file Remove vampire contesting

31 Jul 2012 16:00 #34032 by AaronC
I have seen one or two long threads on this subject in the recent past.

I agree with the OP's assertion that contesting is not a good game feature. At least, I agree that contesting vampires is not a good game feature. The contesting of vampires creates a wild card element that I do not consider to be a reasonable parameter to have to consider in deck building. Vampires are too basic to game play and deckbuilding and too expensive to have them randomly lost to contestation.

Contestation hurts both superstar and non-superstar decks. At NAC, day 1, game 3, my prey contested my Agrippina. He could afford the contest, and I couldn't. My deck needed four minions to function well, but my next choice was Normal, who would also have been contested. I lost 4+ pool to the random contest and loads of actions. I did not experience contestation again at the NAC.

And to say that superstar decks are so good that contestation is an appropriate balance is a real stretch. Pentex Subversion is an effective counter to superstar decks because everyone can play Pentex Subversion. The possibility that another deck might be playing Nana Buruku is not an effective counter to a Nana Buruku superstar deck.

That said, uniqueness is a fundamental concept of the game. The internal logic of the game system requires that a unique minion cannot be in physical combat with itself. I agree with that premise. Contestation is not going away.

Although it's been discussed ad nauseum and will not change because of the community's inherent conservatism, it seems as though the mechanism of contestation might be revisited.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Dorrinal, Lemminkäinen

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
31 Jul 2012 16:32 #34039 by Ohlmann

And to say that superstar decks are so good that contestation is an appropriate balance is a real stretch. Pentex Subversion is an effective counter to superstar decks because everyone can play Pentex Subversion. The possibility that another deck might be playing Nana Buruku is not an effective counter to a Nana Buruku superstar deck.

If my post were letting believe that, I should correct myself.

The anti-contest movement is a natural extension of the general pro-star deck movement. Vampire contest is something that can lead your 1-vampire mechanism to grip, and because it's partly random people are naturally inclined to say that it is bad and should be removed (ignoring the fact that there is a lot of way more important source of randomness in VtES !).

that does not mean that contest are the only, or the most important, balance for the newer big cap power* . It's one of the element of this. If you play superstar deck, you have a very weak link called your superstar, which can be torporised, pentexed, or contested. Your deck building ability should deal with it or choose another mechanism rather than trying to make superstar without any default.

Also, saying that deck that sport multiple vampires are hit just as hard seem a big stretch. It's like pentex in this regard : it can hit any deck hard, but superstar deck are hit way harder than other deck.

* because as a general trend, gr4-5-6 big cap tend in average to be better star than older group. I am not trying to deny Anson or Arika power, but admit that with only gr1-2 vampire you will have far less superstar potential vampire than with newer group.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
31 Jul 2012 21:03 - 31 Jul 2012 21:04 #34044 by AaronC
My personal choice for a change is this:

When a player influences a vampire that is already in play (not meaning his own), the copy that is already in play is "banished" - sent face down to the uncontrolled region with any cards and counters still attached.

This allows scenarios that are more dynamic (and perhaps fairer) than the current contestation mechanic:

- The player with the first copy of the vampire could retrieve the blood counters from his "contested" vampire using transfers. A player in a weaker position could at least recuperate his investment to try for another vampire.

- The two players could trade control of the vampire in question back and forth. In this case they could at least react with the "contested" vampire until the other player's influence phase. The cost of this "contest" would be different than that of the current rules. The vampire in question would have to constantly be influenced to full capacity, and a game of attrition would ensue. This dynamic would be interesting since it would involve finding ways to remove blood from an opponent's vampire so that it is harder and harder for him to "contest" it by influencing it out fully, or indeed, waiting for the player to remove the blood himself.
Last edit: 31 Jul 2012 21:04 by AaronC.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Boris The Blade, Lemminkäinen

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Aug 2012 04:53 #34051 by Lemminkäinen
I've never seen Lutz contested. I've seen him played a lot (heck - I've played him a lot) yet I've never seen him contested. Same goes for a lot of powerful vampires. Actually, during the hundreds of games I've played, I've seen someone important like Arcadian, Nana, or Anson contested maybe twice each. Yet I've seen Hazimel, Yseult, and innumerable other vampires who definitely don't need the "balance" of contesting getting contested and this deciding tables.

I don't see how having two copies of a unique minion in combat would break the system other than it being silly but then again so is Rico Loco giving bombs to Ambrosius the Ferryman who Bum's rushes people in a Helicopter.

That said, I very much like the Banishment idea and I can see the argument for changing the vampire contesting mechanic being probably better than outright removal.

Another possibility would be to allow the contester to change the vampire into someone else in his crypt whilst retaining the counters on it. That would still keep the balancing effect over superstar decks (even though I disagree that the balancing is real or that it even answers a real need) but allows for random contesting to be fixed with some inconvenience.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Aug 2012 23:03 #34121 by Juggernaut1981
There are a few decisions people are merging above.

Deck Building
Deck Selection
In-Game Decisions


For Deck Building, choose any damned vampires you want. You can choose the most ideal crypt based on your chosen strategy. I expect you to do this within the limitation of your available card collection.

For Deck Selection, choosing to use the "Flavour of the Month" deck will probably backfire. If everyone is running around with Una-matic, Cybelotrons, Girls Will XYZ, AAA or Tariq Eats the World in your local games... can I suggest you choose something else that is competitive? This is the metagame decision. Around my local playgroup I know I should not choose G2-3 !Tor for most tournaments, since there are at least two people I know who have strong decks they'd be keen to choose. I'd also avoid G3-4 Lasombra, since myself and another player have some fairly strong Lasombra w/ani S&B decks based on that group. Ironically, AAA would be a great choice since there is really only one player who uses that deck. It'd also be worth choosing a StickMan or a Kiasyd Powerbleed or even a Girls Will XYZ around Sydney since those decks are rarely seen. But I'm not going to use a Girls Will XYZ if I was going to play in Europe any time soon... just too common (plus I will suspect that people will have started to develop moderate counters to Girls Will XYZ into many decks).

In-Game Decisions are easy. See the minion that is influenced out first, or if a tell-tale card is discarded (e.g. a Clan Card or a card which rarely sees play without minion X) then ask the question "Are you playing with vamp XYZ?" or "I'm planning to influence vamp XYZ, just so we don't contest".

:bruj::CEL::POT::PRE::tha: Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Aug 2012 07:54 #34135 by Ohlmann
As a side note, vampire contest may not be the worse kind of contest for deck building.

Replacing a vampire by somebody with the same kind of ability, either directly or via some card, is usually easy enough, except maybe for Una, Aksynia, and the malkavien that give intercept. On the other hand, finding a replacement for Talbot, Enkil Cog, or Gem of Etrius is very hard or flat out impossible. Unique equipment that give unique ability are pretty commonplace ; it's even why they are unique on the first place.

So,if people are somehow convinced that vampire contesting hurt metagame, then equipement contesting is arguably the same or worse.

(it does not change my opinion that contesting is useful. But if it is changed, better go all the way)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.061 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum