Combat - why is it currently considered weak ?

brandonsantacruz wrote:

echiang wrote:

Weenie Dragons Breath Rounds, or weenie Vicissitude can be a terror (and *very* effective) but it's boring to play against. I have a Tupdog deck that tends to do extremely well, but I rarely play it in casual games because I *know* that it's a very boring (and frustrating) deck to play against for the other 4 players (and I always apologize afterward on the few occasions that I do play it).

I reject the assertion earlier that Animalism combat is weak. I have an ANI combat deck that wrecks virtually any non-dedicated combat deck because of the versatility of Deep Song and the cheap two-card and often 6 damage combo of Aid from Bats + Carrion Crows. For this reason, I rarely play the deck and find myself backrushing a majority of the time. Getting pinched for no good reason between combat and your pred is really no fun and feels unfair when it happens.

I agree with you. I think Animalism combat is strong (it was some other people, not me, who were claiming that Animalism combat was weak).

Earlier people were saying that Crows + Bats does 3 damage. Actually, with the press from bats, against non-combat decks you'll typically do 6 points of damage (and take 1 yourself during the second round, at close range). Drawing Out the Beast hoses any close range deck (unless they can *set range*, not simply maneuver) and guns. It's more card efficient than Thaumaturgy combat (which also runs into problems when the opposing vampire doesn't have blood to steal). The main weakness of Animalism combat is either ranged agg, or S:CE, but it can actually trump a lot of other combat decks.

brandonsantacruz wrote:

I reject the assertion earlier that Animalism combat is weak. I have an ANI combat deck that wrecks virtually any non-dedicated combat deck because of the versatility of Deep Song and the cheap two-card and often 6 damage combo of Aid from Bats + Carrion Crows.

Aaaaaaaand dies to S:CE.

It's pretty bad when you spend 2-3 cards per action, I spend 1, and I get off scot free. I don't think this puts Animalism Combat in the "weak" category, not by any means, but it does show how ridiculous S:CE can be.

Given the prevalence of ANI combat at the NAC, I know at least one player that was so irritated that he is spending the next year making decks with S:CE exclusively, just to wreck all the ANI combat (and so Matt Morgan doesn't repeat).

KevinM wrote:

brandonsantacruz wrote:

I reject the assertion earlier that Animalism combat is weak. I have an ANI combat deck that wrecks virtually any non-dedicated combat deck because of the versatility of Deep Song and the cheap two-card and often 6 damage combo of Aid from Bats + Carrion Crows.

Aaaaaaaand dies to S:CE.

It's pretty bad when you spend 2-3 cards per action, I spend 1, and I get off scot free. I don't think this puts Animalism Combat in the "weak" category, not by any means, but it does show how ridiculous S:CE can be.

Given the prevalence of ANI combat at the NAC, I know at least one player that was so irritated that he is spending the next year making decks with S:CE exclusively, just to wreck all the ANI combat (and so Matt Morgan doesn't repeat).

If you're that worried about S:CE, you can always add a splash of inferior Auspex (or slap on Auspex skill cards) just to use Mind of the Wilds. Mind of the Wilds makes S:CE cry.

If you're using Group 2/3, other than Bobby you have to mainly use 5 or 6-caps for innate , so you might as well choose Devin, Caitlin, and Caliban

Group 3/4 has Stick, Beetleman, Bobby, and then 5 or 6-caps, so choose Petra and Yuri.

Group 4/5 probably has the cheapest build with with three 5-caps. Anjalika, Petra, and Yuri. If you double-up on these 3, you might not even bother with Auspex skill cards and just rely on these 3 minions when you do face S:CE decks you can't otherwise deal with.

Having played several dedicated combat decks over the years, I would say there is nothing wrong with the current state of combat as a "winning deck". The problem is, unfortunately in how a Methuselah plays the deck - the general complaint is usually one of two possibilites: 1. I've spent all game rushing my predator or 2. I've killed all my prey's minions but can't oust them.

The solution is that "combat" is not the ousting mechanism, it is used to hamstring your predator, threaten others, or to stop your prey just short of ousting their prey. When I enjoy most of my success with combat it involves destroying a key minion or at a critical time. Naturally this will not always work, just as each bleed deck or vote deck can not always be effective.

If you're that worried about S:CE, you can always add a splash of inferior Auspex (or slap on Auspex skill cards) just to use Mind of the Wilds. Mind of the Wilds makes S:CE cry.

Granted, you have to be blocked so it's hard to use it backwards for defensive purposes. If you want to go forward and bleed/bruise though, it's great if you have the space for it (and since it's playable on each action it's never a dead card).

Ohlmann wrote:

So, what do you think ? Should combat be abandoned to his fate of fifth wheel and / or support of workeable strategy ? Am I too radical in my interpretation ? Is there something that is both not too game-changing and combat enabling enough ?

Combat is fine as it is. It is difficult to win with as a main line strategy as it tends to use a lot of cards and effort to do something that doesn't actually oust someone and is very easy to foil with a much smaller number of card slots and generic actions (just rescuing your predator's vampires from torpor to slow down your grand predator's rush strategy often totally hoses a rush deck).

This is all completely reasonable, however, as if combat/rush decks were really good at winning with, it is all anyone would ever play, due to a combat deck's ability to control other player's positions.

Rush decks *can* win, and do on a regular, but less frequent than, like, stealth and bleed do. And people playing combat/rush decks keeps folks honest, even if they don't win all that much. So it is good that folks keep trying. But I don't know that they need to be that much more consistently good in terms of winning than they are now.