New Blog - Gaming with BS

GreyB wrote:

I googled "people who always reply with insults to feel superior wiki"

Yea, I've already understand that you got nothing meaningful to say.

Brum wrote:

Combat needs that card effectiveness much more than the other archetypes.
Because it is farther from the win condition.

Hunting needs that card effectiveness much more than the other archetypes.
Because it is farther from the win condition.



Combat is not a strategy in VtES, it just a mean to other, real winning strategies, like bleeding, voting or ... Smiling Jacking

That enforces my point even more.
Stealth is better than combat in a means to real winning strategies.

You are in combat because either your action of your winning strategy was blocked (bad) or because you are removing a blocker or a voter by using an action (bad action effectiveness).

Brum wrote:

That enforces my point even more.
You are in combat because either your action of your winning strategy was blocked (bad) or because you are removing a blocker or a voter by using an action (bad action effectiveness).

Or if you are rushing backwards because you are bad player with a bad deck

elotar wrote:

Brum wrote:

That enforces my point even more.
You are in combat because either your action of your winning strategy was blocked (bad) or because you are removing a blocker or a voter by using an action (bad action effectiveness).

Or if you are rushing backwards because you are bad player with a bad deck

Stop agreeing with my point.
Combat sucks.
We get it.

Brum wrote:

Combat does not have enough winning rewards.
This is a system issue, not clan or disciplines. So clan or discipline cards will not solve the problem.

Don't think this is true, read on.

Elotar wrote:

Combat is not a strategy in VtES, it just a mean to other, real winning strategies, like bleeding, voting or ... Smiling Jacking

The means to land your bleeds, votes or smiling jack, is a strategy.

Brum wrote:

Stealth is better than combat in a means to real winning strategies.

Depends:

Lean combat (ranged) is alive and well, easy to add ousting cards. With lean combat I mean 2 or 3 card strategies like Animalism combat or Celerity guns. These strategies work well as an alternative for stealth and is in fact more powerful in my opinion. Your combat package can be around 20 cards.

Complex combat (close range) has issues, mainly in the amount of cards required per round and S:CE counters, damage mitigation and becomes even worse when you have to rely on strike cards. Your combat package MUST be at 40 cards minimum, leaving less room for an ousting strategy and still have a big chance of depleting your deck before you reach your grand prey.

Average combat (close range) is where you forfeit one aspect and go with more expendable minions like weenie potence, protean aggro poke or fortitude stick men. Watering down combat complexity to add an ousting strategy or just swarm.

@Brum, so I don't think it's a system issue, but more a clan/discipline issue and a lack of sustainable plausible variety. Some clans (or discipline combinations if you will) require inexpensive cards that are multi functional in combat (like aid of bats and deep song). Assamite for example host a range of very attractive combat cards, until you realise you have to play up to 5-6 cards a round to be effective, with a 40 card combat package, thats only 8 combats tops. Unless you opt for lean or average combat strategies, which simply works better with other clans...

This is why this is a crap topic to discuss, combat is fine, yes, but certain combat variations are not, I think we have to be more specific.