New vampire: Lord Leopold Valemar, Lasombra Priscus

Kraus wrote:

Klaital wrote:

You don't need to be 'best' at things to win tables, or even tournaments, like hell, my first TWDA was with an Akunanse multi rush deck with no counter to s:ce, and in the finals my prey was a shadow court satyrs with earth meld deck.

I guess that was already addressed previously.

I get you. Lasombra are super cool, and with some niches unique. They are also powerful. Much of that is thanks to Under Siege as well, as it gives them something similar that prince crypts already have.

That said, it can't be denied that making clans and disciplines actually unique instead of just doing the same thing with slightly different numbers should be a goal. Lasombra do suffer from the Dominate syndrome a bit. Their crypts and a few unique cards like Nocturn set them apart, but it's practically a stealth clan with dominate and votes.

Nothing new under the moon. That much I'm willing to give to DJHedgehog. Even if the arguments are exaggerated.

When designing next cards to supplement Lasombra or Obtenebration, I'd for sure love to see something unique done with them. I guess that was the point. Saying Obt is 'bad' is stretching it, I think. It's not. It gets the job done and has a few tricks. But I wouldn't mind having something wholly unique in there to set it apart from Obfuscate more. Chimestry for sure accomplishes that, as do all Independent clan disciplines.

Things like Shadow Twin and Shadowed Eyes are cute but won't cut it because of their power level.

BTW, saying Black Metamorphosis sucks is psssft. I guess it's been unoptimal because Lasombra have lacked combat abilities. But oh em gee Valdemar has the sh*t to get BM done!

I reply to this cuz you seem reasonable. Yes the point is that lasombra add nothing new, just a sub par way to do something so boring the only reason to do it is win and therefore not worth doing sub par.

Obtenebrate is poo. Has some stealth, that is not particularly good. Has ends combat, also not good. Has eyes of night as best card bit nothing to support it. Saying it is bad, saying that it is disgraceful that bloodline clans with 20 vamps in total have better cards than real clans is not an exaggeration.

The whole thing is silly. The same people that whine the lasombra don't have superior dom are the ones trying to defend this bad discipline. If its so great why so concerned about the dominate?

Kushiel wrote:

And yet, there are sooooooo very, very many decks in the TWDA that don't fit your criteria. Am I understanding you correctly, that you think that every single one of them is this kind of fluke, and that all of the people playing them would've been better off playing Malk stealth/bleed or inner circle vote, and still would've won those tournaments if they'd done so?

This isn't what I see when I look at twda. I see a lot of decks with 'problem' cards Or strategies and not decks with crap cards or strategies. Ill run through a few when i get to computer.

Kushiel wrote:

DJHedgehog wrote:

Almost all of the non-core disciplines aren't good.

You didn't answer last time, when I asked this question vis a vis stealth disciplines, but I'll try again: Do you believe that there's a middle ground of disciplines that are good enough to be a benefit to a deck, without being the best? Or do you believe that there are only two categories, "best" and "bad"?

DJHedgehog wrote:

Assamite win? Lol good luck.

*cough*
www.vekn.fr/decks/twd.htm#2k8nacday1
www.vekn.fr/decks/twd.htm#2k8nacday2

DJHedgehog wrote:

For every one deck you find with obtenebrate on the TWDA, you'll find 10 with dominate, 10 that abuse masterphase actions, 10 that abuse allies. Yes this is hyperbole but I think you understand the jist.

I do. And I agree with you that Dominate is overpowered. What I don't agree with is the notion that any discipline less powerful than DOM/AUS/PRE/OBF is bad.

DJHedgehog wrote:

Yes, I understand that VTES is different and the 5 player aspect means random shit happens. That being said, I guarantee that the more focused deck with the most optimal cards will get game wins more often.

A blind squirrel will find a nut from time to time. Sub-optimal decks will win on occasion.

And yet, there are sooooooo very, very many decks in the TWDA that don't fit your criteria. Am I understanding you correctly, that you think that every single one of them is this kind of fluke, and that all of the people playing them would've been better off playing Malk stealth/bleed or inner circle vote, and still would've won those tournaments if they'd done so?

DJHedgehog wrote:

Ultimately, nothing in chimerstry can compete with a stealth bleed of 6

I've never seen anyone oust their prey by redirecting a Sensory Deprivation to them.

DJHedgehog wrote:

That's the lens you have to look at this through from a design perspective when you want to compete instead of playing things you enjoy from a fluff angle.

I'm trying to envisage Peal or Keeney approaching some of the goofy-ass shit they've won tournaments with because they liked the fluff angle, and...I just can't get there.

Im on mobile but ill try to respond as clean as possible.

-yes i think there are disciplines that can be middle of the road and benefit a deck or strategy. You could choose to play these but the fact that better things exist and set rotation/reboots dont exist you never have to choose these.

-I think if youre looking to optimize, you play what wins most consistently. That means not making excuses for middling disciplines or cards and instead playing boring crap.

-You posted 2 assamite decks, its true. But those are winners because of the anarch strategies, not because of quietus or generally being assamite decks. Deathstar is a good deck.

-Winning a 10-16 player tournament can be done a lot easier by a fringe deck. The TWDA is full of small tournaments with decks that wouldnt consistently win in a larger setting. Small local tournaments have a much more “meta” edge. When i go to Newark, OH, i make sure to pack extra combat defense because they love putting vamps in torpor. If i was going to the NAC i would cut combat for bounce or offense and feel great about it.

-Ben is a great player, but not all of his entries would i consider “ground breaking” from a deck building perspective. Darby is a force unto himself, and you could do a study of his table manipulation from an emotional standpoint without even looking at deck contents. For everyone else, min-maxing has an edge because the talent and abilities dont have to be as refined.

Mewcat wrote:

This isn't what I see when I look at twda. I see a lot of decks with 'problem' cards Or strategies and not decks with crap cards or strategies. Ill run through a few when i get to computer.

Nah, save your time, unless you're hoping for a response from other folks. Between "OBT is poo" and "Eyes of the Night is the best OBT card," I'm not going to spend time seriously considering your points anyway.

DJHedgehog wrote:

-Ben is a great player, but not all of his entries would i consider “ground breaking” from a deck building perspective. Darby is a force unto himself, and you could do a study of his table manipulation from an emotional standpoint without even looking at deck contents.

Okiedoke. The point at which Ben and Darby aren't True Enough Scotsman w/r/t building original decks that are very strong and generally don't rely on the power cards that you claim are the fulcrum for success is the point at which we part ways in terms of being able to have an interesting conversation.

Kushiel wrote:

Mewcat wrote:

This isn't what I see when I look at twda. I see a lot of decks with 'problem' cards Or strategies and not decks with crap cards or strategies. Ill run through a few when i get to computer.

Nah, save your time, unless you're hoping for a response from other folks. Between "OBT is poo" and "Eyes of the Night is the best OBT card," I'm not going to spend time seriously considering your points anyway.

Fair enough. It seemed like your point was basically that the exception proves there is no rule so I wasn't optimistic.