Maneuver

Azel wrote:

+3 bleed ousts. VP is the only end game that matters, and all minions are ultimately expendable, therefore it is categorically better than S:CE.

You're comically missing the point.

Take a deck, replace all S:CE by conditionning (assuming a PRE/DOM crypt), and we'll see if the deck is better. Your argument would also lead to say that sup' govern is useless because the inferior oust people. Ditto for sup' Deep Song.

In other word, any attempt to "prove" that two differents things used in different context can be more ordered is comical at best, because it ignore that their value change vastly depending on your strategy and the situation. When you are at two pool and a minion, it's way better to have a Majesty to keep the minion than any bleed modifier.

Also, see Rotschrek, who prove that a master can do the same thing than a combat card, but be good enough to be played over them. If a master is played on a minion to give him a maneuver each combat, it could have a place in decks ; it should still not be done simply because it's out of topic for master and master aren't supposed to be able to do everything.

Yet your analogy offers nothing to discussion than "different things are different, thus hard to compare." This is not profound nor helpful. Disparate things can still be compared through their related impact. No comparison is complete and perfect, but since no one expects that, and experiential comparisons can still be validly drawn, a correlation to value can be made.

Conditioning wins games directly. S:CE lets you survive to win games; it categorically cannot win games directly. Govern down's setup either a) gains you 3 pool, or b) fields new minions faster. Minions are the prime method through which to oust; they win games. Thus Govern is a switch card (simultaneously two very different options) of direct defense or indirect offense.

Of those three, two win you games directly through actually providing offense, while one wins you games indirectly through providing defense. For all the defense in the world capping your opponent's points, you still need to have more points to win. VPs are VtES' points, oust gains you VPs, bleed boost and minion native bleed are oust, ergo as oust they are of greater relative importance than defense. I am not saying defense is ignorable by any means, but that means offense is prioritized when designing how to win. How to survive as you implement how to win is another matter.

There is a reason for the multiple disparaging combat topics had here and elsewhere. Without combat critical mass, combat has an uphill battle. Why? It's oust source is an indirect means to achieve the only goal that matters: pool pressure for the oust. By focusing through an oblique oust method in a tight card pool (Fame, Tension, etc.) combat barely keeps up its leg of the oust mechanism stool.

Downing prey minions otherwise don't net you pool pressure directly but instead opens oust delivery and reduces your prey's pool pressure capacity. Combat as a delivery mechanism for bleed and votes, the other primary oust mechanisms, has its own painful share of problems (namely often playing on your opponents terms). Since being tapped without a wake similarly opens oust delivery without reducing your prey's pool pressure capacity (which helps you set up your next VP), all this direct combat effort for indirect pool pressure can be highly risky.

Thus direct combat is not selling that indirect effort is so different from direct effort as to be incomparable in value. And as such, as flexible as a maneuver can be in set up for both offense and defense, dodge's direct defense (the only thing it does) can be compared to maneuver's direct defense. Additionally maneuver's indirect support of direct combat offense -- the other main selling point -- while incomparable to dodge in this respect, may be compared through combat offense's overall risky direct pressure to gain VP. So yes, maneuver mops the floor with dodge with respect to combat offense, but in the end combat offense has poor returns for its direct effort, because it garners you equivalent indirect pool pressure gained through easier means.

Through this comparison of direct and indirect efforts helping one approaching their VP goal, a correlation of comparative value of seemingly disparate things can be drawn and well argued. Just like Warning Sirens' dodge ended up not being overwhelmingly received in the current environment, a direct comparison to a Master:maneuver can be drawn, for in this respect they are not disparate. However, through accounting for its direct effort distance from getting you to your all-important VP goal, we can valuate the disparate element of Master:maneuver that Warning Sirens' does not share.
The new Master:maneuver card's combat offense ties up a precious card type filled with direct answers (offense, defense, and delivery) with an indirect support of an indirect means to apply pool pressure or delivery. Therefore this element unaccounted for in Warning Signs' dodge can be accounted for through its convoluted separation from means to victory.



Further still, I have actually contributed a card idea that entertains this topic's goal. Would you care to contribute to this topic's design discussion meaningfully by finding where's the good and bad of its design? Does its power support or discredit my contention that OOT master card types are a poor design choice for this sort of support effect?

Azel wrote:

Yet your analogy offers nothing to discussion than "different things are different, thus hard to compare." This is not profound nor helpful. Disparate things can still be compared through their related impact. No comparison is complete and perfect, but since no one expects that, and experiential comparisons can still be validly drawn, a correlation to value can be made.

.... blah blah blah ...

Thing that serve different purpose should not be compared in a general sense, period. You can't change that. I don't try to be deep or anything ; I try to recall you of this little thing called reality, where often it's simply useless to try to compare two things in pure value.

Let's take a potence Immortal Grapple deck. A dodge is almost completely useless. In comparison, a certain amount of maneuver is needed. On the other hand, in a political deck that never want to enter combat to begin with, a dodge will have more value than a maneuver, even if the maneuver still retain some value. Trying to ignore that is moronic.

And if you want another reason for which your argument about dodge and warning siren is dead wrong, you can look at secure haven vs Pentex Love You. The first one provide protection against combat (not unlike S:CE), the second one provide direct bleed power. Yet it's Secure Haven the most played of the two, because it's much more convenient and provide it

And for the current case ? Well, we have both disciplineless dodge and maneuver, in case you didn't see, so it's almost certain they'd better provide permanent maneuver/dodge or do an awful lot of different thing to have any interest. But you are too upset that someone disagree with you to actually take that into account.

Azel wrote:

Further still, I have actually contributed a card idea that entertains this topic's goal.

And ? You say that like it had a specific value for the discussion.

The goal is not to randomly fling idea, but to give good and balanced idea, explain why thoses idea may or may not work, and sometime explain that a particular idea cannot be salvaged.

I believe that the starting concept, I.E. giving even more option to master card, is bad, for reason I am too tired to explain again. Proposing a card would be moronic.

If you disagree and think the base concept is great, proposing a card can be an argument, but is nothing special, especially since it's not like you poured a gigantic amount of work in it. The arguments in the post, while wrong or irrelevant in my opinion, are much more valuable.

Azel wrote:

Would you care to contribute to this topic's design discussion meaningfully by finding where's the good and bad of its design? Does its power support or discredit my contention that OOT master card types are a poor design choice for this sort of support effect?

If a master is played on a minion to give him a maneuver each combat, it could have a place in decks ; it should still not be done simply because it's out of topic for master and master aren't supposed to be able to do everything.

What's funny is that I already done my opinion and arguments on the subject not once, but several time, on this topic.

Master cards that provide abilities like maneuver or dodge are very powerful. You might think of a location that could give you one maneuver or dodge (like mob connections), but that card must have some kind of balance (like "this card can be stolen").

We already have several decks "abusing" the MPA's. We should start thinking on empowering the "normal" playing without killing the other archetypes.

If you start talking of putting stuff on vampires as a MPA, then I want something like this:

Minigun
Master Unique
4
Weapon - Gun
Put this card on one of your ready minions, it becomes an .

The minion with this equipment can strike for 4R with 2 optional maneuvers and two additional strikes. Minions opposing this minion cannot end combat as a strike or dodge. The bearer of this weapon can burn one blood to enter combat as a +5 stealth action with another minion controlled by another Methuselah.

Now... lets talk about contesting...

Ohlmann wrote:

Azel wrote:

Yet your analogy offers nothing to discussion than "different things are different, thus hard to compare." This is not profound nor helpful. Disparate things can still be compared through their related impact. No comparison is complete and perfect, but since no one expects that, and experiential comparisons can still be validly drawn, a correlation to value can be made.

.... blah blah blah ...

Thing that serve different purpose should not be compared in a general sense, period. You can't change that. I don't try to be deep or anything ; I try to recall you of this little thing called reality, where often it's simply useless to try to compare two things in pure value.

Look, now you're trying to go all post-modern Foucault. Disciplines work within themselves and there is something to be said about the eventual breakdown of analogies as they cross outside their domains. But to continue on that nothing can be comparable because of pure value? Seriously, stop wasting time lecturing and expect that most of us are familiar with deconstruction arguments of the past 100+ years.

Bottom line, you don't believe any meaningful correlation can be made in pure value. Good thing no one is talking about the purity of value of anything. No expression of correlation can be pure due to the nature of distance and translation between items. That's nice, can we now come back to the world of CCGs and leave the philosophy alone? We're talking about analogous correlations we can make, understanding like adults that yes eventually all such correlations will breakdown from 'lack of purity.'

This adds nothing to the conversation -- still.

Ohlmann wrote:

Azel wrote:

Further still, I have actually contributed a card idea that entertains this topic's goal.

And ? You say that like it had a specific value for the discussion.

The goal is not to randomly fling idea, but to give good and balanced idea, explain why thoses idea may or may not work, and sometime explain that a particular idea cannot be salvaged.

I believe that the starting concept, I.E. giving even more option to master card, is bad, for reason I am too tired to explain again. Proposing a card would be moronic.

If you disagree and think the base concept is great, proposing a card can be an argument, but is nothing special, especially since it's not like you poured a gigantic amount of work in it. The arguments in the post, while wrong or irrelevant in my opinion, are much more valuable.

Examples are illustrative to explore and explain an idea. I don't think anything valuable will come from this line of design. But to just argue without tangibles to muse on leaves people believing otherwise. People have to see why it would be unproductive. Providing Warning Sirens as one example, and my own creation as another, shows my argument of the relative impotency of such design, cluttering an already hyper-competitive card pool. That it has no use to you is irrelevant; you are not the only audience that matters.

Ohlmann wrote:

Azel wrote:

Would you care to contribute to this topic's design discussion meaningfully by finding where's the good and bad of its design? Does its power support or discredit my contention that OOT master card types are a poor design choice for this sort of support effect?

If a master is played on a minion to give him a maneuver each combat, it could have a place in decks ; it should still not be done simply because it's out of topic for master and master aren't supposed to be able to do everything.

What's funny is that I already done my opinion and arguments on the subject not once, but several time, on this topic.

That first part of a combined sentence does qualify as design argumentation, and thus I am incorrect and apologize. I did have to go back and read the topic with a fine toothed comb to pull that lone line right before my post. Perhaps if it stood out more clearly, like with a card example...


About your thematic argument -- being out of topic for masters -- it's as valid as any argument. But considering this is about CCGs and competition, I don't give much weight to flavor arguments. Often I find them orthogonal to each other, as time and again CCGs have shown that implementation of a flavorful idea often ends up better on the cutting room floor. I'm utterly surprised Anarchs have finally been pulled off somewhat successfully with Twilight Rebellion; it only took three sets of solid Anarch card support (Anarchs, Gehenna, TR). I don't disagree with you, but it's not where I find a design flaw choice, personally.

About permanent Master:Maneuvers, that'd be the point where it'd be hard to manage. As a disposable one-shot for an OOT MPA, I can't think why anyone would bother. That's not even worth abusing current master recursion. Permanent resource with open-ended targets... that's harder to manage. Police Dept. might get away with its defensive nature, but Mob Connections likely needed its burn clause.

Ohlmann wrote:

Let's take a potence Immortal Grapple deck. A dodge is almost completely useless. In comparison, a certain amount of maneuver is needed. On the other hand, in a political deck that never want to enter combat to begin with, a dodge will have more value than a maneuver, even if the maneuver still retain some value. Trying to ignore that is moronic.

Yes, that is a comparison of relevance for facets of different builds. This is how we can compare disparate things. How to Win is different from How Survive and How to Deliver, and further different in subcategories like How to Win>How to Combat Offense, or How to Survive>How to Bloat, or How to Deliver>How to Stealth, etc. (Interestingly enough, How to Combat Offense can be placed into all How to Win, Survive, and Deliver. I didn't say it will do them all well, but interestingly it can be placed in all three.) Yes, it is obvious that a purely defensive card will be irrelevant to many Combat Offense card modules. It's built into the categorical separation. But it will have strong relevance in to How to Survive>Combat Defense.

Again, your "it's incomparable!" contention does not hold relevance or utility.

Ohlmann wrote:

And if you want another reason for which your argument about dodge and warning siren is dead wrong, you can look at secure haven vs Pentex Love You. The first one provide protection against combat (not unlike S:CE), the second one provide direct bleed power. Yet it's Secure Haven the most played of the two, because it's much more convenient and provide it

Ahh, yes you can compare them, and now you're getting into the beautiful inner workings of qualitative comparisons within disparate categories:

Pentex Loves You is a qualitatively mediocre bleed boost card (and its minion targeting is restricted) within its own category.

Secure Haven is a qualitatively stellar minion survival card (with no minion restrictions) within its own category.

To quote myself:
I am not saying defense is ignorable by any means, but that means offense is prioritized when designing how to win. How to survive as you implement how to win is another matter.

When you are designing your deck's How to Win, Pentex Loves You will often be skipped due to its qualitative value within its category. How to Win is the raison d'etre for a competitive CCG deck. It is a facet that cannot be ignored. In a mandatory category, Pentex Loves You likely will not make the cut.

When you are designing your deck's How to Survive, Secure Haven will often be selected due to its qualitative value within its category. How to Survive is a crucial element in a competitive CCG deck. It is a facet that shouldn't be ignored -- however there's quite a few decks and players that can be exceptions that prove the rule. In a crucial, but possible area to short-change, Secure Haven will have high representation.

And that's how you compare different qualities within disparate categories.

Ohlmann wrote:

And for the current case ? Well, we have both disciplineless dodge and maneuver, in case you didn't see, so it's almost certain they'd better provide permanent maneuver/dodge or do an awful lot of different thing to have any interest. But you are too upset that someone disagree with you to actually take that into account..

We have disciplineless maneuvers in Masters? You'll have to enlighten me to what you mean here. I'm double checking Secret Library search engine.

The only Masters with disciplineless Dodge I can find is Warning Sirens. The only Masters with Maneuvers are Brujah Debate and Ishtarri Warlord (yes I already saw them in this topic...), which while disciplineless are clan restricted and don't really qualify as open as something like disciplineless and clanless Warning Sirens or Police Dept.

Again, permanent resources are a tough thing to design, particularly ones open-to-all minions without conditions. Ishtarri Warlord is solid, even though it is restricted on play of a single vampire. Even press was divided into two types for the open-to-all minion design, and one of them got a burn clause. Permanents, both attached and environmental, complicates design of this idea, particularly with ally and imbued craziness of late.