On how I hate Rego Motus

Reyda wrote: Not so sure... Dedicated THA combat is really really strong. Plus THA comes with nice disciplines in the same package (like " i see you" and " you no bleed me"). But everyone would have his own opinion here

Card for card, THA-combat loses hard to anything that isn't Stickmen, disciplineless combat or hands for 1. It's a decent support plan and an absolutely horrible basis for a dedicated combat deck.

Suoli wrote:

Reyda wrote: Not so sure... Dedicated THA combat is really really strong. Plus THA comes with nice disciplines in the same package (like " i see you" and " you no bleed me"). But everyone would have his own opinion here

Card for card, THA-combat loses hard to anything that isn't Stickmen, disciplineless combat or hands for 1. It's a decent support plan and an absolutely horrible basis for a dedicated combat deck.

You count Disciplineless combat and hands for 1 as combat ?
I thought I was trolling a bit, seems i found my master here.

When you say "horrible basis for a combat deck", it's your own experience right ?

Good thing about Rego Motus is that whole deck can't be very good if it includes many copies of the card because deck can get too unfocused and jammed. Usually it is not wise to include many cards which only works as defense against specific combat. You have to have some knowledge of decks you will face. That why it is more metagame question. Rego Motus (+theft) can be good when facing slowish toolboxy not very focused combat decks. Also Tremere shines in that metagame. Just simple Magic -> Heart of Nizchetus is very strong. There many other reasons too what makes tremere work so good in that metagame.

Reyda wrote: You count Disciplineless combat and hands for 1 as combat ?
I thought I was trolling a bit, seems i found my master here

I count combat: deck has any plan (even little) trying to effect the opposing minion in combat step.

Reyda wrote: the problem lies as much in "it's a rather strong card" than in "i don't have to be creative".

Rego Motus is so highly conditional, in terms of when it's worth playing in a deck, that I'm not sure how much less of an auto-include card it could be while still remaining playable at all.

1) Against no combat cards, it's playable, but has zero effect on the game state.
2) Against the most common form of combat, S:CE, you can't even cycle RM for no effect. If you think you're going to see a lot of S:CE, you have even less reason to include RM than if you think you're going to see zero combat cards.
3) Against Crow-Bats, RM can be cycled, but for no effect.
4) Against CELguns, RM can be played for a small effect (net prevent one damage), but that's it. Cel-guns are still likely to destroy THA combat, with or without RM, unelss your THA deck is packed with Soul Burns...but that's got nothing to do with RM.
5) Against big-hit POT and Sticks and/or Vitals, RM is worth playing.

If that doesn't look like a highly conditional list to you, all I can think is that your metagame is very stagnant.

Reyda wrote: Plus THA comes with nice disciplines in the same package (like " i see you" and " you no bleed me").

But that's exactly why RM requires a lot of consideration before being put into a deck: Since THA almost always comes bundled with the two best disciplines in the game, RM's conditionality means that you often won't want to include RM because there are far better Auspex and Dominate (and Thaumaturgy) cards you'd much rather have in your deck.

Arguments that RM beats environmental damage or weapon damage because of Theft and Soul Burn are meaningless; RM isn't beating those strategies, the other THA cards are. Those cards would beat environmental damage and weapon damage without RM (as history shows us), so RM has no impact on the game in those cases.

Finally, in terms of discipline drift, Thaumaturgy has been a toolbox discipline since Jyahd. With the exceptions of its trick cards and Theft, it's always been a discipline that duplicates a wide range of effects that other disciplines do better. Giving it a highly conditional damage prevention card fits in line with the rest of the discipline without needing to push the envelope of What Thaumaturgy Is About in any way.

EDIT: Forgot to add that since some THA-centric decks can do an excellent job of avoiding combat entirely via liberal use of Mirror Walk and Obedience, RM is even less of a card that you're automatically going to throw into every deck with significant amounts of THA.

Reyda wrote: You count Disciplineless combat and hands for 1 as combat ?
I thought I was trolling a bit, seems i found my master here.

Sticks, Zip Guns, Concealed Weapons and/or Target: Vitals is a highly viable module for certain weenie or Imbued decks.

"Hands for 1" combat is a euphemism for no combat. See also: "hope they don't have blasters" combat module.

When you say "horrible basis for a combat deck", it's your own experience right ?

Yes.