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.

Comment Suppression Corrected :)

Just a short note here.  Blogspot changed a lot of their templating while I was gone.  A new buried comment suppression was one of those changes.  I've fixed it (again) and you should be able to comment on blog posts.

I even went back and retroactively fixed the last 3 posts, if there are any burning issues you want to address.

Thanks.
Darby

Pool Management. Part 2: Indirect Blood Conversion

Part 1 of this series introduced a lot of terminology, building a foundation on which we build for the next few posts.  Hopefully, the new entries will be more digestible as a result.

INDIRECT BLOOD CONVERSION (IBC)

Introduction

Definition: Moving one or more of a minion's blood onto an uncontrolled minion.  Only blood is moved, no additional counters are created in the process.

Crypt-based Examples: Saulot, Menele, Ayo Igoli
Library-based Examples: Grooming the Protege, Bay and Howl, Social Ladder
Limitations:  Most indirect pool conversion is limited in the amount of blood moved per use.

Scaling

The limitation above clearly indicates that this mechanic is of fixed size, usually intended to accelerate or create horizontal growth (more minions).

When considered as a method to actually manage pool, IBC return is limited by the number of available transfers a player possesses. As such, one expects to yield the 2 pool allowable from the rules-dictated 4 transfers. This aligns well with the card-text size of many effects.  It is possible to increase this available withdrawal from uncontrolled minions through the use of cards like Information Highway or to completely subvert the restriction and dump all the blood into pool with Kaymakli Nightmares.

Design Considerations

There are two general philosophies for using IBC, both of which focus horizontal growth.

1.  Gradual Growth with Fully Financed Sidekicks.

I believe that the crypt-based effects were originally designed with gradual growth in mind, sometimes seeing the IBC minion as a way of completely paying for new minions.

These vampires are large, are influenced over several turns, then emptied over several more.  Slow expansion of the controlled region over turns 4-9 turns is a logical result of looking at these vampires with the intention of fully recurring their blood though IBC. Pacing that horizontal growth is independent of emptying or refilling the IBC vampire (e.g., 2 can be moved even if it eventually empties the vampire, or if you're refilling the vampire in the draining process).

2.  Immediate Growth with Partially Financed Minions

Decks can also leverage mid to large capacity minions with IBC, but this approach opts for additional speed over the safer recursion of vertical DBC (a risk described in Part 1 of this series).  Decks which rely on IBC over DBC focus on one of the following:

• committing to overwhelming their prey in the mid game, using mid capacity minions and Grooming the Protege.  This deck thrives with the additional offensive output often required to outrace their predator and/or generates pool as part of the offensive action (e.g., Kindred Spirits stealth-bleed)

• protecting their pool very effectively, mostly with mid capacity (4-8) minions partially financed with Grooming the Protege to accelerate development.  This design prioritizes additional development of the controlled region over flexibility in pool management.  The defensive expectation that hard-influence transfers could be slowed to make up the survival difference if needed, while the acceleration both counteracts swarm predation and enables opportunity-based lunges (e.g., Stickmen derivatives).  

Benefits and Drawbacks of Crypt-Based IBC

The benefits of crypt-based IBC should be clear.  Since one's 12-card crypt is far easier to manage than one's 60-90 card library, the design should consistently establish its set-up conditions.  This is a real strength of the deck - dependable and persistent (though limited) recycling of blood into a pool-surrogate (blood on uncontrolled minions).

The most apparent drawback is that the IBC minion is clearly influenced first and is a key part of the deck's function.  It therefore comes into play with a large bulls-eye clearly painted on it.

Now things is where things get a little murkier.

The perception is that minion-based IBC alone can finance a well-developed controlled region,
then turn into a perpetual pool machine. 

Here is the surprise message.  Design conflicts make decks built on that precept so slow and impotent that they are largely untenable in tournament situations.

• Star vampires (IBC minions) are typically very large - at least 9 capacity, therefore requiring 3 turns to influence.  
• At face value, there is limited incentive for influence acceleration.  After the star vampire (IBC minion) is influenced, the deck shouldn't be consistently hard-influencing at the inital rate.  
• Since most of the IBC minions move only 2 blood, the end-game benefit of using permanent influence generators (e.g., Information Highway) is lost. There isn't a 3 blood on the uncontrolled minion to pull back as pool.
• The deck then tries to catch-up with its predator and prey, while limiting additional expenditures, using its internal IBC.  
• Without additional acceleration, but still desiring speed, the additional minions in the crypt are 6 capacity or less (IBC for 2 plus 4 transfers).  This suggests the use of high-return vertical DBC cards is less appropriate (again, covered in Part 1), extending the period of vulnerability.   
• Many IBC decks use a formulaic solution: very small minions as support for the star.  In the end, that creates a play space and deck using a "small minion mentality", only without all the speed advantages derived from simply hard-influencing weenies.
• True "pool gain" (getting beyond recurring the initial pool investment) doesn't occur until about turn 9.  When you think of it that way, its pretty tough to justify deferring true pool return for this long.
• If there is any combat  in the meta-game, the star minion must be resilient enough to protect the blood that is intended for uncontrolled minions, especially since that blood will be exposed for several turns.  
• It's is unlikely that cards included for this purpose will be well-leveraged adequately by weenie "sidekick" minions, creating another situation where the deck works against itself.

The upshot - most these decks provide the illusion of creating free minions, but its nearly impossible to realize that vision with meaningful minions in a usable time frame.

Different Perspective: The Prepaid Information Highway

Perhaps the most interesting use of crypt-based IBC is to completely rethink the intent.  If IBC can become 2nd/3rd turn, prepaid Information Highwway, (not mission-critical independent pool management function), then, it creates a variant on the "Immediate Growth" model proposed above.  Such a deck would be created with the following, counter-intuitive philosophy. 

• Consider the star minion more expendable than typical IBC decks; 
• Rely (paradoxically) on vertical DBC as the primary tool for pool recursion; 
• Play mid to large capacity sidekicks to leverage DBC and the library;
• Defend pool without resorting to combat, offsetting the modest early development speed;
• Include traditional influence acceleration to complement the IBC
• Include layered blood gain for the IBC minion and use its ability for 
• mid game acceleration (turns 3-6) 
• late game supplemental pool management (non-rush predation, or any emergency)
• a dump for any excess blood that is expected to be gained across any turn.

After I made this list, I looked to see if an example existed in the TWDA.  I found the ingenious Saulot and Nergal Dating deck inspired by Marco Lindroos, designed by Isak Esbjörnsson Bjärmark and played by Erik Torstensson.  It clearly conforms to these guidelines.

Benefits and Drawbacks of Library-Based IBC

The situation here is much different. There is a single goal of library-based indirect recursion........to generate additional minions quickly.  That means one of three things will result,

• an action-to-block advantage  (likely used to bleed),
• a block-count that is comparable to both predator and preys action count (which was possible with reaction cards, even without the extra minion, begging the question of "why so fast").
• or a combination of both (he'll bleed for 3 as offense, not Freak Drive, but keep an untapped minion with superior Dominate for Deflection or superior Auspex for Telepathic Misdirection and/or blocking). 

As a predator, you have to decide if limiting growth in the uncontrolled region is critical (knocking counters off minions) or if you can simply take pool counters off the table and generate an oust.  Your own deck archetype will likely influence the decision, but it is important to remember that IBC recurs less pool than other options - so even modest bleeds will often be a better choice than a non-bleed carded action.  

Conclusion

We've now discussed how moving blood from a vampire to another in the uncontrolled region is actually a second form of pool management, both in limiting expenditures from influence and from creating a pool resource than can be slowly recurred.   We've also touched on it not being what it seems, some of the common development pitfalls of the mechanic and how to read the intentions of decks that use transient IBC to accelerate mid game growth.  

All things considered, I generally view the entire mechanism as being inferior to DBC in all but a subset of decks (speed bleed and bounce/bleed wall decks).  The early gains are tenuous and the inability to convert large blocks of blood into pool create dangerous situations that development speed might not offset.  When one is running a high-risk, high-reward deck, fully committing to it is usually the best course.  It's only in those decks that IBC shines.   

Pool Management, Part 1: Direct Blood Conversion

Here's the second in of a series of posts in which I tackle pool management mechanics, starting with an effect contained in a large proportion of deck designs.

DIRECT BLOOD CONVERSION

Introduction

Definition: Moving blood from one or more minions in play directly to a player's pool, with no intermediate steps or repositories.

Crypt-based Example: Ramona (merged)
Library-based Examples: Villein, Minion Tap, Vessel, Blood Doll, Tribute to the Master
Limitations:  Nearly all direct blood recursion relies on a Master Phase Action (MPA).

This technique is most people's instinctive choice for "pool gain." In reality, the first application of the mechanic is almost always a simple (and usually incomplete) recouping of an investment - not a gain in any sense of the word.

Note on Terminology

I've been struggling with terminology for the last couple of days.  If "recur" means to occur again, then the proper terminology would reference the resource into which objects are recycled.   "Pool recursion" would be moving blood into pool and "library recursion" would be moving cards from the ash heap to the library or hand.  Well and good - I originally called this mechanic "Direct Pool Recursion."

The catch is those situations in which "pool recursion" tools" return more than the original investment, creating a true gain.  We see this effect in typical "Cap and Tap" designs.  After the blood converted exceeds the vampire's capacity, the pool counters aren't "occuring again" - it's all new blood turning into pool that didn't exist - it's occurring for the first time.  So it's not really "recursion." 

With this in mind, I changed my terminology to "Direct Blood Conversion" - transforming blood into pool with no intermediate steps.  This namenclature seems to apply in more situations.  Since the terminology is used in a context of pool management, I'm comfortable with the word "pool" not appearing in the description of the mechanic.

Scaling

It's time to introduce another term......and this one is just as tricky to name properly the first one.

I think of a players controlled region growing in one of two ways.

• Vertically:  a few large minions.  If permanents are being played, they are distributed across only these few minions, so the play space grows upwards from the minion cards.

• Horizontally:  a lot of smaller minions.  These minions are oriented across the play space, stretching it side-to-side.  Each minion tends to have fewer attached cards, so the general effect is a left-right growth.

Conceptually, returns from DBC scale the same way.  They are inextricably linked to leveraging the minions in play space.  Conversion is therefore either vertical (one minion converting more than one blood when triggered, as with Villein) or horizontal (each contributing small sums, as with Blood Dool, usually with more than one minions contributing from multiple permanents in play).

Some might suggest either trickle/bolus (small/large), fixed/variable or transient/permanent as more appropriate functional classifications.  Certainly I could make a case for these being valid designations, especially the transient/permanent one (transient would also imply bolus, a nice side-effect).  But I think horizontal and vertical are less generally ambiguous and more functionally descriptive.  For example:

• Tribute the the Master is trickle/fixed from a minion's perspective, but is bolus/variable from a Methesulah's perspective.  Since we're talking about pool, I would opt for the Methesulah's viewpoint, but it still feels clunky.  Tribute clearly scales only horizontally (never more than 1 blood per minion, from each minion), so that terminology is unambiguous.

• Specific deck designs might stack horizontal tools on a single minion, mimicking vertical scaling (or creating a bolus from several trickles, if you prefer).  For example, it is fairly common to see a wall deck with 2 Vessels stacked on a minion targeted by The Rack.  This creates blood conversion which is permanent, variable and situationally either trickle or bolus - so we still can't avoid nomenclature which gets muddy.  Even in this case, I expect these DBC tools to spread horizontally in addition to stacking on a single minion, so the proposed terminology remains accurate more often than not.

Deck Design Ramifications

There are three design factors which play into selection of DBC tools used in a given deck.

1.  Minion Capacity

In practical use, we see

• more vertically-scaling DBC with large minions 
• more horizontally-scaling DBC with mid-cap and small minions. 

This seems an appropriate design philosophy - one that seems to use the available cards according to their functional strengths.

When a large expenditure remains invested in a minion, it is not sitting in that player's pool.  This is innately dangerous.  The situation becomes increasingly treacherous the longer the condition persists and as predatory threat grows.  Survival and/or development of one's controlled region usually mandate that a large portion of that blood be returned as pool quickly - vertical (variable-scale) tools are best-suited for this task.

Small minions deplete one's pool less.  Additional expenditures (influencing the 3rd-5th minions) can be deferred while still having at least a partially developed controlled region, unlike cases when large (capacity 8+ minions are used). So, in general, pool recursion can be more leisurely without incurring a ton of inherent risk.

It all seems straightforward enough at this stage.

The typical "cross-over" capacity seems to be around 6. Above that value, the urgency of reclaiming the pool investment increases and the value of moving large chunks of pool is greater, especially if early predation is encountered. Below that capacity of 6 or so, the return on investment can be offset by limiting expenditures, so horizontal tools become more viable. Below 3 or 4, horizontal tools are used almost exclusively (if employed at all).

2.  Minion Durability

This is evident for many players in meta-games with a lot of combat.

• blood from fragile minions should be recurred more quickly with vertical DRC.
• resilient minions, especially those who can protect one's pool as well, open additional options.  Their blood is better protected and there is a often strategic advantage to adjusting blood and pool totals over the course of a longer timeframe.  

This consideration can compound with the minion size discussed above.  If your minions are both large and squishy, recurring the initial investment is doubly important.  But Minion Tapping Lazverinus for 9 is typically not optimal because a sizable blood buffer is needed to support combat viability, and he should be very resilient.

Minion theft trumps all durability considerations.  If you're in a metagame with a lot of Spirit Marionette, Mind Rape and Temptation of Greater Power, immediate blood conversion becomes a survival priority.  

3.  Speed to Expected Oust (and Innate Pool Defense)

This is perhaps a less generic design philosophy, but one that I think is equally important to the capacity consideration.

• fast decks should scale their DBC vertically, regardless of minion size
• longer-term decks benefit more from persistent, horizontally scaling DBC.

Decks which create significant, immediate offense and which are intensely prey-focused (e.g., stealth bleed decks) benefit more from the more immediate returns of vertical scale - even if it is for only a portion of their invested cost (e.g., Villein for only 2-3 on a 5-6 capacity minion).  Here are some reasons why:

• If a speed deck is under immediate pool pressure from its predator, the immediate and variable return from vertical scaling has a survival benefit.    

• If a speed deck faces combat pressure, pool recursion through vertical DBC is usually preferable to seeing those same counters removed from play through combat.

• In the absence of virulent predation, faster pool return might finance one additional minion to generate offensive.  Indirect blood conversion tools (discussed in the next post, but like Grooming the Protege) further enhance development speed, though at a potential cost in flexibility for survival.

The converse rule of thumb: as a deck becomes more focused on blocking; redirecting bleeds; creating combat; surviving combat and generally anything that isn't simply relentlessly trying to oust its prey, it clearly relies less on racing its predator to victory.  It these cases, the requirements for immediate DBC are relaxed and the player might rely more on the utility of persistent (horizontal) DBC tools, even for large minions.  This is especially true for those decks which expect to conserve pool through defense (bleed redirection or blocking,)

Case Study: Reading a Deck from DRC Inferences

Experienced players get a feel for the contents of unknown decks based on its DRC cards.

SITUATION:  An unknown player brings up an 8 capacity Malkavian with [AUS][DEM][OBF].  He plays a Blood Doll during his next turn.  From only that single card, one or more of these inferences might apply:

• The player with the Malkavian is playing a long-term game.
• He is using bleed redirection to buffer his pool while he slowly pulls blood off.  Telepathic Misdirection is likely, in relatively high numbers.  
• Combat defense is likely, as he will need to protect that blood in the interim.  If you're rushing him, expect either Mental Maze or No Trace with some regularity.
• The deck will sacrifice offensive potential (Kindred Spirits and stealth modifiers) to include these defensive options.  Repeated blocking attempt may prove more fruitful than expected. 
• The player with the Malkavian will be influencing smaller minions later.  
• His average minion from here on might be 3-5 - you might be facing some degree of swarm for which horizontal DBC is appropriate.
• The player has not fully considered how his deck is best constructed, and it therefore less of a threat than top-notch players would be.
• It's stealth [DEM] stealth bleed and must be handled carefully, but this player (and his deck) may be easier to handle because of his inexperience or sub-optimal deck construction.

Pool Volatility and Drift

We can dive into those inferences a bit more here.  When a minion is influenced, pool usually drops to finance it.  The minion then undergoes DBC in some fashion and the players pool increases.  The size of this band around which pool fluctuates is it's recursive pool volatility.

The more a deck focuses on vertical DBC over horizontal DBC, the more volatility it expects.

Vertical tools tend to create situations where pool drops a noticeable amount (influencing a big minion), then suddenly spikes back up (recur from that one minion).  Over the course of the game, these spikes usually become less frequent (influencing fewer minions and focusing more on ousting) and smaller (recurring from incompletely full minions already in play).

This suggests that the moments of weakness from these games are in the later game, especially as a player feels the need to influence "just one more minion" to assist in an oust.  Depending on what other tools (discussed later) the deck is using to manage pool, predators might find it profitable to "stack a hand" for a lunge after some steady pressure.

Horizontal tools see pool spent differently (influence smaller minions), recover more slowly (trickling recursion at 1 pool per turn per minion), but the total return grows over time (either more numerous persistent tools, or a larger horizontal base) and are usually available without cards from hand.

This suggests a longer period of middle-game weakness as the horizontal growth occurs and the recursion struggles to finance the growth.  Predators might find it profitable to create more offense early in the game, to limit the horizontal growth in their prey's controlled region, limiting their pool return options and creating opportunities to oust.

The interesting part of this is that vertical DBC often yields a higher average pool total (less downward drift) than horizontal in the early and mid games, despite the greater volatility.  It seems counter-intuitive, but it is true, because vertical tools return a larger portion of the investment faster.  This is part of what makes early offense on Villein-heavy decks so difficult, there simply hasn't been time for downward pool drift to occur

All of this is independent of any increase/decrease of blood on minions from play.  Vertical tools really want to reload one large minion with blood.  When they do, pool totals can change quickly and they offset any downward drift in one move.  But then the general trend re-exerts itself.

The Hidden Risks and Benefits in DRC

I believe that irreversible decisions around Tap/Villein size often make the difference between winning games and barely missing victory points.  Being able to read a situation, recur enough blood to survive, maintain fully functional minions and accurately account for contingencies is the hallmark of well-played vertical DBC.

Early-game vertical DBC is clearly more difficult to manage in this sense.  So many things happen over subsequent turns that predicting blood requirements for the large game requires but skill and luck.  Usually, the best one can do is recur too much pool, since blood is usually easier to regenerate than pool.

Or, you could just get Lilith's Blessing in play, recur everything from each minion, get 3 blood and accept the consequences of decisions the cards make for you.........

The persistent, horizontal DBC tools (Blood Doll and Vessel) are innately more forgiving of decision-making gone wrong. The ability to "push a blood" instead of "pull X pool" late in the game gives players opportunities to address unforeseen circumstances.  This trait is why I recommend new players start with horizontal tools, until they have learned how to manage their pool and minions.

A less considered effect of horizontal DBC's permanence is the hidden capacity increase for small minions.  At need, pushing a pool ONTO the minion is almost like having an extra capacity which you can pay for late in the game - at least as far as paying for ephemeral (transient) cards in hard.  You get the benefits of playing more powerful cards late in the game and lower risk associated with blood hanging on a minion.  This can be give that little extra oomph to those middle capacity minions needing a little extra ousting power.

Conclusion

We've covered a lot so far - tools, scaling, volatility, inferences about deck designs, points of attack - all really based on only 5 (often-played) library cards.  At this point, I think we've beaten this topic to death and are ready to start considering the next topic in the list, Indirect Blood Conversion.