Cause and Effect - 01

Suoli wrote:

Damage prevention isn't outright better than blood stealing. Both have their advantages in specific situations but in a vacuum, the math is on Theft's side.

Because aggravated damage (and its effects) exist, it seems clear that Prevent > Steal.

KevinM wrote:

Suoli wrote:

Damage prevention isn't outright better than blood stealing. Both have their advantages in specific situations but in a vacuum, the math is on Theft's side.

Because aggravated damage (and its effects) exist, it seems clear that Prevent > Steal.

That's a simplification. Steal has offensive qualities which needs to be considered. It cannot be prevented, specifically. Prevent-press combat vs. prevent-press combat not much happens really. With Theft you could come out on top in a combat versus a regular Stickman deck.

Xaddam wrote:

KevinM wrote:

Suoli wrote:

Damage prevention isn't outright better than blood stealing. Both have their advantages in specific situations but in a vacuum, the math is on Theft's side.

Because aggravated damage (and its effects) exist, it seems clear that Prevent > Steal.

That's a simplification. Steal has offensive qualities which needs to be considered. It cannot be prevented, specifically. Prevent-press combat vs. prevent-press combat not much happens really. With Theft you could come out on top in a combat versus a regular Stickman deck.

"The beauty of the Grinder lies in its simplicity." (tm)

With the Grinder you need 2 cards to deal 4 damage and prevent one.
With combat you need 3 cards to "deal" 4 damage, you prevent nothing, but might gain up to 2 (due to at least 2 punches received).
Less card effective.

Brum wrote:

Xaddam wrote:

KevinM wrote:

Suoli wrote:

Damage prevention isn't outright better than blood stealing. Both have their advantages in specific situations but in a vacuum, the math is on Theft's side.

Because aggravated damage (and its effects) exist, it seems clear that Prevent > Steal.

That's a simplification. Steal has offensive qualities which needs to be considered. It cannot be prevented, specifically. Prevent-press combat vs. prevent-press combat not much happens really. With Theft you could come out on top in a combat versus a regular Stickman deck.

"The beauty of the Grinder lies in its simplicity." (tm)

With the Grinder you need 2 cards to deal 4 damage and prevent one.
With combat you need 3 cards to "deal" 4 damage, you prevent nothing, but might gain up to 2 (due to at least 2 punches received).
Less card effective.

Suoli put it best:

Suoli wrote:

Damage prevention isn't outright better than blood stealing. Both have their advantages in specific situations [...]

4 blood lost on the opponent and 2 gained for yourself is better than 4 lost on the opponent and 1 blood lost on yourself. This advantage costs one card. Whether or not this is "better" or "worse" can't be judged off-handedly, advantages and disadvantages needs to be weighed carefully depending what you think you'll face and how you want to play the deck. Other things come into this consideration as well, like Magic of the Smith and Daring the Dawn.

EDIT: I would like to append my favourite paraphrased Einstein quote: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Oversimplification kills!

I'm too used to playing with Lodin...
That Norwegian is awesome.

KevinM wrote:

Suoli wrote:

Damage prevention isn't outright better than blood stealing. Both have their advantages in specific situations but in a vacuum, the math is on Theft's side.

Because aggravated damage (and its effects) exist,

Aggravated damage is pretty rare at the higher tiers.