Combat as a strategy

elotar wrote:

Main essence of VtES is not a fantasy about vampires, it's a prey-predator relationships. Combat breaks it as you at some moment have to go after your predator or even cross table.

That potentially happens with lots of strategies, though, not just combat. My vote deck wants vote lock, so I'm very happy to support anyone getting your annoying deck off the table. My bleed deck sees you (my grand-predator) about to start off some horrible steam-roller that will crush us all, so I'm happy to throw a few of my Kindred Spirits bleeds at you. I am a bad player playing a deck doing indiscriminate damage to the table awfully (e.g. pre-change Anarch Revolt decks were vile, badly played Baltimore Purge decks are horrible, table-hate magnet Gehenna decks are vile), so people are willing to gang up on me.

What we know is that Richard Garfield:

a) dislikes games that are too free in their interaction, such that they become all about who can convince who else to do their bidding. (If you're ever seen multiplayer Magic with pile-on last man standing rules...)

b) dislike games that don't allow much interaction at all, such that it's basically just five single-player games going off in parallel, until someone meets their win condition

c) deliberately implemented in Jyhad a situation where players can oust cross-table, but don't get the VP and pool for it. This helps mean that even if you and I both have an incentive to get that player off the table, one of us is probably happier with the outcome than the other, due to the VP and pool - even if I benefit, I am still helping you win(*)

d) deliberately implemented a whole-table politics system (everyone is involved, everyone can have votes out), with the key damage votes specifically allowing you to throw damage in different directions, with KRC and ConAg requiring you to hit two Methuselahs, only one of whom can be your prey, and where the utility of hitting your predator may be questionable

e) Eagle Sight gives you the ability to block an action you're not "supposed" to be blocking. Ditto Anneke. It's not just combat monsters that are allowed to upset the apple cart.


Going cross-table as a facet of your strategy and tactics is there, right from the start. The predator-prey dynamic is supposed to be a central plank, but not a shackle.


(*) This is broadly why Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure turned out to be detrimental for the game. If I am deliberately planning to VP snipe, you have two "predators" with the same incentive - which is generally bad.

Usual suspects, we already discussed this topic with you like 5 times. It was long ago stated, that our understatement of the game differs widely. So why are you bothering to write walls of text nobody will read?

elotar wrote:

Usual suspects, we already discussed this topic with you like 5 times. It was long ago stated, that our understatement of the game differs widely. So why are you bothering to write walls of text nobody will read?

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But, remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

• Name-calling
• Ad hominem attacks
• Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
• Knee-jerk contradiction

Be careful not to go down that path. The forums are a place for old and new players alike, and referring to ages old disputes will not help the newcomers understand or appreciate the discussion.

Also, if the counter arguments seem like repetition, it might mean the original argument might require some new splashes of paint to it's palette.

I don't see a problem with combat, in fact im my opinion its a integral mechanic that should not be restricted but tweaked. It creates a rock paper scissors situation in meta and prevents stagnation(in the meta). Also is one of the mechanics that distinguishes VTES from other card games. Restricting combat mechanics will create a situation in with stealth/ power bleed and political decks will dominate.

Cross table actions are necessary in the game, with out it you would restrict a lot of interesting interactions, and there is a lot of action that do that not only comat, why not restrict them all if we follow your pray - predator mentality.

I think there should be a valuable way to oust by combat, right now there is very few options to do that, because of that we have a 2h games with everyone are sitting and waiting if table is combat heavy.

And in EC finals I would say that there were 3 real combat decks(nephs, weenie, enkidu) not 4. In my opinion Grinder is not a real combat deck its more of a toolbox

Kraus wrote:

... appreciate the discussion...
[/color]

There are no discussion here - to have it you need some common ground, so you may chain logical arguments from it. This is just throwing phrases past each other, it's boring (for me) and pointless (for everybody involved).

It was a little relevant in the Nosferatu thread, because "how to make this clans combat archetipes more effective" appears to be common theme lately in all such fixing discussions and even official expansions, which imo looks like a terribly wrong approach.

As a stand alone topic this is quite pointless, maybe there will be any new arguments, but I'm not seeing anything like it.

There are no discussion here - to have it you need some common ground, so you may chain logical arguments from it. This is just throwing phrases past each other, it's boring (for me) and pointless (for everybody involved).

If this is the case there is no reason for you to continue posting.

Those who have anything new to add or wish to continue the discussion may do so.

Forum wrote:

--[P]rovide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.