Attempt to Fix (not ban) Events

Also, as was made clear, this dude and anything possibly percieved as a derivative thereof cannot be used to make a real card by the folks making real cards. That was very unambiguous.

Lets just add that Convert can burn to burn an event.... you know, since:
1. Hes not expensive enough yet
And
2. Hes not already burned for a useful effect.
Lets just make him the swiss army knife of crypt cards. Like an Umezawas Jitte with fangs and a very high mortality rate.

Oh, also Tupdog. Same text.

And Ezmerelda.

Edit: note casual players are more than capable of using house rules against events, or, and probably more fun for them, making thier own ideas and answers via Damnams awesome card maker. Its quite fun having yoir face on a card. Even if its not in the same capacity as Hugh, Robin, Goudie, Ben, Ian,SteveWeick, etc....

Amenophobis wrote:

First, the starting premise is that there are too few ways to remove events once they are in play, considered that they can have a rather huge impact on the table. If you compare to Master cards, their power level is generally balanced by cost, uniqueness, drawbacks and/or built-in burn-ability.
Events have none of these counterweights. It's assumed that because a single event can only ever be played once in a game, it's more or less balanced. Some have the need to have other events in play. Not a big thing. Those that reduce hand size are seldom played apart from Dragonbound, which is a very strong event in the right deck.

There should be more ways to remove events. This has been asked for by players, and I have tried to contribute solutions while part of the VEKN DT.

...

I strongly believe that in VTES, there should be non-master, non-event ways to remove events. If with or without minion-interaction is debatable, I could see arguments for both ways.

To follow onto this point:

The major issue with events is that they almost certainly cannot be stopped before they enter play. If you want to talk about silver bullets, then Not to Be is your card. It is useless unless an event is played while Not to Be is in your hand.

It bears repeating for those who don't quite get it:
Events are put into play without minion interaction.

Therefore, there should be good ways to remove them outside of minion interaction.

From Day One, VtES has had a major balancing factor against the power level of most cards: the unique trait. Contestation provides a way for players to counteract extremely powerful cards.

Master cards enter play without minion interaction. That's why Sudden Reversal exists. Unique masters can be contested. From a role-playing perspective, Methuselahs are the game "masters" so they generally control how master cards enter and leave the game. It is quite fundamental.

None of this is true for events.

After having a recent discussion with Amenophobis, he suggested further modifying my proposal as so:

Once each discard phase, a Methuselah may use a discard phase action to discard an event from his or her hand to burn an event card in play with the same trait as one which is in play.

This is somewhat of a compromise rule change between Azel's original proposal and my modification. It provides more flexibility to get rid of pesky events while keeping most of the "harmless" ones protected.

For example, Methuselah A is playing a Girls Will Find/Ashur Tablet deck with Anthelios, The Red Star. Methuselah B is playing a Antonio d'Erlette/Nephandus ally horde deck with The Unmasking. Both Methuselahs pack multiple instances of their Gehenna event of choice to mitigate randomness.

If the rule above were implemented, the Girls player could use a DPA to discard an extra Anthelios from their hand to burn the Nephandus player's Unmasking, and the inverse would also be true.

And there would be much rejoicing from the other three Methuselahs.

Complain all you want about "minion interaction" but that's sidestepping the real issue:

There aren't any truly good ways to counteract events.

So I've been patiently watching this thread develop for 8 pages. Now it's time to chime in with some observations.



Proposing a bunch of ill-considered fixes to an entire class of cards without identifying specific issues is not helpful. In my mind, many of thing things people are complaining about seem to be brilliant design solutions that align with thematic intent.

First, you have to remember that Events were introduced to integrate Gehenna into V:tES. Hindsight suggests Gehenna itself was a blunder, but V:tES players didn't have a lot of leverage in driving policy and most of us were giddy just to be back in print. But it's still worth considering that the design intent was to shake up the game, without making it unplayable.

"They're not interactive!"

Duh. Gehenna came to us, we didn't instigate it and we sure as hell shouldn't be able to stop it with a snap of the fingers.

Personally, I think the creating the event class of cards was a stroke of design brilliance, given the intent of introducing something representing an external force. It doesn't collide with the survival tools often present in MPA space, so people can actually include it in decks. It doesn't consume minion actions and can't be blocked or DI'ed, so it will actually work as intended when included. It still consumes a player's in-turn resource (DPA), so there is an opportunity cost beyond card slots.
Mechanically, aren't all of these good decisions given the stated intent?

"They can't be easily removed!"

Double Duh. You don't just laugh away the end of times over a cup of coffee. Further, I suggest that if 4 players at a table really need to fix a widespread event problem, it can be orchestrated by removing the offending Methesulah, or in the absolute worst case, creating an unfavorable VP cascade.

"They're global, persistent and cramp my style"

Gee whiz. I don't see Gehenna starting on Tuesday and being over at the end of the work week. Nor was it intended to make your life easier - you aren't supposed to loko forward to it like a schoolboy anticipating recess.

"They're too powerful!"

Now that's just silly.

There are 37 legal events which create an game effect (other than removing other events). I challenge any you to build a deck that can robustly abuse ANY one of these 33 cards: Absimiliard's Army; Becoming of Ennoia; Bitter and Sweet Story, The; Blood Cult Awareness Network; Blood Trade; Blood Weakens; Break the Code; Conquest of Humanity; Dr. Marisa Fletcher, CDC; Dragonbound; FBI Special Affairs Division; Fall of the Camarilla; Fall of the Sabbat; Fueled by Heart's Blood; Hunger Moon; Inconnu Tutelage; NRA PAC; NSA Trio; Narrow Minds; New Inquisition, The; Nightmares upon Nightmares; Port Authority; Recalled to the Founder; Restricted Vitae; Rise of the Nephtali; Scourge of the Enochians; Slow Withering, The; Thirst; Torpid Blood; Urban Jungle; Waiting Game; White Nights Massacre; Wormwood.

Sure, there are plenty of stupid pet tricks you can use to get a VP or two, or blow up a table if people get greedy and careless. There are several things in that list having synergy with a larger deck construct (Hunger Moon with blood deprivation). But is anyone really complaining about Absimiliard's + ally theft + Autaurkis or Absimiliard's + Ancilla Empowerment? Or ANYTHING with Blood Trade? Heck, even the card giving one of the most potentially powerful effects in the game (library search) is in the TWDA a grand total of.....wait for it.....4 times.

I believe that the most-used used of those cards (Scourge) doesn't really make you win, it just makes someone else lose.

That leaves 4 potentially abuseable events:
- Anthelios, The Red Star (MMPA, especially with massive discard mechanics);
- Rising, The (non-Master based pool gain, out-of-turn action);
- Unmasking, The (allies);
- Veil of Darkness (discipline-less bleed/combat).

Of that subset, the Unmasking and the Rising arguably address specific problems with deck archetypes. Even the annoying Veil is most-often used either as bleed defense or anti-S:CE tech in rush decks. I haven't yet seen "the deck carries 4 copies and a Fortschritt" evidence that Veil and Rising are game breaking.

"Events are a pain in the ass to bookkeep!"

Yeah, there is truth here. I have enough trouble keeping track of mechanical bits like Fame/Anarch Revolt ticks, Perfectionist blood gain, empty minions must hunt first and whatever else. Overlay all that with getting a strategically correct order of actions in my turn. Chaos ensues.

But it's a part of the game we already cooperatively deal with - the whole table has to join in to police the effects and deal with the mental fatigue that results. Inconvenience doesn't seem like a justifiable reason to nerf a large class of cards.

SUMMARY:

If you want to fix anything, fix demonstrated problems after you have clearly identified them. I suggest that Events, considered as a game mechanic, is not one of them.

self wrote:

Off-the-cuff terrible idea:

what if an event can be cancelled as it is played if all the other methuselahs at the table agree to each pay 1 pool to cancel it? that way if someone tries to play an event that makes the entire table shit its pants, it can be quietly made to go away for a cost.

I had a more detailed explanation but my post didn't take the first time and i can't be bothered to retype it right before bed.

That's actually a pretty nice idea. Only change I would make is "table sacrifices enough pool equal to number of current players" so that no almost-unanimous vote is necessary. Someone plays Anthelios at a 5 person table, Meths may in turn order pay up to 5 pool to burn. Once 5 pool is reached, Anthelios burns. No silver bullet effect, still costly to wipe out.

I might even like the idea that this is an ongoing burn clause, instead of just cancel while played.

Thanks for contributing to the topic! Good answer, good answer...

edit PS: I still see the Yu-Gi-OH defense and Bothers Me None defense trotted out again. The mechanics and design space are my concerns, your card power details and anecdotes are not.

Amenophobis wrote:

Second, regarding your perceived silver bullet. A card that can be used to good effect and also removes events is not a silver bullet. You stated that a minion with a "remove event"-ability is a silver bullet. I beg to differ.

What about this version, then:

Druze
Clan:
Cap:
Grp: 5

Sabbat. Black Hand: Druze may remove
himself from the game to burn a Gehenna
event as a +2 stealth -action. Druze takes
1 damage if any Gehenna events are in play
at the end of your minion phase.

I would love to debate the previous version of this card with you (since I do know it existed), but I am bound by the NDA I agreed to before the Danse Macabre set to reserve all opinions I have given in the past for the Playtesting environment until the 'sunset clause' kicks in.

Based on the card idea here...

#1 Why is a Tzimisce getting +2 stealth on removing an event? I would understand a Malkavian, Lasombra, Gangrel... something with a real STEALTH discipline getting that sort of massive head-start.

#2 Yes, it is a silver bullet. Its primary reason for existing is to destroy events, and when that is done, it is RFG (no Hand of Conrad or Redeem the Lost Soul or other shennanigans to recycle him). This is exactly the kind of minion I described as a bad idea. Making it be an action option that requires all of the blood on the minion and doesn't come with much stealth at all seems far more likely to promote minion interaction.

#3 Black Hand: Just in case you couldn't get rid of it with the built-in actions you'd like to hedge your bets and allow Black Hand Ritual to be an option as well?

#4 Damage for Gehennas: Once he's in play you have at most 4 turns to remove ALL Gehenna or he will go to torpor. That's a penalty that means you basically will never use him in a deck where you do not intend him to be The Uncoiling as a Vampire.

Conclusion: VERY Silver Bullet. Action targets Gehenna. Black Hand allows second bite of the cherry. Penalty rewards going after Gehenna events at every action available. Large stealth advantage to a clan and discipline spread that does not promote either.

Amenophobis wrote:

There is still plenty of minion interaction in the game. If a card that is put into play without a iota of interaction gets burned without interaction, I call this plain and fair.

Every card created that discourages less minion interaction creates more 5-player solitaire games. Anthelios encouraged the heavy master-style game because it allowed for recycling... the major reincarnation of the AAA-Master Deck is to put in Anthelios to remove the variability of card draw... if you have the Minion Tap/Villein and or Golconda in the ash heap, you just fish it out with the spare TGBs (as an example). One card pushed a whole metagame development which still resonates in the wider metagame.

I'm not trying to say that VTES doesn't have minion interaction, but the more non-interactive paths you open up, the more likely people are to take a path which may provide safer smaller results. Its risk management (which I'd have guessed from Jeff's posts on the forum previously he would understand at least a little). People will evaluate the gain and associated risk of each path, if the low-risk path provides enough of a gain then it will probably be taken more often than a high-risk path with immense rewards. This is one of the things people are constantly looking at when they talk about streamlined and focussed decks... removing the variability and risks to ensure the gains designed into the deck.

Amenophobis wrote:

But I agree, Druze above is maybe the more widely accepted way to do things.

I would like to see your statistics, surveys and analysis on that claim.

Amenophobis wrote:

You will notice that he has 2 inherent stealth with his action. You guess it correctly, that is because of The Unmasking. An ability to remove an event as an action without inherent stealth is bad design - we have to take The Unmasking into account. Even 2 stealth might not be enought against dedicated ally decks.

So you feel the need to directly metagame the metagame during card design?? Rather than providing players with cards that are interesting and let the metagame develop, you'd prefer to dictate the metagame to the player base? From reading that, it is a VERY arrogant impression you are giving off.

Amenophobis wrote:

I strongly believe that in VTES, there should be non-master, non-event ways to remove events. If with or without minion-interaction is debatable, I could see arguments for both ways.

There is one, as Darby has noted... Oust the player. Another is... win games despite the Gehenna cards. A third option is to try design interactive cards that give new tactics or new spins on old tactics.