On Tupdog 7. "problematic card".

This is the sixth thread of the discussions about cards some people see as problematic.

This is a collection of arguments for keeping the card as it is (PRO card) or changing it in whatever way (CONTRA card).

It would be most useful, if you could write above your entry, if your arguments are PRO or CONTRA the card as it is to attain best clarity of what speaks in favor of the card and what does not.

After 7 days of discussion I will initialize a poll about that specific card, in which the alternatives can be found.


Tupdog [LoB:C]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Gargoyle
Group: 3
Capacity: 1
Discipline: POT VIS
Sabbat. Tremere antitribu slave: Visceratika cards cost Tupdog 1 less blood [()]. Tupdog may enter combat with any minion as a action. Tupdogs are not unique. {After} the end of your minion phase, burn Tupdog and move the top card from your crypt to your uncontrolled region. Flight [FLIGHT].

PRO

I hate Tupdog decks, I really do. Often enough they cripple their prey and predator. But often enough they don't win by it, because their new preys and predators are most likely very strong because of lack of pressure or the ease they had obtaining a VP. And Tupdogdecks cannot play slowly or carefully because the minions burn every round.
So even though I hate the card I don't think it is bad for the game or even unfair. Tupdog is a very good cryptcard, but not broken at all.

PRO

It is good as it is. There are lots of decks which can wreck your game from turn one-two, as ankha stated, and all are equally annoying for the first prey. Funny, thy do not win so many tournaments now, do they...

Joscha wrote:

I hate Tupdog decks, I really do. Often enough they cripple their prey and predator. But often enough they don't win by it, because their new preys and predators are most likely very strong because of lack of pressure or the ease they had obtaining a VP.

Which can be said about *any* poorly played combat deck.

And Tupdogdecks cannot play slowly or carefully because the minions burn every round. So even though I hate the card I don't think it is bad for the game or even unfair. Tupdog is a very good cryptcard, but not broken at all.

Agreed. Tupdogs are on a timer. You hemorrhage pool and you are running out of crypt (and library) cards. You could potentially have larger crypts and libraries, but that increases the chance of crypt screw or handjam. Plus, you are also limited by the slave mechanic. If you face a smart combat deck, they will take out your Tremere Antitribu, leaving your Tupdogs aimless and confused. Normally the !Tremere are pretty defenseless, so if you can rush at +1 stealth you can normally nail them.

I think Tupdogs are fine as is. But if there is the need for a change, the best idea I've heard floated is that you only get the free crypt card if the Tupdog is still ready when he burns. Then players actually have to care about the status of their puppies and they're not quite as disposable.

Ankha wrote:

PRO

Even if I hate sitting near a Tupdog deck, it's not worse than sitting next to Una, a weenie DBR, a weenie POT or a malkavian reversal of fortune.
Hopefully, the rarity of tupdogs make it scarce on tables. I'm more concern by the fact that no-brainer players may play it just for the fun of destroying her prey or predator (and scoring in the best case 1 vp).
In the hands of a good player, it's a deck really hard to handle (both for the player itself and the rest of the table) and that is quite interesting, but not broken.

PRO, same reasons as Ankha, I'd like to add if we start putting in problematic list every card we're gonna destroy the game

Totally CON and here's why -

I don't think they're too strong or anything. I just hate the fact that because of the way they work you either make someone unable to play or are you end up just being a free VP for someone.

In either case it fucks up enough of the 5 player game to make the game stupid. Unlike popular believe, they also aren't exactly harder to play than any other rush deck and the 1 pool per turn thing is EASILY compensated by using Montreal and/or Dreams. The different is that when sitting behind something similarly retarded as weenie potence you can at least try and get some crosstable rescues and DO something. When up against Tupdogs your vampires end up in your opponents ready region and will just help him oust you while you sit there unable to play.

As an example; on day 2 of the EC I sat next to Tupdogs in THREE out of four games. On the first table, the guy -my predator- got 100% shut down by a turn 2 Gran Madre (this is ALSO stupid btw) and thus was a free VP for his predator. He didn't perform a single action.

In round two, some Tupdog guy was my predator and when I asked him if it was ok for me to have a guy out to hurt my prey he said no and thus I ended up being a 34 pool (2 dreams) poolsack for 1 hour and 58 minutes watching Otso (my prey) getting a free ticket to the finals. Yes, this is mostly the player being an idiot, but the archtype doesn't really lend itself for anything else than destroying someone's game in the first place.

In the finals my prey was a Tupdog deck and he actually played it well. Still, just being "that deck" caused two guys at the table to try and figure out a way to actually act before getting their shit killed and graverobbed/raw recruited. Again, the Tupdog deck didn't win (ya know, like weenie potence doesn't usually win either) but the game was utter shit from a "let's play cards perspective". I mean, I had some fun playing "confuse the fuck out of everyone" and selling Parity Shift pool, but I wasn't playing cards. I was just waiting to get ousted with 0% chance of killing my prey.

Dealing with Tupdogs just requires way too specific tech (Gran Madre, Tension and Hidden Strength is pretty much it) to incorporate in a deck so you end up either playing a deck full of silver bullets and pray or just die to Tupdogs. No other mainstream strategy has such an impact on the game as them goddamned 1-caps.

I really believe it's totally bad design in a multiplayer cardgame that you can basically lose because of the crypt size of the guy next to you. So ye, totally against this shit.

PRO, same reasons as Ankha, I'd like to add if we start putting in problematic list every card we're gonna destroy the game

Ye... cos like, 10 possibly "problematic" cards is an extremely large percentage of the 3508 cards available, right?