Direct Intervention

> > > Direct Intervention > Jyhad is a game where Methuselahs use minions > to try to destroy their rivals. With a few exceptions, as you noted:... > Very little a Master Card can do will affect another > Meth (it is the violation of this principle which makes > Fame such a lethal card). Other cards that affect other Meths are Anarch Revolt, Curse of Nitocris, ... But I agree that none will come as lethal as the printed version of Fame. > Direct Intevention has the Meth interacting in the > Minion level. There is no interaction between minions. > It violates the division between minion/Meth. It Mmm. What about Vulnerability? It burns a Minion in Torpor... Vampiric Disease? Milicient Smith (sp?)? Police Department interferes while in combat... And others. To one level or another, most Master cards will affect the gameplay, either on the Meth's level, or the Minions' level. The fact that only one can be played by turn is a large limitation in itself. > It violates the > inscrutability of the Meths (especially since multiple > DI's can be played serially). You cannot play more than one DI, since it is a Master Out-of-Turn, and you can only play one between your turns (as written in the rulebook). So that argument is not valid. Please note that I'm not saying your a wrong and I'm right. It is just that I don't see your arguments as being "rock-solid". Frederic.

I think in the last few rants against DI you have missed the one thing that annoys me the most about this card... its versatility. Now I find that cards that can do multiple things (such as maneuver OR additional strike, Stealth OR intercept) are far more useful than having similar abilities at inferior and superior. That being the case I would say more versatile cards are more "powerful" since they free up card slots in deck composition. (need some stealth and some intercept, add a card that can give either and you always have the right card in hand.) Given the above statement take a look at DI... Need a vote defence?? Put in DI Need a bleed defence?? Put in DI Need a Combat defence ?? Put in DI Sense a pattern?? I cannot think of a deck that would not benefit from having these cards in it. It has annoyed me so much in my own playgroup that I now save SRs in my hand just to counter DIs as they are played, regardless of who plays them. (sort of my personal crusade against the card :) The power of DI lies in its versatility, it can counter any minion based strategy that relys on card combos (and lets face it what is a CCG without card combos??) Even if you do have another copy of a card that gets DI'd, you cannot always play it again (no repeat actions). This IMO is a card that does not belong in the game we all love. Karl

Karl and Sam <in...@infomatch.com> wrote: > Even if you do have another copy of a card that gets DI'd, you cannot > always play it again (no repeat actions). Has it definitely been established that a DI'ed cancelled action counts as an action for purposes of the no-repeat-actions rule? Maybe LSJ would want to comment? --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > Karl and Sam <in...@infomatch.com> wrote: > > Even if you do have another copy of a card that gets DI'd, you cannot > > always play it again (no repeat actions). > > Has it definitely been established that a DI'ed cancelled action counts > as an action for purposes of the no-repeat-actions rule? Maybe LSJ would > want to comment? An action card cancelled by DI does not prohibit the player from playing another copy of that action card. Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu.delete.this.unless.youre.a.junk.emailer (Eric Pettersen) wrote: > Karl and Sam <in...@infomatch.com> wrote: > > Even if you do have another copy of a card that gets DI'd, you cannot > > always play it again (no repeat actions). > > Has it definitely been established that a DI'ed cancelled action counts > as an action for purposes of the no-repeat-actions rule? Maybe LSJ would > want to comment? It does not count for purposes of NRA. The card was played, but the action was not performed. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

<sigh> This card has been one of the hottest topics during debates on the newsgroup when Sabbat first came out. With the topic back up, I had to re-respond with my own reasons for disliking Direct Intervention. There were many arguments against the card... the only justifications that could be made by anyone was that they served to stop the "broken" cards. Assume, for a moment, that the broken cards are not a problem. They are banned, fixed, reworded or otherwise nonexistent (IMHO, the 7/7 rulings went a long way towards this stage, but that is an entirely other can of soup). Now let's look at Direction Intervention... - A Comparison - Magic is a game about card parity. Singular cards power can be measured in terms of card-advantage: does one card remove another card? Does it remove two? Does it take two to get one? With a singular card draw per turn, this idea of card advantage and attempting to gain card advantage is a basic method of figuring out who is winning and how powerful a particular card is. Jyhad, OTOH, is a game about cost management. In its purest sense, each card has a particular, equitable cost. Individual cards themselves do not have the impact. Instead, apropriately spending cardslots in a deck, pool, and minion actions are what can determine who is winning. In a system like this, singular cards should not have a significantly measurable power on their own. How powerful is Majesty? Not that powerful if you never see combat, or have someone immortally grapple you. How powerful is Bum's Rush? Not that powerful if you don't see any other combat cards. How powerful are those combat cards? Not that much if you can't get into combat. Decks are based upon interlocking combos of varying complexity, not on the strength of singular cards. Herein lies one of the major problems with Direct Intervention. A singular card is allowed to have the potential of destroying an entire series of cards by another player. And it can do this not only versus a singular combo or class of combos, but ANY class of combos. - "Moments of Jeopardy" - In the initial discussion surrounding DI, I brought up the idea of the "Moment of Jeopardy". This idea serves as a means of having strong distinction between Sudden Reversal (which is in no ways an arguably overpowered card) and Direct Intervention. Sudden Reversal nullifies a card in a Magic-like sense: card-for-card, but in a situation where only one card could have been played anyways. The situation is one of equitable cost... You spend a measurable Master Phase, I spend a measurable Master Phase. The nullification of even a powerful Master Card can be justified because measurable losses of resources are both equitable and outside of flurried "Moments of Jeopardy". Direction Intervention is not justifiable because it can be played at a Moment of Jeopardy, and respective losses can be _highly_ inequitable. Example: Your opponent plays an Anarch Revolt (your pool being high or low). A Sudden Reversal cancels only that card play. Example: Rebekka is bleeding and blocked, finding herself in combat with Volker. The first round is a flurry of manuevers and Strikes. Taste of Vitae keeps Rebekka full enough to keep her confident enough to Press to a second round (Yes, I know Bruise and Bleed isn't common, so sue me ;). Rebekka plays Blood to Water to guarantee that Volker can't Celerity into this round and be a threat. Direct Intervention. Volker tears into Rebekka, Dodging with Multiple additional strikes and Rebekka (along with the Transfers to bring her out), her blood, her controllers minion cards, and the like are all wasted. It's not that another card might not have been likewise effective. It's that DI can make event's like this happen all the time in extreme moments of Jeopardy. Example: My predator is destroying me, and is fighting an intercept war to block a huge bleed that will oust him. Direct Intervention from me can give me a new predator (who won't be able to handle the bleed bounce I carry, for example). With its flexibility, these Moments of Jeopardy are easy to find and target with DI. This is simply too much for any one card. - Commentary alway accepted. @#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ Game Theorist Coffee Addict Eccentric $#@ @#$ The Corrupter $#@ Opinionated Gynophile Hedonist MHSTHSTS $#@ @#$ Cabal Rogue $#@ GAT/CS/WS C(+++)$ N++ PS++@ R+++* r+ z++**? $#@ ...watching the lake turn the sky / into blue-green smoke...

Very well put.. It seems to me that the cards cost (and only in terms of cost) are somewhat just. 1 pool and losing a Master Phase can be a bit deal. But the versatility of DI is such that it makes the cost negligible. If it were my day to errata Direct Intervention from this: Burn a minion card as it is played. Any blood or pool cost burned for that card is retrieved from the blood bank by the vampire or Methuselah who played it. If the burned card was an action card, the acting minion remains untapped. If the card was a strike card, the minion chooses another strike. to This: Burn an ACTION card as it is played. Any blood or pool cost burned for that card is retrieved from the blood bank by the vampire or Methuselah who played it. Untap the acting minion. MAY TARGET A STRIKE CARD. If the card was a strike card, the minion chooses another strike. Unfortunately it's heavy rewording, and people like myself would probably tear it apart. The Corrupter wrote in message ... > ><sigh> Agreed

Why not making DI only playable once per game? Like this: Burn a minion card as it is played. Any blood or pool cost burned for that card is retrieved from the blood bank by the vampire or Methuselah who played it. If the burned card was an action card, the acting minion remains untapped. If the card was a strike card, the minion chooses another strike. *Only one Direct Intervention may be played in a game.* Hm, any comments? I'm aware that this wording makes the card not less powerful, but limits it use in the same way as giants blood. The advantage is that it uses only one additional sentence, and that the concept is easy to grasp. The downside is, that it can still be used as *a counterspell*. What about that: Burn a minion card as it is played. Any blood or pool cost burned for that card is retrieved from the blood bank by the vampire or Methuselah who played it. If the burned card was an action card, the acting minion remains untapped. If the card was a strike card, the minion chooses another strike. After playing Direct Intervention, your handsize is permanently reduced by 1. Better? (This idea came spontanously.) I think it's cool. I agree that we don't want counterspells. They tend to justify broken cards. Really. I had the same argument some time ago. Now I'm convinced that counterspells are bad for game-balance. -Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

Hi Adrian 'SNIP' >Rebekka plays Blood to Water to guarantee that Volker can't Celerity into >this round and be a threat. > Direct Intervention. > Volker tears into Rebekka, Dodging with Multiple additional strikes >and Rebekka (along with the Transfers to bring her out), her blood, her >controllers minion cards, and the like are all wasted. > Nice little scenario, problem is its "one in a million", every time I have had DI played one me it has only affected me once and then it was not that bad, I took a few hits and recovered later which is part of Vtes you recover or die weather its from a bleed or combat or whatever. Heres my scenario, Kevin and Errol are in combat before strikes Errol plays Blood of Acid Kevin plays DI "Thats nice Kevin" Errol plays another Blood of Acid Kevin has now wasted his Master phase and still has to contend with Blood of Acid. These type of scenarios are much more common and why I do not see DI as "Broken" it has been used defensively more than offensively. ET

ET wrote: > [DI played in "moment of jeopardy"] > Nice little scenario, problem is its "one in a million", every time I have > had DI played one me it has only affected me once and then it was not that > bad, I took a few hits and recovered later which is part of Vtes you > recover or die weather its from a bleed or combat or whatever. The problem is that the card _can_ be played in these crucial moments, and if you do not have a replacement of the DI'ed card, the costs can be huge. By contrast, the only way a SR can kill you is if you were pretty much already dead. > Heres my scenario, Kevin and Errol are in combat before strikes Errol > plays Blood of Acid Kevin plays DI "Thats nice Kevin" Errol plays another > Blood of Acid Kevin has now wasted his Master phase and still has to > contend with Blood of Acid. And, of course, it's just as likely that the Vicissitudinous player _doesn't_ have another Blood of Acid. Most of all in my mind, of course, is that a card like this simply doesn't belong in the game. Instead of using a strategy to defend against another strategy, you have this "hail mary" card which can exact a devastating toll on the victim. The _potential_ power of this card is too high. Just because you might not be using ToR3 to get out a free IC member doesn't mean the card is any less broken. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu ...very prolific today...

>And, of course, it's just as likely that the Vicissitudinous player >_doesn't_ have another Blood of Acid. Yes I did and everytime I have had it played on me I have had another >Most of all in my mind, of course, is that a card like this simply >doesn't belong in the game. Instead of using a strategy to defend >against another strategy, you have this "hail mary" card which can exact >a devastating toll on the victim. If this is devastating to you thats really sad to me devastating is when you play a ton of cards and have fortitude cards prevent it all no cost! no brainer! that is a probelm my friend not one card that really does nothing, and don't even get me started on ToR3 nothing wrong with that one either. ET

In article <35bb5...@ntnews.compusmart.ab.ca>, [ quoted text not captured ] Now, while I don't really think DI is broken (although it's certainly not to my taste), there isn't any comparison to Fortitude at all. Damage Prevention only stops combat decks, against anything else it's _worse_ than useless, and there is thus a very large cost for playing it. DI doesn't have this drawback, and is _vastly_ more flexible. Oh, and don't get you started on ToR3? I'm curious to hear what you have to say that hasn't been said before, and how you're going to argue that's it's not overpowered. What, because you can cancel it, steal it, or contest it? The same is true of most any card, regardless of power, and hardly constitute a drawback to playing ToR3. Why does ToR3 have this extra power? To drive up the singles market? to justify the existance of DI? Hopefully you can find some better answers than those. >ET -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

ET wrote: > > >And, of course, it's just as likely that the Vicissitudinous player > >_doesn't_ have another Blood of Acid. > > Yes I did and everytime I have had it played on me I have had another Well, some people aren't as lucky. > >Most of all in my mind, of course, is that a card like this simply > >doesn't belong in the game. Instead of using a strategy to defend > >against another strategy, you have this "hail mary" card which can > >exact a devastating toll on the victim. > > If this is devastating to you thats really sad to me devastating is > when you play a ton of cards and have fortitude cards prevent it all > no cost! no brainer! that is a probelm my friend not one card that > really does nothing, You seem to be saying here that Fortitude is more powerful than Direct Intervention. Except that Fortitude requires vampires and considerable deck space. Direct Intervention doesn't even require you to have any minions in play! The only reason you wouldn't put a DI or two in your deck is because you don't own them or (like me) you find them morally reprehensible. That's a symptom of a broken card. > and don't even get me started on ToR3 nothing > wrong with that one either. Uh huh. Keep talkin'. [ quoted text not captured ]

There is nothing wrong with TRIII. I own a stack of DIs and with 12 or 13 decks made currently, not one of these decks contains a DI (nor will it). I simply don't need the card (its not that great). -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew wrote: > > There is nothing wrong with TRIII. You keep using this sentence. I don't think it means what you think it means. > I own a stack of DIs and with 12 or 13 > decks made currently, not one of these decks contains a DI (nor will it). I > simply don't need the card (its not that great). I think this attitude is atypical. IMO, it's akin to asking someone who's a serious Magic player using Blue to _not_ include a counterspell. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to people that if you _can_ have a counterspell to put one in, trying to deal with other's decks on a tactical level rather than a strategic level. If DI were free, I can't imagine _anyone_ not playing with it, and it is its cost that will ultimately prevent the card from being touched by the RT. Unfortunately, the card really should never have existed. Oh, well. [ quoted text not captured ]

I have used this card more times then I can count and have faced it across the table so why don't you tell me how my conception of the card must be flawed (since you seem feel that I must be mistaken). I know nothing of magic so I do not relate to your example of such. How do you differentiate tactical vs. strategic? Do you refer to the "manuevering" that must occur to subvert an enemies plans. Why not include a counter for an action (if you feel there is the probability that another player will apply that action to their strategic objectives). Half of strategy is understanding yourself the other half is understanding your adversary. Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew wrote: > > I have used this card more times then I can count and have faced it across the > table so why don't you tell me how my conception of the card must be flawed > (since you seem feel that I must be mistaken). Make up your mind. First you tell me you have a dozen DI's, but you never use them. Now you tell me you use it all the time. > I know nothing of magic so I do not relate to your example of such. How do you > differentiate tactical vs. strategic? An example of tactical would be using a maneuver to cancel a maneuver. An example of strategic would be using your Rush deck to stop a bleed deck. You know what the rush deck does, and you know what the bleed deck does, so how do you use one to stop the other? Someone using DI would say, "I'm worried about card X, so I'll put in DI to deal with it" instead of "I'm worried about card X; how does my current strategy deal with that card? How can I alter my strategy to deal with that card?". > Why not include a counter for an action? This is my point; if the counterspell exists, it will be used by some players as a replacement for good deck-building and clever angles. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Someone using DI would say, "I'm worried about card X, so I'll put in DI > to deal with it" instead of "I'm worried about card X; how does my > current strategy deal with that card? How can I alter my strategy to > deal with that card?". > > > Why not include a counter for an action? > > This is my point; if the counterspell exists, it will be used by some > players as a replacement for good deck-building and clever angles. Maybe a counterspell is the only way to deal with a given threat, for a given deck or strategy. Say I build an exclusively political deck, that has no defense against bleed. Maybe I have enough pool gaining political actions to compensate for the pool loss due to Bruise/Bleed and Stealth/Bleed deck. But, maybe I think I am fairly vulnerable to old-RtI (since I could lose 10 at once). How do I deal with that? Counterspells could be a viable alternative to reducing the effectiveness of my deck (i.e. diluting) to include bleed bounce or other defenses. Does this implies that the original deck (before the addition of counterspells) was not built with good deck-building skills and based on clever angles? Maybe there is some relationship, but I believe it is a minimal one. Some strategy have no defense against another; so counterspells is the only defense available. But, I will agree that we might be tempted to abuse them. :) Frederic.

Frederic Genest wrote: > > Maybe a counterspell is the only way to deal with a given threat, for a > given deck or strategy. Every strategy can deal with every other strategy, modulo trump cards. > Say I build an exclusively political deck, that has no defense against > bleed. Then I would say that this is a bad (or at least poorly designed) deck. When I build a deck, I think: how will this deal with bleed? How will this deal with votes? Etc. Sometimes, in really fast decks, the bleed defense is "kill my prey before my predator kills me". This is a viable defense. But _no_ defense is a bad thing. > Maybe I have enough pool gaining political actions to compensate > for the pool loss due to Bruise/Bleed and Stealth/Bleed deck. Yeah, this is a valid bleed defense. > But, maybe > I think I am fairly vulnerable to old-RtI (since I could lose 10 at > once). How do I deal with that? Counterspells could be a viable > alternative to reducing the effectiveness of my deck (i.e. diluting) to > include bleed bounce or other defenses. Honestly, if you have no bleed defense, RtI won't make a difference. A successful RtI would at worst be like two successful normal bleeds, so you most likely wouldn't even need to put in DI. But for decks whose defense is more tenuous (like Rush decks), RtI can make a _huge_ difference. And a single card which hoses a whole strategy, and a single card which requires an entire strategy to thwart are both bad for the game. > Some strategy have no defense against another; so > counterspells is the only defense available. Counterspells aren't a defense. Especially since this one can only be played once a turn. The problem is that even when you have a successful defense (yes, even bleed bounce), you might fail occasionally; whether you're all tapped out with no Wakes, or you just don't have enough deflections. And if, when that defense fails, you are ousted from a stable position by a single card, the table dynamic has changed significantly, and more importantly, you are dead. A single card should not have that much swing power, and should not require counterspells to combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederic Genest wrote: > > > Counterspells aren't a defense. Especially since this one can only be > > played once a turn (i.e. Direct Intervention). > > True. So, you are not reducing an entire strategy to nothing; you mereley > incapacitate it for a little time (i.e. an action). > Based on that, we could argue that Sudden Reversal is even worse, since > master cards are much less often played than minion cards; so burning one > when it is played could be a much greater blow than playing DI on a minion > cards. Not so. A well-timed DI can cost you the game (in a "moment of jeopardy", as described in one of the Corrupter's posts). A Sudden Reversal can only kill somebody if they were basically already dead. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Counterspells aren't a defense. Especially since this one can only be > played once a turn (i.e. Direct Intervention). True. So, you are not reducing an entire strategy to nothing; you mereley incapacitate it for a little time (i.e. an action). Based on that, we could argue that Sudden Reversal is even worse, since master cards are much less often played than minion cards; so burning one when it is played could be a much greater blow than playing DI on a minion cards. > A single card should not have that much swing power (eg RtI) Agreed on that. I won't argue here. Frederic.

"Only one Direct Intervention may be played in a game." Comments? -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > "Only one Direct Intervention may be played in a game." > > Comments? > Nah, who should restrict a Methusalah in what he can do and what he cannot? How about this: Put DI in play. Every minion bleeding you gets +1 bleed. Burn this card during your next untap phase. Reasoning: Directly acting leaves the Meth vulnerable. He who steps into the light can be seen and what can be seen can be fought. Michael Beer

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederic Genest wrote: > > > > > Counterspells aren't a defense. Especially since this one can only be > > > played once a turn (i.e. Direct Intervention). > > > > True. So, you are not reducing an entire strategy to nothing; you mereley > > incapacitate it for a little time (i.e. an action). > > Based on that, we could argue that Sudden Reversal is even worse, since > > master cards are much less often played than minion cards; so burning one > > when it is played could be a much greater blow than playing DI on a minion > > cards. > > Not so. A well-timed DI can cost you the game (in a "moment of > jeopardy", as described in one of the Corrupter's posts). A Sudden > Reversal can only kill somebody if they were basically already dead. > > James > -- > James Hamblin > ham...@math.wisc.edu Ummmm, no. Could not your Master Phase be that 'moment of jeopardy'? "If I don't get off that Minion Tap I will be bled out" is a common happening in many games of jyhad. At such a point in the game, a Sudden Reversal is just as bad as a DI - in fact it is worse. Recovery from a DI on your card or action is a function of the strength of your combo. I would argue that a vigorous combo (like S&B or good Rush combat) can recover from a DI fairly easily -it is just a matter of having another minion that can act and having the combo cycle quickly into your hand again. Granted, I am making my case based on vigorous combo's. A fragile, or prayer combo, is hurt by DI - granted. However, these decks also tend to have many more 'moments of jeopardy' and thus are rarely considered for tournament or serious play. General Points: Point 1) A 'moment of jeopardy' can happen at any point in the game. Point 2) As such, any 'moment of jeopardy' is adversely affected by the trump or counterspell. Point 3) A trump or counterspell is not a restricted category - for purposes of this discussion however I will restrict myself to these card specific counterspells: Sudden Reversal DI Delaying Tactics As they share these charactersistics: 1) Single card is used to instantly disable a specific act at a 'moment of jeopardy'. 2) No other strategy or condition is required. - all three can be used in any deck strategy. - and, except for the need of an untapped vamp when using DT, no other condition is required to play the card. Sorry, if I have not made my overall point clear yet. I will do that now: A) Direct Intervention is not a broken card based on it's use as a counterspell, whether in a moment of jeopardy or not. B) Arguing that there is no place in the game of jyhad for counterspells is a moot point as precedence has been set via the existence of other counterspells already available in the game. C) I apologize if my arguements here are disjointed and/or incoherent. I just downloaded the NG for the first time in 3 weeks. Reading 500+ posts is getting to be a little bit much. D) Points A and B are mutually dependent in that the viability of one point depends on the viability of the other. To whit: all properly timed counterspells will effect a moment of jeopardy. So.... at the 'moment of jeopardy' you are: Sudden Reversal - counterspell for master cards - Recovery requires that you have another of same master card in your hand, and can either: - Survive until your next turn, or - Have Parthenon, Rumors, or Anson in play. Conclusion: devastating, being SR'd at your 'moj' is a killer. Direct Intervention - counterspell for minion cards - Recovery requires that you have another of same minion card in your hand, and can either: - Survive until your next turn, or - Use same or second minion to play same minion card, or - Have likeminded card to play in it's stead, or - Can cycle your hand until the another copy shows. Conclusion: devastating to the fragile combo, inconvenient to the common combo (DI'd that IG, have another one right here). - The very nature of minion cards versus master cards makes the DI less damaging at the 'moj'. - Since most tournament play decks will use vigorous and strong combo's, the DI becomes less of a factor - meaning that it will often be weeded out of such decks, and by extension, uncommon even in casual play decks. Delaying Tactics - counterspell for vote cards - Recovery requires that you can either: - Survive until your next turn, or - Have second vamp call a like-minded vote (not very easy). Conclusion: while more limited than DI, the DT is a more effective vote deck killer. Not only can that vamp not take another vote action, that Methuselah cannot call that same vote again this turn. Devastating counterspell to the vote deck. Anyways, I hope I make some sense. Please people, DI is not broken. Get over it already. Only 300+ more posts to go.....brraaaiiiinnnnn fffreeezzzinnggg.... Jaysen -

Jaysen Knight wrote: > > > Not so. A well-timed DI can cost you the game (in a "moment of > > jeopardy", as described in one of the Corrupter's posts). A Sudden > > Reversal can only kill somebody if they were basically already dead. > > Ummmm, no. Could not your Master Phase be that 'moment of jeopardy'? > > "If I don't get off that Minion Tap I will be bled out" Then you were already dead. > is a common happening in many games of jyhad. At such a point in the > game, a Sudden Reversal is just as bad as a DI - in fact it is worse. Again, a Sudden Reversal can only be that devestating if you were already on the brink of death. > Recovery from a DI on your card or action is a function of the > strength of your combo. I would argue that a vigorous combo (like > S&B or good Rush combat) can recover from a DI fairly easily -it is > just a matter of having another minion that can act and having the > combo cycle quickly into your hand again. Nit pick: I wouldn't call S&B or Rush combat a "combo", but a "deck type". Decks can use combos, but a combo is not a deck. And the "moment of jeopardy" that I'm referring to is not "they DI'ed my Bum's Rush, now I'm doomed, but it's "my combat defense is S:CE" and they DI your S:CE, costing you a vampire. Costing you an action and costing you a vampire are widely different things. [snip analysis] You are misinterpreting what I mean by "moment of jeopardy". > A) Direct Intervention is not a broken card based on it's use as > a counterspell, whether in a moment of jeopardy or not. Why not? > B) Arguing that there is no place in the game of jyhad for > counterspells is a moot point as precedence has been set via > the existence of other counterspells already available in the > game. Sudden Reversal cannot cause you to lose a minion. If it kills you, you were already dead. Otherwise, it simply costs you something (a location, for example) which you can live without, whereas DI can cost you a vampire, or even the game. A recent post detailed a situation where a Deflection was DI'ed, causing a player to take an RtI bleed for 15 and be ousted. A moment when you are currently being bled for 15, and the Deflection card in your hand is the only thing between life and death is a "moment of jeopardy". > Sudden Reversal - counterspell for master cards > - Recovery requires that you have another of same master card > in your hand, and can either: > - Survive until your next turn, or > - Have Parthenon, Rumors, or Anson in play. Here's how I would look at it: - costs you a master phase - prevents you from playing the card - will only kill you if you are already near death > Conclusion: devastating, being SR'd at your 'moj' is a killer. I posit that there are no moments of jeopardy during your master phase. > Direct Intervention - counterspell for minion cards > - Recovery requires that you have another of same minion card > in your hand, and can either: > - Survive until your next turn, or > - Use same or second minion to play same minion card, or > - Have likeminded card to play in it's stead, or > - Can cycle your hand until the another copy shows. - If you do _not_ have another copy of the card in your hand, this can cost you the game, even if you were in a stable position. > Delaying Tactics - counterspell for vote cards > - Recovery requires that you can either: > - Survive until your next turn, or > - Have second vamp call a like-minded vote (not very easy). Delaying Tactics prevents you from calling one kind of vote. You can call different votes, and again, this doesn't cost you minions or pool unless you were already near death (and needed that Con Boon to stay alive, for example). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Michael Beer wrote: > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > "Only one Direct Intervention may be played in a game." > > Comments? > Nah, who should restrict a Methusalah in what he can do and what he cannot? Um, how about, say, Caine? (The RTR) From a game-standpoint, towing THAT much allegiance to the game is silly, and by using a similar level of silliness can still be argued away. Do we want a good game, or a game hamstrung by a bunch of hodge-podge World of Darkness issues? > How about this: > Put DI in play. Every minion bleeding you gets +1 bleed. Burn this card > during your next untap phase. > Reasoning: Directly acting leaves the Meth vulnerable. He who steps into > the light can be seen and what can be seen can be fought. <Guffaw> Even from a World of Darkness standpoint, this is ludicrous. To go on, though... If you are not playing a bleed deck, this drawback will not be that noticeable to you as their predator. I think that you'll have difficulty "convincing the "integritists" of the card as well. That leaves no camps behind this one, IMHO, besides your own. @#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ Game Theorist Coffee Addict Hedonist @#$ Cabal Rogue Team Rogue $#@ Opinionated Gynophile Eccentric Geek @#$ V:EKN Prince of Madison $#@ heterotranshomotransexual - got that? @#$ The Corrupter $#@ GAT/WS C(+++)$ N++ PS++@+ R+++*$ z++**?