Remove vampire contesting

Surreal wrote: because the game could be decided just because somebody is playing same vampires as you do.

Which is very different from being decided by which one start, as would be with turbo deck

More seriously, there is more than enough vampire to actually avoid the most played one if you believe it will be too risky for that. And in a lot of deck, one vampire contesting is a random disavantadge but not the end of the world. Like is bad seating for your archetype, drawing villein + giant blood, etc etc ...

Surreal wrote: For me it is hard to take Vtes tournament and meta seriously because the game could be decided just because somebody is playing same vampires as you do.

?

The meta is precisely what other people play. If you don't take it into account, you might end up involuntarily contesting vampires.
If you take it into account, you might en up voluntarily contesting vampires - I remember Kamel Senni had a copy of Beast in his Palla Grande, some time ago, in an EC. At that moment, Beast was popular.

Lemminkäinen wrote: Does it? Does someone really decide not to use an Anson deck because they are afraid of him getting contested?

No. But I don't play Nana because of the danger of contestment.

"Superstar" decks are fairly strong. Well-built Superstar decks are typically stronger than a non-Superstar deck.

Given that belief, I wouldn't want to remove one of the very mild defenses against those decks when it by definition affects non-Superstar decks very little.

Pascal Bertrand wrote:

Surreal wrote: For me it is hard to take Vtes tournament and meta seriously because the game could be decided just because somebody is playing same vampires as you do.

?

The meta is precisely what other people play. If you don't take it into account, you might end up involuntarily contesting vampires.
If you take it into account, you might en up voluntarily contesting vampires - I remember Kamel Senni had a copy of Beast in his Palla Grande, some time ago, in an EC. At that moment, Beast was popular.

For me contesting is way too rare to plan your crypt on (like putting 1x Beast in the crypt, players don't really do this at all). I can't see contesting a method of strategy or something which helps metagame planning. I see it only a disadvantage which sometimes randomly ruins some tables. Contesting is too rare to really plan/meta your deck but way too big thing when it sometimes happens. I just can't see the benefit.

Lemminkäinen wrote:

Pendargon wrote: No. Contesting is important and vital part of the game. It stops people playing Ansons all the time

Does it? Does someone really decide not to use an Anson deck because they are afraid of him getting contested?

Also note that having a balancing mechanic that works over multiple games by making some of them extremely difficult as opposed to making all the games balanced is kinda dubious, IMO.

Oh yeah. I'd never come to any tournament with Anson or Cybele, just 'cause there's a high chance I'll contest. I know that a friend of mine plays G2 Kiasyd in tournaments mainly because Arcadian gets contested that much.

Contesting is a vital, important and highly interesting part of the game, and it's unique and promotes variety. I'd never remove it.