Contents and card changes in 25th Anniversary revealed

If a deck ousting someone in 15 minutes isn't a problem I dont know what is.

What would you see as problematic? Surely there is a line that once crossed cant be fixed by multiplayer mechanics.

Mewcat wrote:

If a deck ousting someone in 15 minutes isn't a problem I dont know what is.

What would you see as problematic? Surely there is a line that once crossed cant be fixed by multiplayer mechanics.

The list of banned cards gives a good overview of what problematic means.

Due to how table dynamics work, decks that put heavy pressure on their prey from the get go generally struggle to get game wins.
There is an old saying that goes "she who has no predator wins".
If you put too much pressure on your prey, your grand-prey will have no predator. She will be able to build a strong board and hand, and keep her pool total quite high. This usually means several VPs on the long run.

Letting my prey play has two main benefits:
- she will influence more and naturally erode her pool, and if I have an opportunity to oust her, I will burn less resources,
- she will put pressure on her prey, so if I oust her, my 2nd VP may be easier.

My main task will then be to not let her grow too strong, and seize the right moment for a lunge. It is a very delicate balance.

Sometimes, like in my previous example, other players will gain something by helping the aggressive deck's prey. Sometimes, it's just better to let them get ousted. There is no general guidelines on such matters.

Some other times, table dynamics theory does not apply and you're out in the dark trying to devise a game plan on the go.

Sometimes aggressive decks will benefit from favourable circumstances and sweep the table.
Some other times their weenie Animalism prey will send all their minions to torpor.

Most things balance out if you look at the big picture.

(I hope that I managed to state my point clearly this time)

Sure but ousts can be so quick that none of that matters. The guy ousted turn 4 or 5 is barely noticed and if he didn't take the 1 or 2 actions forward that otherwise may have it doesnt change much.

Mewcat wrote:

Sure but ousts can be so quick that none of that matters. The guy ousted turn 4 or 5 is barely noticed and if he didn't take the 1 or 2 actions forward that otherwise may have it doesnt change much.

That is completely correct.

Though let's have a look at the table dynamics theory:

Me > prey (under pressure) > grand-prey > grand-predator (under pressure) > predator

The harder I attack my prey, the stronger my grand-prey and predator get. It means that after I oust my prey, I will be sitting between the two strongest remaining players. Even if I get an early oust, on turn 5, it means two players have been able to develop unhindered for 5 turns, and I'm stuck between them.

Of course, practical games do not always follow the theoretical guidelines, because seatings are randomized, and deals disrupt table dynamics (which is actually their main point). But I have countless practical examples that validate the theory (and quite a few exceptions).

The irony is that focus on global table dynamics is one of the main characteristics of the "latin-european play style", but I first got acquainted with that in the Vtes players guide which was written by very strong US players (most notably Robert Goudie and our dear lead designer, Mr Ben Peal). For the record, I "won" the book by finishing last in a national championship, quite a long time ago.

Anyway, as much as I love talking about Vtes theory, I think I made my statement clear, and we are getting quite far from the initial topic.

jonathan wrote:

The irony is that focus on global table dynamics is one of the main characteristics of the "latin-european play style", but I first got acquainted with that in the Vtes players guide which was written by very strong US players (most notably Robert Goudie and our dear lead designer, Mr Ben Peal). For the record, I "won" the book by finishing last in a national championship, quite a long time ago.

That is not irony. It only means that the understanding of core game concepts is more widespread than you would like to think, and that you might need to think about playstyles in more complex terms than "I understand the game, you don't."

Non-existant user wrote:

jonathan wrote:

The irony is that focus on global table dynamics is one of the main characteristics of the "latin-european play style", but I first got acquainted with that in the Vtes players guide which was written by very strong US players (most notably Robert Goudie and our dear lead designer, Mr Ben Peal). For the record, I "won" the book by finishing last in a national championship, quite a long time ago.

That is not irony. It only means that the understanding of core game concepts is more widespread than you would like to think, and that you might need to think about playstyles in more complex terms than "I understand the game, you don't."

I it was not what I meant. I apologize if that's how it sounds.

I pointed to play style differences, trying to explain my point of view and the theoretical elements that I use. I also wanted to make it clear who developed and explained all that in a very clear and didactic manner.

You are very right that my scope is very narrow, and I don't have any understanding of other play styles. I am actually very interested in learning about other play styles, and their theoretical basis.

I am sorry if I offended you, and I look forward to widening my horizon and learning about how people see the game in different places of the world.