Master change suggestions

Jussi wrote:

My point is: Use MMPA deck's disadvantages (slow, master card clogging) to your advantage. My second point is: You are not alone in the table to play against any deck - play mind game and request help from other players or help other players to oust a troublesome (MMPA) deck.

It's easy to say, but :
* exploiting slowness is not alway possible. The grandpredator here is the key player, since if he go full force forward the MMA deck will have times to install itself. And quick deck are by definition incited to go forward quickly, since they are, you know, quick decks.
* you are not alone, but it does not mean that everyone want the MMA deck ousted.
* quick deck may not be efficient enough against the 60-70 other percent of decks. Potence Rush is not something that work so very well because of frequent ousting problem. S&B may be twarthed by Aksynia, a number of other counter measure, or simply be piled up and cross ousted.

Lastly, the MMA deck have a big advantage in table negociation : you will have to motivate people to take costly action immediatly, he only have to stall aggressives actions. He have it a lot easier.

Ohlmann wrote:

It's easy to say, but :
* exploiting slowness is not alway possible. The grandpredator here is the key player, since if he go full force forward the MMA deck will have times to install itself. And quick deck are by definition incited to go forward quickly, since they are, you know, quick decks.
* you are not alone, but it does not mean that everyone want the MMA deck ousted.
* quick deck may not be efficient enough against the 60-70 other percent of decks. Potence Rush is not something that work so very well because of frequent ousting problem. S&B may be twarthed by Aksynia, a number of other counter measure, or simply be piled up and cross ousted.

Lastly, the MMA deck have a big advantage in table negociation : you will have to motivate people to take costly action immediatly, he only have to stall aggressives actions. He have it a lot easier.

While all these arguments might be true, all of them is the result of players playing wrong against the master decks. That is hardly a good argument for nerfing the decks themself, but an incentive for people to develop their playing style when facing master decks.

Ohlmann wrote:

Jussi wrote:

My point is: Use MMPA deck's disadvantages (slow, master card clogging) to your advantage. My second point is: You are not alone in the table to play against any deck - play mind game and request help from other players or help other players to oust a troublesome (MMPA) deck.

It's easy to say, but :
* exploiting slowness is not alway possible. The grandpredator here is the key player, since if he go full force forward the MMA deck will have times to install itself. And quick deck are by definition incited to go forward quickly, since they are, you know, quick decks.
* you are not alone, but it does not mean that everyone want the MMA deck ousted.
* quick deck may not be efficient enough against the 60-70 other percent of decks. Potence Rush is not something that work so very well because of frequent ousting problem. S&B may be twarthed by Aksynia, a number of other counter measure, or simply be piled up and cross ousted.

Lastly, the MMA deck have a big advantage in table negociation : you will have to motivate people to take costly action immediatly, he only have to stall aggressives actions. He have it a lot easier.

Writing words are easy, yes. V:tES on the other hand is not.

MMPA decks don't have good advantage in table negotiation - parity shift decks do. You can always say no, and see if the player playing MMPA deck will do what he/she intended to do anyways. It's just a matter of how people tend to play; are they intimidated or indifferent to any decks they face or are they focusing to all decks, table synergy and that sort of thing.

For example: I've been a prey of a wheenie dementation decks quite often. I've always been ousted without other players help - and I've survived, even gained a game wins if they have given help. And those situations (with or without help) held one thought only: "Do I have better chances of winning against player being hammered with dementation bleed or do I have better chances of winning against dementation bleed."

Same goes for MMPA decks alongside with any other deck, and you should ask other players in table the same question (and you should ask it from yourself as well). Simply put: V:tES is a game where all players may, to an extent, influence other players' game, which results in very complex cause-effect patterns.

I like

Option 1: You can't play more than 2 master cards each turn (whatever the number of master phase actions you have).

Simple rule, similar to restricting playing only one Event in the discard phase. And no card changes necessary!

Ankha wrote:

Option 1: You can't play more than 2 master cards each turn (whatever the number of master phase actions you have). Extra master phase actions may still be used for other effects (eg. taking a counter from a Short Term Investment).

Thoughts?

I prefer "Methuselahs have a maximum of 2 master phase actions". It seems cleaner. And helps to slow down Anthelios.

Honestly, I'm a fan on none of these ideas. If we want to push up the interaction between minions, why don't we try to create effects on minions that will limit things like MMPA.

As I detailed on other posts, MMPA isn't a problem on its own. Since Anthelios was printed, AAA decks became significantly stronger because they had recursion AND MMPA. The AAA deck was strong, but not brutal before the printing of Anthelios. It was stronger, but not brutal, after the printing of Anthelios.

Basically, if you want to avoid "Vampire: The Master Struggle" then we should not be either:

a) Reactively nerfing MMPA (since MMPA has been around since Anson and Parthenon and didn't break the game)

b) Creating a plethora of other masters that are intended to interfere deliberately with other masters... which creates Vampire: The Master Card Cold War.