Submission: The Edge of Disaster

LivesByProxy wrote:

A lot of people (speaking from years of experience with Magic) have this misconception that getting milled is being denied options. I explained why (in Magic at least) this isn't the case. Pretty sure it's a psychological thing about perceived loss. Like, if the milled cards were placed into the Ash Heap face-down, would players feel as bad? Probably not.

This is a common problem that players with Magic experience don't appreciate. In Magic, single cards are extremely powerful and the weight of the cards in your hand are more powerful than in your deck. In V:TES is way more important to be able to cycle cards. In Magic, to be competitive you always want the smallest deck size possible. In, V:TES this isn't the case because on average you generally play with more of your deck and ratios (and diversity of card selection on action modifiers/ reactions) are much more important.

One of the reasons... that I often play with 90 cards is because sometimes I need all 90 cards to win. I am completely capable of decking myself and using (not just pitching) all 90 of my cards without help. If you come from a Magic background, then this is likely a foreign concept. Most magic players expect to use at most 50% of their deck in a game.

So yes, I treat cards in my library as though they were in my hand because they effectively are in my hand, but I can only hold so many at a time. This is one of the reasons that +hand size is so powerful in V:TES, because it is more powerful than "draw a card".

But furthermore, what really matters is what's in your hand. Not what you may draw or could draw, but the options you have available right now. If a card isn't in your hand, it may as well be at the bottom of your deck. Having one Ancilla Empowerment in your deck on the off chance your predator or prey is a weenie swarm does nothing for you unless it's in your hand.

I understand you argument. I have made that exact same argument in other CCG games. In V:TES however... you are wrong. From a single action in V:TES is not unheard of to cycle 5-6 cards (from the action card, action modifiers/reaction, and/or any resulting combat). For a numbers perspective you are essentially playing up to a hand per action. If someone mills you Magic 5-6 cards they may not have been cards you ever seen. If someone mills you in V:TES that is likely at least one action, combat, or reaction you are never going to be able to play... the net result is that it decreases the amount of time you can play the game.

You ever see numbers like: 8 or 9 immortal grapples in a deck list and wonder where that number comes from? What it comes down to is a player is assuming that in a full game they are going need roughly 8-9 rush actions/combats to win a game. So milling a deck means that you are reducing their maximum number of actions that their vampires are effective. Yes, this does highlight why having built-in actions are so powerful.

I support milling as a victory condition provided it is done correctly and has an environment that can deal with it. That goes for any victory condition really.

Sorry, no. Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should*.

You make some good points but...

Why the hostility for milling? You say:

the net result is that it decreases the amount of time you can play the game. [...] milling a deck means that you are reducing their maximum number of actions that their vampires are effective.

But doesn't this argument apply to +bleed and combat? If it takes you one action to bleed me for 1/5th of my starting pool (by which time I'm probably around 18 pool just from trying to get my guys into play, so really it's more like 1/3rd) aren't you reducing the amount of time I can play the game? If you're rushing one of my two 8 caps, and knocking him into torpor - or even just emptying them of blood - aren't your reducing the effectiveness of my vamps?

Why is it that attacking a resource like vampires or burning a resource like pool a valid strategic option, but me investing time into milling you - which is not even a win condition by itself - is not?

LivesByProxy wrote:

You make some good points but...

Why the hostility for milling?

So, the best stories about V:TES are about coming back from behind to win mechanics. Milling is basically the opposite dynamic. You are draining a player's opportunity to win.

But doesn't this argument apply to +bleed and combat?

It could, but there ways to mitigate bleed (various bleed defense and pool gains) and combat ( many ways). These tactics are so common that if you don't run a counter strategy to either of these then you are almost begging to be a victim or you are making a specific meta choice based on your environment. Milling is different, because you are removing cards and there are very few ways to defend against this tactic. Worse, it attacks an area of play that is non-interactive and makes you vulnerable to other strategies.

If it takes you one action to bleed me for 1/5th of my starting pool (by which time I'm probably around 18 pool just from trying to get my guys into play, so really it's more like 1/3rd) aren't you reducing the amount of time I can play the game?

You are completely ignoring the social dynamic of the goal. I can (and have) come back from large pool loss. This probably the area of the game that I worry about the least since there is built in mechanic to gain pool. In fact, most people play pool gain for themselves and possibly others. I have definitely Eagle Sighted to block a bleed on my grand prey as well as play Life Boon to keep my predator alive.

If you're rushing one of my two 8 caps, and knocking him into torpor - or even just emptying them of blood - aren't your reducing the effectiveness of my vamps?

Cross table rescue and hunting are totally things. Again built in mechanics, plus as I stated elsewhere Combat is rarely certain.

Why is it that attacking a resource like vampires or burning a resource like pool a valid strategic option, but me investing time into milling you - which is not even a win condition by itself - is not?

What built in mechanic gives me cards back? What can my cross table partner do to counter a mill strategy targeting me? Where is the interaction and the social conversation that makes VTES so flavorful? If the only answer to any of these questions is running Ashur Tablets then that is a problem.

If milling is action-based, you would block it just like a bleed. Your cross table could block with eagle's sight. This is the same thing as bleeding. Cards are a resource, just like pool or blood. While you have "built in mechanics" for gaining blood there is no way to gain pool without cards. Currently, there are no ways to retrieve cards from your ash heap without playing cards.

If milling were a victory condition, how is your deck any more or less interactive than pool?

The fact that you acknowledge Ashurs Tablets as an answer to milling proves there are interactions already in place. There are other cards that fish things out of your ash heap too. Beyond that, nothing about the creation of new milling cards precludes creating potential answers to that strategy.

When I read what you write, it's like your disinterest in milling is purely emotional. I guess there's nothing wrong with that inherently. My issue is that you frame it like logic and it just doesn't make sense.

Instead of trying to convince us that milling shouldn't exist, think of ways it could exist and create answers that may balance the equation.

DJHedgehog wrote:

If milling is action-based, you would block it just like a bleed.

Hypothetical "if". Are you suggestion they go back and errata any non-action based "mill" effect, even incidental ones that occur from increasing and decreasing hand size?

While you have "built in mechanics" for gaining blood there is no way to gain pool without cards.

You mean like ousting your prey or gaining pool from the edge?

If milling were a victory condition, how is your deck any more or less interactive than pool?

I am confused by this question. Anthelios, The Red Star was banned. Ashur Tablets and Emerald Legionnaires are likely already on a watch list for errata/ban. Whenever we propose a card that allows even a restricted amount of recursion is just given a hard "no".

A player in the Final game of the last tournament (last Sunday) said, "he would rather back oust his predator and lose any chance of a game win than deal with a single Slaughterhouse in play". No, it wasn't me.

Note: He was only playing a deck in the 60 - 70 card range and no recursion.

The fact that you acknowledge Ashurs Tablets as an answer to milling proves there are interactions already in place.

I mention it because I would not count on it being around for long and would not consider it a positive interaction.

Beyond that, nothing about the creation of new milling cards precludes creating potential answers to that strategy.

You are welcome to submit the cards. Maybe you will get a different result than I did.

When I read what you write, it's like your disinterest in milling is purely emotional. I guess there's nothing wrong with that inherently. My issue is that you frame it like logic and it just doesn't make sense.

Actually, I am being very realistic. I was hesitant to get to this level of detail, but...

1. Many players deem the current incidental mill effects as bad for the game, despite the lack of incentive to support the mill win condition. How do you think they would respond if it became a supported win condition?
2. Most of the mechanics to counter the mill strategy have either been banned or are likely to be banned in the future. So if the mill mechanic becomes abusively overpowered how can it be contained?
3. If the mill win condition exists and is viable, then smaller deck sizes will be more drastically affected than larger decks. Is it your intention to force players to play larger deck sizes?
4. How would you deal with existing mill card mechanics that are not actions?
5. If players have no cards left in their deck are you going to prevent them from withdrawing to support this win condition?
6. Is the goal to punish players that cycle too many cards and increase the potency of vampires with built-in actions?
7. Have you looked at the cards that you would "wallpaper" and what it would require to make a mill strategy a bigger threat than Power Bleed is right now?

Instead of trying to convince us that milling shouldn't exist, think of ways it could exist and create answers that may balance the equation.

You would need a base game mechanic to specially counter it. Something like "Burn the edge to gain a vote or put 3 cards in your ash pile back into your library." You can't do it with a single card. Keep in mind, you are going to be fighting V:TES culture with a win condition like this... so it wouldn't be a simple as "Yeah, now there is +1 win condition." On the bright side this could mean that people would complain less about Tupdogs and Imbued since they would have something new to complain about. Either way... you don't need my approval to submit a card.