A Change to Deflection: Case Study
13 Jul 2011 16:52 #6250
by AaronC
Replied by AaronC on topic Re: A Change to Deflection: Case Study
Kevin's OP was asking about a theoretical change to the game environment.
As to why, Boris the Blade summed it up perfectly:
Deflection is a problem because the same 3-cap dom weenie can bleed for 5, then wake and bounce a bleed for 5.
How would the environment change if Dominate bounce could never be used on an older vampire, even at DOM? (besides preserving the RPG parameters of the discipline?)
As to why, Boris the Blade summed it up perfectly:
The only problem is that the same discipline has Govern, Deflection and Conditioning.
Deflection is a problem because the same 3-cap dom weenie can bleed for 5, then wake and bounce a bleed for 5.
How would the environment change if Dominate bounce could never be used on an older vampire, even at DOM? (besides preserving the RPG parameters of the discipline?)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 Jul 2011 20:36 #6265
by Juggernaut1981




Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
Replied by Juggernaut1981 on topic Re: A Change to Deflection: Case Study
In it's current form I think it could promote a lot of Blood-Denial + Mid-bleed Combinations...
Personally I think Deflection is a card that should see revision, but I would prefer to punish the play of multiple Deflections in a row rather than each individual Deflection.
"Cost: 1
Burn X where X is the number of Deflections you have played since your last untap phase.
[same text as usual]"
(To help get around the usual Tremere Ankara Citadel shennanigans.)
Personally I think Deflection is a card that should see revision, but I would prefer to punish the play of multiple Deflections in a row rather than each individual Deflection.
"Cost: 1
Burn X where X is the number of Deflections you have played since your last untap phase.
[same text as usual]"
(To help get around the usual Tremere Ankara Citadel shennanigans.)





Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Juggernaut1981
-
- Offline
- Antediluvian
-
Less
More
- Posts: 2376
- Thank you received: 326
13 Jul 2011 20:56 #6266
by Haze
Replied by Haze on topic Re: A Change to Deflection: Case Study
let's go back to Jyhad version and make it cost a pool
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 Jul 2011 21:04 #6267
by brandonsantacruz
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
Replied by brandonsantacruz on topic Re: A Change to Deflection: Case Study
Still worth it to deflect those small bleeds sometimes....
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- brandonsantacruz
-
- Offline
- Antediluvian
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1284
- Thank you received: 229
15 Jul 2011 10:24 #6336
by Suoli
Replied by Suoli on topic Re: A Change to Deflection: Case Study
X = bleed amount would be way too expensive. Making the superior cost an additional blood might be appropriate.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 Jul 2011 20:43 #6351
by LunaSlave
Replied by LunaSlave on topic Re: A Change to Deflection: Case Study
Personally, I think Deflection is *mostly* balanced, due to the way it becomes completely useless once you get into the two-player phase of the game. That being said, it's still superior to the alternatives in almost all other ways.
I don't like the idea of making it cost additional pool. What makes it so amazing is not the lack of age restriction - it's that t doesn't tap the minion at superior, and essentially gives a vampire multiple extra actions directed at your prey while protecting your own pool. I think it could be unchanged, but if it were to be changed, I prefer the "On the Qui Vive" solution. Add the following text to Deflection, problem solved:
"A vampire may play only one Deflection between his or her untap phases."
That way, it'd still get played (and it should get played!) but people would also have to consider combining it with alternatives like Redirection as well.
I don't like the idea of making it cost additional pool. What makes it so amazing is not the lack of age restriction - it's that t doesn't tap the minion at superior, and essentially gives a vampire multiple extra actions directed at your prey while protecting your own pool. I think it could be unchanged, but if it were to be changed, I prefer the "On the Qui Vive" solution. Add the following text to Deflection, problem solved:
"A vampire may play only one Deflection between his or her untap phases."
That way, it'd still get played (and it should get played!) but people would also have to consider combining it with alternatives like Redirection as well.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.142 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Expansion Sets & Card Ideas
- A Change to Deflection: Case Study