New Blog - Gaming with BS

brettscho wrote:

I really hate to agree with Elotar because I think he's shown himself to be an incredibly rude individual, but I think he's right in this case.

I'll promise to work on my attitude, in a few years you will not recognize me!

I'll even maybe will build rush combat deck

elotar wrote:

brettscho wrote:

I really hate to agree with Elotar because I think he's shown himself to be an incredibly rude individual, but I think he's right in this case.

I'll promise to work on my attitude, in a few years you will not recognize me!

I'll even maybe will build rush combat deck

We disagree on some topics and agree on others. I honestly have no problem with your ideas. But you've shown a lack of respect for the opinions of others on this forum, and I don't like that. But then again it's hard to interpret tone over text, so perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statements as being rude. If so, I offer my apologies.

not to mention trying to communicate in a language that's not your native tongue. I don't hold any grudges for stuff said online. We all have strong opinions on things at times. It's all good.

self wrote:

not to mention trying to communicate in a language that's not your native tongue. I don't hold any grudges for stuff said online. We all have strong opinions on things at times. It's all good.

As one having been suggestively attributed a psychological affliction by Elotar because I didn't agree with him or see things in a different light, we can safely say he's just plain rude. Him not being natively english has nothing to do with it

His attitude and sheer lack of respect towards other's opinions and views also works against him, because he does have some good points and arguments, but they get lost after he starts raining insults.

self wrote:

It's all good

It really should not be, anything said here is representative of this community and right now 2 or 3 people make ALL of you look like a self elected inner circle shunning newcomers and shooing them away. Great job promoting this game, hope they do a better job in real life

My apologies for going hippy, but I really do hope you get the point.

OK, OK, My sincire apologies for all affected, was really unreasonably rough .

Brum wrote:

Combat needs that card effectiveness much more than the other archetypes.
Because it is farther from the win condition.
Because it creates craters in the place of players, but not necessarily wins VPs (for the player doing the craters).

Combat does not have enough winning rewards.

But if rush combat is given enough new tools to be good at ousting as well as destroying minions, you end up with a metagame comprised of nothing but different rush combat decks attempting to trump one another.

Combat is a vital part of the game.
But building more or less a pure combat deck that also works well is extremely hard.

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

But (un)life of a vampire ain't no piknik...

Lönkka wrote:

Combat is a vital part of the game.
But building more or less a pure combat deck that also works well is extremely hard.

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

But (un)life of a vampire ain't no piknik...

YES Thank you for providing the right angle! Being bled/voted to death in 2-3 turns would be no better or worse than being bashed to death in 2-3 turns. Fact is however, that's currently not really possible and thats the exact problem with rush combat decks.

I would like to see more cards that double as rush and bleed (deep song) or burn pool when you bash a vamp into torpor, perhaps combine the latter with a strike card.

Strike: Deal 2 damage, if the opposing minion is burned or goes to torpor this combat, it's owner burns 2 pool.

So a rush (action) can be used as an alternative +bleed action.
And a strike (combat) can have a burn pool effect.

GreyB wrote:

Lönkka wrote:

Combat is a vital part of the game.
But building more or less a pure combat deck that also works well is extremely hard.

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

But (un)life of a vampire ain't no piknik...

YES Thank you for providing the right angle! Being bled/voted to death in 2-3 turns would be no better or worse than being bashed to death in 2-3 turns. Fact is however, that's currently not really possible and thats the exact problem with rush combat decks.

I would like to see more cards that double as rush and bleed (deep song) or burn pool when you bash a vamp into torpor, perhaps combine the latter with a strike card.

Strike: Deal 2 damage, if the opposing minion is burned or goes to torpor this combat, it's owner burns 2 pool.

So a rush (action) can be used as an alternative +bleed action.
And a strike (combat) can have a burn pool effect.

I disagree with both of you, because you guys are assuming that the combat deck actually ousts its prey or wins the table.
My dislike of combat stems from the fact that is not so very often.
They strike minions down and give the table to a 3rd players. All they do is stop a player from playing and them, themselves, don't win anything with that.
It borders on not playing to win.

I have no problem being ousted in 3 turns by any Predator.
He's deck was good at ousting me, he did good choices in deckmaking or he was incredibly lucky. It happens. That's the game.
A game I love.

Brum wrote:

My dislike of combat stems from the fact that is not so very often.
They strike minions down and give the table to a 3rd players. All they do is stop a player from playing and them, themselves, don't win anything with that.
It borders on not playing to win.

Yes, and that problem is what we seek to remedy...

I made a distinction between lean, complex and average combat earlier. The problem you describe lies in complex combat, one where 5+ combat cards per round are required, leaving little room to stack an ousting strategy in the deck. You don't see this problem much with lean or average combat decks, where it's easier to stack an ousting strategy in the deck.

Whether or not complex combat decks should be viable is a moot point, the cards exist and new cards are designed for complex combat each set, people want to play them and do play them, stagnating the table and generally creating a bad mood. So there is a problem that needs fixing and abolishing complex combat is simply not a realistic option, since it would require removing combat from the game entirely.

If for example there are only 5 combat cards in the entire game, there will be players who cram those 5 cards in a deck creating a complex combat deck that can do nothing but combat and will leave 1 player having a crap game while the table does not move forward.

Now if you change rush cards to double as a D bleed or burn pool when said target goes to torpor or is burnt, you mitigate this problem partially if not entirely (a combat lusting player must be quite stubborn not to stack such cards in their decks).

As far as I see it, to solve the problem you describe, the only 2 options we have is to remove combat from the game (not realistic nor desired) or give rush combat a viable ousting strategy. Since the problem lies not in the game, but in players opting to create decks that do nothing well but combat.

I hope you think more about this angle a bit.