[Fairyworld] Examining combat cards and strategies and how they should work

looked at the post about twd analysis. the only combat cards that were listed as 'important' cards are majesty and taste of vitae.

I was thinking about this last bit and believe it has merit. It seems that there is some at large agreement that the correct way to Play is just lunge bleed and bounce around like stooges. Torping vamps limits ones ability to participate in this ecstatic ritual. Watching players lose a vamp or 2 and just sit there forcing a combat deck to bleed through a mountain of pool seems punitive. You wouldn't do it if you were trying to win.

Not exactly. S&B played poorly ousts crosstable - rush combat played poorly ousts your neighbours and you, but not always in the order of your choosing. Well played rush combat is as high level of control as walls, and nets you retaliation. People of course don't want to be controlled.

It's still a legit play style, but very hard to master. This isn't an issue of 'unwritten rules' within the game, but a question of playing better or worse. If you rush and diablerize Stanislava crosstable before they had time to Villein, be prepared to handle their predator in the end-game. If you did that without a solid plan, you played bad. If you bled into an obvious bounce at 8 with 6 stealth, you played bad.

Any game has 'unwritten rules' if you will, but mostly they're just more experienced players knowing the winning strategies and moves. VtES is no different.

The 'problem' is that everyone's trying to push and pull you verbally in a real game, so the CORRECT answer is to keep your chill, shut your ears, play your game and attend the discussion AFTER the game for a bit less biased post-game analysis with your peers.

Otherwise there are some good points about stealth/combat comparison as a delivery method here.

Shadow Boxing was a cool new design, but hasn't seen too much play yet. Maybe because of how non-dominate Nosferatu aren't really that hot.

One thing though: if combat was made better, it will not speed up the game as a delivery method, but might just as well stall the games as that better combat will be available to walls as well. Combat is already pretty good in walls. If it's all about dealing damage, many decks wouldn't dare act at all. Afraid of blocking me? Well, many are already afraid of taking actions when facing Lambach for example. Stalls games, doesn't speed them up.

Kraus wrote:

I was thinking about this last bit and believe it has merit. It seems that there is some at large agreement that the correct way to Play is just lunge bleed and bounce around like stooges. Torping vamps limits ones ability to participate in this ecstatic ritual. Watching players lose a vamp or 2 and just sit there forcing a combat deck to bleed through a mountain of pool seems punitive. You wouldn't do it if you were trying to win.

If you bled into an obvious bounce at 8 with 6 stealth, you played bad.

People are routinely ousted by their grand preys bleeding. It doesn't have to be at stealth and those bleeds don't even have to get through, they just set up the chain of events. The salt factor on this play is so much smaller than beating up some vamps. Its like the psychology of stealing someone cards - people go unreasonably berserk. Even the threat of beating up vamps makes people lose their minds often enough to be noteworthy.

Mewcat wrote:

People are routinely ousted by their grand preys bleeding. It doesn't have to be at stealth and those bleeds don't even have to get through, they just set up the chain of events. The salt factor on this play is so much smaller than beating up some vamps. Its like the psychology of stealing someone cards - people go unreasonably berserk. Even the threat of beating up vamps makes people lose their minds often enough to be noteworthy.

So they are. Personally I find those irresponsible bleeds as offensive as bad rushes. Maybe it's just me though.

People are individuals, and everything from national backgrounds to education to having a bad day affects those reactions.

In Berlin's EC's one game we had this awesome situation, where a super swedish style Lasombra bleed deck was behind me, and Lazverinus behind them. I urged, at every turn, Lazverinus and his friend to bleed only for 1, and never more. Deflection + Narrow Minds meant that they'd eventually need to block and get beaten. If I died, the whole table would be steamrolled. Lazverinus' player was on edge about it, but kept those Governs in hand. I survived, we ground the Lasombra down by last 10 minutes, and once we felt it was safe enough, we voted a VP for both me and Laz. It was all about communication, and was an excellent, excellent game. Even the Lasombra player had fun being the 'bad guy', as we did give him merit for being threatening.

I don't know about 'unwritten rules', but we established those 'rules' during the game ourselves, and played better for it.

Then I've of course been on the receiving end of people trying to 'educate' others for being too aggressive, or 'betraying a deal' (sometimes they are too vague, also competitive is competitive). This one time Anson guns player went berserk, famed me backwards on a turn he could've easily gotten an oust, and used all of his resources on me. That was just bad playing (at that precise moment) on their part, plain and simple. Maths had him on the oust, but he flipped. You can't fault the game on that. And, I'll have to be fair, I did agitate him a wee bit, so there I probably had it coming.

That people get crosstable ousted isn't the fault of the game, I'd say. It's people. Furthermore, i can't say it's 100% a fault - it's a feature. How people react to things is their own business, more or less.

Now, balance wise, that's a bit more maths. The comparisons between stealth and combat as delivery are fair.

Kraus wrote:

S&B played poorly ousts crosstable - rush combat played poorly ousts your neighbours and you, but not always in the order of your choosing. Well played rush combat is as high level of control as walls, and nets you retaliation. People of course don't want to be controlled.

It's still a legit play style, but very hard to master. This isn't an issue of 'unwritten rules' within the game, but a question of playing better or worse. If you rush and diablerize Stanislava crosstable before they had time to Villein, be prepared to handle their predator in the end-game. If you did that without a solid plan, you played bad. If you bled into an obvious bounce at 8 with 6 stealth, you played bad.

I'm not sure you're understanding exactly what the unwritten rule is. It's not that no one should ever make bad plays, it's that one should not ruin the "fun" for the opposing players. While lots of times bad plays results in ruining the fun for others, the spirit of the unwritten rules in VTES really only concerns the latter.

Any game has 'unwritten rules' if you will, but mostly they're just more experienced players knowing the winning strategies and moves. VtES is no different.

No, unwritten rules really have nothing to do with skill at all. We are talking about the things that make people mad. Bleeding and rushing irresponsibly make people mad. A skilled player can do this on purpose if they feel like it. The unwritten rule is to not be irresponsible on purpose.

The 'problem' is that everyone's trying to push and pull you verbally in a real game, so the CORRECT answer is to keep your chill, shut your ears, play your game and attend the discussion AFTER the game for a bit less biased post-game analysis with your peers.

If one's goal is to intentionally make people mad with irresponsible play, is that still the correct answer?

Otherwise there are some good points about stealth/combat comparison as a delivery method here. Shadow Boxing was a cool new design, but hasn't seen too much play yet.

Yet? The card has been around for 3 years. I think you have major rose-colored glasses when it comes to the VEKN-produced material. My sense is these cards range from wholly inconsequential to neat cards that could potentially be swapped in and out of an established strategy.

One thing though: if combat was made better, it will not speed up the game as a delivery method, but might just as well stall the games as that better combat will be available to walls as well. Combat is already pretty good in walls. If it's all about dealing damage, many decks wouldn't dare act at all. Afraid of blocking me? Well, many are already afraid of taking actions when facing Lambach for example. Stalls games, doesn't speed them up.

On this, I agree 100%. Making combat "better" via all the suggestions I've read here and in other posts will do nothing other than reduce the amount of actions people take and raise the amount of minions in torpor. Not necessarily good things.