or anti-Parity Shift card (or whatever), that's a bit lame
- If you outright ban or heavily errata some very good cards, this makes it harder for older players to get back into the game ("Oh yeah Bob, sorry, you can't really play that Ventrue Law Firm deck you used to like. Deflection is banned, Parity Shift is capped is at 3 pool max, and Govern does something totally different now.")
- Having a card that essentially nukes another strategy from orbit is bad (e.g. I don't like Fall of the Camarilla style cards that just kill a Camarilla deck), but increased friction is good

An example of the sort of thing I've had in my head for a while is:


(Note: when a Methuselah is ousted, their cards are removed from the game - not burned.)

So it's something an Anarch deck could (hopefully!) reasonably decide to include one or two copies of, because Camarilla vampires and titled vampires are pretty popular. Cramps on things like Second Tradition, Parity Shift, Third Tradition without nuking them from orbit. Collateral damage? Also hits things like Archon or Anathema which probably don't need the hit - but doesn't fatally cripple them either.


I also thought about putting some of this stuff in events, largely because Masters are too heavily overloaded with cool stuff to do. Other card types seem less relevant, but maybe political actions might be relevant for something. I have a half-formed thought of something that represents some thought of thought-scan. Perhaps an ally, maybe an Akashic mage, a New World Order technomage, or something else with a link to the sphere of Mind.

There are as many opinions about the game as there are players. It's quite pointless to just throw at each other "i would like ... " "you understand nothing, I would like ... ".

Game is a system, by changing one element of it you are changing game as a whole.

I would suggest to declare state of the game which is the goal of the changes, that provide suggestions how to reach it.

If, for example, the goal is to make "Renegade Garu" and other overcosted ally decks viable than banning .44 looks really not the first thing to suggest for reaching it. Also it may help to really evaluate, is the goal worth reaching, or if they are contradictory (make combat better / remove possibility of having no game because of no chance to even declare an action).

My opinion is, that disbalance of some strategies is not a problem for VtES - there are already many more viable tournament archetypes than in any CCG (maybe with one problem - too many toolboxes ).

The main problems lies in a possibility of being randomly screwed and loose two hours of your live, overwhelming rules (including hundreds of rulings) complexity and extremely large card pool.

So I got list of suggestions to fix them.

I understand, that somebody may have different view on VtES problems, and got their suggestions to reach it. But then it'll be pointless to discuss suggestions - if we disagree on the final goal that its very unlikely for us to agree on the steps to it.