[Card ban idea] List

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I agree that threads like these won't be acted upon, let alone taken seriously. I mean, ban Govern, Deflection, and .44 Magnum, cards that have been staples since day 1, to "equalize" the card pool? C'mon...

This is a genetic fallacy- you're argument assumes that these cards should not be examined because they have been "staples since day 1".

If I were the people who were trying to bring this game back to life, I would make one realization above all else: the tried-and-true doesn't work. This can be objectively proven by the fact that the game has "died" multiple times. If these old cards provided the dynamic environment that would make them "staples", we wouldn't see the game taper off after each new revitalization.

Now, your stance may be that the game exists because of the old players, and attracting new players isn't important. If that's the case, then why even produce new cards? Old players are playing, what else do you need?

If you think attracting new players is important then you have to come to the realization that the game has to change in some way. Adding new cards changes the game in a positive way. It's difficult to produce new content when the design space has extremes that are already established. How could you possibly make something better than govern?

Besides that, in my experience, every new player can immediately see how strong dominate is. While they may see it for the brute force stealth bleed, they realize quickly that dominate can be added to any other strategy to make massive lunges.

Like I stated in an earlier post: I think the abilities to do pool damage and to gain pool are both higher than I think is healthy for the game. Not all decks can bleed for more than 1-2, or do more than 3-4 vote damage at a time. Not all decks can gain 6-10 pool during a turn. Since there is no parity, a big bleed necessary to oust someone who gains big amounts of pool means that people who don't gain pool die quickly by not being able to block 2 actions. The inverse, where someone is able to gain a lot of pool, becomes a problem when nobody is playing increased bleed damage.

I would cap blood/pool gains across all cards (similar to the villein errata). I would also cap damage (in bleeds/votes). I would want the game to be more equal so that the NAC isn't 9/10 dominate and 1/2 stealth bleed next year.

Deck building in this game is some of the most interesting and fun deck building in any CCG I've ever played. But I can't count the number of decks I've built that will never get played because they die to stealth bleed, or don't generate pool or both.

DJHedgehog wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I agree that threads like these won't be acted upon, let alone taken seriously. I mean, ban Govern, Deflection, and .44 Magnum, cards that have been staples since day 1, to "equalize" the card pool? C'mon...

This is a genetic fallacy- you're argument assumes that these cards should not be examined because they have been "staples since day 1".

Yes. That is my argument. Those cards do not need to change. My mindset is, you may as well make a new game if these cards are so broken. The genetic fallacy in my mind is in attempting to "fix" the current card pool.

If I were the people who were trying to bring this game back to life, I would make one realization above all else: the tried-and-true doesn't work. This can be objectively proven by the fact that the game has "died" multiple times. If these old cards provided the dynamic environment that would make them "staples", we wouldn't see the game taper off after each new revitalization.

But the game is not dead and never died to the few who kept playing it when it was out of print. Have you considered that the game does in fact work, it's just a niche game being marketed as a mainstream game? That's my sense of what's going on. And that's why it has a following despite it going out of print a few times.

Now, your stance may be that the game exists because of the old players, and attracting new players isn't important. If that's the case, then why even produce new cards? Old players are playing, what else do you need?

Nope, that is not my stance. My stance is this game is only going to attract new players under the current way new players are attracted: playgroups inviting others to play. There is a DIY ethic involved that will need to be maintained. Unless we are rewinding time back to 1994 when V:tM was as popular as it was, the game will be too niche to market to a wide audience. My mindset here is no one would buy a "starter kit" of 5 decks with egregiously complex rules and 123,576 counters based on an RPG that has long ago ceased to be popular. But, if a friend said "give it a shot," I'd give it a shot.

If you think attracting new players is important then you have to come to the realization that the game has to change in some way.

Yeah. Make a new game and don't call it VTES if the goal is to appeal to mass audiences. If the goal is to maintain the DIY ethic of "recruiting" players into play groups and build the game that way, then no changes to the card pool are needed really. Just more legwork.

Adding new cards changes the game in a positive way. It's difficult to produce new content when the design space has extremes that are already established. How could you possibly make something better than govern?

You don't make something better than govern.

Besides that, in my experience, every new player can immediately see how strong dominate is. While they may see it for the brute force stealth bleed, they realize quickly that dominate can be added to any other strategy to make massive lunges.

And I assume you think dominate being so...dominant is a bad thing. Why? I've yet to hear a convincing argument why dominate is bad. I get that some players may find it boring. But don't those players simply challenge themselves by not relying on the dominate so much? Doesn't not relying on dominate give people bragging rights? Isn't there a lot of positive things that dominate being at the top of the power curve brings to the game not strictly owing to mechanics?

Like I stated in an earlier post: I think the abilities to do pool damage and to gain pool are both higher than I think is healthy for the game. Not all decks can bleed for more than 1-2, or do more than 3-4 vote damage at a time. Not all decks can gain 6-10 pool during a turn. Since there is no parity, a big bleed necessary to oust someone who gains big amounts of pool means that people who don't gain pool die quickly by not being able to block 2 actions.

Can't they Wake and bounce if the block fails? A good deck builder would account for that. Isn't this the challenge one faces when building a VTES deck? My mindset is that type of challenge is what makes the game interesting.

The inverse, where someone is able to gain a lot of pool, becomes a problem when nobody is playing increased bleed damage.

What's the problem exactly? That the big pool gainer won the game in dominant fashion? If that's a problem, people should react by building decks with increased bleed damage next time, no?

I would cap blood/pool gains across all cards (similar to the villein errata). I would also cap damage (in bleeds/votes). I would want the game to be more equal so that the NAC isn't 9/10 dominate and 1/2 stealth bleed next year.

I mean...this is a complaint that has existed since the very early days of the game. There have been multiple designers over that time. My sense is they thought about making changes similar to what you suggest here, but realized it creates more problems than it solves.

Deck building in this game is some of the most interesting and fun deck building in any CCG I've ever played. But I can't count the number of decks I've built that will never get played because they die to stealth bleed, or don't generate pool or both.

I assume you are referring to a tournament setting. I'm sorry to say I can't relate. I don't play in tournaments and feel tournament-level VTES is too odd to even consider attempting. Do these interesting decks work for you in casual play?

Just a consideration: i don t know what are the main ways to oust players in your local or championship playground, but i would say we got :
1/ bleed 75 %
2/ politic 15 % (kine...)
3/ fame and other strategies (army of rats, 419, anarch revolt...) 10 %

and i don t know in your playground if the time limit is often reached but i would say one game of three by mine is reaching the 2 hours limit...

We have a game quite slow compared to other (most of my mtg game of 5 peoples do 45 min) and the easiest (and more important usable by any vampire) to make lose pools is to bleed the prey...
(that s the reason i m not sure that banning govern would help the game: increase the cost by one blood and for sure it would make it more restricted to big vampires crypts... )

and the "slow rythm" of the game can be a deterrent to new players... i would rather strenghten other way of ousting :
- add to the rule a permanent power like the one of lutz hohenzollen
- add to the rule like a tension in the ranks when vampires go to torpor
and then your game goes faster and deadlier and it gives you more strong options to kill your prey...

even as i told earlier i am not fan of combo which sends vampire to torpor such as outside the hourglass + domain of evernight, these combos have a big "advantage": they speed the game. Combats at first times of the game with lots of press were taking lot of times for a short gain : some of my friends were laughing about that then: "combats are useless in vtes" they used to say.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I assume you are referring to a tournament setting. I'm sorry to say I can't relate. I don't play in tournaments and feel tournament-level VTES is too odd to even consider attempting.

... I just don't know what to even say. I'm only talking about competitive play. Why would I care what you play with your friends at your house? You could tell me you're still playing Return to Innocence and I wouldn't care, even a little.

I'm talking about building a CCG level competitive environment, which, despite all your nay-saying, is absolutely possible. The game has pedigree: it was designed by Garfield. The game has staying power: competitive games have been around since '94. The game is built on super solid foundation. The game is unique in that it involves 4-5 players at a time with a specialized predator/prey relationship.

There are a lot of problems with the game that need to be "cleaned up" to make it a streamlined game that has the potential to bring in new players. None of the things I've proposed have anything to do with you enjoying the game, however you want, in your kitchen.

If I were the people who were trying to bring this game back to life, I would make one realization above all else: the tried-and-true doesn't work. This can be objectively proven by the fact that the game has "died" multiple times. If these old cards provided the dynamic environment that would make them "staples", we wouldn't see the game taper off after each new revitalization.

As can be proven that the latest new set in print in WW times (Heirs to the Blood) was sold out super fast, and there was extreme demand for it. The same was true with Keepers of Tradition. That the game has 'died' isn't first of all true, and secondly, it really doesn't seem that the decision to pull it off the shelves had anything to do with the game being unbalanced, dull in power level, or stale.

It was already stated earlier here, somewhere, that at the moment we see probably the most diverse meta in all of history of VtES. It is by no means only dominate.

VtES not only survived those years in decline, it THRIVED during them, gaining an expert crew at designing new cards and forging a solid foundation for the relaunch.

There are a lot of problems with the game that need to be "cleaned up" to make it a streamlined game that has the potential to bring in new players. None of the things I've proposed have anything to do with you enjoying the game, however you want, in your kitchen.

It's weird, but I'm talking exclusively about tournament VtES as well, and I'm really hard pressed to understand where you're coming from with your arguments. This is not an assault - I just really don't understand. The Finnish tournament meta (and I've participated in 2 past ECs, and Helsinki's GP tournament will be my second GP event) does not have any reason to believe Deflection or Govern should be banner, as was the main topic in OP.

The game is super diverse. The thing about jank though, as you said you're trying to get weird things working, is that jank is jank in any game. You play jank when you're just having fun. You play actually powerful decks when you play competitively. Check my post about Govern. Even if you take out some edge off of dominate, you're left with ANI weenie and DEM weenie, the latter of which actually does the bleeding thing better than Dominate.

Of course it's kinda sad that super janky decks aren't competitive, but competition is ruthless in any game.

And at some point, when meta shifts and shifts, some of that jank might find weird new slots to fill. Wraith support was absolutely horrendous before we got finally some good wraiths to play with, etc.

There are a lot of problems with the game that need to be "cleaned up" to make it a streamlined game that has the potential to bring in new players. None of the things I've proposed have anything to do with you enjoying the game, however you want, in your kitchen.

This is absolutely true. Taking out the edge of powerful cards isn't doing that though. Cleaning up the rules and card texts and getting rid of bad clutter cards is. VtES is great in that Dominate isn't the only viable tournament discipline. Far, far, so far from it. Get some out, the next best thing takes over. You remove cards until you're just playing with Ascendance. How is this good for the game, or good for getting new players invested in the game?

Newbies don't care if the max cap for action numbers is 3 or 4. In my experience they actually love big numbers. "Imma bleed you for EIGHT!!" Oh, well, it got bounced and the newb killed their grandprey, but at least they had fun doing that. I've seen that so many times within the last YEAR with our local newbies. I love it when they have fun.

even as i told earlier i am not fan of combo which sends vampire to torpor such as outside the hourglass + domain of evernight, these combos have a big "advantage": they speed the game. Combats at first times of the game with lots of press were taking lot of times for a short gain : some of my friends were laughing about that then: "combats are useless in vtes" they used to say.

This is crucial. Games need to end. They need to go forward. Bigger effects make that happen. Bad actions make things really slow. It's a bad thing. Gehennas and stuff that slows down taking actions is a bad thing. Bigger numbers is a good thing.

For Dominate and probably Politicals we've already reached critical mass on numbers since Jyhad. New cards will find new ways of introducing powerful effects without miming those. We don't need to rebalance Govern. We need more Emerald Legionnaires. We don't need to rebalance Conditioning. We need more Evitabilies of the Void.

THAT helps with getting people to play. Having fun.

And that has very little to do with tournament meta balance. After a year or two they'll invest in their fun and have a go at an event, and then they'll learn what to do and what to expect.

Kraus wrote:

It's weird, but I'm talking exclusively about tournament VtES as well, and I'm really hard pressed to understand where you're coming from with your arguments. This is not an assault - I just really don't understand. The Finnish tournament meta (and I've participated in 2 past ECs, and Helsinki's GP tournament will be my second GP event) does not have any reason to believe Deflection or Govern should be banner, as was the main topic in OP.

I'm also talking about tournament meta.

Kraus wrote:

The game is super diverse. The thing about jank though, as you said you're trying to get weird things working, is that jank is jank in any game. You play jank when you're just having fun. You play actually powerful decks when you play competitively. Check my post about Govern. Even if you take out some edge off of dominate, you're left with ANI weenie and DEM weenie, the latter of which actually does the bleeding thing better than Dominate.

So ? Do you really think that ANI weenies or DEM weenies are problematic ? Sure, they are strong deck, but nobody splash ANI or DEM and they at least give some diversity.

Kraus wrote:

Of course it's kinda sad that super janky decks aren't competitive, but competition is ruthless in any game.

And at some point, when meta shifts and shifts, some of that jank might find weird new slots to fill. Wraith support was absolutely horrendous before we got finally some good wraiths to play with, etc.

Nobody said that there should be no new cards that enable new strategies. It's ok that some less played cards suddenly find a deck to accommodate for those.

[

Kraus wrote:

This is absolutely true. Taking out the edge of powerful cards isn't doing that though. Cleaning up the rules and card texts and getting rid of bad clutter cards is. VtES is great in that Dominate isn't the only viable tournament discipline. Far, far, so far from it. Get some out, the next best thing takes over. You remove cards until you're just playing with Ascendance. How is this good for the game, or good for getting new players invested in the game?

I very purposefully limited the ban list to just 4 cards, that all have easy replacement. Sure, in perfect world more cards deserve a nerf, but we are not living in such. And don't badmouth ascendance, it's in more twda than many other cards.

I'm assuming you were also against nerfs (bans) to cards like PTO, Zip Gun, DBR, Majesty and others, right?

Kraus wrote:

Newbies don't care if the max cap for action numbers is 3 or 4. In my experience they actually love big numbers. "Imma bleed you for EIGHT!!" Oh, well, it got bounced and the newb killed their grandprey, but at least they had fun doing that. I've seen that so many times within the last YEAR with our local newbies. I love it when they have fun.

That's actually stupid AF.

Kraus wrote:

This is crucial. Games need to end. They need to go forward. Bigger effects make that happen. Bad actions make things really slow. It's a bad thing. Gehennas and stuff that slows down taking actions is a bad thing. Bigger numbers is a good thing.

Games need to end and you support cards that give players new beads like govern ? WTF ?

I'm also for more ousting power, but not for bleed and political decks, those have already plenty. I'm not really fan of perma-torpor state, but if there would be card that would allow players to not getting burned after combat, but leave torpor safely at the cost of a lot of pool, i'd welcome it.

Kraus wrote:

For Dominate and probably Politicals we've already reached critical mass on numbers since Jyhad. New cards will find new ways of introducing powerful effects without miming those. We don't need to rebalance Govern. We need more Emerald Legionnaires. We don't need to rebalance Conditioning. We need more Evitabilies of the Void.

We don't need to rebalance Govern, just ban it. We need also other new cards.

Kraus wrote:

THAT helps with getting people to play. Having fun.

And that has very little to do with tournament meta balance. After a year or two they'll invest in their fun and have a go at an event, and then they'll learn what to do and what to expect.

Getting govern chain running to influence out vampires faster than prey, then deflect all bleed toward you to your prey, then pentex subversion + govern x 3 +conditioning x 3, all with some delivery, rip your prey unless he have dominate/auspex ? That's what you want ?