Non-combat decks, to defend or not to bother

[mikelosaurus]

While people are feeling thoughtful I figure it might be worth examing the flp side of the combat coin: if you''re *not* playing combat, should you build your deck with some form of defence in mind, or should you not bother?

The presence of one or more (good) combat decks on the table is a real problem for non-combat decks. A carefully-timed rush action can shut down your whole game, and if you can't rely on allies to rescue you, then you could be done for.

The dilemma is that these days there are many well-oiled combat variants for which a couple of S:CE cards simply isn't enough. In terms of viable strategies my thoughts are:

1) Maneuver *and* SCE. The key to fighting grapple is to not let your opponent play it by staying at long range, but you may be out-maneuvered in turn.

2) High-cap Dominate for Obedience and Autonomic Mastery. A much more effective shutdown, but guessing what size vampires other people are going to influence is far from foolproof.

3) Prevention with Fortitude, Protean or Chimerstry. Sadly prevention cards have no utility in non-combat situations.

4) Get spiky. While not necessary fighting back per se, packing an Ivory Bow or Sengir Dagger (or equivalent) would certainly make a lot of people think twice about rushing you. Many decks would still trump you though, leaving you back where you started.

Hmmm. Thoughts people?

[Rob Treasure]

While people are feeling thoughtful I figure it might be worth examing the flp side of the combat coin: if you''re *not* playing combat, should you build your deck with some form of defence in mind, or should you not bother?

The presence of one or more (good) combat decks on the table is a real problem for non-combat decks. A carefully-timed rush action can shut down your whole game, and if you can't rely on allies to rescue you, then you could be done for.

The dilemma is that these days there are many well-oiled combat variants for which a couple of S:CE cards simply isn't enough. In terms of viable strategies my thoughts are:

1) Maneuver *and* SCE. The key to fighting grapple is to not let your opponent play it by staying at long range, but you may be out-maneuvered in turn.

2) High-cap Dominate for Obedience and Autonomic Mastery. A much more effective shutdown, but guessing what size vampires other people are going to influence is far from foolproof.

3) Prevention with Fortitude, Protean or Chimerstry. Sadly prevention cards have no utility in non-combat situations.

4) Get spiky. While not necessary fighting back per se, packing an Ivory Bow or Sengir Dagger (or equivalent) would certainly make a lot of people think twice about rushing you. Many decks would still trump you though, leaving you back where you started.

Hmmm. Thoughts people?

I would always go with fighting back if you can myself. I think Poke / Rots being the classic one or even stuff like Bow and range. A very close second being making your bods expendable or so numerous that it doesn't matter as much (see breed and to a certain extent, bloat)

The rest is not sturdy enough IMO as you are in an arms race that you are going to lose.

Thirdly, just popped into my head the THREAT of action against the combat deck yourself is one that can stop a lot problems. Clearly if you are sat with a Hostile Takeover/Parity Shift combo you have quite a bit of bargaining power.

"cross table rush me and i'll take you down with me" sort of thing.

I don't like a deck that falls totally flat to one archtype at all myself.

[ICL]

Target Vitals gives every deck the possibility to run hitback.

But, as to your question, I think it depends upon what deck archetype you are running. Tzimisce stealth bleed doesn't struggle to run Chiropteran and Breath. Mono-Dementation doesn't have a lot of reason to dilute its offense.

BTW, I've thought for a long time that S:CE has lost a lot of luster. Rise in intercepty decks, rise in combat in general, rise in ally combat, etc. put too much pressure on casual combat avoidance. OTOH, what haven't lost their luster are Majesty, Mirror Image, Form of Mist, and Earth Meld; Catatonic Fear has risen from torpor due to TV and Unholy Penance may have its niche. I haven't played enough with Flesh Bond to form an opinion on it. CE that does something worthwhile besides just end combat is still hot. It's the likes of Spiritual Intervention, Oubliette, and Shadow Body that just don't seem all that exciting anymore. Given that there is so much more combat out there to where TS/IG/MG FTW! may be a poor meta choice, CE can gain something as a meta decision, though I'd maintain that it's only paying off high yields when it does more than end combat.

[mikelosaurus]

Target Vitals gives every deck the possibility to run hitback.

But, as to your question, I think it depends upon what deck archetype you are running. Tzimisce stealth bleed doesn't struggle to run Chiropteran and Breath. Mono-Dementation doesn't have a lot of reason to dilute its offense.

BTW, I've thought for a long time that S:CE has lost a lot of luster. Rise in intercepty decks, rise in combat in general, rise in ally combat, etc. put too much pressure on casual combat avoidance. OTOH, what haven't lost their luster are Majesty, Mirror Image, Form of Mist, and Earth Meld; Catatonic Fear has risen from torpor due to TV and Unholy Penance may have its niche. I haven't played enough with Flesh Bond to form an opinion on it. CE that does something worthwhile besides just end combat is still hot. It's the likes of Spiritual Intervention, Oubliette, and Shadow Body that just don't seem all that exciting anymore. Given that there is so much more combat out there to where TS/IG/MG FTW! may be a poor meta choice, CE can gain something as a meta decision, though I'd maintain that it's only paying off high yields when it does more than end combat.

Given the amount of combat we see in our friendly games I'm certainly starting to feel the same way

I do think though it's worth making an exception for effects that trump IG - e.g. Anaesthetic Touch, Autonomic Mastery, Fae Contortion.

[Huruem]

While people are feeling thoughtful I figure it might be worth examing the flp side of the combat coin: if you''re *not* playing combat, should you build your deck with some form of defence in mind, or should you not bother?

I really think it depends. If the combat you can play is useful not only as a defense (for instance: earth meld, majesty, etc...) I'd go for it. If my deck is pretty slow, with big caps, I would do it as well. and finally if my deck is likely to have his actions blocked I would too. But if the deck doesn't fall into these categories (like, let's say, a stealth bleed) then I wouldn't.

The best defense is S:CE + fortitude, and/or deterrence with disarms, agg, equipments,...

That's all floks

[Michael]

I think 'don't bother' with combat defence is looking like a reasonable strategy if you have a fast-moving focussed vote/bleed deck. Too often you won't need the cards at all, and they'll then slow you down. You build your deck to minimise the possibility of getting blocked and into combat by necessity. I'm thinking my Toreador bleed deck could loose the 'combat ends' cards and maybe replace with a few Change of Targets (or nothing at all to keep deck slim). Keeping the bleed bounce/reduce and wakes in though, can't afford to loose that.

Secure Haven/ Secret Passage/ Obedience/ Mind Numb/ Banishment and so forth reduce the need for combat cards.

However, as I haven't been to a tournament in years and as our Monday night games in London are chiefly not-so-competitive (one or two players might be exceptions) and generally feature lots of combat, I don't see myself playing such decks too much, unless my starting prey is somebody who annoyed me recently :)

Nearly all of my decks feature combat in some form however.

[ReidBowen]

While people are feeling thoughtful I figure it might be worth examing the flp side of the combat coin: if you''re *not* playing combat, should you build your deck with some form of defence in mind, or should you not bother?

I really think it depends. If the combat you can play is useful not only as a defense (for instance: earth meld, majesty, etc...) I'd go for it. If my deck is pretty slow, with big caps, I would do it as well. and finally if my deck is likely to have his actions blocked I would too. But if the deck doesn't fall into these categories (like, let's say, a stealth bleed) then I wouldn't.

[/i]

Generally I agree with these points and ICLs, it depends on the deck and the type of combat avoidance and defense that you are running. Majesty and Earth Meld, for example, are still useful, not specifically because of their S:CE power but because they often function as the poor man's Freak Drive.

However, that said, Mike's opening question is an important one in so far as I think more and more players, myself included, are simply ignoring any kind of defensive response to combat in many decks. The primary reason is that it dilutes your deck, although there are other reasons, some of which have already been mentioned, and these warrant considering.

First, in a tournament you might quite feasibly encounter a combat deck in suitably close proximity to screw you over at one table, however, there are likely to be two other tables where you are able to do your own thing; and - most importantly - you will be able to do this better if your deck isn't cluttered by S:CE or other combat avoidance cards. Just play the odds and the long game. This has been mentioned before on this forum, but deserves repeating.

Second, if there is combat coming at you and it is anything except casual or low level, your few cards of combat defense either won't be up to the job or won't be in your hand at the required time. Basically, a focused combat deck should be able to kill you, IG, Psyche and TT will cut through S:CE strategies quite quickly (plus they ought to and 'deserve to'). Basically, they should be able to kill you, so let them get on with it, you have other options (e.g. bleed or vote them off the table before they can kill you).

Third, even if you are confronted by a lot of combat - rather than the relatively low level occurence of combat on the tournament scene for many years - it can still be valuable to be doing something else entirely (i.e. not combat). If you are in a combat heavy metagame, sitting down to see three or four combat decks at the table and then you playing fragile temptation/bleed setites is not necessarily a recipe for despair . While it can be somewhat stressful, multiple combat decks have a habit of negating each other in rather erratic and unpredictable ways. Try waiting, negotiating and surviving as best you can, then try and exploit the combat fest. Two combat decks cross-table can often get on ok for a while and screw you and the rest of the table over. However, any other variation can be to your advantage.

To summarise:

In a tournament, if you aren't playing combat yourself play the odds and do what you do as best you can; therefore, ignore combat.

When confronted by focused combat you are screwed anyway, or you should be; therefore, ignore combat.

When playing in a combat heavy metagame, the combat decks are perhaps just as likely to kill each other as you; therefore, ignore combat.

Conclusion, in many/most circumstances, ignore combat.

That said, there are better ways to mess with and foil combat decks, e.g. breeding or bloating. These clearly have other benefits rather than simply negating combat, though. There are also very economical defenses, such as running away (e.g the 'Green Strategem' or 'Greeno Gambit": "you are like unto a deer to me") that are perhaps worth preserving in certain decks.

[jamesatzephyr]

While people are feeling thoughtful I figure it might be worth examing the flp side of the combat coin: if you''re *not* playing combat, should you build your deck with some form of defence in mind, or should you not bother?

If you're playing in a tournament, it's perfectly reasonable to abandon significant combat defence - although there's no harm in having it around on (for example) a spare maneuver from Swallowed by the Night, or using Form of Mist mostly to get around blockers but it's combat defence too.

However, in a casual game, you may want to include more because:
a) combat is often more popular in casual games
b) if you're only playing one game in an evening, it's going to totally suck to sit next to the rush deck and get hosed. In a 3 round tournament, you're probably only going to get that badly hosed in one round.

[ShroudFilm]

In LA I was confronted with the nightmare of being on a table of 4 wall agg decks, and me with limited block denial. I just didn't bring any vampires out for the first 5-6 turns, and let them all kill each other for 30 minutes. Their bleeds were small, so I could afford it!

Then when Nergal finally appeared (making me the FIFTH wall on the table) I managed to sweep through their weakened ranks and get 5+GW.

[Huruem]

good job ^^

[Shade]

Given the amount of combat we see in our friendly games I'm certainly starting to feel the same way

I do think though it's worth making an exception for effects that trump IG - e.g. Anaesthetic Touch, Autonomic Mastery, Fae Contortion.

Generally my experience of "London" style metas (ie violent ones) is that you'll have at least a couple of combat decks on the table so the option of not handling combat isn't that enjoyable. In those metas you have to either play combat yourself or dedicate a decent chunk of your deck to handling it rather than dropping in 8 x S:CE and calling it done.

In a blind meta though I would typically not bother with much combat defense as it'll get in the way of what you're doing more often than not. I find that adding the 8 x S:CE a waste of time as a good combat deck is going to have some kind of plan to handle it. Better to keep it to a couple of dedicated cards and then pick combo cards like Swallowed by the Night that will still be useful. There is always talking fast if faced with a combat deck left or right, or that old favourite of throwing an expendable in front of the train.