A Change to Deflection: Case Study
13 Jul 2011 11:24 - 13 Jul 2011 11:24 #6220
by KevinM
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
A Change to Deflection: Case Study was created by KevinM
It's a simple question: How would the environment change if Deflection was changed to have a cost of X, where X is the current amount of the bleed?
e.g.
Deflection
Reaction
Dominate
X blood
[dom] Only usable when you are being bled, after blocks are declined. Tap this reacting vampire and pay X where X is the amount of the bleed. Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting minion. The acting minion is now bleeding that Methuselah.
[DOM] As above, but do not tap this vampire.
e.g.
Deflection
Reaction
Dominate
X blood
[dom] Only usable when you are being bled, after blocks are declined. Tap this reacting vampire and pay X where X is the amount of the bleed. Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting minion. The acting minion is now bleeding that Methuselah.
[DOM] As above, but do not tap this vampire.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
Last edit: 13 Jul 2011 11:24 by KevinM.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 Jul 2011 11:30 #6221
by Shockwave
Here we go again....
Dave Knowles (Advanced)
Sabbat Bishop of Manchester
Replied by Shockwave on topic Re: A Change to Deflection: Case Study
Assorted thoughts:
1. People would bounce just as much.
2. Bleed modifiers would handjam people, as they wouldn't get to play them.
3. AUS / Disciplineless bounce would see more play (especially AUS)
4. KS would be stronger, because it would be used to overwhelm DOM bounce.
5. DOM decks would include more blood gain, to offset the additional cost.
1. People would bounce just as much.
2. Bleed modifiers would handjam people, as they wouldn't get to play them.
3. AUS / Disciplineless bounce would see more play (especially AUS)
4. KS would be stronger, because it would be used to overwhelm DOM bounce.
5. DOM decks would include more blood gain, to offset the additional cost.



Dave Knowles (Advanced)
Sabbat Bishop of Manchester
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 Jul 2011 11:59 #6224
by Pascal Bertrand
My opinion is that it would be too expensive.
A cardless card that deflects bleeds is already available: Lost in Translation.
Let's compare:
Usually, you're waiting for the lunge to play your KJMDeflection, so you wouln't use it on a bleed for 1 (except in some weird situations involving Helena adv).
So, KJMDeflection would always cost at least 2.
Basic KJMDeflectio vs Lost in Translation:
dom -- younger, same cost, you tap in each situation.
I'd say it's up to you. Some decks don't run dom, so Lost in Translation might be a more popular choice.
Then, on a Govern bleed:
KJMDeflection costs an extra blood, and you still tap.
I think it starts to be worse right here.
Now, sup' KJMDeflection, on a bleed for 2:
DOM -- youger, but tap.
DOM is better, since you can play a second one after that.
Now on a bleed for 3:
DOM costs 1 extra blood, LiT taps. Looks like the current choice between Deflection and Redirection. I'd say it's a tie. Deflection is good because it isn't that expensive, KJMDeflection is too expensive starting at +2bleed.
Now, the question is : Is LiT used?
Answer is not that often (some "Girls" deck might use it, but it's definitely not a card you see at every table).
But then the idea of increasing the cost to make it less playable is what Narrow Minds does.
I think that, if you increase the cost of Deflection (and Deflection only)
- AUS is going to get played a lot (and Tel Misd would be the next one you'd change)
- Redirection would get played a bit more
But most importantly, there would be a lot more decks that bleed for 3 (GtU with THA/OBF/OBT/PRO), KS DEM/obf).
I'd like to tell a story that happened to me at the LCQ in Montreal's NAC:
My prey played Parity Shift, tried to steal 5 from her prey, who played two Poison Pills. The vote passed.
That is: my prey lost 5 pool, my grand prey lost 5 pool. Guess who won.
In your proposition, you're having player X and her prey lose X blood/pool when X's predator is bleeding. Do you really think this will increase X's chances to get the GW? I don't I think it's too expensive. Actually, I think I wouldn't even put the card in a deck.
Replied by Pascal Bertrand on topic Re: A Change to Deflection: Case Study
Sounds like the CE Awe - you're paying 2X.It's a simple question: How would the environment change if Deflection was changed to have a cost of X, where X is the current amount of the bleed?
e.g.
Deflection
Reaction
Dominate
X blood
[dom] Only usable when you are being bled, after blocks are declined. Tap this reacting vampire and pay X where X is the amount of the bleed. Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting minion. The acting minion is now bleeding that Methuselah.
[DOM] As above, but do not tap this vampire.
My opinion is that it would be too expensive.
A cardless card that deflects bleeds is already available: Lost in Translation.
Let's compare:
Usually, you're waiting for the lunge to play your KJMDeflection, so you wouln't use it on a bleed for 1 (except in some weird situations involving Helena adv).
So, KJMDeflection would always cost at least 2.
Basic KJMDeflectio vs Lost in Translation:
dom -- younger, same cost, you tap in each situation.
I'd say it's up to you. Some decks don't run dom, so Lost in Translation might be a more popular choice.
Then, on a Govern bleed:
KJMDeflection costs an extra blood, and you still tap.
I think it starts to be worse right here.
Now, sup' KJMDeflection, on a bleed for 2:
DOM -- youger, but tap.
DOM is better, since you can play a second one after that.
Now on a bleed for 3:
DOM costs 1 extra blood, LiT taps. Looks like the current choice between Deflection and Redirection. I'd say it's a tie. Deflection is good because it isn't that expensive, KJMDeflection is too expensive starting at +2bleed.
Now, the question is : Is LiT used?
Answer is not that often (some "Girls" deck might use it, but it's definitely not a card you see at every table).
But then the idea of increasing the cost to make it less playable is what Narrow Minds does.
I think that, if you increase the cost of Deflection (and Deflection only)
- AUS is going to get played a lot (and Tel Misd would be the next one you'd change)
- Redirection would get played a bit more
But most importantly, there would be a lot more decks that bleed for 3 (GtU with THA/OBF/OBT/PRO), KS DEM/obf).
I'd like to tell a story that happened to me at the LCQ in Montreal's NAC:
My prey played Parity Shift, tried to steal 5 from her prey, who played two Poison Pills. The vote passed.
That is: my prey lost 5 pool, my grand prey lost 5 pool. Guess who won.
In your proposition, you're having player X and her prey lose X blood/pool when X's predator is bleeding. Do you really think this will increase X's chances to get the GW? I don't I think it's too expensive. Actually, I think I wouldn't even put the card in a deck.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Pascal Bertrand
-
- Offline
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 4268
- Thank you received: 1186
13 Jul 2011 12:10 #6227
by Ankha
Oh, you can still deflect a bleed for 1 for 1 blood ...
It would wallpaperize it, so I guess people will go the Redirection way, meaning more vampires will superior dominate, and more bleed stealth decks.
Replied by Ankha on topic Re: A Change to Deflection: Case Study
You mean making the card costs 6 blood when you're bled by a DOM deck or 4 blood when bled by a DEM deck?It's a simple question: How would the environment change if Deflection was changed to have a cost of X, where X is the current amount of the bleed?
Oh, you can still deflect a bleed for 1 for 1 blood ...
It would wallpaperize it, so I guess people will go the Redirection way, meaning more vampires will superior dominate, and more bleed stealth decks.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 Jul 2011 12:16 #6229
by Pascal Bertrand
Replied by Pascal Bertrand on topic Re: A Change to Deflection: Case Study
Maybe having it cost the cost of the action (including action modifiers) is a way to go.
Govern, Conditioning: 2 blood.
Kindred Spirits, Eyes of Chaos: 0 blood.
Fleetness, Alacrity, Conditioning: 4 blood
Govern, Conditioning: 2 blood.
Kindred Spirits, Eyes of Chaos: 0 blood.
Fleetness, Alacrity, Conditioning: 4 blood
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Pascal Bertrand
-
- Offline
- Moderator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 4268
- Thank you received: 1186
13 Jul 2011 12:25 - 13 Jul 2011 12:25 #6232
by Boris The Blade
Replied by Boris The Blade on topic Re: A Change to Deflection: Case Study
Why change anything to Deflection? Telepathic Misdirection is more polyvalent and Aksinya much harder to counter. The only problem is that the same discipline has Govern, Deflection and Conditioning.
Last edit: 13 Jul 2011 12:25 by Boris The Blade.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Cyrus
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Boris The Blade
-
- Offline
- Antediluvian
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1221
- Thank you received: 256
Time to create page: 0.134 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Expansion Sets & Card Ideas
- A Change to Deflection: Case Study