Imbuided - Dead or Alive?

Ankha wrote:

No, by lame I mean that it ruins a basic principle of V:TES which is interactions between players.

I've been hearing this theme a lot, that VTES is all about interactions between players, anything that prohibits this interaction is "bad design," and that somehow Imbued introduced this bad design element. (Correct me if I am twisting your words). The problem that I have with this viewpoint is that Sudden Reversal and Delaying Tactics were both included in the first set ever released for the game. These cards essentially cancel interaction between players, the same way React With Conviction does in Imbued decks. Canceling interaction was always a part of the design of VTES, and Imbued are just an extension of that design element. So, if Imbued are bad design, is the "cancel a card as it is played" mechanic also bad design? If not, why is cancelling cards as they are played good design?

I'm not speaking for Ankha, but I'm guessing he means something like:

* Imbued cannot or don't have titles or votes and can't participate in referendums?
* Imbued are not part of a clan, and so cards that check for or use clan affiliation are null?
* Imbued don't have disciplines, so cards that check for or use disciplines are null?

IDK, I'm not super familiar with the Imbued. My dislike of them is mostly aesthetic (I don't see why a game about Vampires has Hunters as a playable mini-faction, but not Werewolves or Wraiths or Mages, etc.) And that they're what MTG's Mark Rosewater would call 'parasitic design' meaning that they encourage very insular or incestuous card combinations, basically requiring you to play with a tiny subset of cards and not much else.

As far as cards like Sudden Reversal and Delaying Tactics, remember that Alpha MTG had cards like Time Walk, Black Lotus, Winter Orb, CounterSpell, Stasis, Ancestral Recall, The Moxen, Balance, Armageddon, Drain Power, Circle of Protection, Wrath of God, Mind Twist, Contract From Below, Fast Bond, and many hosers, all of which were wildly OP and-or created / enabled uninteractive game-states once on the board. Richard Garfield may have made an great game, but he seems to be prone to making 'power cards'.

If VTES were ReVamped as a similar but different game, maybe cards like Sudden Reversal and Delaying Tactics would make an appearance but offer more interactivity built-in, like, "A player may burn 3 pool to cancel Sudden Reversal as it is played" or something.

Canceling cards is obviously a bad design.

It's fine for CCG to experiment with different concepts, but then mistakes are unavoidable, and there should be a way to fix them.

VtES tries to incorporate crap into basic game and because of solid core it works somehow, but not so well as we see by declining player base.

Kushiel wrote:

This is baffling to me. Aside from minion theft cards which are restricted to targeting vampires, which aren't a good example since there are also minion theft cards which are restricted to targeting allies, what are the forms of interaction that are available to vampires but not imbued?

Taste of vitae is a great example. The ruling that they are allies that are not affected by their cost if you cast an anti ally vote? sheesh I understand why it is that why, but it is frustrating.
Almost all contracts.
Many rush cards.
"Pillow Facing" is another major gripe.... They get free conviction, and can can do 2 dfamage each if i end them? wtf?????????????????

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I've been hearing this theme a lot, that VTES is all about interactions between players, anything that prohibits this interaction is "bad design," and that somehow Imbued introduced this bad design element. (Correct me if I am twisting your words). The problem that I have with this viewpoint is that Sudden Reversal and Delaying Tactics were both included in the first set ever released for the game. These cards essentially cancel interaction between players, the same way React With Conviction does in Imbued decks.

Random noise:
Canceling a persons card is ALREADY interaction by definition. One person does something and another reacts and interacts with it.

If one player does something (like vote) and nobody reacts or does anything, there is no interaction. You doing pool damage unopposed is not interaction. Solitaire combo decks are NOT interactive.

LivesByProxy wrote:

I'm not speaking for Ankha, but I'm guessing he means something like:

* Imbued cannot or don't have titles or votes and can't participate in referendums?
* Imbued are not part of a clan, and so cards that check for or use clan affiliation are null?
* Imbued don't have disciplines, so cards that check for or use disciplines are null?

There is also this little detail that Imbued are not vampires. There is a HUGE number of cards that interact with or affect only vampires. Therefore huge number of cards (Im referring to cards that Imbued's opponents would like to play) are simply unusable vs Imbued.

All the while Imbued doing several things that vampires do (like bleed, block, etc)

Bloodartist wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I've been hearing this theme a lot, that VTES is all about interactions between players, anything that prohibits this interaction is "bad design," and that somehow Imbued introduced this bad design element. (Correct me if I am twisting your words). The problem that I have with this viewpoint is that Sudden Reversal and Delaying Tactics were both included in the first set ever released for the game. These cards essentially cancel interaction between players, the same way React With Conviction does in Imbued decks.

Random noise:
Canceling a persons card is ALREADY interaction by definition

Right. React with Conviction interacts with a whole lot of Ally stealing cards by canceling them, and thus interacting with them by your definition. that's why I think Imbued are not flawed design wise...