In article <90675.k...@gold.tc.umn.edu>,
kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu <kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>*******BRUJAH*******
>Brujah are great. I combat you can use a torn signpost, then, blur,
>acrobatics and nible feet. Once I had a Brujah who used T.S. for 3 hand
>damage, little dit that poor malkavian know, I had 2 blurs, 3 nible feet,
>and an acrobatics in my hand. True story! Thier Presence also makes the
>good against political decks. Thier Allies whip ass, too!
Unfortunately, you can only use one additional strike card per round. Too
bad.
>*******TOREADOR*******
>I love this clan. Auspex to block, Celerity to kill, and Presence to ward
>off a blood hunt. With Resplendent Protectors to prevent damage, The Art
>Museum to "keep 'em comin'", Kindred society games to have fun with your
>opponents. They can't be beat.
How is Presence going to stop a bloodhunt? You can't play any modifiers
like Dread Gaze during a bloodhunt vote.
Am I too annoying?
Judy
--
"We have no statement to issue, we have no schedule, we have no bananas."
an aide to Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, on an answering machine message
recorded the day his boss was indicted on corruption charges.
*** jcoo...@eng.umd.edu ***
"kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu" <kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> *******BRUJAH*******
> Brujah are great. I combat you can use a torn signpost, then, blur,
> acrobatics and nible feet. Once I had a Brujah who used T.S. for 3 hand
> damage, little dit that poor malkavian know, I had 2 blurs, 3 nible feet,
> and an acrobatics in my hand. True story! Thier Presence also makes the
> good against political decks. Thier Allies whip ass, too!
Peace be with you,
As already stated, you may only use _one_ additional strike card in a round
of combat. Also, Brujah allies are just speed bumps. With zero bleed and
no special abilities, their only big advantage is being cheap.
> *******TOREADOR*******
> I love this clan. Auspex to block, Celerity to kill, and Presence to ward
> off a blood hunt. With Resplendent Protectors to prevent damage, The Art
> Museum to "keep 'em comin'", Kindred society games to have fun with your
> opponents. They can't be beat.
I really don't like Toreador much. They are kind of a poor man's second to
several clans. Celerity without Potence/Protean makes you much less effective
in combat. Ventrue are better at voting (more princes + HQ). No allies (waah!)
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
In article <3lee6a$4...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes...
>"kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu" <kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> stuff chopped>> *******TOREADOR*******
>> I love this clan. Auspex to block, Celerity to kill, and Presence to ward
>> off a blood hunt. With Resplendent Protectors to prevent damage, The Art
>> Museum to "keep 'em comin'", Kindred society games to have fun with your
>> opponents. They can't be beat.
Stop me if I am wrong, but I thought that the rules do not allow you
to play political modifiers on a bloodhunt - only vampires votes and burning
vote cards is allowable.
Q. IS Ventrue headquaters allowed on a bloodhunt vote?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCC RRR SS GGG 88 88 999 Music - Gareth Jarvis
C R R S G 8 8 8 8 9 9 Program - Avi Goldberg
C R R S G 88 88 999 848-7401
C R R S G GG 8 8 8 8 :: 9
CCC R R SS GGG 88 88 :: 9 CABLE FM
CONCORDIA RADIO SIR GEORGE (cr...@vax2.concordia.ca) wrote:
: Stop me if I am wrong, but I thought that the rules do not allow you: to play political modifiers on a bloodhunt - only vampires votes and burning
: vote cards is allowable.
Correct - no Reaction or Action Modifier cards may be played during a
Bloodhunt vote. You may also throw in the edge for a vote.
: Q. IS Ventrue headquaters allowed on a bloodhunt vote?
Since it is not Action Mod/Reaction, Yes.
Shane Travis | A fanatic is someone who can't change his
sht...@duke.usask.ca | mind and won't change the subject.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Winston Churchill
In a previous article, James R. McClure Jr. wrote :
>> *******TOREADOR*******
>> I love this clan. Auspex to block, Celerity to kill, and Presence to ward
>> off a blood hunt. With Resplendent Protectors to prevent damage, The Art
>> Museum to "keep 'em comin'", Kindred society games to have fun with your
>> opponents. They can't be beat.>>I really don't like Toreador much. They are kind of a poor man's second to
>several clans. Celerity without Potence/Protean makes you much less effective
>in combat. Ventrue are better at voting (more princes + HQ). No allies (waah!
I don't know, I kinda like them. I've got a Toreador deck loaded with
zip guns, ammo cards, manuevers, and presses. It's a lot of fun to play
and unless your opponent has a lot of strike: combat ends, s/he can get into
a lot of trouble.
My 2c's.
Scott.
In <30MAR199...@vax2.concordia.ca> cr...@vax2.concordia.ca (CONCORDIA RADIO SIR GEORGE) writes:
>In article <3lee6a$4...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes...>>"kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu" <kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>> stuff chopped>>> *******TOREADOR*******
>>> I love this clan. Auspex to block, Celerity to kill, and Presence to ward
>>> off a blood hunt. With Resplendent Protectors to prevent damage, The Art
>>> Museum to "keep 'em comin'", Kindred society games to have fun with your
>>> opponents. They can't be beat.> Stop me if I am wrong, but I thought that the rules do not allow you>to play political modifiers on a bloodhunt - only vampires votes and burning
>vote cards is allowable.
The rule on a bloodhunt vote is "This vote is not considered an action, so
reaction and action modifier cards cannot be played (16.1, p. 38)." So
you can't play cards like Business Pressure or Cryptic Rider (Action
Modifiers) or Delaying Tactics (Reaction) on a bloodhunt vote. I agree with
you -- I don't see how presence can help you on a bloodhunt vote.
>Q. IS Ventrue headquaters allowed on a bloodhunt vote?
There's nothing in the rules that says you can't use it on a bloodhunt vote.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> I really don't like Toreador much. They are kind of a poor man's second to
> several clans. Celerity without Potence/Protean makes you much less effective> in combat. Ventrue are better at voting (more princes + HQ). No allies (waah!)
I have to disagree. Toreadors must be one of the best blockers around if not
the best. Thaumaturgy just dies when it meets up with Celerity. The important
thing to remember with Toreador combat is to use guns. Maybe there's a
difference because my friends use Concealed Weapon without obfuscate. Seriously
speaking, the main problem with Toreador is their appaling inability to be
subtle(!). They can intercept, they can fight, they can vote, they can bleed,
but they just can't sneak! I say that Toreadors can bleed because they have
Auspex for Pulse, and they also have _4_ inherent +1 bleeders, which
conveniently brings me to my next post...
>Maybe there's a
>difference because my friends use Concealed Weapon without obfuscate.
Which was clearly the original intent of the card. Toreadors need on my
guideline that every clan should be able to mount an reliable and
effective combat strategy. Of course, the DT continues to insist it's
obfuscate.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Damian Chang (740926...@omega.ntu.ac.sg) wrote:
: > I really don't like Toreador much. They are kind of a poor man's second to: > several clans. Celerity without Potence/Protean makes you much less effective
: > in combat. Ventrue are better at voting (more princes + HQ). No allies (waah!): I have to disagree. Toreadors must be one of the best blockers around if not
: the best. Thaumaturgy just dies when it meets up with Celerity. The important: thing to remember with Toreador combat is to use guns. Maybe there's a
: difference because my friends use Concealed Weapon without obfuscate. Seriously: speaking, the main problem with Toreador is their appaling inability to be
: subtle(!). They can intercept, they can fight, they can vote, they can bleed,
: but they just can't sneak! I say that Toreadors can bleed because they have
: Auspex for Pulse, and they also have _4_ inherent +1 bleeders, which
: conveniently brings me to my next post...
And Toreadors die to Thaumeturgy with Celerity (my personal favorite
combo :'>). If you're assuming Toreadors and Tremere standing beside
each other in predator/prey manner (doesn't matter which is which), no
weapons will ever be gotten... both are simply too good at auspex. And
without the weapons, Toreadors get blown away by the combat skills of
the Tremere Thaumeturgy, especially if those Tremere use the same Celerity
which the Toreadors enjoy so much (although my deck does have 3 Toreador
in it as well).
Pulse has the same trouble... NOBODY will let you get away with it
if they have the +1 intercept to block it, and +1 bleed just isn't that
much. Tremere come naturally equipped with dominance, and nobody even
THINKS about blocking my bleed actions ;'>
Sorry, I think Tremere are over Toreador in all aspects (except
possibly politics, and I even get around that).
Hi, I'm Lou and I'm new to this newsgroup stuff so bear with me. The
Nastiest deck I've put together involved Toreadors (Achingly beautiful
ones at that) and lots of Majesty cards. By declaring bleed waiting for a
block and then ending the combat, untapping and doing it again. The ache
card costs him one no matter what he does. a good way to finish a Meth
off.
[ quoted text not captured ]
that's a great idea, except for the fact that you can't perform the same
action twice, although you could use a card to do so such as computer
hacking, social charm, govern the unaligned, these technically aren't the
same action even though you're still bleeding.
harpua
grp...@aol.com (GRPLXWR) writes:
>Hi, I'm Lou and I'm new to this newsgroup stuff so bear with me. The
>Nastiest deck I've put together involved Toreadors (Achingly beautiful
>ones at that) and lots of Majesty cards. By declaring bleed waiting for a
>block and then ending the combat, untapping and doing it again. The ache
>card costs him one no matter what he does. a good way to finish a Meth
>off.
Oof, there's that Majesty thing again. Cute use, though. Didn't they
ever catch on that they might as well not block?
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <1995Apr...@omega.ntu.ac.sg> 740926...@omega.ntu.ac.sg (Damian Chang) writes:
>From: 740926...@omega.ntu.ac.sg (Damian Chang)
>Subject: Re:Toreadors are seconds?
>Date: 3 Apr 95 12:28:22 +0800>> I really don't like Toreador much. They are kind of a poor man's second to
>> several clans. Celerity without Potence/Protean makes you much less effective
>> in combat. Ventrue are better at voting (more princes + HQ). No allies (waah!)
I have to disagree as well. I play a Ventrue/Torreador Bleed & Voting deck.
Celerity is a great discipline..not to mention the auspex which helps give you
intercepts against the stealthy decks out there. I have only lost 1 time with
this deck. I love it
In article <rhoward-1304...@150.209.22.17>, rho...@hamilton.edu
(Harpua ) wrote:
> that's a great idea, except for the fact that you can't perform the same
> action twice, although you could use a card to do so such as computer
> hacking, social charm, govern the unaligned, these technically aren't the
> same action even though you're still bleeding.
Actually, Majesty doesn't have the restriction of not performing the same
action another time. Some of the other untap or take back the actions do.
(Like change of target) So I see no reason for this ploy to not work.
stephen
rho...@hamilton.edu (Harpua ) writes:
>In article <3mjt4i$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, grp...@aol.com (GRPLXWR) wrote:>> Hi, I'm Lou and I'm new to this newsgroup stuff so bear with me. The
>> Nastiest deck I've put together involved Toreadors (Achingly beautiful
>> ones at that) and lots of Majesty cards. By declaring bleed waiting for a
>> block and then ending the combat, untapping and doing it again. The ache
>> card costs him one no matter what he does. a good way to finish a Meth
>> off.>that's a great idea, except for the fact that you can't perform the same>action twice, although you could use a card to do so such as computer
>hacking, social charm, govern the unaligned, these technically aren't the
>same action even though you're still bleeding.
Officially, untapping with majesty does not prevent you from attempting the
same action again.
The only things that prevent the same action (currently) are:
1. Change of Target (action modifier)
2. Obedience (reaction)
L. Scott
In article <3mlu53$2...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>,
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>Officially, untapping with majesty does not prevent you from attempting the
>same action again.
>
>The only things that prevent the same action (currently) are:
>1. Change of Target (action modifier)
>2. Obedience (reaction)
Hey Curt, there's an idea for a fix to the offensive untaps! It
allows the costs to stay reasonable (IMHO, your blood costs are too high
on the cards, as I have a hard time justifying Freak Drive in play
already), but limits the repetitive bleeds (you've only got about 5
bleed actions total to try, and then only if you've got the cards). I'd
much rather that than upping card costs.
This would apply to Freak Drive, Majesty and Earth Meld. Form
of Mist has logistical problems with it, but isn't really that abusive a
card. Earth Meld isn't that abusive either given that it's from a
discipline that loves combat, but I'll concede that it fits the mold
closely enough to warrant a fix.
What'dya think folks?
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
: In article <3mmmbd$a...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph
: Cochran) wrote:
: Hey Curt, there's an idea for a fix to the offensive untaps! It: > allows the costs to stay reasonable (IMHO, your blood costs are too high
: > on the cards, as I have a hard time justifying Freak Drive in play
: > already), but limits the repetitive bleeds (you've only got about 5
: > bleed actions total to try, and then only if you've got the cards). I'd
: > much rather that than upping card costs.
I agree, that's why it's already in the house rules list. Actually,
it's slightly modified in that the "rule" is you can not perform the same
action twice in a round with the same minion, despite subseqeunt (sp)
untax...
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>In article <3mlu53$2...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>,
>L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:>>Officially, untapping with majesty does not prevent you from attempting
the
>>same action again.
>>
>>The only things that prevent the same action (currently) are:
>>1. Change of Target (action modifier)
>>2. Obedience (reaction)> Hey Curt, there's an idea for a fix to the offensive untaps! It>allows the costs to stay reasonable (IMHO, your blood costs are too high
>on the cards, as I have a hard time justifying Freak Drive in play
>already), but limits the repetitive bleeds (you've only got about 5
>bleed actions total to try, and then only if you've got the cards). I'd
>much rather that than upping card costs.> This would apply to Freak Drive, Majesty and Earth Meld. Form
>of Mist has logistical problems with it, but isn't really that abusive a
>card. Earth Meld isn't that abusive either given that it's from a
>discipline that loves combat, but I'll concede that it fits the mold>closely enough to warrant a fix..
Five bleed actions still make for a problem, although greatly reduced.
Remeber all of these bleeds are available to the clan which is the most
dangerous with offensive untap (Ventrue) and that more bleeds will
probably become available in the future. I think it would need the strict
interpretation of repeated action (bleed = bleed, period). It would take
a lot of the sting from Majesty, in any case.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3mmmbd$a...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph
Cochran) wrote:
Hey Curt, there's an idea for a fix to the offensive untaps! It
> allows the costs to stay reasonable (IMHO, your blood costs are too high
> on the cards, as I have a hard time justifying Freak Drive in play
> already), but limits the repetitive bleeds (you've only got about 5
> bleed actions total to try, and then only if you've got the cards). I'd
> much rather that than upping card costs.
Now this is a solution I could live with, if a change is necessary. I
really think that upping the cost to use untaps is not a good solution.
This adjusts some of the problems that Curt has with offensive untaps. It
doesn't remove all of the advantages of an offensive untap (it can still
wear down a defense) but it does limit the number of things a minion can
do after the untap. A minion could only attempt to bleed so many times,
and only then if it has the cards. And if a deck was built around Majesty
(for example) with no bleed cards, each minion could only attempt to bleed
once.
I like it as a tournament rule because it doesn't hamstring a good tactic
for clans, but instead severly limits the abuse of such a tactic in a
problem degenerate deck.
stephen
In article <3mpu3s$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>The only things that prevent the same action (currently) are:>>> Hey Curt, there's an idea for a fix to the offensive untaps! It>>Five bleed actions still make for a problem, although greatly reduced.
Given your Democritus example, upping the cost of the untaps
will stil give him about five actions (not that I'm endorsing your
example, but we'll go with it for the sake of arguement). It still
depends on the cards, and can be hamstrung by the draw probably even
more easily than the 16 cards you need for your combo. I'd say that's a
fairly powerful fix.
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>>>> Hey Curt, there's an idea for a fix to the offensive untaps! It>>>Five bleed actions still make for a problem, although greatly reduced.> Given your Democritus example, upping the cost of the untaps
>will stil give him about five actions (not that I'm endorsing your
>example, but we'll go with it for the sake of arguement). It still
>depends on the cards, and can be hamstrung by the draw probably even
>more easily than the 16 cards you need for your combo. I'd say that's a
>fairly powerful fix.
I don't think there's any real disagreement here. I'd like to play that
in a tournament-type situation before I make a clear decision on whether
the big fix is adequate.
Can anybody else sign in on whether they'd prefer this fix, or recosting
the problematic card?
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3mp3oq$r...@news.bu.edu>, Larry Harriman <la...@bu.edu> wrote:
> I agree, that's why it's already in the house rules list. Actually,
>it's slightly modified in that the "rule" is you can not perform the same
>action twice in a round with the same minion, despite subseqeunt (sp)
>untax...
Hmm, I don't see it in the last one I got. I'll wait for the
next one to cross my server.
I'm not sure I'd want to put a blanket restriction on it (in
some cases, especially expansions, Curt's upped costs may be desirable).
I think I'd just prefer to fix the three problem cards. It costs less
aggravation to add an extra restriction to the card text than it does to
make a card that specifically overrides a rule (c.f. Madness Network),
so the rules shouldn't be altered, especially if it's conceivable that
you would want a class of cards that would break that rule (and a set of
extra blood-cost untap cards would fit nicely into a new expansion
discipline).
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3mt081$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>I don't think there's any real disagreement here. I'd like to play that
>in a tournament-type situation before I make a clear decision on whether
>the big fix is adequate.
>
>Can anybody else sign in on whether they'd prefer this fix, or recosting
>the problematic card?
Just to clarify: I'm not suggesting that we make a new rule
forbidding the same action twice, I'm suggesting that we change the
problematic cards to forbid the same action twice.
There should be plenty of room left to add upped cost blood
cards later, if an expansion warrants it (something blood-intensive from
one of the other clans or the sabbat would be appropriate).
[ quoted text not captured ]