New Blog - Gaming with BS

Lönkka wrote:

Being hacked to bits by combat monsters ain't no fun, but being ousted by focused voters/bleeder ain't any better either.

The whole point is that to be bled is actually better.

elotar wrote:

Lönkka wrote:

Being hacked to bits by combat monsters ain't no fun, but being ousted by focused voters/bleeder ain't any better either.

The whole point is that to be bled is actually better.

i conditionally agree. But i'd phrase it as being ousted is better than being hamstrung with no minions, and no options but to discard and maybe play a spiteful sudden reversal or DI.

I think we're all saying the same thing at this point.

Surely, the idea of a combat deck is to deny resources and THEN go in for the kill.

I do agree that combat decks need to build in tactics to deplete pool (army of rats, fame, tension in the ranks) to be effective in doing this. However if a combat deck immobilises a player, and in doing so hands the game to somebody else - this is poor deckbuilding &resource management on the part of the combat deck - which they will hopefully learn from and improve the ousting ability of their next deck.

If combat is causing a power void during a game, then maybe this should be addressed by other decks including more combat defence. Or introducing new card effects that interfere with combat such as:
Preventing minion damage by burning pool, discarding cards, or assets
Avoid a rush attack by redirecting the action as an unblocked bleed against yourself.
Using influence/tranfsers to heal or get torporised minions back into play if you have no ready minions in play.

The only problem with combat decks is that they are harder to play very well than other archetypes. When builded and played by good player they are as good as other decks or better. Between anarch revolts, fame, tension, dragonbound, codex or weenie swarm there is more than enough ousting power for combat decks. Not to mention discipline cards for decks that packs something more than only combat cards: deep songs, presence bleeds for brujah, dominate for lasombra, hell for leather, etc.

Hello! So with all the talk about the possibility of VTES 2.0, I decided to write an article about some of the problems I perceive with the game, as well as some potential solutions. But I promise that this will be a one-of article. Next week I'll get back to talking about the game will all know and love. Please feel free to disagree with me and voice your disagreement! I've just been enjoying the conversation, and I'd like it to continue. The forums just feel so alive these days! Excitement is good for our game. Anyways, I hope that you enjoy:

Vtes Problems and Potential Solutions

A good article highlighting the key problems very well.

When Trophy: Revered (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=1857) came out, I thought I could design a combat deck to make my prey's minions Red List (www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?lib=1456) and then gain larger bleeds through offing their minions and gaining substantial permanent bleeds (Votes required to protect my minions during the Blood Hunt), bridging one of the big problems of combat decks and avoiding pool burn if my minions go to torpor. Unfortunately you need stealth to get the Red List cards out so you're essentially left with Assamites over other combat decks using Toreador and Brujah.

Maybe one possibility is a 'Bleed at +X bleed as a D action, where X is the number of these cards' that can be added to vamps who have torpored/burnt other vamps for the first time, or would that unbalance the game further? (While useful for Brujah, perhaps overgenerous for Stealth/Bleed Lasombra decks with a few Arms of the Abyss and Entombments?).

brettscho wrote:

Hello! So with all the talk about the possibility of VTES 2.0, I decided to write an article about some of the problems I perceive with the game, as well as some potential solutions. But I promise that this will be a one-of article. Next week I'll get back to talking about the game will all know and love. Please feel free to disagree with me and voice your disagreement! I've just been enjoying the conversation, and I'd like it to continue. The forums just feel so alive these days! Excitement is good for our game. Anyways, I hope that you enjoy:

Vtes Problems and Potential Solutions

Great article, but...

Blood Management: Not so sure this is a "problem". I mean some decks can work really well without a single blood management card, I believe there are even some TWD's without blood management and overall, most TWD's don't even see more than 5 cards tops dedicated to blood management. The worry about blood/pool is also a quite important aspect of the game, if you take it away, the threat is watered down.

Transfers might seem like a problem, but if you theorycraft on it long enough, taking into account new problems that arise if you replace it, you'll see that the current implementation is actually quite well though of. You simply can't adres this without a significant redesign of the game.

Card Limits That quickly turned around into card distribution So not a real problem with the game mechanics.

Nice article. The funny thing is that while most current vtes players agree that Vtes has some mechanical problems everyone sees them differently For the three areas that you've mentioned (combat, blood management, card limits) I see problems only in combat and I see them differently than you. Going into details:
The Problem with Combat
I agree that combat can be swingy, but bleed for 7, well played banishment, parity shift, ancilla, sensory deprivation or a lot of other actions are swingy too. Also if the deck is really build to put vampires into torpor it usually does.
You've mentioned that cards that are counters to other effects are problematic because the winner takes all. Is it a problem? Almost all vtes mechanics are based on counters: stealth vs. intercept, damage vs. prevent, vote vs. vote, increase bleed vs. bleed reduction, etc. In many of those the winner "takes all" (action is succesfull or is blocked, referendum passes or fails). It all works really well.
Next you've said that combat needs cards that advance it's position toward prey elimination. I say there are such cards, Fame is the best example. The only thing to consider is do we need more such cards. IMO, yes, but only clan or discipline specific ones to further distinguish different strategies. Also, when everyone plays villeins/ blood dolls, etc. reducing blood on minions is advancing position toward player elimination. More on it in blood management section.
The Problem with Blood Management
There is no problem with blood management. But ... with small rule change we can do something really interesting. I really like the idea to use transfers not only to influence new vampires but also to move blood to/ from controlled ones. I think we can have very easy rule change that would solve a lot of issues:
Increase number of transfers to 5. You can use transfers to move pool to/ from uncontrolled minions (1 transfer per 1 pool, direction does not matter) or blood to/ from your pool to/ from controlled vampires (2 transfer per 1 blood). Thx to this:
1. Transfers are important whole game and managing them becomes important part of the game.
2. There is a lot more space in master slots which can be used for deck design.
3. Getting blood off vampires is significantly slower with reduces bloat.
4. Number of blood on vampires becomes more important (you don't need special cards to take it back to your pool) so burning it from minions is more direct way toward player elimination than now. This makes playing combat more efficient.
The Problem with Card Limits
There is no problem with card limit. It's the opposite. Lack of card limit is one of the strongest merits of VTES. The only thing that card limit do is limiting creativity. It's not increasing diversity it's limiting it. F.e. you want to have 8 guns in your deck and there are only two gun cards (let's say it's .44 and sniper rifle). To make things easier let's assume there is 4 card limit. With this every deck that needs 8 guns will play exacly the same package - 4 of each gun. Great diversity! Without card limit you can choose if you want to play 4-4, 8-0, 2-6 or any other combination dependenging on what effect you want to achieve. You want to be 100% defensive you will go for only sniper rifles. You want to be more active -> you will put more .44. And ... quess what. You can play more than 8 guns in your deck!
Next thing is distibution. I see no problem here. In LCG model it's only matter of how you design your final product. No one said that you need to put 1/2/3/4 of every card in the box. You can put only one ventrue HQ or Ancient Influence but 5,6 or more governs, kines, etc. Than you can design expansions for different strategies/ disciplines/ clans. Depending on what strategies the players want to explore they will buy such expansion. F.e. expansion "Masters of Diplomacy" will include some non-basic vote cards which are not part of basic set and even more KRCs. If you want to build a deck with 10 KRCs and there is "only" 5 in basic set you will buy this and your problem is solved. This way you can have no limits in deck design (which is HUUUGE advantage and very strong distinguish factor on the market) and no problems with distribution.