3 questions

1) The bearer of the Soul Gem is burned, and a younger uncontrolled vampire comes into play: can he act immediately, or does he have to wait the next turn? 2) As above, but the new vampire comes into play via Possession (or Daemonic Poss.): can he act immediately? 3) Does the burned bearer of the Soul Gem go to the Ash Heap, or is he removed from the game? thanx

Cartman wrote: > > 1) The bearer of the Soul Gem is burned, and a younger uncontrolled vampire > comes into play: can he act immediately, or does he have to wait the next > turn? He can act. > 2) As above, but the new vampire comes into play via Possession (or Daemonic > Poss.): can he act immediately? Yes. > 3) Does the burned bearer of the Soul Gem go to the Ash Heap, or is he > removed from the game? Ash heap. If he's removed from the game, the Gem doesn't activate. It only activates if he's burned (and it doesn't swap removal from the game for the burning effect). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D0A0A37...@white-wolf.com... > Cartman wrote: > > > > 1) The bearer of the Soul Gem is burned, and a younger uncontrolled vampire > > comes into play: can he act immediately, or does he have to wait the next > > turn? > > He can act. > > > 2) As above, but the new vampire comes into play via Possession (or Daemonic > > Poss.): can he act immediately? > > Yes. > > > 3) Does the burned bearer of the Soul Gem go to the Ash Heap, or is he > > removed from the game? > > Ash heap. If he's removed from the game, the Gem doesn't activate. It > only activates if he's burned (and it doesn't swap removal from the game > for the burning effect). Possession + Soul Gem is a fun combo. Last night I played my clone of the "Exploding Baron" deck. It basically went like this. Turn 1, Coroner's Contract to find The Baron, influence 2 more to Baron ( oh for 4 transfers in my turn, would have made it even faster ). Turn 2, The Barrens, 4 to The Baron. Turn 3, Bring The Baron into play. Turn 4, Vast Wealth on The Baron, The Baron uses Vast Wealth ( only equipment in the deck is 2 x Soul Gem of Etrius ) Turn 5, Minion Tap The Baron down to 0, The Baron Hunts. Force of Will ( inf ) to bleed for 3, prey was tapped out ( had only 1 vamp out ). Bleed successful, The Baron burns. Triggers the Soul Gem. New vampire is Andrea Giovanni ( comes into play full w/ the Soul Gem ). Andrea Possesses The Baron ( comes into play untapped w/ 1 blood ). The Baron takes the Soul Gem from Andrea. The Baron plays Force of Will to bleed for 3 and burns, triggers Soul Gem. New vampire is Rafaele Giovanni ( full w/ Soul Gem ). Rafaele Possesses The Baron. The Baron takes Soul Gem from Rafaele. The Baron bleeds for 3 with Force of Will for 3, burns, triggers Soul Gem. New vampire is Gisela Harden. Possesses The Baron. The Baron takes Soul Gem, Force of Will for 3, burns. New vampire is Pocthli. No Possession in hand ( damnit :) In 1 turn, I bled my prey for 12 and gained 4 vampires which I didn't pay for. I only spent 11 pool, 9 of which I got back. There are 15 vampires that have NEC that are younger than the Baron, I only had 11 in my crypt and I ran out, I think I could have easily gotten through 15, especially when you have Pochtli and Carlotta fetching cards for you and an enormous hand size thanks to various combinations of Kanimina, Dreams, Elder Library and Visit from the Capuchin.

That was such a fun game the only way to slow down that deck is to put them in torpor, and either intercept anyone who attemped to rescue, or grave rob/demonic possesion them -Rewy "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:ugldbh8...@news.supernews.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

You've just gotta stop the Possession ( which is at no stealth initially ), putting vamps in torpor doesn't help much unless you can put all of them in torpor at once. Both my predator and prey were rush decks but it didn't help em much, even though my prey's Gangrel burned 3 of my vampires. "Rewy" <rewb...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:3d0aeaa0$0$21004$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au... [ quoted text not captured ]

GreySeer wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I made an untuned version of this (should have used Voter Cap instead of Sacrificial Lamb) and was unable to keep up pressure due to insufficient poolgain, but the mechanics seems to work surprisingly well. Double up on Arika, Leandro and The Baron. Take your pick of NEC/obf vamps for the last six slots. You want lots of Freak Drive. Possession and Daemonic Possession as above, but the engine is based on Might of the Camarilla, Banishment and Protect thine Own. Defence is Obedience and a pair of Legacy of Power to enable you to diablerize later. It may not be the most efficient of decks, but it will have tables laughing in stunned disbelief when seldom seen cards starts playing havoc. The vamps can Deflect, and if the proposed crypt needs vote-defence you have been seated at a VERY strange table :) I used Carlotta Giovanni and one Sargon Fragment in order to change the seemingly endless amount of moving parts into making my own ash-heap my own best friend. Master Necromancy Discipline cards allows you to Banish unfriendly eleven-caps. Sten During

On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:32:56 +1000, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: The below is exaclty why this is a broken combo. IMO the soul gem should remove the burnt bearer from the game as it is now a soulless shell, or at the very least those brought into play by it be tapped. >Possession + Soul Gem is a fun combo. Last night I played my clone of the >"Exploding Baron" deck. It basically went like this. > > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 01:09:07 GMT, Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote: >The below is exaclty why this is a broken combo. IMO the soul gem >should remove the burnt bearer from the game as it is now a soulless >shell, or at the very least those brought into play by it be tapped. >>Possession + Soul Gem is a fun combo. Last night I played my clone of the >>"Exploding Baron" deck. It basically went like this. Possession is a zero stealth action. There is only one stealth on the action to equip with the Soul Gem. This deck is stoppable before it starts by blocking either action. Both the predator and prey of the deck have an interest in blocking both actions. The deck should be shut down in any truly competitive environment which has seen the concept. >>In 1 turn, I bled my prey for 12 and gained 4 vampires which I didn't pay >>for. I only spent 11 pool, 9 of which I got back. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

>Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote: > >>The below is exaclty why this is a broken combo. IMO the soul gem >>should remove the burnt bearer from the game as it is now a soulless >>shell, or at the very least those brought into play by it be tapped. > >>>Possession + Soul Gem is a fun combo. Last night I played my clone of the >>>"Exploding Baron" deck. It basically went like this. > >Possession is a zero stealth action. >There is only one stealth on the action to equip with the Soul Gem. >This deck is stoppable before it starts by blocking either action. >Both the predator and prey of the deck have an interest in blocking >both actions. The deck should be shut down in any truly competitive >environment which has seen the concept. Also, it takes up space in a deck. This means less of something useful, whether it be more bleed, more stealth, more bleed defense, more vote defense, more combat defense, or whatever. I could see the argument if the deck could consistently just flat out win (due to excessive speed) or, at least, guaranteed a kill against the average prey. But, it's not like there aren't trade offs. Instead of just claiming something is broken, should make some effort to display how such as posting results from games along with the decklist. For instance, I recall playing a tournament when Return to Innocence was still legal (and prior to errata). My second round game, every oust at the table was with RtI.

Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:32:56 +1000, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> > wrote: > > The below is exaclty why this is a broken combo. IMO the soul gem > should remove the burnt bearer from the game as it is now a soulless > shell, or at the very least those brought into play by it be tapped. IMO, there is absolutely no need to reword the Soul Gem's text, because the decks based on that equipment are very weak, since they only concentrate their efforts on performing just one combo. If the combo is somehow stopped, then the entire deck fails. However, if the combo is not stopped (which is very unlikely in tournament play), your chances to win are very high. ;-) Spectacularity should not be mistaken for effectiveness. > >Possession + Soul Gem is a fun combo. Last night I played my clone of the > >"Exploding Baron" deck. It basically went like this. > > > > > >In 1 turn, I bled my prey for 12 and gained 4 vampires which I didn't pay > >for. I only spent 11 pool, 9 of which I got back. > > Greetings, Damnans

>>>Possession + Soul Gem is a fun combo. Last night I played my clone of the >>>"Exploding Baron" deck. It basically went like this. > >Possession is a zero stealth action. >There is only one stealth on the action to equip with the Soul Gem. >This deck is stoppable before it starts by blocking either action. >Both the predator and prey of the deck have an interest in blocking >both actions. The deck should be shut down in any truly competitive >environment which has seen the concept. Yeah, I guess a lot of it depends on your metagame. Here in Chicago, we have one guy who packs so many Wakes that he'd easily make any Baron-deck player cry! (i.e. he regularly plays 2-3 Wakes in between his turns just in order to "cycle")... Halcyan 2

On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 02:44:03 GMT, thela...@hotmail.com (The Lasombra) wrote: >On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 01:09:07 GMT, Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote: > >>The below is exaclty why this is a broken combo. IMO the soul gem >>should remove the burnt bearer from the game as it is now a soulless >>shell, or at the very least those brought into play by it be tapped. > >>>Possession + Soul Gem is a fun combo. Last night I played my clone of the >>>"Exploding Baron" deck. It basically went like this. > >Possession is a zero stealth action. >There is only one stealth on the action to equip with the Soul Gem. >This deck is stoppable before it starts by blocking either action. >Both the predator and prey of the deck have an interest in blocking >both actions. The deck should be shut down in any truly competitive >environment which has seen the concept. > Necromancy can generate stealth, as can the Baron (for himself and others) with OBF. As well, too often the deck gets started before the pred/prey get their intercept, or have used it already elsewhere. But the key to me isnt whether it can be stopped or not with intercept...but that if the combo is not intercepted, it becomes absolutely insane and violates a number of conventions in VTES...namely vampires entering play outside the influence phase, the same vampire taking the same action over and over, etc. That is enough to make it broken. T

Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote: > But the key to me isnt whether it can be stopped or not with > intercept...but that if the combo is not intercepted, it becomes > absolutely insane and violates a number of conventions in Most combos, if "not stopped" are very strong. That's why they're called combos. > VTES...namely vampires entering play outside the influence phase, the You're imagining a convention where none exists. Ways for a vampire to enter play outside of the influence phase: Untap: 1) contesting (or, more properly, winning a contest) Master: 2) Shock Toops Minion: 3) Embrace 4) 3rd Tradition 5) Creation Rites 6) Create Gargoyle 7) Illusions of the Kindred 8) Possession 9) Daemonic Possession Multi: 10) Soul Gem Ways for a vampire to enter play during the influence phase: 1) Counters >= capacity at the end of the phase 2) Tomb of Rameses III (and sufficient counters) > same vampire taking the same action over and over, etc. That is It is not the same vampire. The "same vampire" would have the same equipment, discipline cards, retainers, etc. > enough to make it broken. Not true. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Possession is a zero stealth action. > There is only one stealth on the action to equip with the Soul Gem. > This deck is stoppable before it starts by blocking either action. > Both the predator and prey of the deck have an interest in blocking > both actions. The deck should be shut down in any truly competitive > environment which has seen the concept. Tweaked "Turbo Baron" deck with Daring the Dawns & Call of the Hungry Deads + (obfuscate) is not so easy to stop. With experienced players game Baron will be in torpor as soon as he shows his ugly face :) That is pity, because somebody might even play with "normal" Samedi rush deck :P - Guzmo

"Marko Saari" <NOSPAMmarko...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:af2iu0$3pj$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi... > > > Possession is a zero stealth action. > > There is only one stealth on the action to equip with the Soul Gem. > > This deck is stoppable before it starts by blocking either action. > > Both the predator and prey of the deck have an interest in blocking > > both actions. The deck should be shut down in any truly competitive > > environment which has seen the concept. > > Tweaked "Turbo Baron" deck with Daring the Dawns & Call of the Hungry Deads > + (obfuscate) is not so easy to stop. With experienced players game Baron > will be in torpor as soon as he shows his ugly face :) I played a "Turbo Baron" deck with rush decks as my predator and prey and still managed to sweep. Intelligent play makes the "Turbo Baron" deck extremely hard to stop but then again, any deck is extremely hard to stop if played well. Your Baron is in torpor w/ no blood? Fine, diablerise him, burns The Baron ( and usually the diablerist ) just fine, triggers the sould gem and you've got a nice phat minion with lots of blood and NEC to bring him back with. The real trick is to stop it before it gets started at all, which can be difficult because it can get started quite quickly. Once it's got a couple of minions w/ NEC it's very hard to slow the deck down. I've played my "Turbo Baron" deck 3 times and swept every table, it's even missing some cards I need more copies of to make it even more effective, namely a few more Daring the Dawn, Psychic Veil and Dreams. Oh, and Psychic Veil is an awesome card for the deck, +1 stealth on all those 0 stealth Possessions. > That is pity, because somebody might even play with "normal" Samedi rush > deck :P I don't think that'll happen anytime too soon. I've seen a few attempts, none that were terribly good. They simply don't have enough effective ways to deal w/ S:CE. Hidden Lurker is about all there is without resorting to skill cards and even then you need superior in most cases. Hidden Lurker has it's own problems, mainly in that you have to get blocked to be able to play it with your other vampire. 2 tapped minions to fight one reasonable combat gets expensive.

"Marko Saari" <NOSPAMmarko...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message news:af2iu0$3pj$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi... > [ quoted text not captured ] There are a great number of ways you can stop this deck the two most effective I've seen is stealing the soul gem or stealing the Baron (preferably with the gem) that shuts down the decl completely regardless of how skilled you are. /The Emperor

> >Possession is a zero stealth action. > >There is only one stealth on the action to equip with the Soul Gem. > >This deck is stoppable before it starts by blocking either action. > >Both the predator and prey of the deck have an interest in blocking > >both actions. The deck should be shut down in any truly competitive > >environment which has seen the concept. > > > > Necromancy can generate stealth, as can the Baron (for himself and > others) with OBF. yeah they can, of course the more stealth in the deck, the more it clumps on stealth, and the less effective the cycling of the baron into and out of torpor works. This is not a stealth bleed deck, it has some unblockables, some stealth, but any good intercept deck should be able to shut it down. Same works with a rush deck. whack the baron pre soul gem, and put anyone with it into torpor. If the deck is really bothering you, then hey there are these great cards for stealing equipment. they shut the deck down too. > As well, too often the deck gets started before the pred/prey get > their intercept, or have used it already elsewhere. Get their intercept? you can't shut this down with a KRCG and a prayer. Intercept means cards. When you play them, you can stop this thing. Having recently played in Portsmouth (great people all of them!) they've delt with the Baron as a meta game issue. They keep it from gaining access to the soul gem and the vamps and put pressure on it. Which works. There are then plenty of ways to get the deck, and they just require a bit of creativity on the part of the player. Not to mention that the set up time is so very very slow sometimes. D'oh a coroners contact is suddened, that mildly crimps the deck, no? > But the key to me isnt whether it can be stopped or not with > intercept...but that if the combo is not intercepted, it becomes > absolutely insane and violates a number of conventions in > VTES...namely vampires entering play outside the influence phase, the > same vampire taking the same action over and over, etc. That is > enough to make it broken. LSJ answered this much better than i ever could, suffice it to say that if "convention" wasn't broken occasionally then all we'd do is bleed for one with copies of Smudge the ignored. Cameron Domer Madison Wisconsin

On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:59:25 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote: >> But the key to me isnt whether it can be stopped or not with >> intercept...but that if the combo is not intercepted, it becomes >> absolutely insane and violates a number of conventions in > >Most combos, if "not stopped" are very strong. That's why they're called >combos. > Most combos also have a onetime effect that doesnt lead to a multitude of similiar like effects, giving you excess actions, pool/blood, and minions for free. >> VTES...namely vampires entering play outside the influence phase, the > >You're imagining a convention where none exists. > Good grief its called an influence phase for a reason. >Ways for a vampire to enter play outside of the influence phase: > >Untap: > >1) contesting (or, more properly, winning a contest) > Already previouslly influenced into play. >Master: > >2) Shock Toops > You pay full cost for a bunch of 1 cap weenies with huge restrictions, so they are not free. >Minion: > >3) Embrace >4) 3rd Tradition >5) Creation Rites >6) Create Gargoyle All of which must hunt or cannot act the turn they enter play. >7) Illusions of the Kindred Combat only >8) Possession Part of the Baron problem. >9) Daemonic Possession > And here at least you know the minion hasn't already acted that turn. > >> same vampire taking the same action over and over, etc. That is > >It is not the same vampire. > It is. Quibble over your imaginary game definitions all you want, but it is the same vampire by card/name. >The "same vampire" would have the same equipment, discipline cards, >retainers, etc. > No, that would be the same vampire with the same equipment, discipline cards, retainers, etc. that he had before he was burnt. >> enough to make it broken. > >Not true. > I bleed for 14 with the same minion in the same turn and influence ~5 vampires into play with full blood at no cost before my actual influence phase. Smoke some more while you're at it. T

[snip] > >> enough to make it broken. > > > >Not true. > > > > I bleed for 14 with the same minion in the same turn and influence ~5 > vampires into play with full blood at no cost before my actual > influence phase. Smoke some more while you're at it. It simply a good combo that, when it comes off, is nasty. What about the Ranjan + Soul Gem, Praxis: Cairo + Awe, Force of Will, Conditioning, Sleeping Mind/Daring the Dawn ( optional ), Day Op. Unblockable bleed for 5, get new Ranjan, wash rinse repeat. Gets started in turn 2 but is very fragile. I wouldn't call it broken, because it's so fragile, but it's highly unplesant. I was it's first prey once and got ousted in turn 2. The deck only got 5 VPs the whole tourney ( swept one 4 player table and got 1 other VP ). You're also forgetting that a Possessed Baron has only 1 blood, which severely limits his stealth options. Can't play Spectral Divination, can only Call of the Hungry Dead at inf, he can use Obfuscate cards but very few of the other vamps can, their stealth is limited to Necromancy. The "Turbo Baron" deck, at best won't get started till turn 3 and there's a lot of cards in there that aren't part of the combo. There's a lot of masters that will eventually jam the player's hand.

In message <3d16c020.36595796@news>, Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com writes: >>Most combos, if "not stopped" are very strong. That's why they're called >>combos. > >Most combos also have a onetime effect that doesnt lead to a multitude >of similiar like effects, giving you excess actions, pool/blood, and >minions for free. That's a rather simplistic view. Certainly, Soul Gem is powerful, but there are numerous other combos in the game that can create a multiplicity of effects using permanents. Saying that "Most combos also have a onetime effect" ignores the permanent combos that exist, or pseudo-permanent, or partly-permanent. (For instance, using a Psyche to trigger a Raptor combo.) Also, the Baron deck has a number of "onetime effects". It wants Possessions and Force of Wills to turn up at the right time, along with Minion Tap. Guaranteeing them requires significant library investment, which ups the hand jam opportunity cost. Soul Gem - in this regard - is no different to many other cards, creating permanent effects. Madness Network and a Homunculus can create a staggering effect of excess actions, across many multiple vampires, for instance. Now, of course, Soul Gem *may* be too powerful. *IF* it's too powerful, the errata I might tend towards would be along the lines of: "If the new vampire would have contested the bearer, place the bearer and the Gem in the ash heap, and the new vampire in your uncontrolled region." I'm still not convinced, however, that Soul Gem is too powerful. Having seen poor players fight it, sure, it was almost a walkover. Having seen intelligent players whoop its ass without trying, it was quite scarily vulnerable. A deck with sufficient Vast Wealths, Soul Gems, Force of Wills, Possessions, Minion Tap and so on to generate such a combo is *extremely* vulnerable to a lot of other issues e.g. a fast rush put- down, a block on the equip, a cross-table Banishment. You can add more moving parts to combat this - Seduction, Daring the Dawn for blocking, Fortitude for combat defence, and so on - and this becomes an issue. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote in message news:<3d14ce25.14566092@news>... > On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:32:56 +1000, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> > wrote: > > The below is exaclty why this is a broken combo. This MUST be a record, for a new concept to go from posting on the NG to people claiming it is broken in 3 months. Matt Rehlow can feel justly proud, i think. IMO the soul gem > should remove the burnt bearer from the game as it is now a soulless > shell, or at the very least those brought into play by it be tapped. Certainly this was one of the ideas that people were discussing in Ramstein when my turbo-Baron took second place there. And it IS a very powerful deck, with the addition of Psychic Veils and Daring the Dawn [both judiciously played], and proper exploitation of the NEC swarm's specials. i agree with Jeff that it is stoppable but i think it is awfully hard to stop without destroying it completely, which may involve putting in more resources cross-table than is good for your own deck's chances of winning. For example, when Cameron was here i played it in the second game, sitting as predator to Cameron's rush deck and prey to Mark's Tzimisce interceptors. That game timed out, and when it did i was the only one with any VP [2], despite the bad seating order, everyone knowing what the deck did, a cross-table sudden on my first Coroner's Contact, and other bad hand and cryptiness. Personally i do not think the turbo-baron deck is broken. i think it is new, and i think it is a cause for celebration when creative people like Philippe "Turbo-Arika" Lang and Matt Rehlow discover new ways to have fun with this great game. i like the suggestion made elsewhere in this thread to the effect that we move to fix problems with cards only when there is evidence that they are messing up the game either by being too good, or by over-complicating the rules. There's no evidence that i can see for the Baron deck being over-powered; one tourney win, one second place and one final since it was invented is OK but not THAT great - additionally, as Jeff implies in his reply, surprise could be an element here.

<Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com> wrote in message news:3d16c020.36595796@news... > On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:59:25 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote: > >> But the key to me isnt whether it can be stopped or not with > >> intercept...but that if the combo is not intercepted, it becomes > >> absolutely insane and violates a number of conventions in > > > >Most combos, if "not stopped" are very strong. That's why they're called > >combos. > > > > Most combos also have a onetime effect that doesnt lead to a multitude > of similiar like effects, giving you excess actions, pool/blood, and > minions for free. Sure, but there are also plenty that *are* that good if not stopped. Bum's Rush/Flamethrower/Amaranth/Freak Drive/Ambush/Amaranth/ Freak Drive/Nose of the Hound/Amaranth... repeat next turn. Hungry Coyote/Embrace/hunt/Embrace/hunt/Embrace/hunt. Double your vampires in play every turn, all of the new ones full at 2 capacity. 10: Call the Great Beast, Beast rushes (built-in), Freaks, bleeds, Freaks, Clan Impersonates to Baali, Freaks, Giotto Verducci Sanguine Instructs the Great Beast in something and Freaks, the Great Beast Calls the Great Beast, Freaks, takes an action to put a counter on the new Call the Great Beast which becomes a fresh Great Beast. 20: GOTO 10. There are plenty of others too. > >> enough to make it broken. > > > >Not true. > > > > I bleed for 14 with the same minion in the same turn and influence ~5 > vampires into play with full blood at no cost before my actual > influence phase. Smoke some more while you're at it. Try playing it. It's really not that hard to foil compared to other decks of similar rudeness. It's called "The Combo" because its combo is lengthy and hard to set up and the deck does virtually nothing besides its combo; if it's foiled it will go nowhere, fast. You can add robustness of getting the combo to go off with the trade-off of making the combo require more cards and also not being able to do it as many times per game (maximum deck-size limits matter very much to decks like this, as does randomness of the shuffle, and increased variance of a larger deck). Josh cursed to not combo

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:22fea992.02062...@posting.google.com... > This MUST be a record, for a new concept to go from posting on the NG > to people claiming it is broken in 3 months. Matt Rehlow can feel > justly proud, i think. Oh, I don't know. I think Return to Innocence got about the same reaction when it was printed. :-) > i agree with Jeff that it is stoppable but i think it is > awfully hard to stop without destroying it completely, which may > involve putting in more resources cross-table than is good for your > own deck's chances of winning. You're probably right, but anything that makes people inclined to come across the table and make sure you lose... well, I don't usually want to play something like that. :-) That, and apparently I'm cursed when it comes to playing "The Combo" decks: I put together a clone of your version and failed to "go off" in two games (first one I got the Baron but he got torporized then contested and my intercept- Tzimisce prey kept me from ever getting anything going; second one I didn't draw the Baron or a Coroner's Contact until I was down to about five pool), and played a version that Forrest Nielsen had on Saturday and again failed to draw a Coroner's Contact or Baron until too late (and in that deck, there are 7 Contacts in 60 cards!). > Personally i do not think the turbo-baron deck is broken. i think it > is new, and i think it is a cause for celebration when creative people > like Philippe "Turbo-Arika" Lang and Matt Rehlow discover new ways to > have fun with this great game. While I agree with new ways being cool, it's also true (I think) that "Turbo" decks (ab?)using Soul Gem do circumvent one of the more important balancing/interest-creating facts of VTES. "Combos" that go off all in one turn are very much contrary to the "gradual development" that the game is normally characterized by. They're even "worse" in this sense (preempting development and not giving other players a chance to play) than "normal" weenie decks. > i like the suggestion made elsewhere in > this thread to the effect that we move to fix problems with cards only > when there is evidence that they are messing up the game either by > being too good, or by over-complicating the rules. I certainly also agree with this. You don't fix what isn't proven broken. Josh couldn't have asked for a funnier scene

<Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com> wrote in message news:3d16c020.36595796@news... > On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:59:25 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote: > >> But the key to me isnt whether it can be stopped or not with > >> intercept...but that if the combo is not intercepted, it becomes > >> absolutely insane and violates a number of conventions in > > > >Most combos, if "not stopped" are very strong. That's why they're called > >combos. > > > > Most combos also have a onetime effect that doesnt lead to a multitude > of similiar like effects, giving you excess actions, pool/blood, and > minions for free. And when you see someone in your playgroup play "The Combo", or some other strong combo deck, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to metagame against it. If you don't want to do that, don't complain about it. > >> VTES...namely vampires entering play outside the influence phase, the > > > >You're imagining a convention where none exists. > > > > Good grief its called an influence phase for a reason. 1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. Good grief! They're called THE RULES for a reason. > >Ways for a vampire to enter play outside of the influence phase: [snip points 1-7] > >8) Possession > > Part of the Baron problem. WHAT PROBLEM?? Please, show me where this combo has been wrecking people at tournaments. It just sounds like your refusal to deal with a deck concept is your playgroup's REAL problem. If you DON'T include SOME intercept in your playgroup on a regular basis, then you OPEN yourself up to these kinds of issues. Sometimes, I choose to make decks that are so focused that +1 intercept next to me wrecks my deck in the first few turns. But if the intercept isn't there, I'm on my way to 3-4 VPs. > >9) Daemonic Possession > > > > And here at least you know the minion hasn't already acted that turn. > > > > >> same vampire taking the same action over and over, etc. That is > > > >It is not the same vampire. > > > > It is. Quibble over your imaginary game definitions all you want, but > it is the same vampire by card/name. Create your own IMAGINARY world whenever you like, TalonZ, but don't expect the rest of us reality-based types to live in it. Relevant card text: Daemonic Possession Cardtype: Action Cost: 2 blood Discipline: Necromancy [nec] Only usable when a minion controlled by another Methuselah has been burned since your last turn. Move that minion from his owner's ash heap to your ready region, put 1 blood or life from the blood bank on the minion and tap the minion. You now control the minion. [NEC] As above, but the minion is untapped. Please, TalonZ, for pity's sake, please tell us WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS CARD? Oh, and remember: Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. If this is all a discussion about your playgroup's INABILITY or CHOICE not to deal with a strong deck concept (which it seems to be), and the members of this newsgroup are just innocent victims in having to hear you complain (which we certainly are), do you TRULY believe that you are going to get anywhere other than Troll Heaven? > >The "same vampire" would have the same equipment, discipline cards, > >retainers, etc. > > > > No, that would be the same vampire with the same equipment, discipline > cards, retainers, etc. that he had before he was burnt. As stated above, when you get on the trolley and venture into your imaginary universe, you need to remember that YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE THERE. > >> enough to make it broken. > > > >Not true. > > > > I bleed for 14 with the same minion in the same turn and influence ~5 > vampires into play with full blood at no cost before my actual > influence phase. Smoke some more while you're at it. TalonZ, put up or shut up. Put your money where your mouth is. Show me where this combo has been wrecking people at tournaments and you might have a leg to stand on. As it is, it sounds like your refusal to deal with a deck concept is the REAL problem plaguing your playgroup. Oh, and a little bit of trivia for you: the creator of "The Combo" is in MY PLAYGROUP, and I think we saw 'the combo' go off exactly ONCE (and wreck several preys, granted) before we decided we were an inherently low-intercept playgroup, and that this was AN ERROR on our part, i.e. he metagamed against us. Draba saw a resurgence, as did (D) actions at minions. We DEALT with it, and he stopped playing the deck (in our playgroup) because it didn't "work" at an acceptable rate. Wow, we came up with a solution. Jeez, that was hard. :P > > T Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

> Certainly this was one of the ideas that people were discussing in > Ramstein when my turbo-Baron took second place there. And it IS a very > powerful deck, with the addition of Psychic Veils and Daring the Dawn > [both judiciously played], and proper exploitation of the NEC swarm's > specials. i agree with Jeff that it is stoppable but i think it is > awfully hard to stop without destroying it completely, which may > involve putting in more resources cross-table than is good for your > own deck's chances of winning. For example, when Cameron was here i > played it in the second game, sitting as predator to Cameron's rush > deck and prey to Mark's Tzimisce interceptors. That game timed out, > and when it did i was the only one with any VP [2], despite the bad > seating order, everyone knowing what the deck did, a cross-table > sudden on my first Coroner's Contact, and other bad hand and > cryptiness. Speaking as a participator in that game, I very carefully pretended (in my game play if not discussion) to not know what the deck was. Mainly because I wanted to see it work, and killing all the vamps in it (as I probably would have in a tournement) would have messed up that opertunity. Besides, trying to kill wynn with POT/pro is a fun challenge. Without the cross table help, however, I'm sure that I would have been forced to concentrate backwards or have been ousted much more quickly. Cameron

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<af8048$c1riq$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] In looking at the deck Legbiter has made, it did occur to me that a viable combat deck with no intercept could put it down. It would require a slight variation that included Graverobbing, but aside from that, not much else. The variation I currently have I call the Low and Dirty Blow deck which works from Obfuscate, Disquised Weapon, Stake, Lucky Blow, and Bum's Rush. It is nice that this type of deck is so easy to build. The sad part is it is so easy to stop as well, any type of damage prevention will completely screw it up. The deck does work nicely mainly due to it's simplicity and surprise factor. Michael Eichler

orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron) wrote in message news:<a1e26d99.02062...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] What, you were LETTING me win???? Naughty, naughty Cameron! And there was me secretly preening myself on the success of my pathetic snivelling.

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<af8048$c1riq$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > "legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message > news:22fea992.02062...@posting.google.com... > > > This MUST be a record, for a new concept to go from posting on the NG > > to people claiming it is broken in 3 months. Matt Rehlow can feel > > justly proud, i think. > > Oh, I don't know. I think Return to Innocence got about the > same reaction when it was printed. :-) Right, but there's a difference between foul-ups that are perpetrated by the card designers and clever ideas which nobody PLANNED for, wouldn't you agree? > > > i agree with Jeff that it is stoppable but i think it is > > awfully hard to stop without destroying it completely, which may > > involve putting in more resources cross-table than is good for your > > own deck's chances of winning. > > You're probably right, but anything that makes people > inclined to come across the table and make sure you lose... > well, I don't usually want to play something like that. :-) A very good point! But turbo-Baron is pretty robust against cross-table stuff. > > That, and apparently I'm cursed when it comes to playing > "The Combo" decks: I put together a clone of your version > and failed to "go off" in two games (first one I got the > Baron but he got torporized then contested and my intercept- > Tzimisce prey kept me from ever getting anything going; > second one I didn't draw the Baron or a Coroner's Contact > until I was down to about five pool), and played a version > that Forrest Nielsen had on Saturday and again failed to > draw a Coroner's Contact or Baron until too late (and in > that deck, there are 7 Contacts in 60 cards!). You were just unlucky. It does blow up about one game in 3. > > > Personally i do not think the turbo-baron deck is broken. i think it > > is new, and i think it is a cause for celebration when creative people > > like Philippe "Turbo-Arika" Lang and Matt Rehlow discover new ways to > > have fun with this great game. > > While I agree with new ways being cool, it's also true (I > think) that "Turbo" decks (ab?)using Soul Gem do circumvent > one of the more important balancing/interest-creating facts > of VTES. "Combos" that go off all in one turn are very much > contrary to the "gradual development" that the game is > normally characterized by. They're even "worse" in this > sense (preempting development and not giving other players a > chance to play) than "normal" weenie decks. But that's only a matter of degree, isn't it? i sense behind your comment a liking, which i share, for the slower decks based on larger vampires and/or "indirect" strategies - but neither of us can deny that quick-and-dirty has always been a part of VTES/Jyhad. This is only a new form of quick-and-dirty. Furthermore, this new Lang/Rehlow deck idea is based upon equipment, and that's a good thing because it means that when people are thinking about what they might come up aganst in tournaments they will have to reckon on anti-equipment cards [including the Ravnos] actually being useful. [ quoted text not captured ]

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:22fea992.02062...@posting.google.com... > Right, but there's a difference between foul-ups that are perpetrated > by the card designers and clever ideas which nobody PLANNED for, > wouldn't you agree? Ah, yes, absolutely. :-) > You were just unlucky. It does blow up about one game in 3. I'll try it again. My friends will love to hear that. :-) > But that's only a matter of degree, isn't it? i sense behind your > comment a liking, which i share, for the slower decks based on larger > vampires and/or "indirect" strategies - but neither of us can deny > that quick-and-dirty has always been a part of VTES/Jyhad. This is > only a new form of quick-and-dirty. True. The "goes off in one turn" aspect, though, is a mechanic that bothers me somewhat in its replication of (what I see as) the bad parts of Magic (for example). That is, by doing so much in one very long turn, it (a) doesn't let the other players take turns and (b) becomes very difficult to interfere with after a while; if your opponents run out of countermeasures they don't get any opportunity to replace them. > Furthermore, this new Lang/Rehlow deck idea is based > upon equipment, and that's a good thing because it > means that when people are thinking about what they might come up > aganst in tournaments they will have to reckon on anti-equipment cards > [including the Ravnos] actually being useful. I agree with that, for sure. I had a Canine Horde played against a Soul Gem of mine this past weekend - good choice. :-) Josh it's a 4 letter word when it's heard it control your body to dance (you got it) soul

> What, you were LETTING me win???? Naughty, naughty Cameron! And there > was me secretly preening myself on the success of my pathetic > snivelling. no, not letting you win, never letting someone win. That would be cheating. but had I gone backwards more with my rush deck it probably would have gone poorly for your deck, no? That would have given the game to the Tzimitze wall though. I went back as much as I would have against a non-aggressive predator whom I knew nothing about, and concentrated on ousting my prey, who was regrettably wynn. FOR > POT, and that was the end of me. your deck did quite well, and I think that had I not known what you were playing I would have acted as i did. And I almost always try to play that way in friendly games, especially against Rehlow's experimental *ahem* diversions. In fact, your slow start probably saved you from a lot of rushes as I went forwards. Strategic brilliance on your part, and success of your "pathetic snivelling," or Jedi Mind Tricks. Either way. Cameron As an aside the real reason I'm a naughty, naughty cameron, my slaughterhouse deck, won me a milwaukee tournement on saturday. Not sanctioned, but quite a good showing of local players.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:45:03 -0500, "Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEcharter.net> wrote: > >And when you see someone in your playgroup play "The Combo", or some other >strong combo deck, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to metagame against it. > LOL as if. It's not my 'responsibility' to do anything but play within the rules and spirit of the game. Responding to certain decks with proper metagame counters is simply smart play. Responding to broken card combos however is quite another. For the moment, I simply have no desire to play against that deck again. >If you don't want to do that, don't complain about it. > When I see what I think is a broken combo, I'd like to comment as such thanks. >> >> VTES...namely vampires entering play outside the influence phase, the >> > >> >You're imagining a convention where none exists. >> > >> >> Good grief its called an influence phase for a reason. > >1.4. The Golden Rule for Cards >Whenever the cards contradict the rules, the cards take precedence. > Look at my first quote above...that the combo in question violated the influence convention...I am well aware that the card(s) take precedence over the rules, and in this case that is part of the problem. >Good grief! They're called THE RULES for a reason. > No dispute there... >> >Ways for a vampire to enter play outside of the influence phase: > >[snip points 1-7] > >> >8) Possession >> >> Part of the Baron problem. > >WHAT PROBLEM?? You have been following the thread havn't you? Do you recall the 14 bleed/gain 4-5 vamps with full blood at no cost in one turn report? Thats the problem. > Please, show me where this combo has been wrecking people at >tournaments. Why? It apparently has done well and has one tournaments, but why should that matter? It is just as disgusting in fun games as in tourneys whether it wins or not. <alot of other frothing at the mouth by Kevin snipped> As an interesting aside, its interesting that nearly all metagame solutions are starting to move heavily towards intercept. That's a shame imo, and will simply bog down the game in the severely 'no-fun' zone. But that's another topic for another thread. T

<Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com> wrote in message news:3d1aac40.254613153@news... > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:45:03 -0500, "Kevin M." > <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEcharter.net> wrote: > > >And when you see someone in your playgroup play "The Combo", or some other > >strong combo deck, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to metagame against it. > > > > LOL as if. It's not my 'responsibility' to do anything but play > within the rules and spirit of the game. Responding to certain decks > with proper metagame counters is simply smart play. Responding to > broken card combos however is quite another. For the moment, I simply > have no desire to play against that deck again. If you care about winning, you should do it. Same as if you have to play against original-text Return to Innocence. Regardless of whether either is "broken" or not. [Talonz wrote] > >> Part of the Baron problem. > > > >WHAT PROBLEM?? > > You have been following the thread havn't you? Do you recall the 14 > bleed/gain 4-5 vamps with full blood at no cost in one turn report? > Thats the problem. It's not exactly "no cost", or put another way you don't get them with full blood, because you have to spend 2 apiece for the Possessions (and possibly more for stealth to get the Possessions through). But it is an awfully strong (and annoying) combo when it works. It turned out that Legbiter was right and I had just gotten very unlucky in my first three attempts at playing "The Combo". (Or, I got much luckier on the fourth one; either way.) I played it once last night ("Brit-Combo" version as posted by Legbiter recently) and swept a five-player table. (Not real fast or anything, but pretty unstoppably once it got going. I discovered how Psychic Veil just makes that combo *really* nasty if you're not up against permanent +1 intercept, too - Possession at +1 stealth and then Force of Will at +1 stealth makes the bleeding/burning/extra vampires popping out go into total super-turbo-charge mode.) Anyhow, I'm coming to think now that it really might be a good idea for Soul Gem to get some errata (perhaps there's still time for that to happen with the Camarilla printing?). I acknowledge that "The Combo" is nothing like unstoppable, but it becomes very very difficult to stop by anything but (1) intercept retainers or equipment (locations are too transient to work) or (2) very dedicated transient intercept if well and patiently played. And the most important objection to me: it makes the game unfun for everyone else at the table. Like original-text Thoughts Betrayed, it makes everyone else sit there and twiddle their thumbs while you play with yourself. And all those extra vampires with their extra blood *are* too much payoff for the effort ("effort") involved in running the combo. Possibly useful errata (some lifted from prior threads): 1. The "free" vampire may not act the turn it comes into play. 2. The "free" vampire goes to the uncontrolled region (with full blood and Soul Gem) instead of the active region (so it comes out at the end of the influence phase instead of during the minion phase). 3. The original bearer of Soul Gem is removed from game instead of burned. (This would "fix" the Baron-combo deck but not Turbo-Arika or -Ranjan or -Aurora. It is "in line" with the Golconda errata, though.) 4. Return the Soul Gem to your hand. (So you get another chance to block it being equipped, but it's free (no pool) anyway.) 5. Tap the Soul Gem when inherited. Soul Gem does not function when tapped. Any combination of these also possible too, of course. > > Please, show me where this combo has been wrecking people at > >tournaments. > > Why? It apparently has done well and has one tournaments, but why > should that matter? It is just as disgusting in fun games as in > tourneys whether it wins or not. But the powers that be don't go for errata/banning/whatever unless something is demonstrably over-strong in tournament environments. There are plenty of ways in VTES to screw people over and make them not have fun. If they're not tournament-dominating, they're not going to get changed just because they exist. > As an interesting aside, its interesting that nearly all metagame > solutions are starting to move heavily towards intercept. That's a > shame imo, and will simply bog down the game in the severely 'no-fun' > zone. It's funny you should say that. Stealth vs intercept is probably the most fundamental interaction in the game. That it *hasn't* been that important for so long is perhaps surprising (and in the designer's view possibly also a shame). > But that's another topic for another thread. Nah, let's just stick 'em all together. :-) Josh conglomeratin'

>It's funny you should say that. Stealth vs intercept is >probably the most fundamental interaction in the game. That >it *hasn't* been that important for so long is perhaps >surprising (and in the designer's view possibly also a shame). I wouldn't say this is true. What should be the most fundamental interaction in the game is combat, but because of the generally all or nothing nature of it, stealth/intercept has been far more important. Not to say there hasn't been a rise in intercept. But, how much of this has to do with recent releases or the like? Looking at recent releases: S and SW's clans with unique discipline sets - !Malk, Lasombra, Tzimisce - all have access to intercept; Giovanni and Assamites with Auspex do as well, while Ravnos have virtual intercept; then, there's a bunch of clans with intercept capabilities in Bloodlines. Then, there's being sick and tired of 5th Tradition. I don't hear nearly as much complaint about it as I once did. Seems that people even rate 2nd over it nowadays, but didn't people absolutely detest 5th for a long time? It seems to me that countering 5th had a lot to do with the increase in intercept.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20020628142201...@mb-da.aol.com... > >It's funny you should say that. Stealth vs intercept is > >probably the most fundamental interaction in the game. That > >it *hasn't* been that important for so long is perhaps > >surprising (and in the designer's view possibly also a shame). > > I wouldn't say this is true. What should be the most fundamental > interaction in the game is combat, but because of the generally > all or nothing nature of it, stealth/intercept has been far more > important. Hmmm. Combat should probably be the most *important* interaction in the game, but I'm not sure it should be the fundamental one. If that distinction makes sense. There's no combat until stealth vs intercept is resolved, you see, so it seems to me that stealth/ int is "more basic" than combat. But this may be nitpicking. > Not to say there hasn't been a rise in intercept. But, how much of this has to > do with recent releases or the like? Well, probably quite a bit as far as "what gets played". If we're talking about "what wins", though, new clans' disciplines should have little to do with it. Unless intercept is good, people shouldn't be playing with it in tournaments/winning with it. > Then, there's being sick and tired of 5th Tradition. I don't > hear nearly as much complaint about it as I once did. Seems that > people even rate 2nd over it nowadays, but didn't people absolutely > detest 5th for a long time? It seems to me that countering 5th had > a lot to do with the increase in intercept. I think you're very much right. 5th can (and does in my experience) still rock tables that happen to be low on intercept. Or, if it's done with heavy stealth. But it's probably less hated now mainly because a lot of people have come to the conclusion that it's more effective to do something about it (ie block it) than just be sad when people play it. 2nd is so strong because it's not 'blockable' and gives you an untap and intercept all in one card. 5th is strong because its effect is to gain you a lot of blood/pool, but its blockability probably makes it less sought after than 2nd. At least somewhat. (I wonder if they weren't printed at slightly different effective rarities too - I had for a very long time a lot more 5ths in my collection than 2nds. Could just be me though.) Josh a slave to tradition

In message <afik7j$egve5$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >2nd is so strong because it's not 'blockable' and gives you an >untap and intercept all in one card. 5th is strong because its >effect is to gain you a lot of blood/pool, but its blockability >probably makes it less sought after than 2nd. At least somewhat. >(I wonder if they weren't printed at slightly different effective >rarities too - I had for a very long time a lot more 5ths in my >collection than 2nds. Could just be me though.) I'm guessing that there are several elements at work. First of all, 5th/Minion Tap is perceived to be "cheesy". In my experience, probably more cheesy that 2nd Tradition. Defence is often perceived as intelligent play - even if a little repetitive - whereas actively using such things tends to move into the "boring" and "cheesy" bin. Secondly, a 5th deck will, of course, need to devote actions to it. In a Prince (or Justicar) deck, you may be running reasonably high capacities and not want to devote actions to it. Some of the Prince archetypes will be able to get near a Freak Drive or similar, but not all will. Some people will choose the "gain 5 blood" route, others will go for "bleed for 4". Then there's the blockability aspect, as you say. A Brujah Prince deck has far fewer elements for stealth - Carthage, maybe. Similar problems may occur with the Gangrel, though their Royalty decks can be powerful, because Earth Control and similar tend to want blood. The Nosferatu and Malkavians can get ample stealth, and the Ventrue can try (as their big vampires have a sufficiency of Obfuscate knocking around for some horrible decks). Tremere, well, pfeh. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:saws0ybs...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... [making 5ths work] > Tremere, well, pfeh. I heard that! All I have to say is that Seduction works wonders, and when all else fails... Cardano, Cardano, Cardano. Xian liking the FOR

Actually, the Baron combo deck only really seemed to work around people who are NOT expecting it. Until the deck starts rolling, the deck does not give the appearance to doing much of anything (other than doing things for itself. Thus, you do not see bleeds or rushes or any other type of interaction with other decks.) During the UK Qualifier, it appeared that many people were expecting it to show up and were ready for it. Yes, while the deck's capability is scary when it performs, it is by no means invincible (insert picture of Legbiter standing in the distance, fists on hips, head cocked upward and his cape fluttering in the wind - INVINCIBLE!). It appeared that Legbiter had a difficult time within the tournament from people either ready for the deck or taking the initative in launching their own "first strike" against his minions. This type of strategy is not an uncommon one and therefore the odds are not against seeing it's like in any future tournaments. Therefore, in my opinion, the combo is just like any other combo when it works - scary, but not invincible. At least in a tournament setting, you should not have play against the deck more than twice (the first time and possibly the final, if it or you make it). Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein (Legbiter Smiling Quote: "I don't give a damn about John, I only care about me! Me! Me! Me! Me!")