Unexpected Detours

Through the Looking Glass

“I don't think..." then you shouldn't talk, said the Hatter.” 
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, 1865.

I've been thinking a lot about V:tES lately. I've had to. Three or four months ago, I broke down most of my assembled decks. Designing that many new, competitive decks is a long and difficult process, but one that was overdue.

I haven't been blogging about things I'm exploring with these new decks, at least until now. It didn't help that my last post was lost to an errant keystroke and Blogspot's stupid autosave "feature."

But I know pounding keys for the blog makes me think about V:tES in fresh ways and the effort is always worthwhile. Remember that I said that.....it will turn out to be prophetic.

I won't turn Inferior Babble into a vehicle for deck design/critique. It's always been more philosophical than case-specific or practical. I don't want to change that. But sometimes the best way to describe something is by example. You're going to see some very rough, experimental designs as we explore concepts together.

Just a side note here: all my decks are designed with absolutely no prospective net-decking. The design process ends up taking twisty, turning, torturous paths to decks that often possess a unique flavor. It's this creative process that I find most intriguing. Usually, the toughest part is finding an inspiration that can be turned into a competitive deck.

This time, I started with a pure heart and noble intentions. Huzzah! I wanted to commemorate the release of V:EKN's latest set by working with Danse Macabre. Silly me. The best thing about the card is the artwork. Every time I read the text, I'm stuck by how it piles insult on injury.

Danse Macabre, Original Pencil Artwork, Heather Kreiter, 2006
From the auhtor's private collection

Master.

• Ummm.   Is using an MPA for a prospective, inferior Freak Drive really my best option?

Choose a ready Sabbat vampire.

• That's one small step away from saying "choose a member of the high school marching band". It should include a parenthetical "without Fortitude." 
• Of the 498 Sabbat vampires, more than half can access better options for multi-action, leaving maybe 220 crypt cards that merit using Danse.

...successfully performs an action...

• OK. Now we tape a "KICK ME" sign on that young band member's back and push him into the school hallway. Do you really think Carlton won't be attempting to block his path?

...may burn a blood to untap...

• Right. Even when everything does go right, some bully is still stealing this poor pimply-faced geek's lunch money.

Despite all those drawbacks, there is a certain opportunistic feel to Danse Macabre. Maybe it can be well used by

• small minions racing to complete actions before blockers arrive,
• steathly Malkavian Antitribu or Kiasyd accessing additional actions, or
• any minion generating an unexpected surge of offense at a key juncture

Of those options, I felt that the first was an most elegant and unique use of Danse Macabre. The last point creates some synergy with that approach, if those small minions can manage successful first actions and have blood to spend.

The next step was to find something important for 2-3 capacity minions to do in their first turn.

• Bleed, then use the Edge to pass a Legacy of Pander or a Crusade.
• Recruit a retainer, then employ a War Ghoul.

Legacy of Pander decks usually have 2 minions in play from their first turn, so they can already get the Edge and vote. After that first acting turn, voting Pander aren't likely to have any worthwhile second action. Finally, Danse is useless for the 1-capacity parts of the crypt. Scratch one concept.

If there were a Sabbat small-to-mid cap [pre] crypt planning to Crusade, vote, cap and bleed, then Danse could fit. My gut feeling is that MPAs would limit the scale of exploitation. Designs like that might work better with Change of Target than with Danse Macabre and use Toreador Antitribu for vote push. Wait, isn't there a solid deck like that already?

That leaves War Ghouls. Since War Ghouls tend to directly address potential blockers though rush combat, such a deck might have find ways to create successful actions and get late game mileage from Danse Macabre. It seems to be a viable foundation for the deck.

The Six Million Dollar Deck.

“We can rebuild him. We have the technology. 
We can make him better than he was. 
Better...stronger...faster.”
-- Oscar Goldman from "The Six Million Dollar Man", ABC Televsion, 1974.

(author's note: Sorry, I couldn't find an Alice quotation for this.....)

There's already a solid archetype capable of producing 2nd turn War Ghouls. It doesn't focus on speed, there's a limit to how many copies of Jake that deck can include before risking self-contestation. Using Danse with some retainers offers a second path to the same objective, without colliding Master cards. The resulting deck CAN focus on speed more than the prototypical version. It may not be as robust, but opens options for a hyper-aggressive player like me.

So I set out to create a deck that poops out a War Ghoul on the second turn in 75% of its games. 

It's an arbitrary goal, but one that drove several decisions in design. The resulting deck, named Blintzkreig (it leaves its opponents flat as a pancake), is provided for reference.

Deck Name:	Rebooted Blintzkreig
Created by:	Darby Keeney

Crypt [12 vampires, average capacity: 3.41667]
1x	Ana Rita Montana	VIC aus dom obf	5	Tzimisce:3
1x	Elizabeth Westcott	AUS ani cel vic	5	Tzimisce:3
1x	Rose, The	PRE VIC aus	5	Tzimisce:3
2x	Lolita Houston	VIC aus	4	Tzimisce:2
1x	Terrence	ani aus vic	4	Tzimisce:2
2x	Wendy Wade	ani aus	3	Tzimisce:2
2x	Horatio	vic	2	Tzimisce:2
2x	Piotr Andreikov	aus	2	Tzimisce:3

Library [60 cards]
Master [20]
1x	Carver's Meat Packing and Storage
1x	Charisma
5x	Danse Macabre
3x	Dreams of the Sphinx
1x	Fame
6x	Jake Washington (Hunter)
1x	Mob Connections
1x	Parthenon, The
1x	Tribute to the Master
Action Modifier [2]
2x	Changeling
Action Modifier/Combat [2]
2x	Plasmic Form
Ally [14]
1x	Gregory Winter
2x	Vagabond Mystic
11x	War Ghoul
Equipment [1]
1x	Codex of the Edenic Groundskeepers
Event [4]
1x	Anthelios, The Red Star
1x	Dragonbound
1x	Unmasking, The
1x	Veil of Darkness
Retainer [7]
3x	Ghoul Escort
1x	J. S. Simmons, Esq.
2x	Jackie Therman
1x	Tasha Morgan
Combat [10]
4x	Pulled Fangs
6x	Trap
Crafted with: Anarch Revolt Deck Builder [Wed Dec 12 09:31:17 2012]

Including 5 Danses provided some interesting options.

• Another path to a War Ghoul (Recruit, untap, employ). The result roughly parallels running 11 copies of Jake Washington.
• Another card flow option for "The Perfect Storm" of TWO 2nd turn War Ghouls (Jake doesn't need to recruit/employ in the second option).
• The Codex can be used twice per turn ("A" bleed, "B" equip, "B" untap, "B" bleed), creating an on-demand offensive surge. Late-game Jakes provide blood to maintain the process across multiple turns.

I don't want to get into too much math, but I spent some time with a spreadsheet and crunched some numbers. OK, it was a LOT of time and a LOT of numbers...have you ever started something only to wonder if it were worth the effort? I think I just became the poster child for that syndrome. But once started, I had to finish.

• The crypt fails to provide minions that can be influenced into play from every Seat 1 (no 1 caps) and 14% of Seat 2.
• The library misses a 2nd turn War Ghoul combination in 23% of games.
• All these probabilities exclude the effect of Dreams of the Sphinx, to be discussed later.

Look back at those last paragraphs. I want (no, NEED!!!) an immediate War Ghoul in 75% of games, but in some I won't even decrypt a minion that can be influenced up.

MUST        NOT        FOLLOW        THE       FRIGGING        BUNNY

"I almost wish I hadn't gone down the rabbit-hole--and yet--and yet--...”
- Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, 1865

This is where I started to fall down the rabbit hole. Yup, everything in this post before now was just a preface.

I thought I was just building a commemorative deck and hit a decrypting and acceleration issue. What I found was a convoluted mash-up of deck design interacting with tournament population, idealized deck selection and seating.

What the Hell?




Some preface is probably necessary here. These days, my local playgroup is largely inactive. Tournaments of 8, 9 and 12 are commonplace. Looking at the TWDA, we don't seem to be unique. Unfortunate, but true.

I expect those numbers to be important. Each tournament of those sizes will have some 4 player tables. In 8 and 12 player tournaments, it's ONLY 4 player games until the finals. As a player who wants to win, I need to reach the finals. I might even consider the differences between 4 and 5 player games when selecting a deck to play for just that reason.

“It is better to be feared than loved.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, 1865

Maxim: In 4 player games, aggressive decks should plan to "shape" the table.   

When a grandprey's deck trumps yours in a heads-up end-game, plans change immediately

If I can suppress my predator, I can make more offensive choices or recover from a mistake. Partnering with my grandpredator helps suppress my predator.

In a 4 player game, my grandpredator IS my grandprey.  If we both adopt this thinking (and are equally effective), we mutually benefit from our combined strength in exactly the same ways. We "shape" the table to our advantages. We can even both work left-facing instead of right-facing and the result is the same, that table shaped the way we want.

This War Ghoul deck is the thing I would usually consider able to shape a 4 player table.

• It's fast, but can decelerate to address the inevitable "table threat" propaganda. 
• It acts both forward and backward, shaping a table without external assistance. 
• Combat becomes more impactful with fewer players at the table and further gains in strength as the table shrinks.

All that seems to make sense. Here's the rub.

Compared with people at 5 player tables, those at 4 player tables are 

20% more likely to have 1, 2, or 3 transfers

and 38% less likley to have 4 transfers.

I know some folks are thinking "Wait a second, I play first in 20% of 5 player games and 25% of 4 players games - that's only a 5% difference." That's a correct statement, but it fails to make a relative comparision. We're really talking about that difference compared to the 25% baseline.

See the problem yet?

• The Danse Macabre deck relies on a first turn minion to create a second turn War Ghoul.
• It fails to get that minion from every Seat 1 and 14% of Seats 2.
• It's more likely be in Seat 1 or Seat 2 when playing 4 player games.

Aha. This deck is strategically well suited for 4 player games, but mechanically fails more often in that setting. Zoiks!

“Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense.” 
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, 1865

For something so simple, it's humbling that I hadn't explicitly thought about table size impacting speed in this way before writing this blog. I always hated going first, but I hadn't thought about how much more it happens in 4 player games.

Extending the logic a bit, capacities of 1, 5 and 9 are 100% predictable, they will always be available in turns 1, 2 and 3 at any size table.  Capacities of 4 and 8 are those most frequently turn-deferred with decreased table size.

Ever hear a person say "I was going to play a deck with an 8-cap star vampire, but I shouldn't now.....it's a 12 player tournament and I can't give up the early turns." They would be mathematically correct in that statement, at least if speed were an overriding concern.

In practical terms (and for most decks), this effect is largely lost in the noise created by other variables. Archetype interactions, different degrees of deck optimization, player skill, and the random nature of card-drawing obscure most early-turn problems with influence speed. Despite a lack of concrete evidence to provide, I still suspect there's something real here.

Certainly, for this particular deck and it's arbitrary 75% Go-Go-Ghoul Plan, the effect is real and will continue to impact design decisions. 

Speaking of which.....

Accelerated influence gives the deck a means to address it's current shortcoming. Of the available options, Dreams of the Sphinx is the best - it solves more than just one problem.

• The crypt needs only 1 additional influence to get rolling (the exact amount a Dreams can produce.)
• That influence is needed only in the first turn from Seats 1 and 2.
• There isn't much risk.
• Contestation is unlikley when only 1 player has an opportunity to play  Dreams before my critical first use.
• An early Dreams can also improve upon the current 78% success rate for library draws leading to a War Ghoul.
• A late Dreams can dump excess War Ghouls and cycle for the Codex.

“Which way you ought to go depends on where you want to get to...”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, 1865

With that decision being made, the obvious question becomes "How many Dreams?" The convention wisdom is "As many as you can stuff in the deck." I've never liked that answer, it isn't elegant or entirely correct (despite working, cause Dreams is THAT good).

Having fallen this far down the rabbit hole, I decided to free-fall completely and do more math, starting with the crypt.

In each case, I felt it important to NOT just focus on the Seat 1 shortfalls. If I were to do that, I would end up grossly over-weighting the needs to address a problem that doesn't exist in the majority of games. So in each evaluation following, I use a normal distribution for seat positions.

This graph shows how well Dreams can address not getting that first turn minion for this deck. Three copies of Dreams achieves a tolerable failure rate (1 game every other tournament) for 5 player tables, but a whopping 5 copies is needed when table size drops to 4 players.

So, do I start with 3 copies of Dreams (increase to 5 for smaller tournaments) or run 4-5 copies (and never change the deck)?

Just looking at the crypt can't provide a clear answer, so I looked at the library for additional clues.  Quantifying the card-drawing effect of Dreams becomes convoluted in a hurry. There are a lot of variables (is it needed for influence, is it needed for cards, is it drawn in the initial 7, is it drawn as a replacement). This is why few people try to model Library performance beyond "is it in my opening 7 cards."

The model I built has simplifications that introduce minor errors (from infrequent occurences), but the results are still about right. Seat 1 or 2 uses for influence are properly considered.

• Three copies of Dreams increases the library's ability to produce 2nd turn Ghouls from 77% to ~85%.  
• Adding 2 more copies of Dreams nets another 3.2% gain (~88% overall probability of success). Most of the time, Dreams aren't even needed to make the library work, so modest benefits from increasing Dreams isn't surprising.

In the end, it still comes down to a gut check. Since the library benefits little from additional copies of Dreams, I stuck at 3.  The crypt and library come together properly about 71% of the time with that design, close to the 75% initial target. With only 3 Dreams for card flow, I am believe another Codex will be necessary.


“Do you think I've gone round the bend?"
"I'm afraid so. You're mad, bonkers, completely off your head. But I'll tell you a secret. All the best people are.” 
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, 1865

So yes, I went completely overboard with that last part. I've convinced myself that V:tES is best not subjected to mathematical evaluation on this scale. But I did learn something about why some decks hate 4 player tables and I now have an interesting (and fast) War Ghoul deck. Not a bad more-than-one-day's work.

Cheers.
D.

Back in the Saddle Again

I have come to grips with the fact that I'll never write day-by-day NAC summaries. There are too many friends to see, games to be played, beer to be guzzled and sleep to be slept.

I had a great time in Columbus this year. The organizers did a great job - I'll offer my thanks to those folks once again.

It rough at the tables, though.  Several of us commented on the meta being completely unreadable. Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock has always been huge part of the game. I believe I created a previously unknown "ripe manure" gesture. I'll leave it to readers to create the appropriate mental image for how that interacts with "rock", but the take-home message is that my overall performance was lackluster.

There were a few of amusing highlights:

• Hugh Angseesing "reduced my Blood Brothers bleed" with Archon Investigation.....on 2 of their first 3 attempts.  He bounced the other with......wait for it.....Lost in Translation.
• I used Drop Point Network to create an oust. I'm astonished that this card is not yet included in the TWDA.
• I set a new personal record for losing unique vampires: 11 in NAC Day 1.

This WoN/NAC reinforced a few points in my mind.

• I'm devoted to shaving decks to smaller and smaller size. I ran out of cards only twice with 60 card decks: once with a Imbued deck expressly intended to put cards in the Ash Heap, the other in a very unusual Legacy of Pander situation (a game I ultimately won because of a once-per-game card finally floating into hand).
• The Uncoiling is a mandatory inclusion in any serious deck that doesn't run its own Events. Anthelios and the Unmasking are simply too strong to leave in the end game. 

Lastly, thanks to those who took the time to say they liked the blog. Hearing that you enjoy spending a little time with me is inspiring.

Imperfect Persistence, A Combat Flaw.

One of the conclusions from the last post is

Combat is a tactically superior function,

but suffers from strategic inferiority when used as an ousting strategy.  

This isn't a surprise, Garfield's original vision didn't feature combat as a central offensive function (source needs to be found, I think it was the intro to the original Strategy Guide).  The thinking was that most decks would take unsuccessful actions or block others' actions.  Combat would result.  Therefore, most decks would benefit from having some combat functions for the inevitable result of failed actions.  

Of course, we've seen that is patently untrue.  Large card collections and more stealth options allow players to completely avoid combat within their turns.  But silly us, we saw this tactical function and a few cards intended to enable it - so we built decks around it.  Now, we have to grapple its shortcomings as a viable strategic design (or stop playing combat).

In the "Enkidu SMASH!" case study, part of the endgame combat package I played was "Mantle of the Bestial Majesty."  I like thiscard in a multiaction decks because it's such an efficient way to create aggravated damage across a whole turn.  Playing that card when I did highlighted a problem (not just the strategic one). My combat that lacked persistence.  I sent vampires to torpor with blood.  Counteracting my progress cost cross-table players only actions, nothing else - most of the blood cost was paid by the minions in torpor. 

To play combat decks in competitive environments, 

it must be more difficult to "undo combat" with rescues.

First, we should discount aggravated damage as a stand-alone function for a rush combat deck.  Vampires sitting in torpor with blood is bad.  Progress can be reversed with minimal overhead cost, vampires can self-rescue and we don't prevent our prey's blood-to-pool conversion.  The resulting situation is terrible for an active combat deck - repetitive rushes with no concrete outcome.   For the same reason, we shouldn't be looking at hands-prevent-Disarm as a stand-alone combat design.


That isn't to say aggravated damage is bad - it shines in defensive combat decks.  The card-efficient nature of aggravated damage minimizes hand-jam when we need freely-flowing intercept.  If resulting combats are meaningful, the acting player spends an additional actions rescuing.  Creating a free "null" action effectively doubles the block/action ratio we might otherwise require, even when we don't interfere with the rescue.  That's all good - it's meant to cause delay and deplete the value of assets, not be a complete removal of them.

But we're talking about active (not reactive) combat decks in this blog. When we strip all the blood from opposing minions in combat, at least we're making rescuers spend their own blood.  The rescued minion will be likely be hunting next turn.  We increase the cost of rescuing, which seems good.


It comes with a hidden downside.  Remember when we said combat decks had to fight the clock for game wins?  Combat alone is time-intensive enough.  Now consider:

Every time an empty vampire is rescued cross-table, 
the game is lengthened by 2-3 actions.

Whoa, that's not what we wanted.  Our rush was intended to remove a minion from the ready region.  At least part of the effect was nullified with the rescue.  We might have knocked several beads off the minion and they won't find their way back into a players pool, so the effort had some payoff.  

• But that minion is still active and we haven't gained an numerical advantage in play space - we'll end up rushing it again.  We can count either the first rush or the second as the lost action - either way, its two functions where we intended one to suffice.
• The rescue action itself could have been productive offense - a lost opportunity cost.  It's fairly certain the rescuing player didn't really intend to take that action when he constructed his deck, so it's a second effect lost.
• Even the rescued vampire is a potentially null minion.  It might be lost in hunting next turn or it might block a subsequent rush (either way, a 3rd action lost).  

Obviously, we have to go further in discouraging rescues, simply because we can accept neither unproductive use of our assets nor games lengthed by so many actions.  The question is "How?"

Threaten

I've come to realize that threatening rescuers with rushes is counterproductive - despite the fact that it is the one actionable option we have.  Cross table rescues are often motivated by this very fear of being rushed, making a threat only makes the fear more justifiable.  It creates a downward spiral of endless rescues and unproductive turns.  

Punish

Revenge feels good, but is clearly a bad choice in the 5-player game.  It reinforces someone else's position using our assets and resources, but does nothing to strengthen our position in the process. Even hunting is usually a better option in terms of creating a beneficial outcome (and that's a very low bar).

Discourage (by Increasing Cost)

Hmmm, maybe this is a viable option.  It's kinda of subtle and still allows some choices, but makes other players think twice instead of reflexively rescuing.  And if rescues to ensure, they will be fewer since they require expending more blood.


We've already sworn off aggropoke, because of its minimal opportunity cost.  Extending that logic, how can we make rescuing even more costly? 

• Carver's Meat Packing Plant:  We only include 1 copy and it isn't universally beneficial.   So it is unreliable, squared - but still almost required for serious combat.
• That one copy is our contingency against the Breed-Boon vs Combat whack-a-mole contest, a fight we cannot win unless we thin the herd.  
• It limits the number of chump blockers throwing themselves on grenades for their elder brethren

• Torpid Blood:  While this feels like a viable inclusion, it's really not.  
• The -1 hand size (even if temporary) is a significant downside, especially given our deck's near-certain use of Dragonbound as an end-game ousting mechanism (an additional -1 hand size, permanently).  Put simply, trying to run a 5-card rush combat hand usually leads to either hand jam or decking yourself though the insane card flow it requires. 

• Pulled Fangs:   Why don't we see more use of this card?   
• It's accessible by any minion and provides synergistic combat damage  
• It effectively triples the overhead associated with rescuing - 3 actions should be a serious disincentive
• It shines in the large capacity meta-game, where Blood Doll and Vessel are seen less often. .  
• This card is now completely restricted to close range (recent errata).  So it's usable by ranged archetypes like [CEL] guns, but they have to be prepared to accept a close-range return strike (or dodge/additional strike).
• It's important for any deck using this card to also include cards to destroy locations - specifically Hunting Grounds and Heidleburg Castle.  

Eliminate

Aha, not so subtle, but effective.  It tends to raise eyebrows - players might not see torpor as a terrible threat, but they really hate to lose minions for good.  There are a few ways to achieve this, though not all can be applied in typical pure combat decks.

• Theft:  
• Graverobbing and Raw Recruit creates a huge, favorable swings in power.  Depriving another player of assets while gaining your own is a game-changing event.  
• Since these decks have [dom], they have alternate pool damage and defensive options - moving them outside the realm of pure combat into hybrid designs, and different overall requirements result..

• Diablerie (including Amaranth) and Pillowfacing:  
• Diablerie is risky for any vampire not immune to blood hunts, which clearly restricts deck parameters.  Pure combat constructs frequent influence 1-2 capacity sidekicks explicitly for this purpose - we trade resources, but hope to net a gain.  
• Pillowfacing Imbued is relatively risk-free.  With the banning of Edge Explosion, Conviction accumulates so slowly that using them for anything but their text functions (or return from the incapacitated region) is poor play.

• "Burn" Text: 
• Gregory Winter is the prototypical culprit, though other options (like Nephandus) exist.  Since Gregory's card text effect is synergistic with combat blood removal, the only obstacles to his inclusion are the pool cost and recruitment action he consumes.   
• Anathema has a significant overhead - We have to be running a titled Camarilla vote/combat deck, passing votes most people won't want to see successful.  Ugh, near cornercase.  I have been discussing a viable use of this card with a friend - I hope to see the deck at the NAC next week..  
• Sacrificial Lamb suffers from being associated with [POT][OBF] decks.  Since [POT] tends to empty vampires in the course of sending them to torpor, this card's unrefunded blood cost and extra action requirement seem prohibitive.
• Vulnerability seems useful, but isn't.  Since we have to wait until our next MPA to use it, we still encounter all the risk of cross-table rescues, the very thing we are trying to eliminate. It is an interesting option for intercept combat wanting to create extra breathing room.  

• Finishing Moves:  
• Unhealed aggravated damage.  Working the combination of aggravated and normal damage to ensure that a minion is in torpor for the agg damage can be very challenging.  Generating large chunks of aggravated damage may be even more difficult and/or blood intensive.  Both are "star minion" moves and combat with a star minion is risk intolerant.
• Decapitate is another card I don't see played enough.  Yes, it is moderately expensive and there is no refund of blood - but this is usually quite playable before/after a reasonably large Taste of Vitae and doesn't require a follow-up action.  It's also usable at long range, which opens the door use in "Flung Junk" decks (ranged [POT] strikes with Increased Strength).  

Survive

Most of the previously posted combat-and-egg analogy was predicated on a single, near-fatal flaw of combat decks.  They usually enter the 3 player game with no VP and must crush the resulting 3 player table to get a game win.

There are a silver linings in the cloud of doom. 

Having reached the 3 player end game,

the incentive for cross-table rescuing is immediately diminished.

Not many people rescue their predator's minions.  If they do undertake a campaign of upstream rescues, they tend to create less offensive pressure.  It's never optimal for a combat deck to see rescues, but at least it is contributing to blood attrition our both our left and right.  The reduced incoming pool damage creates breathing room for us to continue generating pressure and in the long run, this should all be to our benefit.  


Likewise, it's fairly rare for the general populace to rescue their prey's minions in the late game.  Wily players do this in an attempt to "feed their predator to their prey" then win the end game duel, but it's a fairly unusual play.  It requires a specific VP distributions to even consider, tends to create a war of attrition and works best when the combat decks resources are in short supply.


Either way, our combat deck is now in a position where cross-table rescues are the exception, rather than the rule.  This is clearly an improvement - our egg shape is starting to get more circular and our tactical tool is becoming increasingly well-suited as a path to victory.

The changes implied in the 3 player game is a topic for a follow-up post, both in managing the players or positions we see in that sub-game and how the end game is played.  

Combat and Eggs, the Breakfast of Champions.

Case Study: Enkidu SMASH!

The other day, I was testing a dedicated rush deck. It's a recycled "proof of concept" deck using a heavy pre-range card module, built to reinforce Enkidu against his innate weaknesses.  I'm very comfortable with the current combat module.  I was testing new sidekicks intended to improved bleed-based ousting power.

The mid-game hit, still with 5 players (maybe turn 5-6).  That's way too early for a combat deck to make big moves, but I really wanted to test those new components. So I fired part of my endgame-level combat package, despite knowing it was an overall strategic mistake.

Enkidu rampaged, my predator's and prey's ready regions emptied.  I was 3 turns from ousting my prey assuming I used all my actions, every turn, solely for bleed.....much longer if I had to take any non-bleed actions.  It's seemingly an eternity at this stage of the game.

By the time my next turn rolled around, all 5 minions I had sent to torpor were back in the ready region.  My grandprey rescued minions for both players.  My grandpredator rescued my prey's vampires.  In my opinion, most of these rescues were strategic mistakes almost as large as mine, but the message here is clear.

Only combat decks play a game permitting card-less interference from all four other seats.
Even relentlessly left-looking combat decks suffer from this weakness.

The Symmetry of Egg Shaped Objects.

Presumably, the mechanics of rush combat are balanced:

A rush deck can enter combat another vampire anywhere on the table.
So........a vampire should be able to rescue another vampire anywhere on the table.  

Symmetry exists inside that mechanic - on tactical level, when we are talking about short-term objectives, the individual assets in combat and rescuing.  Fair enough.

An imbalance occurs an a different axis - in comparing ousting methods, in a strategic view the game as a whole, in reaching the 3-player endgame, in winning it.  It's difficult to describe this imbalance without a ton of extra writing, but I'll try to summarize the thinking without all the proof.

FACT: Two VPs are needed to win any game, 

so "getting a game win" implies having played in the 3-player endgame.

MAXIM: When pure combat survives to the 3 player endgame, 
it usually has no VP.

Pure combat decks seldom oust their first prey quickly.  Some fraction of its available actions are dedicated to survival through back-rushing.  Scattered 1-bleed actions are almost worthless in the early going.  If the deck is tooling up bleed retainers/equipment, it won't even generate 1-bleeds.  All that conspires to making the first oust a time-consuming process.

Here's the ugly truth of reaching a 3 player game with no VP.

• In a 0-2-0 endgame, a sweep of the remaining table is needed to achieve a 3-2 game win.
• In a 0-1-1 endgame, getting the minimum 2 VP for a win is a de facto sweep of the remaining table, we get the third VP as last man standing for a 3-1-1 win.

It's important to note that it doesn't matter how the split of those first 2 VP occurs, assuming we don't get one.  Any scenario leaves us needing to clear the table in the 3 player endgame.  Of course, that doesn't take finals seeding into account, but lets get to the finals as the first order of business, OK?  

FACT: Any deck reaching the 3-player stage without a VP 
needs to achieve a sweep of that mini-game to garner a game win. 


FACT: Any deck reaching the 3 player stage without a VP 

cannot win a game reaching the time limit (because it does not sweep the endgame).


MAXIM: Pure combat decks will therefore usually need to sweep the 3 player end game.

Holy High Hurdle, Batman!  

Robin laid an egg?

We have to survive into the 3 player game QUICKLY, then sweep before time expires without our predator self-ousting while we peck at our prey.  Very few deck designs suffer from this weakness.  

All this points to combat being tactically balanced (rush/rescue), but strategically inferior.

Combat is symmetrical on one axis, but not the other - like an egg.  We'll definitely be looking at the ramifications of this in later posts.

Pool Management Part 4: Indirect Pool Generation

This blog entry focuses on the last of the "major" pool generation techniques.  Where the direct tools focus on survival, the indirect tools primarily focus on building the ready region.  Here, we hit a real power play among the tools.

INDIRECT POOL GENERATION (IPG)

Introduction

Definition: The movement of counters from the blood bank to an uncontrolled minion's blood.
Crypt-based Examples:  Malgorzata, Mary Anne Blair, Travis "Travis72" Miller
Library-based Examples: Arcane Library, Govern the Unaligned, Enchant Kindred, Fourth Tradition, Belonging Grants Protection
Limitations:  IPG usually affects younger minions in the uncontrolled region, so the oldest available vampire must be influenced first (and sometimes is subject to combat risk).  If a player needs pool instead of speed and growth in the ready region, they are limited by their available influence-phase transfers, seldom yielding more than 3 pool per turn.

Scaling

We'll continue to use dimensions of scale that are consistent with earlier use.

• Horizontal:  it depends on the number of minions meeting the relevant criteria, usually granting 1 blood per uncontrolled minion (e.g., Honor the Elders, Unwholesome Bond, Little Mountain Cemetary).
• Vertical: as before, return is based on some other attribute related to a single minion (e.g., Brutal Influence).  
• Fixed: the output is independent of any scaling parameter and consistent for each application (e.g.,  Govern the Unaligned, Scouting Mission, Enchant Kindred, Fourth Tradition, Belonging Grants Protection).

IPG vs Hybrid Functions

I'll freely admit it.  I "copped out" and modified my presentation of this content for the reader's sake.   IPG cards which cost blood were going to be introduced as a "hybrid techniques" and I still think about them that way.  

By rule and text, they move X blood from the blood bank and cost Y blood.  But conceptually, the effect is indirect pool generation (creating X-Y blood) and indirect blood conversion (moving the Y blood paid). We do this unconsciously in playing cards like Govern, taking the 1 blood cost, holding it in hand, grabbing 2 more from the bank and dropping them on the uncontrolled minion.  

As I wrote this blog, it became apparent that covering card functions from Enchant Kindred (create 2, no cost) without discussing Govern (create 3, pay 1) would likely lead to immediate confusion and a chorus of comments.  I just didn't want to deal with it.   And lumping the cards together does ensure proper rules adherence for things like the Tomb of Ramses.

Integrating Direct Blood Conversion and Indirect Pool Generation

This combination is the holy grail for tournament play using large capacity minions, 

though in reality the ousting power is mostly derived from IPG.

Minion-based IPG amounts to additional free influence at the cost of an action.  That opportunity cost is offset by the creation of more action in the future (another minion), who is put into play at a without influencing its entire capacity.  The overall effect (entire game time frame) is a net increase in actions at a reduced pool cost.

Earlier, in the DPG discussion, we covered how the bloat actions are actually counterproductive.  Each one taken requires the remaining offensive actions be larger, to make up for the action lost performing the DPG.  This is not the case for IPG actions, since the entire objective is to quickly introduce another minion to replace the lost action without facing the bottleneck of 4 transfers in the influence phase.

This is the heart and sole of why IPG is widely superior to DPG.

The action implies no lost offensive opportunity.

During this activity, DBC grants survivability and minimizes pool investment risk.  When used on partially financed minions (financed with IPG actions), it can represent true pool gain. The biggest difficulty in this integration is accurately forecasting the future blood requirements when using vertically scaling DPG (see part 1 of the series.)

Design Considerations

If a crypt can broadly leverage a permanent Master that 

puts counters from the blood bank on uncontrolled minions

that card should be included in the library.

There aren't a lot of these cards, only about a half dozen.  All of them I'm suggesting to use are clan or sect-based (not Powerbase: Montreal) and I suggest including a only single copies.  Costing 2-3 pool, drawing them within in first 4-5 turns both create acceleration and represents a modest pool creation asset for the late game.  Drawn later, they are often discards.  But the two-part upside is too good to pass up.

If a crypt has broad access to an undirected IPG action with attached bleed function, 
excluding that card from the library is unwise.

I really believe it.  We're really only talking about 7 cards across 2 disciplines here - but they're the big payload disciplines: Dominate and Presence.  


I might suggest that opening statement could read "if a crypt's star minion has acccess to...."  Even dedicated [PRE]-based vote decks can benefit from including Enchant Kindred either leading or follow-up for Majesty S:CE.   By now, everyone knew Govern the Unaligned was good, right? 




In my opinion, the undirected trait is an important aspect of the card type's robustness.  Comparing undirected IPG with directed actions having an IPG kicker (e.g., Public Trust), the independent action

• creates more blood per action,
• starts at increased (+1) stealth,
• is less likely to encounter a block (people block actions more frequently when the actions result in them immediately losing pool)

This class of actions is made even more powerful when stacking multiple IPG actions within the same turn, either in series (one multi-acting minion Governing down, untapping and Scouting down) or more commonly in parallel (2 minions both Governing down).  

These actions beget more actions as more freely financed minions move to the controlled region - creating an increasing advantage in speed and efficiency (capacity per pool) over decks that rely only on transfers for influence.

Contrarian View:

There are specific deck designs which benefit from leveraging directed IPG over undirected IPG, though the components are usually layered for robustness.

I played against Undue Influence decks before the development of Anarch Convert.  It's strange\that this design hasn't been explored more, since the Convert significantly reduces the overhead associated with the entire Anarch mechanic.

This design leverages +1 stealth directed actions for early IPG with offense, but might also layer undirected [PRE] Enchant Kindred for use after blocks.  The entire package can be make free of blood cost with Change of Target, though I would include several copies of Majesty for rush defense and to tap persistent intercept blockers for repetitive Undue Influence.


Now, back to the general concept of IPG

IPG actions with non-bleed ancillary functions 

are still so good that they fit in most decks 

(though in smaller numbers than the bleed + IPG functions.)  

I was openly critical of DPG actions in the last section, especially fixed scale DPG.  IPG is simply that much better.  I'll reiterate:

• Fixed-scaling DPG actions usually return 2 pool.  
• Even the worst undirected IPG effectively yields 2 pool (in blood on uncontrolled minions) AND 2 transfers.  

That's half a turn's transfers per action better - in effect circumventing an asset generation constraint..  And there's still some type of potentially useful function for the late game, despite not being efficiently repeatable.

Belonging Grants Protection has an "untap other" parallel function - rarely useful unless a deck is actually designed to leverage it, but it remains an option,.  The parallel text for Inspire (an IPG action for Imbued) is grossly underused, either facilitating conviction-based bleed or to enabling return from the incapacitated region.

These options are just more powerful and flexible than most DPG options..

Even those IPG actions with no other functions 
(e.g., Reunion Kamut, the Call) 

are usually worth including, but they require care in handling.

The worst part is that they can be dead cards in the end game.  With no uncontrolled miinions, they're literally unplayable.  Even with an uncontrolled minion, potential pool gain is limited.  Drawing a mid-lunge copy of the Call is disheartening at best and game-ending at worst.

This leads to another inevitable conclusion:

The more I see parallel functions that I don't want to play after turn 7, 

the more I need to devise immediate discard options for my IPG.

I was careful to use a couple of phrases in that sentence.  I used "discard options" instead of "card flow."  They're often used in the same way (including my me), but I wanted to be very specific in getting the dead card out of hand.  For instance, I might imply simply play cards "around" the dead card in my hand,and still have "good flow" of what is effectively a 6 card hand.  Good for the short term.

But inevitably, longer time frames and uneven distribution in the library will accumulate the dead IPG cards and lead to stagnant play.  If the parallel function isn't bleed, that card will usually need to get out my hand to ensure late game robustness, and often in numbers greater than the 1 per turn allowed by discard actions.

The other part of that conclusion with which I was careful was including the word "immediate."  If I draw that IPG card replacing a played Master, it can interrupt an entire turn, from start to finish.  It needs to be replaced as soon as possible, not at the end of the turn.

I don't want to drift too far into other topics (specifically card flow), but having only 1 discard phase action is a clear constraint and it's placement at the end of a turn interferes with applying offensive pressure during my turn.

The real hidden risk is the almost unavoidable temptation to flow cards by playing IPG in the late game, as "pool gain" and to "cycle the card."  But in this end-game situation, its even worse than DPG.

• It's limited in horizontal scale (by the number of transfers) - I can play only 1 "profitably."
• It incurs the same DPG deficit - all my remaining actions need to generate more offense (or be more numerous) to counteract the lost action.
• The minion whose action I sacrifice is likely a large minion, the one I should be counting on to generate the most offense.  

The real irony here is that ousting my prey is worth as much pool as 2 of these extraneous actions and 3 turns of transfers to recoup to pool.  If I expect I can survive one more turn, it's often better to create offense (despite forcing my prey into defensive postures).

It's tough for me to put a survival expectation into concrete terms and it's probably a deep enough subject for a whole blog entry.  It's apparent the different players have different baseline risk-acceptance criteria.  I will tell you my risk-reward ratio is more tolerant of failure than many peoples'.  It depends on the time remaining, my knowledge of the players, how the game has progressed, if I already have victory points and even likelihood of reaching the finals based on results in this game.  But in the end, I don't play for mere survival.

Note: we'll discuss the intrinsic strategic conflict of a global play to win rule with a finals-based tournament structure at a later date.  The existing rules system is flawed because it sometimes forces players into behavior that loses them seats at the finals.

Predator/Prey Viewpoint

Here's the rub......people don't want to block actions like Govern down in the early going.  IPG seems to fire off left and right, all at the default 1 stealth.  I'll tell you what, there are few things more worth blocking in the early going, if you can stop it.

Blocking an IPG action in the first few turns

is more than making just that single block.

We're covered, over and over, that IPG is intended to generate a full ready region.  Blocking IPG stops the current action and it prevents some fraction of future actions from uncontrolled minions.

In effect, you are constraining that players influence over new minions.   In the case of Govern, you're pushing a player from the 7 influences he wanted to get, back down to the 4 given him by the rules.  That's right - almost half his planned influence for the turn, crushed.  It's a huge amount of control for a single block.  Imminently worth doing in the early going, every time you can.

If my predator is getting his IPG and I'm not (or its not in my deck), I very definitely feel exposed until I get whatever mojo I have flowing.  I'm always hurrying to find other ways to keep up with my predator's development (or crush his), quickly.

If there's no IPG in my deck, I expect I'll be behind and that makes me include more Wake effects to get a 1-to-many relationship for my blockers (if any).  It's uncomfortable and risky to be down 2:1 when turn 6 hits, so I consciously try to avoid that situation in most decks.

Closing

IPG is the king of speed and perhaps the most versatile tool I can find, at least as it applies in the early game

It's not strictly necessary in a competitive deck, but if you aren't running some kind of IPG, you absolutely need to have a very solid risk mitigation plan (usually redirecting bleeds frequently) because your predator and prey are very likely building faster than you are - and often with bleed disciplines.

Did Mugatu Invent the Ashur Tablet?

Earlier today, I spent some time responding to a statement on the Elder Kindred Network forum.

Izaak wrote:

I have never actually seen a proper argument why they [Ashur Tablets] are broken.

I felt obliged to offer an opinion on the subject, since it's one close to my heart.

On second thought, this topic may be closer to my ass than my heart 

because I think wholesale library recursion is shit as a game mechanic.

At any rate, here is the meat of the post, reformatted in what I hope is a more readable format.

There are 2 related aspects of library recursion that suggest brokenness.

First, V:tES is a card game. Intimately tied to that definition are common threads

• the random draw of objects from a predefined set and
•  the imperfect knowledge that results from that action.

Second, V:tES is structured for each player using 3 basic resources for play.

• pool as the global resource,
• crypt-based minions to act in one's playspace and
• library cards to connect resources and manipulate the playspace.

It's time to look at how Ashur Tablets can violate both of those fundamental design properties.

Ashur Tablets accesses a fourth resource, the Ash Heap. This resource is not available to every player by default. It seems reasonable to conclude that any player who gain additional (valuable) resources might have a strategic advantage.

This new resource either develops naturally or can be profitably grown with Liquidation. Beyond the cards used to access this resource, there is no opportunity cost in using it. Arguably, even that cost is offset by the 3 pool gain realized triggering a set of Ashur Tablets.

So far, we've got to free access to a resource not every player has. 

But since we haven't proven that resource is valuable, it is best to continue.

Some might suggest the Ash Heap is not an independent resource, but is completely redundant with the library. True in definition, not in practice.

If Ashur Tablets read "shuffle your Ash Heap. Put 12 random cards from your Ash Heap into your Library, and one into your hand" then it would be truly redundant and I wouldn't be writing this.

Selecting 13 tactically appropriate cards to return is a different matter. It significantly reconstructs a deck at point of use. We're using perfect knowledge of cards in the Ash Heap and reliable information about other player's minions and Ash Heap to rebuild a deck in-game.

Perfect knowledge (and solid inferences) in a game of imperfect knowledge.... 

that seems like a strategic advantage in the hands of any capable player.

Large-scale recursion impacts card drawing probability. As fewer cards reside in the library, the probability of drawing desired cards (the situationally useful ones recurred) grows. Now we have further optimized the deck to any task immediately at hand.

This messes with the random nature of drawing from a predefined set. 

It's not really predefined anymore. 

We're stacking the odds in our favor as the library empties.

Even when a deck is perfectly designed for the task at hand, permutations in draws may affect its ability to perform, either immediately or some point in the future. We call it "clumping."

Recursion can smooth variability in past card draws. Hit too many of card "X" in the first 1/4 of the deck......recur as needed to re-balance the set of available objects again.

The minimizes the effect of unfavorable permutations drawn early in a game.

It creates a new set of a more favorable options for subsequent draws. 

This seems like a double whammy on the whole randomness aspect of the game.

The way I see it, we just ripped the fundamental fabric the game. Two for two now.  In short, hand-selected recursion undermines the reliance on one's library as one of the three primary resources and can smooth variability in draws. In extreme cases, it can transfer the entire focus of card flow into "working the Ash Heap."

As an analogy, imagine playing poker and being able to draw your cards from a face-up muck. Immediately, you transform the probability of "hitting your draw" into a simple function of your ability to reach into the muck for what you need.

As the ease of recursion increases, the mechanic becomes increasingly broken. 

Nothing is easier than Imbued recurring Conviction, which we talked about long ago. Second on the list is Ashur Tablets.  They only consume Master Phase Actions, with no clan or discipline requirement.  It's pretty accessible, though clearly leveraged with multiple MPA.

Derek Zoolander in Jacobim Mugatu's "Derelicte" fashion line
Zoolander, Parmount Films,  2001

As long as this card is on the tournament scene, we'll see players "pulling a Mugatu" by recycling trash, giving it a fancy name like "Girls Wear Derelicte" and trying to profit from the stupidity of others.

Tell them to "Relax" then string them players up by their skinny little  piano key neckties.

If you'll excuse me, I may actually have to go build "Girls Wear Derelicte" now.........

Extending Poker's Fundamental Theorem

Some of you know me personally. Some have played poker with me. For those who found the experience unprofitable, I thank you for your modest contributions to my sizable drinking budget.

My passing familiarity with the theories of poker allows me to extrapolate its concepts into our game.  I'm at it again.

I was writing a tongue-in-cheek blog to get away from the weighty topic of pool management for a day or two.  It was about how I never want to be the "David Sklansky of V:tES."  In short, he's a well-known author of poker books. Despite being well-regarded as a theoretician, he performs poorly on the tournament scene. I don't ever wanna be that guy in our world.

In the course of rambling on about that, I revisited the thing that established Sklansky's reputation.  It's called the Fundamental Theorem of Poker.  Summarized for brevity, it states:

When you play differently than you would have played having seen their cards, 

you lose and others profit. 

My having to summarize this concept speaks volumes, his writings are tedious to read.  Did I mention that I don't ever wanna be that guy in our world?  But I'll give him this, that concept sparked a thought relevant to V:tES.

If playing with imperfect knowledge is sub-optimal,

why don't I play with perfect knowledge more often?

In poker, they call it cheating.  Then they bludgeon you about the head and shoulders.  But it's legal in V:tES - and easy enough to do.

There are 19 crypt cards and 28 library cards that allow us to look at part or all of another player's hand.   Some of them are REALLY bad.  See the example on right.  I love the art so much that I had to include it.  Too bad it's attached to a virtually useless card.

But many cards with "peeking" function are very playable.  They can be devastating at the right time.  I vividly remember the crowd gasping when an [aus] Aura Reading exposed Trey Morita's hand during a NAC Finals.  It was packed full of War Ghouls that immediately became destined for table-wide block attempts.  Trey's predator when on to win the championship.

One of the decks I have slated for Origins has two different mechanisms to look at players' hands, because I already know how powerful those effect can be in planning a turn.

Pushing that thinking even further, one might ask....

If knowing what is in a player's hand is powerful, 

how much more powerful is actually controlling his hand?

Many believe that inferior Revelations is "superior to the superior" largely because it removes a card from hand. I certainly play the inferior level more, even to the point of including it only for the inferior text.

There has been a recent upswing of tournament wins for True Brujah using Vaticination.  It's reliable (3 stealth), predictive for upcoming events, denies the least favorable card available for play from all Methuselah and resides neatly within a multi-action package easily accessible to the clan.

All this points to controlling parts of your predator's or prey's hand being good.  I'll go father to suggest it is theoretically better than than any other action which does not directly lead to your prey's oust that turn.  Properly targeted, its an action you don't have to block, a block you don't have to face, a Master you don't need to counteract and/or a partridge in a pear tree.

I've often said Direct Intervention is broken, in part because it is a golden bullet.  It fixes so many things. How about this?  Broad spectrum "peek and deny" is potentially worse because it:

• works against any card, simulating the effects of both Sudden Reversal and Direct Intervention in a single effect.
• prospectively provides the same cancellation effect for actions taken inside your own turn, which you can't do with  Direct Intervention
• provides bonus knowledge of 6 other cards in a players hand (assuming you didn't have it BEFORE initiating the discard action)

Ummm....wow?  I exploit this effect lightly in a few decks.  Why haven't I pushed the effect to the limit of absurdity, just to see how broken it really is?  There seem to be so many possibilities that my head swims with them.  As always, the working pieces have to be integrated with nominal payload to oust players, but it seems feasible.  That payload can even be lower than normal, if the deck strips a few pool management cards.

You'll see a deck based on this blog from me at the Week of Nightmares.  Maybe a causal deck, I don't know if I'll get it tested to tournament-readiness in 2 weeks.  But it'll be in the box.

Thank you, Fundamental Theorem.  And thank you David Sklansky (now go win a friggin poker tournament, fer Cripe's Sake).

Pool Management, Part 3: Direct Pool Generation

Parts 1 and 2 of this series hammered home a lot of information around re-using blood from minions in play. Much of that exercise can't be considered "pool gain" until the amount of blood you receive the pool you invested in that minion.

Today, in Part 3, we add a new layer of pool management to the puzzle - Direct Pool Generation.  Welcome to a pool management techniques that really is innate pool gain (or for the crusty old Methesulah, "bloat.")

DIRECT POOL GENERATION (DPG)

Introduction

Definition: The movement of counters from the blood bank directly to one's pool.
Crypt-based Examples: Armin Brenner, Bartholemew, the Unnamed
Library-based Examples: Consanguineous Boon, Art Scam, Kindred Spirits, Voter Captivation, Ascendance, Failsafe
Limitations:  Most direct generation of pool is contingent on a successful minion action or a satisfying a specific condition (e.g., having a victory point, having the Edge, discarding or burning cards).

Note: I wanted to use "creation" instead of "generation" - it sounds less pretentious, but the abbreviations DBC and DPC looked so much alike that, even as the author, I was getting confused.  DPG is still similar at a glance, but visually differentiated itself a bit more.

Scaling

Like many of the other pool management effects, the way DPG works can be described with a few familiar terms.

• Horizontal:  used with the same connotations we had earlier - it depends on the number of minions meeting the relevant criteria (e.g., Consanguineous Boon, Political Stranglehold).
• Vertical: as before, return is based on some other attribute related to a single minion (e.g., Ancient Influence).  
• Fixed: their output is independent of any scaling parameter and consistent for each application (e.g., Momentum's Edge, Ascendance, Ashur Tablets, Art Scam).

Aha..... see, we found a way to sneak in that term "fixed" in a less ambiguous way than when apply it to Direct Pool Conversion :)   

Integrating Direct Blood Conversion and Direct Pool Generation

There's no hard and fast design rule for the use of these tools together.  But there are two general trends that seem to apply.

Most Direct Pool Generation is not suited for use in every deck built.

That's sounds like a pretty scathing indictment of the mechanic as a whole.  But it's one that I make having rewritten this post far too many times, because every broad advocacy position rung untrue.  Here's the reasoning:

• There are only 79 library cards that include the words "gain" and "pool."  
• Only 19 of those cards use are not contingent on a successful action or advantageous condition - these are the ones that represent true independent bloat actions.  
• Of that subset, several have strict requirements for use (e.g., you must have fewer than 3 pool).  By the time you can trigger that kind of effect, you have probably already lost.

There are clearly some powerful options in the general category of DPG.  Kindred Spirits and its ilk.  Consanguineous Boon. Ancient Influence. Voter Captivation. Combined Liquidation and Ashur Tablets.  They all fit the defination of DPG pool and are clearly 1st tier cards.  But most require specific deck designs to be effective.

Contrast those with Blood Doll.  Put that thing in any deck and you'll probably find a reasonable use for it.

Second,

The more a deck uses vertical and/or fixed-scale pool creation, 
the more it relies on direct blood conversion.


The more it leverages horizontal scale, 
the less it tends to converts blood back to pool.

The reasons for this are pretty clear.

• Fixed scale (and most vertical tools) return modest amounts of pool, but still consume MPAs or minion actions.  Since there is no economy of scale (on a per card basis), some recouping of initial pool investments goes a long way towards improving survival.  This is often further leveraged in vote decks by directly linking effects associated with DPG (Voter Captivation) with layered DBC (Minion Tapping the blood-gain kicker)

• Horizontal scaling is usually blood intensive (as "breeding" consumes blood) but is productive and card efficient in the late game.  Routinely planning to strip blood from crypt-based minions may be counterproductive design.  Horizontal DPG shows some early weakness as a result, but relies on recovering by completing one sizable DPG action to recover from early downward drift in pool.

As for how Conversion and Generation should be woven together, there are two broad approaches I often see.

• Redundant: to leverage well-developed play space and provide insurance against "hosers."   This approach retains all the other benefits and drawbacks of the fundamental design.   EXAMPLE: layering Tribute to the Master and Consanguineous Boon (both horizontal tools) in the same deck, circumventing risk of catastrophic Delaying Tactics in the typical breed-boon design (though perhaps leading to a long series of Embrace hunts).  

• Complementary (contrarian approach): to shore up the innate weaknesses of using a single dimension of scale.  EXAMPLE: including a few Villeins/Minion Taps in a breed-boon deck to reinforce the fragile period before economy of scale developed.  Long-term development might be deferred in the process (depending on the depth of the DBC), but this approach offers mid game survival benefits.

Sure, there are plenty of winning examples that don't follow either of those integrated approaches.  Some of them are mine.  But it's my belief that even those winning designs could be inherently more robust if layered pool management were considered - and in certain metagame situations, this might be necessary.

Design Considerations

DPG has an attribute other than scaling dimension - the way it is triggered.

• Independent: the action itself gains pool, there is no other effect (e.g., Art Scam).
• Kicker: a successful result also returns pool (e.g., Kindred Spirits, Voter Captivation)

I don't always include independent generation in decks, but there's a pretty high likelihood I'll weave in at least a few kickers where I can.  Getting pool for an action I wanted to take anyway optimizes my action-benefit ratio, even if I don't get the maximum possible payload from that action.

The single overwhelming consideration for independent pool generation is 
"How little pure bloat ensures survival while gaining at least 2 victory points?"  

There is a fine line here and I intentionally used the word "little" instead of "much".

Consider:

• A player has only a limited number of MPA and minion actions in a game.
• Actions dedicated only to pool generation don't oust my prey, they only increase my longevity.   

Assuming a consistent ousting threshold, it follows that each pool generation action I take either

• increases the required payload each remaining actions or
• must generate a replacement action at the same baseline payload (presumably by financing another minion)

Think about that  for a second.  The real message here is tough to swallow (I can provide supporting math and examples if needed).

The ADVERSE effect of  direct pool generation actions is cumulative.  

Each one makes ousting your prey incrementally more difficult. 

  

There are plenty of exceptions.  If a minion creates offense, untaps, then creates pool; that second action does not change my per-action payload requirements (since that minion got its one offensive action in for that turn).  I'm not sacrificing anything except library space with my DPG. 

But the message is sound.  Taking the minimum number of survival actions between ousts must be the theorically optimal approach, with zero dedicated pool gain actions being the best possible situation.  This "no wasted action" effect is a huge part of why straight-up [DEM] bleed with pool kickers is so good (the other being in-clan availability of bleed redirection).

In the interest of brevity, I skipped the archetype-specific analysis of DPG.  I can post it later if people really want to see it, I have it on file.  The conclusion is that there are four deck properties that really either leverage or require direct pool creation:

1. The actions can weave pool gain into other profitable effects (free pool kicker)
2. The deck aas no other recourse against incoming pool damage, especially if it is relatively slow to oust  (required bloat as a key function).  In these cases, the offensive actions must be disproportionately numerous or large to make up for the action count lost bloating.
3. Significant non-combat multi-action is employed, preferably using permanent effects (actions to spare)
4. The DPG action is so efficient that it simply demands inclusion (Ancient Influence in a Hardestadt rush deck).

Benefits and Drawbacks of Direct Pool Generation

Benefit....ummmm.....pool?  Yeah, that's it.  Lots of pool is the king of survival attributes, the only one that is universally applicable

• Bleed?  Fine....soak it.
• Votes?  Fine.....soak it.
• Combat?  Fine....buy more minions.

Still more downside:  Other than the likely effects that increase payload, there's a paradoxical, hidden downside.

In order for "kicker" direct pool gain to function, 
the deck has to already be working (at least to some minimal extent).

All the "kicker" pull gain effects are contingent of success - that's why they are "kickers."  Kindred Spirits and Social Charm have to hit a target.  Voter Captivation needs a referendum passing after polling.  Con Boon needs accumulated minions and votes in place to be reliable.  Momentum's Edge requires a victory point, the pinnacle of "look, my deck is cruising!"

Yup, when each of these pool creation situations works, its is because the deck is at least tactically (action-by-action), if not strategically (ousting you prey) working.  I should already be at least holding my own in the game or my design was flawed from the start (likely to due low theoretical payload).

That implies the pool creation simply ensures that my engine is running at higher efficiency, with the potential to generate additional offense through horizontal growth.  If the payload feels adequate, the extra counters residing in my pool increase my margin of error and probability of victory.

All that is great.  But none of these help much when the engine is completely stalled and I want to survive.  Maybe breeding got interrupted, or I lost vote control to a table coalition.  Maybe I've come up against a dedicated wall deck stuffing enough actions that predation is taking it toll.  In all these cases, "kicker" pool creation is probably between nil and squat.  I'm likely nearing depletion of DPC reserves (blood on minions).

This is where I would love to say including more independant DPG would help.  But the more I tried to find convincing arguments to include contingency direct pool generation, I always found it competing with my primary objective, being prey-focused.

I'm a pretty offensive player, for better or worse.  If my prey gets a game win, I'm in a sour mood for a while.  I also build slim decks, seldom over the mid-70s in thickness.  So for my deckbuilding style, including extraneous pool gain for worst case contingencies is a bitter pill to swallow.

This doesn't mean I fold my cards in the face of adversity.  I just try to mitigate risk in the game before it becomes critical.  A lot of this is reflective of play style, experience and metagame.  And......it sometimes fails.....miserably.

There are others who will advocate defense/bloat until you can't be killed.  Fine....what is your prey doing while all your actions are independent pool gain?  He should be running away with the table, accumulating 2-3 VP before he rounds the corner and fails to oust you.  Survival alone is a hollow victory, at best.

Predatory Viewpoint

As a predator of decks using extensive DPG, one needs to assess the way the deck scales.  

For horizontally designed DPG, interrupting development of the controlled region is critical - the deck needs to be stopped before it creates insane economy of scale.  Attack early and often, while the deck is vulnerable.  Strip pool, make them defensive, get them to burn DPG resources early and small.  Strip blood from breeders.  The key here is to remember that you can't allow horizontal decks to establish the kind of play space that leads to huge upswings in pool in the late game.

It might not be possible to stop these decks' DBC (if any exists) - but the moment you see a player drain the blood off a minion that is supposed to create Embraces, you know you're making headway (and that he has considered the mid-game weaknesses of his deck archetype - so be careful).

For vertically-scaled DPC, try to attack linchpins from the library at least as much as you attack the pool or minions.  Can actions that enable card flow be blocked?  Or is there better hope of stealth-locking them>  Can a referendum be subverted, making Voter Cap useless and stuck in-hand?  Can the player's pool simply be bled through over 2 turns?   Mostly, attacking vertical scale is a longer term proposition, and you try to create additional surge offense in those moments when the size of complexity of the library becomes a liability.

In the rare cases that you find good fixed-scale DPG-based on Masters (Liquidation-Ashur Tablets), it's a pretty tough nut to crack.  The combination of Master-based DPG and on the fly library restructuring can be powerful in the hands of a skilled player.  Ultimately, the best plan is to attack the sources of multiple MPA (with combat, Banishment, etc).  You'll still be dealing with DBC the deck carries, but deep blood conversion only makes incapacitating those minions easier.  Over time, the deck will hand jam without the extra MPA and you create opportunity.

Closing

Lots of information for one post, but some of it is applicable to other aspects of play, so I don't begrudge the time spent.  

The next post will address one of the real power elements of the game - Indirect Pool Generation.