"Inconceivable"
I have been thinking a lot about "pool gain" lately. It seems that most of the time I hear someone talk about their deck's "pool gain", I channel an excerpt from one of my favorite films.
What most folks consider "pool gain," I divide into several different mechanical functions, which I'll cover in more depth over the next few days.
But here's the upshot:
The most-often seen methods used to “gain pool” don’t GAIN pool …..they RECUR blood to pool.
Recur implies "to occur again"" – to get back. You have to have invested, at least
temporarily, pool to recur it. At best, perfectly recurring blood yields a maximum of 30 pool.
Gain implies "create, or add." There is no link between pool invested and the ability to create pool,
nor is there a limit to the amount of pool that can be generated.
People complain
violently about Villein-Lilith’s Blessing (V-LB) as "excessive pool gain". It is not……instead it is perfect blood recursion (getting back everything that was spent) with a subsequent creation of a 3 blood maintenance infusion (not intended to be transformed into pool.)
I'm not saying that people solely rely on V-LB. I'm merely suggesting that V-LB is not intended to independently yield more than 30 pool.
There are points at which the line between that simple distinction I made becomes blurred. Extending the VB-L above example, a Villein-Giant's Blood-Villein-Lilith's Blessing sequence transforms a tactic primarily intended for blood recursion into genuine pool creation mechanic. Voter Captivation-Minion Tap does the same thing in a more repeatable fashion.
This is why "pool gain", "blood recursion" or "pool creation" all inadequately describe the functions associated with the way pool is managed.
Over the next few days, I'll describe the way I think about pool management using the following terminology.
- Direct Blood Recursion
- Indirect Blood Recursion
- Direct Pool Generation
- Indirect Pool Generation
- Pool Theft
- Hybrid Methodologies
I'll also talk about the difference between vertically and horizontally scaling approaches in many of those broad categories and the ramifications of volatility associated with the approaches.
The Predator's Haiku
Sixty counters gone
from predatory effects
living all the while
All of this section should be a separate blog post, but it aligns well with the topics above so you're getting hit with a Wall of Text.
The short verse above is based on the tactical payload implications of playing against decks with complete blood recursion.
I believe that more perfect blood recursion options lead to a higher average ousting hurdle than
was faced before tech like V-LB was introduced. Instead of some portion of player’s
invested pool being "tied up" on minions, it is more often fully returned to the players resource pool.
Still, it’s a fixed target that can be considered. Assuming perfect recursion, no other pool management and an expenditure of 4 pool that won't be returned, one has to successfully address 26 counters to oust it's prey. Those counters might be removed through combat with newly influenced minions before blood is recurred, or directly from their pool by bleeding or political actions.
That number passes a gut-feel for the minimum target to address only vertically-scaling blood recursion like V-LB. It's entirely possible that Lilith's Blessing doesn't come into play before the initial minion (likely lowering the target payload) or that additional pool/blood creation occurs (increasing the target).
If a target payload of 26 seems like a reasonable place to start, the inevitable conclusion is that people simply waiting for their prey to drop into the old-school "10-pool range" before lunging will be sorely disappointed.
V-LB might have highly volatile pool levels as minions are influenced into play, but there's no reason to believe that they need drop below 15 at any point in the process.
Now, make a set of observations around the single-use case with Giant's Blood to get into a worst-case analysis taking only V-LB into account.
- The V-LB player can't Bless that minion again.
- A second Villein on the previously Villeined minion costs one pool.
Now, a couple of assumptions are merited.
- If the VLB player uses Giant's Blood, it is likely being played no later than mid game, before someone else plays it. It follows that they are unlikely to fully empty the minion at this game stage, they are more likely to exclude at least 2 blood and continue generating offensive pressure.
- Because the deck is using primarily Villeins, a 10 capacity minion is the target.
The resulting pool CREATION in this situation is [10 blood on the minion - 1 pool for duplicate Villiens - 2 blood remaining on the minion] = 7 pool created.
Our offensive hurdle increases from 26 to 33 for that player alone. Any subsequent player who uses perfect recursion and didn't face predation remains a 26 pool target. If I want to garner 2 victory points, my baseline payload against double V-LB hovers around removing 60 counters from the table, surviving my predator in the process.
Of course this is a highly theoretical target - perhaps even ludicrous. Its very unlikely that one would face double V-LB without any other pool management or pool rewards from an oust (making the hurdle significantly higher), that both target players get all the cards they need on schedule (making the target lower), that one's eventual grand-predator would entirely escape predation (also making the hurdle lower).
But it still seems like a good place to start.
